/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3998793]

Why don't you just learn a trade and join the working class?

[Anonymous No.3998795]

Not interesting enough.

[Anonymous No.3998797]

I already did.
Shit's okay.

[Anonymous No.3998799]

Because I would only be able to endure a year of that mundane trade, before starting my own competing factory and employing people to work that trade so I wouldn't have to. I would be a terrible prole.

[Anonymous No.3998801]

The working class are for owning, not joining, Anon.

[Anonymous No.3998810]

>>3998801
>implying you can own anything of value by being petite bourgeoisie garbage

[Anonymous No.3998817]

>>3998810
>petite bourgeoisie
Oh, silly Anon. You must aim much higher than that.

[Anonymous No.3998826]

>>3998817
I hope you were born into a wealthy family then.

[Anonymous No.3998836]

>>3998826
Anyone can escape from E/S to B/I with enough knowledge, intelligence, and 10 years.

[Anonymous No.3998841]

>>3998836

Dont waste your breath, stupid people stay stupid

[Anonymous No.3998846]

never understood the working class romanticization. this ain't the 19th century.

[Anonymous No.3998848]

>>3998836
You are implying so many implications.
Humanity is doomed if your kind is majority.

[Anonymous No.3998853]

>>3998836
Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that.

[Anonymous No.3998859]

>>3998846
These days even academics and doctors and stuff are slowly becoming part of the proletariat anyways.

[Anonymous No.3998861]

>>3998853
What country is that? But regardless, it proves his point. Even the diagram he gave said 95% and 5%, so your confirmation image was unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.3998866]

>>3998853
Exactly. The number isn't zero, and anyone in the ninety seven bracket is capable of becoming one of the three. The overwhelming majority of society are halfwits who work the same job for 50 years, and vegetate in front of the television every night. You shouldn't persecute those with aspirations because of it.

[Anonymous No.3998868]

>>3998861
The US. Also you're misreading both of them, the one I posted isn't the percent of the population that controls the wealth but rather the likelihood of changing classes in your lifetime.

[Anonymous No.3998877]

>>3998866
You have like a 3% chance of jumping up one class at best. Not to mention you're just as likely to go down a class.

You're not going to become a billionaire m80

[Anonymous No.3998892]

>>3998866

Anon what did I just bloody damn say, stupid people stay stupid. Your words are worthless to them because they'll never be taken seriously so dont waste your breath

[Anonymous No.3998897]

>>3998892
"I'm going to work my way up the ladder until I'm a millionaire" is what every stupid person in America believes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream

[Anonymous No.3998900]

Because I'm a venture capitalist who is doing more to advance the cause of Marxism by encouraging the unavoidable implosion of 'late' capitalism.

I, as an individual, do more to bring down capitalism than any of your phony labour unions.

Kek all the way to the bank.

[Anonymous No.3998904]

>>3998877
There is a huge difference between becoming a billionaire and escaping a production line.

Class mobility is a pretty shitty concept to force over our current economic system anyway. In my school, state school, we had kids with millionaire parents (one of them became, and still is, one of my closest friends) and kids who came from council housing and parents claiming Jobseekers (me), all being neatly merged into one middle class. The strict divisions of class have all but been removed as there are no real boundaries now, just one large, grey scale, middle-class, with a small handful of extremely rich and incredibly poor at both ends.

Any 'class mobility' is unnecessary, as virtually everyone has the potential to climb up from the lower rungs of middle, to a point where they have a decade of savings invested in bonds, mutual funds, portfolios, and countless other areas, for a combined income that has them in a place of being financial comfortable and retiring early enough to enjoy it.

Face it - modern contemporary society is a festering pit of celebrity worship, fast-food, material commodities, and watered-down 'wholesome entertainment'. Everybody has been provided with adequate tools to finance this lifestyle, and unfortunately the majority seem content. Angling for 'revolution', or an overthrow of the economic model is going against the grain of the vacuous lives society has self-conditioned itself to chase. This is what people want, and this is what they have got.

The backdoor is always there for those wanting it though. This can either be a lot more money that you need, or enough invested to retire at 30. Both are doable, both are attainable, but neither are really sought after by the pacified masses who are happy to chase their empty dreams. Only 3% will "change class" because 97% are all sat in their boxes watching the Kardashians. This, my friend, is equality; and communism would look exactly the same, but with no backdoor.

[Anonymous No.3998942]

>implying i dont already manufacture my molotov cocktails for some quality ass-kicking in the revolution

[Anonymous No.3998966]

American propaganda.

[Anonymous No.3999004]

>>3998904
Why would anybody want to retire at thirty? Fifty maybe, but any good career is just getting interesting at thirty.

[Anonymous No.3999017]

>>3999004
>Why would anybody want to retire at thirty?

Because you can afford not to work, and can spend the next 20 years slowly wandering the globe looking for that perfect retirement destination. I'd love to retire when I hit 30.

[Anonymous No.3999038]

>>3999017
This is weird to me. when you could do anything you want, why would you want to do nothing? Or wander the earth? Not having to work is good. not working, in my experience, generally bad.

[Anonymous No.3999039]

>>3999017

I couldn't do it. I'd feel like I hadn't accomplished anything with my career.

[Anonymous No.3999049]

>>3998904
The world doesn't work that way. Most of what you said is a pleasing myth that is starting to get rejected even by those on the right. If you had checked out economic blogs like Naked Capitalism, Testosterone Pit, or even Zerohedge it would become very apparent to you. The idea that people could get what they wanted if they worked hard enough is not only a laughable idea that does nothing more than cover all the flaws in our current system but a ahistorical one.

[Anonymous No.3999067]

>>3998904
The divisions of class have not been removed. They still exist just as strictly as ever. Their appearance has just simply been elided by ideology.

People don't know what they want and what is good for them. Their desires are provided to them by the capitalist system.

The mobility that you imagine is patently absurd and false. That mobility perhaps is nearly true in some sense for some 50-100 million people in the labour force of global capitalism of the major OECD countries, but let's no mythologise mobility. One can perhaps, with luck, squeeze another 20-30.000 into people's bank accounts in this class of 50-100 million of the modern proletariat, but more than that and we're dealing with far less than ten million people in the proletariat of global capitalism.

All those empty dreams you are talking about are a product of the present order, the capitalist system.

Meanwhile around 1 billion people live on one dollar per day. In the third world, population 4 billion, around 65% of people don't have access to clean drinking water and an even higher figure don't have access to fucking toilets, sewage and sanitation systems. Some of them are working for 2 dollars a day to make sneakers for you. The top 1% own 50% of the world's wealth. The bottom 50% own only 1% of that wealth. Of the world's top 100 economies, 52 are corporations. Exxon Mobile has a greater GDP than South Africa. Global fraud makes some 2 trillion per year, more than the GDP of England, France, or Russia.

This is not equality. This system is fucked. I could go on. The lack of class mobility is hardly only a result of the stultifying effects of mass media making people lazy. I don't think people are this stupid although people are less educated under capitalism than they were under socialist regimes like the USSR. If there were opportunities, people would be taking them. But choices are diminishing as corporations monopolise commerce and offer people the "choice" of working for minimum wage or less while neoliberal governments fall down and obey commerce and finance instead of the people who elected them.

Vive la revolution!

[Anonymous No.3999072]

>>3999049
most people in the western world can get most of what they want without working at all. I was thrown out of work for two years once and was astonished at how easy it was to maintain my lifestyle on what assistance was available. I barely had to dig into my savings. I think in the whole two years I spent maybe six hundred dollars of my own money and never missed a meal or a haircut.

[Anonymous No.3999076]

>>3999072
I'd like to see you braggarts and mythologists brought to account. Draw us up your budget. What are your commitments? Do you have a family? Do you live at home? Consider yourself in the context of privilege, of your socioeconomic and national situation compared with other people in different parts of "the western world." Barring homelessness or other indignities, I don't think many people in Japan, New York, or London could survive for two years on 600 dollars

[Anonymous No.3999082]

>>3999067
Moreover, in the past ~50 years, economic inequality has only increased. The top 10% have increased their share of society's wealth enormously and the bottom 10% have only decreased their share. The absurdities that are paraded before us to justify these extreme imbalances within society can only convince the most thoroughly brainwashed reactionaries.

[Anonymous No.3999088]

>>3999072
So your single experience overrules the fact that wages have stagnated for decades, inequality as only increased over the years, surveys like http://bigstory.ap.org/article/exclusive-4-5-us-face-near-poverty-no-work-0, and multiple economists and other high level people like David Stockman who worked with Reagan and hedge funds who are critical of our current situation? You seriously believe that if we only worked harder everything would be okay?

[Anonymous No.3999090]

>>3998892
>he believes in the american dream

Hahahaha what a fucking faggot.

[Anonymous No.3999095]

>>3999039
>I'd feel like I hadn't accomplished anything with my career.
The implication is there in 'retirement'. I'm only 18, so I presume that having the ability to retire at thirty means that I put in so much work over the next twelve years that I have accumulated adequate finances to never work again. Maybe this could be investments that pays enough return rate to fund me, maybe I built and sold a successful company, maybe I merged with another business and am paid a monthly dividend as a non-active director; in any case, the fact that I would be retiring at thirty, to me, carries the assumption that I had already accomplished what I wanted to career-wise. I would feel accomplishment at being financially stable enough to not work past thirty.

>>3999038
>when you could do anything you want, why would you want to do nothing?
I don't see it as doing nothing. 100% leisure time doesn't have to carry the idea that you are not improving yourself both physically and mentally, it just means not sacrificing labour time for capital.

>Or wander the earth?
This is one of my two ultimate more whimsical fancies. That first one would be to travel permanently. The second would be to acquire a very large property in a pleasant climate, preferably beach or jungle, and build – if you'll promise not to laugh – a castle. A huge castle complete with, turrets, library, gym, recording studio, cinema, pool... and reside in it with a small group of people with similar interests. This would naturally tack on to the retirement dream of 'adequate finances' to prevent it turning into a commune where I tend the goats - though that wouldn't be too bad either.

I dunno, my ideal future scenario doesn't include me working until I hit 65. I'd rather be successful early and eject from employment before I grey at the temples.

[Anonymous No.3999097]

>>3999076
well, i didn't survive on six hundred dollars. I drew unemployment. I own my own home and my car is paid off and my day-to-day expenses are not too bad and I'm in reasonable health. It could certainly have gone a lot worse. Also, what privilege exactly are you talking about? I would say I'm no more privileged than anyone else in my country. I'm pretty sure Japan and New York and London have similar cases. I have a friend in New York who's a music teacher and she was out of work for almost three years. Did alright with it. I guess going to the unemployment office every six weeks counts as an "indignity"?

[Anonymous No.3999098]

If anyone wants to increase their living standards and their mode of being socially and individually, there is an answer: it's not "the American Dream" or its correlate fantasies, but the class struggle. A thoroughly and fatally real project which has always delivered higher standards of living, sometimes rather modestly, but in contrast to capitalism, which has only decreased general living standards, because capitalism is the true "road to serfdom", aye.

[Anonymous No.3999100]

>>3999088
when did i say if we worked harder we would be okay? I'm pretty sure we'll be okay whether we work hard or not.

[Anonymous No.3999106]

>>3999095
are you me?

[Anonymous No.3999115]

>>3999097
I don't know where you live in the "western world", but unemployment benefits vary widely and, in case you didn't know, the dominant politics of austerity within the "western world" is concerned with stripping away that "welfare" infrastructure. Are you that politically unaware?

You own your own fucking home and a vehicle and you have health and have obviously enjoyed, in order to obtain those things, either well-paid employment (which is basically a privilege today) or family money (another privilege). The amount of the proletariat today who enjoy that much financial security is probably no more than 500 million people of the global population at the most.

[Anonymous No.3999120]

>>3999115
500 million is definitely a high estimate. The real figure is probably closer to ~100 million. The rest of us are in thrall to Landlords.

[Anonymous No.3999123]

>>3999100
Unfortunately we are not going to be okay. Things aren't looking too good in China or with the Euro, the US employment numbers are up mainly because of summer part time jobs, the new jobs being added aren't what you would call good jobs, there is the potential for another housing bubble, demand is still lagging, the stock market has all sorts of problems, and its becoming increasingly difficult to move/stay in the middle class. Thinking everything is going to be okay is terrible because it sidesteps existing problems.

[Anonymous No.3999126]

>>3998817
>Cash flow quadrant
My nigga.

Daily reminder that anyone can be successful in western capitalism if they're not a lazy socialist that wants everything handed to them on a plate.

[Anonymous No.3999128]

>mfw union workers who are skilled in a trade can earn upwards of 100k a year in NYC

why doesn't everyone do this?

[Anonymous No.3999131]

>>3999098
there is no class struggle because there are no classes. I know a guy, a cmedian, who gets 28,000 for a personal appearance. He considers himself working class. I know a woman who was working cleaning hotel rooms at eight years old whose granddaughter led the debutante cotillion. The only standard is money, and that changes hands so fast that there's barely a single fifth generation millionaire in the social register anymore. The biggest, nicest house in my town is owned by a garage mechanic who made all his money at his trade. Who's he going to fight in this class war? His old-money neighbor who makes all her income from a government tobacco subsidy and drives a school bus?

[Anonymous No.3999135]

>>3999128

Because you need connections or a lot of money, kind of defeats the purpose, to join one of the more lucrative unions.
That and the leadership and some of the membership are actively hostile to anyone with a brain or ambitions.

[Anonymous No.3999136]

>>3999126
You do realise his books are all just anecdotal garbage sold to poor saps like us so he can be B/I. He practically made his fortune telling people how to make their fortune who subsequently didn't make their fortune. If you really think being a successful capitalist is about reading a motivational book you are a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.3999141]

>>3999115
Nah. I come from share croppers, worked as one and worked my way through college. I didn't double minimum wage even with my degree until a few years ago. College is more expensive now, but everything else is cheaper, work is everywhere and that road is still there.

[Anonymous No.3999142]

>>3999131
There are classes. It's just hard to see because the proletariat is so fucking massive these days and the global culture of capitalism encourages not multiculturalism but a single, homogenous culture where the differences between bourgeois and proletariat are elided. Although the circulation of capital is rapid today, studies in the UK of old bourgeois money have shown that it is basically all intact within those families.

[Anonymous No.3999145]

>>3999141
What is your nationality? Judging by the political ignorance, I would say you're American.

[Anonymous No.3999146]

>>3999136
He earns a lot of money from his franchise, but most of his wealth comes from shares in oil companies, his 2 hotels, his golf course, his rental properties, and the direct revenue from the South African mine he owns.

[Anonymous No.3999148]

Because I'm not interested in learning a trade

[Anonymous No.3999150]

>>3999088
Funny that Stockman is one of the major reasons that things are the way they are right now.

[Anonymous No.3999152]

>>3999142
i'd say that the class lines have disappeared because nobody cars anymore. If a kid in a garage gets to be a millionaire and the town banker goes to jail a bankrupt, it seems kind of pointless to shove them into arbitrary classes.

The whole class thing is kind of embarrassing really. I think it's mostly a scheme to fleece rich people into paying extra for "superior" education, locations, etc.

[Anonymous No.3999154]

>>3998817
I think I'm going to skip the first 3 steps and just invest. All I need is someone to loan me some money, then get a big investment return.

[Anonymous No.3999155]

>marxism thread
>400 replies guaranteed

[Anonymous No.3999156]

>>3999145
I'M a Kentuckian. Not exactly the same thing. And we're not discussing a political issue, but a social one, that Marx tried (and failed) to make political.

[Anonymous No.3999162]

>>3999152
Denial of classes is basically a tactic of those with money to avoid being fleeced. The capitalist system has perfected its repression of class consciousness today with what one might call the ideological state apparatus. The media is entirely in the hands of capitalists who can use it to shape the consciousness of the proletariat and convince them that they don't form a class. Yet they do. They are mostly intact. There is very little mobility from that class, and only as much mobility as there is mobility into lower classes, into the absolutely destute and the lumpenproletariat, sans all fucking anecdotes - this is scientifically verifiable. Even reactionary economists cannot deny it.

[Anonymous No.3999166]

>>3999142
>There are classes
No, there is one spectrum of income with most people wedged in the middle, living a relatively comfortable life, and able to have their ipads and cars. You are overlaying an antiquated class framework, and sliding 'proletariat' up to fallaciously depict 80% of society as horrendously oppressed slaves to a bourgeois shackles.

The reality of the average western society is very far from the picture in your head. Most people are comfortable, and fairly happy being soccer moms.

[Anonymous No.3999167]

>>3999135
According to my research, although I could be wrong though this is just what I learned from google, if you join the IBEW you just have to work for about 4-5 years at a low salary ($20,000 - $30,000) then after that if you can pass a test you'll be earning $50 an hour plus benefits.

Sounds like a good deal to me.

[Anonymous No.3999168]

>come from lower middle class family
>watch numerous friends and associates try desperately to scrape their way to a better life, through business ownership, investment, retraining, etc.
>the only ones who make it are talented and industrious engineering students who proceed to devote their entire 20s to having enough money to retire in their 30s
>even then they won't have enough capital to really invest and capitalize on their hard work, especially not pass it to their kids, just enough to live comfortably
>meanwhile, date a rich person
>infinite capital
>lives in a permanent state of intuitively knowing they have a safety net if anything goes wrong
>has infinite free time to retrain, decide on job options, take years off to have enriching experiences
>has travelled extensively with family and has amazing experiences and breadth of knowledge to inform all their decisions
>amazing education
>associates with prominent famous and powerful people and their kids
>knows the complex rain dance to be considered for shit like ivy league admissions
>has access to a wealth of social networking through parents and social training, can grease a million wheels and bypass a million obstacles in an instant
>has constant impetus to succeed and improve because of the investments made in them

Man, I'm a fascist and even I understand there is zero social mobility in capitalist societies, and that they're mostly complex oligarchies. This isn't even to mention the fact that the *real* proletariat is third world slave labour now.

[Anonymous No.3999173]

>>3999156
Economics is a "social" issue but not a "political" issue? Even the classical bourgeois economists would've disagreed with you. Marx did not introduce politics into the science of what was already an established science, "political economy", he merely brought history and political economy together.

[Anonymous No.3999174]

>>3999039

>I couldn't do it. I'd feel like I hadn't accomplished anything with my career.

Unless your career benefits people that's pure egotism.

[Anonymous No.3999180]

>>3999174
>Unless your career benefits people that's pure egotism.
Anon, any career in a glorious capitalist system benefits everyone else.

[Anonymous No.3999182]

>>3999038
This, folks, is how people rationalize their decision to waste time on a job they dislike. Let's not kid ourselves -- most work is tedious and unfulfilling. Once you retire, you can choose the kind of work you'd like to do. If you dislike laying around and watching TV, you can dedicate your time to music, writing, sculpting, whatever you want. It's only the people who have no choice but to work who say they couldn't imagine life without it. It's their way of coping with their lack of freedom.

[Anonymous No.3999184]

>>3999167

>earning a low wage

More like they'll get you enough work to qualify for unemployment and then let you coast on that while you go to school.
Although I'm not really familiar with how the sparkys run their ship.
I'm more familiar with longshoremen, ironworkers, and boilermakers.

[Anonymous No.3999186]

>>3999162
The problem with this is that bill gates, Steve jobs, warren buffet, bunker hunt and Barack Obama are working class. Name an upper class person in america and you get a joke.

If those who define themselves as oppressed groups want something, nobody stands in their way of getting it. There really is plenty for everybody. I'm not sure what Marx would demand in america if you elected him to congress (looking at you, Massachusetts). But I doubt it would be of a political or economic nature. We live in a worker's paradise by his standards already.

[Anonymous No.3999189]

>>3999184
>they'll get you enough work to qualify for unemployment and then let you coast on that while you go to school.

That's still not bad if it means you'll be earning anywhere near $50 an hour after just a couple of years.

[Anonymous No.3999191]

>>3999184

And getting on with the union if you don't have connections takes forever.
You'll have to apply and take their tests, score high, and then wait months or even years until they decide to take on more apprentices.

[Anonymous No.3999194]

#lumpenprole 4 life

[Anonymous No.3999196]

>>3999166
What an absurdly amerocentric (and still false in that geography) view of the class divisions of our entire planet. The various levels that exists between the proletariat and the truly rich (bourgeois) are many and variable, but there is no real solid middle between them. Even doctors and academics fall into the proletariat today. The proletariat is self-defined as the most numerous of classes. In fact, that was the original definition proposed by Saint-Simon. People may be superficially comfortable, or in a state of consciousness amenable to such a proposition - while I deny altogether "happiness" as a bourgeois psychological fiction - but comfort has nothing to do with whether they are free or whether or not they are exploited and oppressed.

Calling marxism "antiquated" begs the question severely. Marxism is a school of economic science which continues to this day. By what other school or science has it been antiquated? Hayek or Friedman's revision of the even more antiquated school of classical economics of Smith and Ricardo?

[Anonymous No.3999198]

>>3999196
*bows* Well said.

[Anonymous No.3999201]

Because it's shit being working class. Marx should have taught you that. he was the one who anted to overthrow the whole system of being working class.

[Anonymous No.3999203]

>>3999182
Well, I do like my job. And loving what you do is probably a rationalization. But then I'm the best there is at what I do, and I can barely keep up with demand, so there's ego boosting in it. It is work though, and i can see the appeal of just chopping wood and hauling water to a little cabin in the woods somewhere. Someday, though...not soon.

[Anonymous No.3999210]

>>3999186
>The problem with this is that bill gates, Steve jobs, warren buffet, bunker hunt and Barack Obama are working class
& with this statement, comrades, the conversation has been carried off into the land beyond all logic and sense, into a faerie world of economic mythology, where billionaires and rulers of empires are "working class." Bloody yank doublespeak.

[Anonymous No.3999211]

>>3999196
This is EXACTLY the bullshit I was talking about.

>What an absurdly amerocentric...
I'm Dutch.
>view of the class divisions of our entire planet
Hence "The reality of the average western society"

[Anonymous No.3999212]

>>3999126
Where do bankers or people that work for financial institution fit in? They are employees, but make shit loads of money.

[Anonymous No.3999214]

>>3999166
>living a relatively comfortable life, and able to have their ipads and cars
oh lol no. you actually think this is most people ???

[Anonymous No.3999217]

I say let anybody that wants to be Marxist be Marxist. there's plenty of means of production that are cheap to own and nobody is stopping your average worker form buying them. Let them go be like the Amish and have little communist enclaves in the woods or something. I won't bother them. Let them enjoy themselves.

[Anonymous No.3999221]

>>3999166
>here is one spectrum of income
yes this is true.

But it doesn't mean class doesn't exist or is meaningless.

Social stratification and methods of ranking income and wealth are the same thing to sociology as taxonomy is to the spectrum of living things

[Anonymous No.3999222]

>>3998793
Tried that. Unfortunately I have a misdemeanor during the past 10 years in a state that simultaneously has no expungement law and one of the worst job markets in the country.

[Anonymous No.3999226]

>>3999211
Calling a science "bullshit" is not an adequate refutation. If you're Dutch, then I would expect more from you. But one can't afford to idealise any European nation today.

[Anonymous No.3999230]

>>3999210
these are self made billionaires, and rulers of empires. Their success isn't due to coming from a particular class but from luck, talent and work. You're problem isn't with high-class old DAR biddies. You don't like rich folk, regardless of class.

[Anonymous No.3999235]

>>3999222

In what world does a misdemeanor ruin your employment opportunities?
I'd tell you too just man up and move but obviously when you're poor that's easier said than done.

[Anonymous No.3999236]

>>3999214
>you actually think this is most people ???
Yes. The majority of us in the west live very comfortably with carpeted floors, fresh water, heated houses, and enough spare capital to buy luxury products. You know this as well as I.

[Anonymous No.3999238]

>>3999217
Being amish =/= being a Marxist. Marxists are by definition practicing social revolutionaries ( or the more mild liberal term, "activists") or they are not marxists at all, but marxian dilettantes.

[Anonymous No.3999243]

>>3999236
I have wood flooring.

[Anonymous No.3999245]

>>3999235
>In what world does a misdemeanor ruin your employment opportunities?

Alaska. Seriously, fuck this state. I'm a certified welder and a business writer with 4-year degree, and the only responses I've gotten from employers during this year's job hunt are "we need a letter of explanation for your criminal record" and "we ain't hiring you."

Like I said, the job market here is absolutely terrible, and under those conditions, employers will use absolutely any excuse that they can to thin down the list of applicants. If didn't do seasonal work I don't even know how I'd have a regular income, unless I sold pot or something. Yeah, that's the investment of my education paying off...

[Anonymous No.3999247]

>>3999236
>The majority of us in the west live very comfortably with carpeted floors, fresh water, heated houses, and enough spare capital to buy luxury products.
I agree with this apart from carpets. Carpets are fucking disgusting, and only good for collecting dead skin and micro-organisms.

[Anonymous No.3999253]

>>3999230
You can call them all self-made, but they all belongs before their rise to billionairedom to fairly privileged segments of the proletariat, a segment which corresponds to the idea of "middle class" in the American mainstream political lexicon. Their success belongs to the system, as all "success" ultimately only belongs to the success. The individual billionaire is merely the vessel in which the system is honoured and the myth developed. At any rate, there are some thousand or more billionaires on this Planet, and only a small number are self-made, which you have selected, and of that number, most were already "middle class." This isn't personal at all. I am indifferent to the rich as people. They are merely products of the capitalist system. It is a vulgar misconception that marxists "dont like rich folk." True marxists don't practice the politics of envy - that is the politics of the capitalist system itself, and especially the right, which thrives on and manipulates the pathologies the system creates (envy etc) in order to obtain power.

[Anonymous No.3999257]

>>3999236
>carpeted floors
confirmed for pleb

[Anonymous No.3999258]

>>3999238
But they have the right idea: social revolution begins at home: revolutionize your family, your community, your town. If it works better you'll be putting up walls to keep people out, instead of what most "marxist" states did, to keep people in,

[Anonymous No.3999254]

>>3999253
*only belongs to the system.

[Anonymous No.3999259]

>>3999253
>privileged segments of the proletariat

[Anonymous No.3999264]

itt: lumpos

[Anonymous No.3999265]

>>3999243
>>3999247
>>3999257
Fuck off, carpets are lovely.

[Anonymous No.3999269]

>>3999258
Actually, wherever the revolution begins, its continuation depends on it being international. It is in the ultimate existential interest of Capitalism to destroy the revolution. For this reason there is no room for local testing of this sort. That will only produce Stalinism. The revolution must be international. All "marxist" states were at war with the Imperial powers of capitalism. Russia immediately after the revolution was at war with dozens of capitalist nations including of course the United States. The same was true of the French Revolution which produced a bourgeois state in a Europe controlled by the ancien regime - nearly every state went to war with them.

Don't forget, Russia itself was hardly ever a super power. Stalinism and the model for emulation that it created was essentially that small "family" or "community" type of socialism "within one state", which of course has to protect itself from an external threat, which a true international socialism wouldn't require. North Korea, whatever the Western media may say about it, is the logical consequence of a nation in a permanent state of war with the United Nations which has not signed a peace treaty with it.

[Anonymous No.3999270]

>>3999265
>berber carpet in a hotel room
It's like you're trying to prove us right.

[Anonymous No.3999273]

>>3999253
you're kind of just preaching now. if the proletariat are the bad guys, and the middle class are bad guys, and the doddering remnants of the aristocracy and landed gentry are bad guys, and there's like six actual workers per thousandt people by the Marxist definition, who are the good guys? who's being oppressed? Me? I'm a worker in a Marxist sense i guess. I don't own my means of production, but if i wanted to invest a few hundred dollars i could. I don't come from old money, and i would consider myself middle class only by the american standard which seems to make middle class mean "you own a car, but you don't own a jet", What has marxism got to offer me? Other than social pariah-hood?

[Anonymous No.3999277]

>>3999269
Bring it on eurotrash USA USA USA USA USA USA USA

[Anonymous No.3999278]

>>3999259
To deny that certain elements of the proletariat enjoy certain privileges that other parts of it don't is not to destroy the internal integrity of that class but merely to note that its fundamental unity is interleaved with layers of diversity. If the "proletaires" is the most numerous class they cannot be entirely homogenous. No marxist would deny this historical reality.

[Anonymous No.3999292]

>>3999269
It could work though. Internationally and nationally. We could live to see the day when the marxist the facist and the capitalist all sit at the same tables eat the same food and drive the same cars to the same jobs, send their kids to the same schools and Watch the same televisions. They might shop at different stores and vote differently in elections, but other than that their differences will be trivial. I think we get closer to that every day.

[Anonymous No.3999290]

>>3999273
Where did you get any of that from? I never said the proletariat were "the bad guys." I was not demonising the origins of Gates etc. I could say they were petit bourgeois, but the term is hardly used anymore, but that would avoid confusion over who is and isn't a proletaire. Marxism is a historical science. It offers anyone who uses it a scientific methodology and a perspective from which to perceive one's economic, political, and social reality - a materialist "ontology" if you will, not to be confused with vulgar materialism or economic determinism as it frequently is by unsophisticated critics (Ayn Rand, Hayek etc.)

[Anonymous No.3999296]

>>3999278
Although - the marxist point is - that the proletaires are ESSENTIALLY homogenous.

[Anonymous No.3999302]

>>3999292
The vision of homogenity you are presenting is basically the reality of present day capitalism. If you are suggesting that communism would lead to that same homogenity then you don't fully appreciate the idea of communism or you are making a trite forecast of the future of that idea's realisation, as if the realisation of an idea as protean as communism was predetermined by some eternally fixed bourgeois notion of "human nature" that meant eternally repeating the errors and mistakes of 20th Century Communist projects.

[Anonymous No.3999311]

>>3999270
>>berber carpet in a hotel room
What about shag in a toilet? Imagine pissing in that porcelain with those glorious 1inch fibres beneath your bare feet.

[Anonymous No.3999312]

>>3999273
You don't have to be a prole to be a marxist. Many revolutionaries were aristocrats and many leading theorists are quite bourgeois. Being bourgeois, they are often in a better position to dedicate themselves to raising class consciousness to allow the proletariat to take the reins of history.

[Anonymous No.3999315]

>>3999245

So are you trying to make the jump to full time white collar work but seasonal welding is the only thing keeping your head above water?
Because the idea of a criminal record keeping a welder out of a job is cute, no offense.

[Anonymous No.3999317]

>>3999302
No, I'm saying that both systems might have things to offer society, and that they should be integrated into a system which plays up the strengths of both to where there's no antagonism. They support each oither. If you think prenet day capitalism already has a makeup that lets all economic and political systems hapilly coexist, why fight it? And I thought homogeneity was the point? I thought class distinctions supported by wealth, birth, political influence or wahtever were the problem? If the distinctions disappear then the wealth, birth etc can support individuals or ideals or whatever and the classes can all merge. What's wrong with that? Marx's war against the class system will be over.
I think the only problem most people have with Marxism is the demands it might make on their property.or rights. Keep it in tight little international or local enclaves and let it spread its revolution like churches (in the modern age) spread their ideas, peacefully and through charitable works, and I'm fine with it.

[Anonymous No.3999318]

>>3999312
>You don't have to be a prole to be a marxist.
Shhhh. Yes. Yes you do. Don't start our resident marxist off on his Laurie Penny tirade again.

[Anonymous No.3999327]

>>3999312
It was always the country club commies that pissed me off in the sixties. If a farmer wants to organize his farm hands into a communist society, fine. But some guy without a callus telling him he has to strikes me as dimwittery of the first water.

[Anonymous No.3999333]

>>3999317
So you're basically taking the position of a social democrat - attempting to form a synthesis of capitalism and communism. The only problem with this would be dialectical position is that it doesn't realise that communism is already itself the negation of the contradictions of capitalism and thus the final synthesis. Communism is about the flourishing of all individuals to their utmost potential - that is precisely the point of a system dedicated to the general wellbeing of all - in that such a system will provide for the greatest individual self-realisation because of and by means of being not alienated from one's labour or exploited by others. In that sense it is not homogenous.

The revolution can't be brought about peacefully or without violence. The current system perpetuates itself through systemic violence. To denounce communist terror and violence is like denouncing someone who is being beaten up for daring to spit in the face of his attacker and chiding him for his immoral "spitting" behaviour. But that is precisely the position of liberal social democrats and that is why they more often than not the primary enemy of the radical left.

[Anonymous No.3999338]

>>3999327
That's not the position I am advocating for. That's clearly a terrible strategy which you're using to strawman all bourgeois revolutionaries. Ultimately a dedication to the revolution is all the bourgeois can do. Their money is essential for subscriptions and for forming an organised left.

[Anonymous No.3999346]

>>3999327
And what ARE you, then? Are you even a marxist? Or are you an agent provocateur? True communists are tired of sectarianism. We have had a century of it.

[Anonymous No.3999355]

>>3998793
>Why don't you just learn a trade and join the working class?
Because the lowest echelons of the class ladder in Britain are fucking scum, and I want to distance myself from them as much as possible.

[Anonymous No.3999356]

>>3999317
Capitalism today is an economic and political system. It doesn't tolerate any alternative. The mantra of capitalism today is "there is no alternative." Capitalism perceives itself as the "end of history." Social democrats/Liberals and conservatives all agree that any alternative is a recipe for "totalitarianism." Meanwhile the modern liberal-demcoratic capitalist state begins to look more and more Orwellian and totalitarian than anything the Stalin could've dreamed of.

[Anonymous No.3999359]

>>3999333
Can you explain your first paragraph more clearly? Your wording is becoming hard to follow.

[Anonymous No.3999373]

>>3999359
[The only problem with this dialectical position would be that*]

[Anonymous No.3999388]

>>3999333
>>3999333
Actually I'm a goldwater conservative republican. But I can't see how violence of any kind will do any more than solidify the opposition to communism and make even a consideration of its points seem like treason. It's happened before you know. If you can do good, and want to do good, decide what it is you need to do that good. Most of the time violence will be a last resort if its a resort at all. There are so few of the Marxist type workers left in the western world now that i can't imagine in a hundred years there'll be any left. Nobody is eager to bow to the demands or give power to, those who claim to represent the interests of a dwindling minority.

I think it's time to find some kind of middle ground before we all start shooting lasers at each other over trivial differences in rhetoric

[Anonymous No.3999389]

>>3999236
>in the west

[Anonymous No.3999391]

I'm just going to not work and leech off of the government and wait for the system to come crashing down on itself. Rich people can't make money if no one will work for them.

[Anonymous No.3999402]

>>3999126
>You have to work hard to be rich
>The cash flow quadrant even implies that rich people don't have to work

[Anonymous No.3999414]

>>3999388
Operating as you do within an ideology that itself thrives on false consciousness, historical ignorance and bourgeois economics I doubt very much that you are politically aware of how many "marxist type workers" are left in the western world or what struggles are taking place by such workers at this very moment.

Violence is the only effective way to oppose and overthrow capitalism. But violence doesn't necessarily have to be a molotov cocktail thrown at a repressive police crackdown - although it can be, and that can be highly effective. Martin Luther King & Gandhi, however, provide excellent examples of violent systemic resistance. Revolutionary violence can be "non-violent" in the strict sense that it doesn't necessarily need to be armed. But it certainly requires large, enormous protests, outpourings of verbal and physical violence in a controlled and disciplined manner, where small localised actions of rioting, assaults, etc. are sporadically and inevitably condoned by both the revolutionists and those who truly sympathise with them. If one doesn't accept this violence, one is a counter-revolutionary by definition.

The tactic of the liberal bourgeois capitalist reactionary is to denounce the violence of a rioter who perhaps assaults a Police Office but to ignore the systemic violence of the capitalist system which oppresses the majority of the human race. This is pure hypocrisy. It is like telling off a rape victim for retaliating against his or her attacker.

[Anonymous No.3999417]

>>3999391
sure they can. most rich people make the most money when no labor at all needs to be purchased. I would think this would be obvious. Laborers purchase things from rich people WITH labor. It's their capital.

[Anonymous No.3999421]

>>3999402
That would only be the case if you had starting capital. The cash flow quadrant is more of a progression. Start at employment or self-employed, with surplus capital being invested for FV until you have enough to jump over to the other side and no longer have to work.

[Anonymous No.3999423]

[Anonymous No.3999424]

>>3999414
>but to ignore the systemic violence of the capitalist system which oppresses the majority of the human race. This is pure hypocrisy. It is like telling off a rape victim for retaliating against his or her attacker.

>compares intangible 'harms' allegedly caused by society to tangible, direct harms caused by an individual human being with agency
>expects to be taken seriously

lol

Communism was never anything but irrational and foolish nonsense. It is now dead. Let it be.

[Anonymous No.3999431]

>>3999391
>I'm just going to not work and leech off of the government and wait for the system to come crashing down on itself. Rich people can't make money if no one will work for them.

Excellent. That is exactly what us capitalists like to hear. By leeching the small amount of taxes we pay, you will inevitably spend that money, buy our products, and keep the economy propped up with capital in healthy circulation. Please leech.

[Anonymous No.3999433]

>>3999414
The NSA is watching your terrorist ass ass
USA USA USA USA

[Anonymous No.3999436]

>>3999431
What about when there aren't any people to make the products?

[Anonymous No.3999440]

>>3999388
The very espousal of a "midde ground" is itself a bourgeois idea. Political compromises with capitalism itself only demoralise and destroy the left from within. It is exactly in compromise that social democratic leftist movements in the West have alienated their own base. In bourgeois Parliamentary democratic politics, a very limited form of democracy, such compromises are structurally necessary. It is for this reason that marxists are committed to the abolition of these bourgeois political institutions. "Compromise" today only means manoeuvering within the ideological coordinates of capitalism. It means allowing systemic oppression but palliating some of its worst excesses. This is not the project of communism at all. There can be no compromise between us. No is innocent and no is neutral. "Moderates", the very embodiment of political compromise, are unconscious reactionaries afraid of the revolution. Anyone who is afraid of the revolution is already guilty of opposing it.

[Anonymous No.3999442]

>>3999414
you're not going to get those mass outpourings unless you can convince people that your way is better and its being withheld from them unfairly. But nobody is withholding it. If a worker wishes to own the means of production, they are available for sale, pretty cheaply. He can even get a loan. I'll broker the deal for him if that's what it takes, though I won't sign the note. If he wants to peacefully exert pressure on the system, he can vote, he can boycott he can organize, March, occupy, whatever. If you abuse your rights then expect people to make it a little harder to exert them, but it'll be individuals, not governments.
Just let me tell you from experience, divisiveness, name calling and scapegoating is not the way to make this work. Prove that it can work, that it does what it claims, that it is good for people, and they will make a beaten path to your door, though you make your house in the woods. I'm serious. People know where the bread is buttered thickest.

[Anonymous No.3999446]

>>3999431
This is actually right. snarky though it is. The more people are dependant on the state the more they will support it, be it capitalist, communist or fascist,

[Anonymous No.3999453]

>>3999436
People are always going to make the products. Praise capitalism

[Anonymous No.3999458]

>>3998817
>>3999126
It'll be fun watching you bleed on the wall.

[Anonymous No.3999459]

>>3999440
it's just that a revolution only works where someone is oppressed. the workers of the world lost their chains a long time ago except in certain places (africa).
I am a product of a working class, peasant economy. Just the person you should be cultivating. tell me why i should revolt?

[Anonymous No.3999461]

>>3999453
We really should just set up and army and kill everyone in Rothschild banks.

[Anonymous No.3999464]

>>3999459
>tfw false consciousness
>seriously, honestly implying that a worker in capitalism, especially our capitalism, isn't a wage salve

[Anonymous No.3999465]

>>3999424
To place certain harms within a category which you have predicated as "intangible" is in itself an absurd proposition. An intangible harm is a contradiction in terms. All harms are either ultimately tangible or not harms at all. Predicating "intangible" upon the systemic violence of the capitalist system is simply an indirect way of denying that such systemic violence exists. To deny that is to deny that the Police and Military and Wages exist - for all these things are forms and means of direct and systemic violent oppression.

[Anonymous No.3999469]

>>3999461
Are you implying implications?

[Anonymous No.3999474]

>>3999464
don't care if a worker is a wage slave or not. Why should it matter whether a man considers himself a slave so long as he chooses what he does or if he does anything?

[Anonymous No.3999475]

>>3999436
>What about when there aren't any people to make the products?
Why wouldn't there be? Even if everyone had the option of welfare, there would still be a huge amount of people willing to work because they can get a lot more money by working than welfare. The economy would be a lot more stable and easy to predict with large numbers on welfare too.

Basic income, Negative income taxation, and welfare all work to capitalisms advantage.

[Anonymous No.3999478]

>>3999469
No.

I don't know, I feel like we'd need someone on the inside. It'd have to be a sneak attack because a direct assault would see every major military in the world on the building's front lawn in order to protect them.

[Anonymous No.3999479]

>>3999461
>letting the rockefellers and warburgs off scot-free.

[Anonymous No.3999480]

>>3999459
Yeah, look fuck Africa, the poster child of bourgeois charity. I am not interested in the "charm" of African peasants, sometime beneficiaries of the largesse of the charitable-Industrial-complex and the beneficience of Bill Gates et. al. Marxists do not privilege any oppressed group over another. That is the tactic of the divide-and-conquer charitable-philanthropic-imperialism of the liberal capitalist system.

[Anonymous No.3999484]

>>3999474
The working class didn't choose capitalism brah. Capitalism chose us.

[Anonymous No.3999486]

>>3999480
I just meant that African workers are in chains. often literally. They are where European peasants were in the thirteenth century or worse. They might actually need some kind of revolution, though they seem to get one semi-annually for all the good it does them.

[Anonymous No.3999488]

>>3999479
Rothschilds are first. Kill the leader, demoralize the subservients.

[Anonymous No.3999492]

>>3999478
Maybe someone is. Let's just wait and see.

[Anonymous No.3999495]

>>3999484
what would the working class rather have?
read this book, and then talk to me about communist revolutions.
Die Bürgerliche Gesellschaft and Land und Lutte by W H Riehl

[Anonymous No.3999498]

>>3999126
Oh, and by the way, socialists aren't lazy. They just want you doing your share of work like everyone else, you fucking freeloader.

[Anonymous No.3999501]

I come from a family of rags. Now that I have the opportunity to go to university and get a degree I'd rather do that and use my potential and not end up like every generation before me.

[Anonymous No.3999511]

>>3999495
>what would the working class rather have?

The end of alienation.
Ownership of the means of production.
The end class divisions.
The establishment of justice.
Equality.
Liberty.
Brotherhood.

[Anonymous No.3999514]

>>3999511
and 4.25$ an hour. pass.

[Anonymous No.3999525]

>>3999486
No, fuck you and your chains and your privileging of the African struggle over the International struggle. That is reactionary. I can even prove it. It is simply an idealisation of more developed capitalism and a denial of the marxist analysis that shows that capitalism evolves higher forms of ideological slavery and chains in more developed areas of capitalism.

Seizing the wealth of the world's billionaires, the economic disasters, the starvation, the bondage of Africa+Asia+Europe+Americas etc. could be fixed four times over. But there is not a single advocate of the "Poor Africa" narrative among liberals who will suggest that because it is coercive, and the only coercion liberals condone is the coercion of corporate powers operating tyrannically within the idealised violence of the free market.

Basically "Poor Africa" is used by liberals at home to guilt-trip communists into quietism or voluntarism or shitty help-Africa activism rather than a revolution that could bring the world closer to the conditions under which capital could be put under the control of the "means of production" in order to end all poverty and bondage all over the world.

[Anonymous No.3999538]

>>3999511
i think we're very close to that now, As long as you don't mean STATE ownership but rather direct ownership by the workers, I think class divisions are eroding constantly. (when was the last time anybody even MENTIONED the social register, let alone owned a copy?) If by justice you mean the rule of law, and an equal voice for all in legislation, trial by jury etc. I am in favor of it. Equality in the sense of equal rights and access. Liberty is an idea very dear to my heart, though don't include license in it. And brotherhood is fine for them that likes it. I'm more of a "shake hands after church" kind of brotherhood, though you're welcome to smoke in my library and you might get some brandy if you're polite and can tell a joke right.

[Anonymous No.3999539]

>>3999511
>The end class divisions.
>The establishment of justice.

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.3999549]

>>3999525
as far as seizing the wealth of the rich, look up "Witches Money" I think it might inspire you to a new idea of what "wealth" actually means.

And my narrative about africa is just that its a sucky hellhole where i have no idea what will work. capitalism and communism both seem to run aground there. And I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative. I once lived within sight of the tree where the republican party was founded. Don't confuse me with leftist s of any stripe.

[Anonymous No.3999567]

Okay Marxist anon(s), I want your understanding for a minute. As an individualist first and foremost, I've always felt conflicted about Marxism. While it claims to be a liberating force for freedom, I too often feel that it is in fact the opposite. I'm not talking about Stalinist collectivism per se. I'm talking about the pure, egalitarian society implied by Marx in his writings, which, I feel, will ultimately result in it's own kind of collectivism.

I feel that, far from being a world of freedom of expression and opinions, the communist dream is more of a homogenizing force which reduces individual people into the abstract collective of 'humanity'. A world in which 'achieving one's potential' is being stripped of one's ego and personal interests and desires and adhering strictly to whims of the rest of humanity/society as a whole, like a leaves blown to and fro by the wind.

This may be a false interpretation propagated by capitalism, but I honestly want to know. What WILL the world look like if and when the revolution happens? As an artist myself, I hope for a world in which all can create what they will without economic or societal pressures. Can communism really ensure this, or will it simply re-imaging what 'art' is? Art under soviet rule was carefully regulated and controlled. Is that the future?

[Anonymous No.3999576]

>>3999538
Justice =/= the bourgeois rule of Law, where justice is prejudicial to the poor.
Modern Capitalism =/= End of Alienation

Comrades, we have a thick one here. First, the gap between rich and poor is widening to an extent never before seen in History. In Ancient Rome the top 10% owned less of society's wealth than the top 10% own today in the United States. During the Industrial Revolution London's population increased sevenfold over a period of more than a hundred years. In the last fifty years third world industrial metropolises have seen their populations increase fiftyfold - enormous slums forming out of millions, holed up in unbearable and unsanitary conditions, brought there by the conditions of global capitalism and on arrival disposed of in sweatshops and other slavery. Hundreds of millions live thus. These slums in the third world would make your ancient ideals of "liberty" come to life and that heart of yours start to beat like a human heart.

[Anonymous No.3999585]

>>3999549
Conservatives are liberals, you boneheaded yank. Your national doublespeak and inability to get that are indicative of a major ideological and conceptual ignorance. You are an imperialist piece of shit and a liberal.

[Anonymous No.3999590]

>>3999549
Look up Das Kapital. I think it might inspire you to a new idea of what "wealth" actually means.

[Anonymous No.3999600]

Did you all know that Emerson's essay, Man the Reformer argues the same thing? He writes, "...I haven't earned a right by use to my hands and feet." These themes where found in the American labor movement too.

[Anonymous No.3999611]

>>3999567
>What WILL the world look like if and when the revolution happens?
Do you mean just after/during a revolution? or far into the future after one?

If you mean just after, the first chapter of Homage to Catalonia can give you a pretty decent description of what it could possibly be like but we really can't possibly know.

[Anonymous No.3999613]

>>3999585
Yeah, conservatives are liberals, Marxists are capitalists and Christians are atheists. Welcome to topsy turvy land. If you think the terms are that malleable, why not just declare that we're already in a Marxist world and be done with it? I know a lot of guys at the republican party headquarters local (the elks lodge basically) that think it's already there too.

[Anonymous No.3999624]

>>3999590
read it already. Marx read mine too. and you should. Nobody who calls himself a Marxist should go long before learning this book by heart. Nothing shows the roots of the labor and peasant revolts better.

[Anonymous No.3999627]

>>3999613
For many people liberal still holds its original definition, which is (basically) a libertarian.

[Anonymous No.3999628]

>>3999613
It's hilarious how this response just demonstrates how deep your ignorance is and how you are unwittingly making the Republican party headquarters(!) complicit in your own astounding ignorance.

[Anonymous No.3999631]

>>3999624
I call bullshit that the Barry Goldwater conservatard has read all four volumes of Capital in English let alone the original which you really have to read it in to understand.

[Anonymous No.3999635]

>>3999627
Whoever the fuck you are, you're still way off track in the wilderness of American politics with that one.

[Anonymous No.3999639]

>>3999613
>thinking the american political lexicon isn't topsy-turvy

[Anonymous No.3999640]

>>3999576
i'm not in the third world. and they shouldn't be either. go there and bring them out of it. arguing communism here is not going to get you many friendly ears. go to the poor exploited workers of the world and organize them. Start with China... wait, bad example...

[Anonymous No.3999647]

The end of all oppression can only be reached by destroying the universe, because at some point someone will argue that electrons exist oppressed by protons and neutrons

And that anti-matter was genocided by a matter biased universe

Calling it out already, Communism is a death cult

[Anonymous No.3999648]

>>3999631
we had to read it in college.all of it, and the federalist papers and the manifesto and blah blah blah.. thirteen books in one semester. For a non-majors class. you guys should look up the reading lists for universities in the sixties. you'd shit your britches.

[Anonymous No.3999654]

>>3999648
I wish the Russians had nuked you dumb motherfuckers.

[Anonymous No.3999656]

>>3999501
You're actually saying you want to become like the people that made every generation before you what they are.

[Anonymous No.3999660]

>>3999654
USA USA USA USA
LAND OF THE FREE
HOME OF THE BRAVE

[Anonymous No.3999662]

Because money.

[Anonymous No.3999663]

>>3999654
we'd have nuked em back. And I may indeed be a dumb motherfucker. But I'm smarter than you. by a whole lot. Better educated too. And sweeter natured.

[Anonymous No.3999670]

>>3999640
>i'm not in the third world. and they shouldn't be either. go there and bring them out of it.
You mean the guy you're responding to is the reason why the third world exists?!

[Anonymous No.3999676]

>>3999647
>The end of all oppression can only be reached by destroying the universe, because at some point someone will argue that electrons exist oppressed by protons and neutrons
>capitalists actually think this is good argument against socialism / for capitalism
>hur electrons, thus inequality is necessary!!! hue hue

[Anonymous No.3999680]

>>3999654
I'm American and even I wish they had.

[Anonymous No.3999692]

>>3999680
USA
USA
USA
USA

[Anonymous No.3999696]

Will the communists kill me when the revolution comes? Where is the line drawn between counter-revolutionary and harmless pleb?

[Anonymous No.3999714]

>>3999670
nope. just that he claims his type of government and economic system is a solution for them. let him implement it. It would surely make everybody else sit up and take notice. And until the twentieth century remember there were no "first world" countries. The third world was all there was.

[Anonymous No.3999715]

>>3999692
Why is there no Merican Party? We need to create the Merican Party.

[Anonymous No.3999723]

>>3999715
there was one. ran on an anti catholic platform. Merged into the southern democratic party.

[Anonymous No.3999727]

>>3999656
first time I hear that this is what medical doctors do, but okay, I'm open to it.

my guess however is that first WWII and then lack of education in the following generations did this, not 'The big Man' - my grandfather couldn't finish his grammar school education because it was fucking '44 and getting uncomfortable in Germany, and my father was always a talented repairperson and decided to become a metalworker. my mum is a nurse which is by German standards low middle class and tends towards working class level.


my point is, I don't see how your theory fits in there.

[Anonymous No.3999737]

>>3999696
Are you
1) trying to dismantle glorious communism?
2) trying to alienate the proletariat from their labor ?
3) eating a double cheeseburger?
3.2) with a soda?

[Anonymous No.3999742]

>>3999737
The last two.

[Anonymous No.3999752]

>>3999742
pls to engoy gulg cemp :D

[Anonymous No.3999763]

>>Why don't you just learn a trade and join the working class?

You first, cupcake.

[Anonymous No.3999773]

>>3998793
Because I'm one of those people who are alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux, brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars — in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème.

[Anonymous No.3999776]

>>3998836
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”.

[Anonymous No.3999788]

Because I'm welfare NEET master race, OP.

[Anonymous No.3999842]

>>3999737
10/10 post

[Anonymous No.3999908]

>>3999776
That about sums it up. Where is that from?

[Anonymous No.3999913]

>>3999908
Slaughterhouse-Five if I remember correctly. Not the guy you're responding to btw

[Anonymous No.3999926]

>>3999788
Hey, that's a point.

If you angry Marxists manage your "revolution", will I still be able to be a welfare NEET, or will I be forced into a shared-labour communist workcamp?

This is a very important issue for me; if you would want me to work, then I'm better off with capitalism.

[Anonymous No.3999930]

>>3999926
You are a counter-revolutionary. You would be killed.

[Anonymous No.3999936]

>>3999908
Steinbeck.

[Anonymous No.3999937]

>>3999930
Which is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.3999938]

>>3999930
>You are a counter-revolutionary. You would be killed.
Oh no, I'm really not counter-revolutionary. If you guys will still have some kind of welfare, then I support the revolution all the way. There isn't enough labour for everyone to work anyway, and I'm sure you let disabled people off, right? So just put me down as 'depressed' with a friendly wink, and I'll support your cause 100%. I just want everyone to be happy.

[Anonymous No.3999948]

>>3999930
any revolution killing for its cause deserves to be countered and struck down altogether.

[Anonymous No.3999952]

>>3999938
This. Give me my welfare and I'll happy execute officials with you boys.

[Anonymous No.3999960]

>>3999948
That's a bourgeois attitude.

[Anonymous No.3999975]

When Marxists talk about factory occupation and worker ownership, are they talking about in isolation or as a national thing?

Like, would factory A have all the workers sharing the capital, or is the profit from factories A, B, C, D... added and divided between all workers?

If the national capital isn't divided equally between everyone, then what happens when nobody buys the products from factory A? - they have less money than people from other successful factories, and become the proletariat.

Sorry if it's a dumb question.

[Anonymous No.3999986]

>>3999960
fuck you too.

[Anonymous No.3999992]

>>3999948
>he says, as the system he lives for is killing millions every day for the satisfaction of a few capitalists

[Anonymous No.3999994]

>>3999986
What a bourgeois reaction.

[Anonymous No.4000010]

It's time to admit that Laurie Penny is the true queen of /lit/. She embodies everything this board is.

[Anonymous No.4000017]

The future of leftist politics will be the emancipation of the unemployed.

[Anonymous No.4000018]

>>4000010
Thank god this didn't happen. I would have had to actually rape her.

[Anonymous No.4000024]

>>3999992
>>3999994
>>4000010
>>4000017
I love how the traffic rapidly increased as everybody tried to get >>3999999

[Anonymous No.4000037]

>>3999948

You're a coward.

[Anonymous No.4000050]

>>3999131
Working class: Those who rely on employment of some sort for their income. It's not that hard.

[Anonymous No.4000055]

>>4000024
Not everyone is a getfag, child.

[Anonymous No.4000060]

>>4000037
Violence is always wrong. Any revolution founded in blood will continue to spill blood whenever it sees fit.

[Anonymous No.4000067]

>>4000060
this guy.

[Anonymous No.4000071]

>>4000060
>Violence is always wrong.

[Anonymous No.4000079]

>>4000060
So if China came, invaded, and occupied your country you will be firmly against the revolution against the Chinese, yes?

[Anonymous No.4000082]

>>4000071
>we live in a world of black and white

[Anonymous No.4000086]

>>4000079
No. I hate my country, and actually like the Chinese. I would honestly welcome a Chinese invasion.

[Anonymous No.4000084]

>>4000082
>over le head

[Anonymous No.4000087]

>>4000071
Fly back to bed, Stirnerbird.

[Anonymous No.4000088]

>>4000079
dude. that wouldn't be a revolution, that would be going back to the original state.

the chinese taking over the country however is a violent revolution of some sort, thus wrong as it is violent.

I would argue that as violence is wrong, it is legitimate to counteract violence IF THERE IS NO OTHER WAY and only use violence as far as necessary.

[Anonymous No.4000089]

>>4000087
I actually will, but only because I want to and not because you tell me to.

[Anonymous No.4000090]

Violence is always wrong, but it is possible to do the wrong thing for the right reasons. You had just better make sure that your reasons are right first.

[Anonymous No.4000091]

>>4000088
What's so bad about violence?

[Anonymous No.4000092]

>>4000088
>I would argue that as violence is wrong
>as violence is wrong
>is wrong
0/10

[Anonymous No.4000093]

>>4000088
>I would argue that as violence is wrong, it is legitimate to counteract violence IF THERE IS NO OTHER WAY and only use violence as far as necessary.

I don't see how this really contradicts what the Marxist said about revolutionary violence.

[Anonymous No.4000094]

>>4000086
Let me change my example: [country/people of a political inclination you don't like at all] comes, invades, and occupies your country (you may or may not like it, but let's grant that you liked it better prior to the invasion). You are still against revolution?

[Anonymous No.4000100]

>>4000094
Resistance against foreing occupation isn't the same as revolution silly.

[Anonymous No.4000105]

>>4000088
>dude. that wouldn't be a revolution, that would be going back to the original state.

>the chinese taking over the country however is a violent revolution of some sort, thus wrong as it is violent.

But that's completely, totally wrong. An invasion can't be a revolution. Any insurgent force fighting an occupying force is necessarily revolutionary.

[Anonymous No.4000107]

What's a good way for the left to better exclude maoists, trots and authoritarian Marxists in general?

[Anonymous No.4000108]

>>4000093
>violent revolution is wrong and unnecessary
>violent counter-revolution is wrong but necessary

>>4000092
"even though", "while", your choice. you understand english, right?

[Anonymous No.4000111]

>>4000088
>I would argue that as violence is wrong, it is legitimate to counteract violence IF THERE IS NO OTHER WAY and only use violence as far as necessary.
So you don't agree with the statement "any revolution killing for its cause deserves to be countered and struck down altogether."

[Anonymous No.4000114]

>>3999676
Say that to my face you lil pinko jacobin/bolshevik and see what happens

[Anonymous No.4000115]

>>4000108
This guy gets it. Sometimes it is necessary to do the wrong thing, but that doesn't make it the right thing.

[Anonymous No.4000117]

>>4000108
But the Marxist claims that violent revolution against capitalism *is* necessary as legitimate form of self defense against the predations of the bourgeoisie.

[Anonymous No.4000118]

>>4000089
You are not immune to my my neurological conditioning via linguistic and environmental programming, Stirner. Oh, you think you're the mighty one, but I hold the reigns. I always will hold the reigns. You will never truly know how much of your behaviour is really your own and how much results from my conditioning. I will always win. I am your puppet master, and higher up the deterministic cause/effect chain of your physical actions. I own you, bitch.

[Anonymous No.4000120]

>>4000105
a revolution is a sudden change that leads to fundamentally overthrowing a preestablished political and/or economical and/or ideological system.

not your marxist idea of a communist revolution, I'm using the term in its broader meaning.

[Anonymous No.4000123]

>>4000118
It's "reins" you fucking illiterate.

[Anonymous No.4000124]

>>4000123
Grammar nazi, oh the humanity!

[Anonymous No.4000129]

>>4000124
It's a spelling error not a grammar error you dunce. You really are on a roll.

[Anonymous No.4000130]

>>3999975
>When Marxists talk about factory occupation and worker ownership, are they talking about in isolation or as a national thing?
National, although in the end goal that is communism there is no nation.

>Like, would factory A have all the workers sharing the capital, or is the profit from factories A, B, C, D... added and divided between all workers?
If factory A makes product A, they would receive the profits of it. If factories A, B, and C coopted to make product A, they would all equally reap the benefits of their creation.

But there is no "profit" in communism. Communism is anti-capital.

[Anonymous No.4000132]

>>4000129
Semantical thought police is running amok with our linguistical freedoms...

[Anonymous No.4000133]

>>4000123
Illiteracy is being completely unable to read or write. It would help to understand words before you throw them around.

[Anonymous No.4000136]

Communists killing people counter to their revolution is okay until I am one of those people. That's the only fair way I can think of it.

[Anonymous No.4000138]

>>4000133
>le everything at face value

[Anonymous No.4000140]

>>4000138
You just contradicted your own damn position you fucking autist

[Anonymous No.4000141]

>>4000120

rev·o·lu·tion
noun
1.
an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
>by the people goverened

[Anonymous No.4000142]

>>4000133
And I guess an understanding of hyperbole isn't a part of literacy...

[Anonymous No.4000143]

>>4000140

[Anonymous No.4000147]

>>4000140
>n-no you're the autist

stay 'tismal

[Anonymous No.4000148]

>>4000111
as returning to the original state before the communist dictatorship isn't technically a revolution by >>4000120
this definition, I still don't violate the statement.

>>4000117
yeah, no. any ideology justifying itself to do wrong can't and must not be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.4000150]

>>4000142
It's definitely not as bad as starting a sentence with a conjunction.

[Anonymous No.4000158]

>>4000150
And here's nothing wrong with that, did you even watch Finding Forrester? You literary could of care less about your education could you?

[Anonymous No.4000160]

>>4000150
It was clearly a fragment written in the manner of a colloquial quip. Kill yourself you fucking sperglord.

[Anonymous No.4000164]

>>4000141
then we're talking about an all-out war against the chinese anyway and violence, as wrong as it may be, is unavoidable.

[Anonymous No.4000166]

>>4000148
>as returning to the original state before the communist dictatorship isn't technically a revolution
>>4000141
It absolutely is. It's just a regressive revolution.

[Anonymous No.4000167]

>>4000148
...which is why capitalism must be abolished.

[Anonymous No.4000173]

>>4000148
>yeah, no. any ideology justifying itself to do wrong can't and must not be taken seriously.
Which is why capitalism needs to be abolished.

[Anonymous No.4000174]

>>4000160
*Kill yourself, you fucking sperglord.

[Anonymous No.4000175]

>any ideology justifying itself to do wrong can't and must not be taken seriously.

Sorry, I forgot to quote this part in: >>4000167

[Anonymous No.4000179]

>>4000166
on an unrelated note: I love how /lit/ is the last 4chan board I can have an enjoyable discussion on. it stumbles me every time.

this is indeed a gray area; how can you justify a violent regressive revolution but not a normal revolution? I think that if the first revolution is completed that means that the system has been approved and established, which makes the regressive revolution again "wrong".

but: for that, the first revolution needs to be, as I mentioned, approved by the people. and I don't think this is going to happen if it's a violent revolution, I'm pretty certain that in this case the counter-revolution to the first movement will do its job to prevent it.

[Anonymous No.4000185]

>>4000179
>/lit/
>enjoyable discussion

[Anonymous No.4000187]

>>4000174

[Anonymous No.4000193]

>>4000179
>this is indeed a gray area; how can you justify a violent regressive revolution but not a normal revolution?
Well, I didn't meant to imply that I WOULD necessarily justify a regressive revolution (though I would not necessarily criticize it either! It depends entirely what the previous government was and whether its people truly want it. This is a complicated question/issue which can not be answered lightly). All I was saying was that the person I was replying to was not using the word revolution correctly. That is; saying a foreign invasion is a revolution when it isn't.

[Anonymous No.4000198]

>>4000185
Confirmed for wrekt imperialist.

[Anonymous No.4000201]

>>4000175
>>4000173
capitalism indeed isn't the ideal solution, but it is established for a reason: it provides the best possible outcome and opportunities, although not equally among everyone and, depending on the environment/country you're bound to some degree by your heritage- but that's another discussion altogether which has been reiterated here countless times.

my point is: I meant that ideologies of open violence as a tool for revolution shouldn't justify themselves. the ideologies of established and running systems are another thing and can only be overthrown if the majority of people disapprove of it - which is where the revolution comes in.

if it's righteous, the revolution won't need violence to make a better world. if it needs violence, it's simply not the way to go. that's how I see it.

[Anonymous No.4000207]

>>4000201
But what if the majority of people are against the current system but the current system refuses to withdraw its power? What if the majority are against the current system but the current system has robbed them of any power in which to address this want for change?

[Anonymous No.4000208]

>>4000193
>I didn't meant to imply that I WOULD necessarily justify a regressive revolution
misunderstanding, this was a hypothetical question I was posing only to myself since it's a flaw in my somewhat bourgeois logic, posed to argue from there.

I agree with the fact that the people's needs are first priority in justifying a revolution and I tried to apply this logic here >>4000201

[Anonymous No.4000209]

>>4000207
>what if the majority of people are against the current system but the current system refuses to withdraw its power?
Then the majority should infiltrate the elite, and grow into an even bigger majority until it overthrows the previous elite

[Anonymous No.4000212]

>>4000060
That's childishly idealistic.

[Anonymous No.4000216]

What will the world be like when machines take over minimum wage jobs, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.4000217]

>>4000207
>what if the majority of people are against the current system
you can't tell me that the majority of people would prefer communism over capitalism.

also, if they would, they would find a way. capitalism isn't as dystopian as you make it out to be, the middle and lower class (the people interested in this revolution) are still a huge majority and powerful enough to make a revolution happen if they collectively wanted to.

[Anonymous No.4000219]

>>4000216
higher education would be necessary to make a living, thus people will have a higher standard of scientific and hermeneutical literacy.

[Anonymous No.4000224]

>>4000216
One step closer to Eden. Eventually we reach the point where we don't need to compete over resources anymore, thereby delegitimising all violence. The people who are still violent post-scarcity go to hell while the rest dwells in Eden relieved of sin.

[Anonymous No.4000225]

>>4000201
>[capitalism] provides the best possible outcome and opportunities

No, this is simply something you've presupposed.

> I meant that ideologies of open violence as a tool for revolution shouldn't justify themselves. the ideologies of established and running systems are another thing and can only be overthrown if the majority of people disapprove of it - which is where the revolution comes in.

Revolution by simple majority vote hasn't and will never happen. Hell, by your standard the American Revolution was immoral.

>>4000217
You really don't think coercion exists under capitalism, do you?

[Anonymous No.4000227]

>>4000219
>in the future, everyone can find work utilizing a 'higher standard of scientific and hermenutical literacy'

This is what utopian capitalists actually believe.

[Anonymous No.4000231]

>>4000219
In reality: More people on the dole.

[Anonymous No.4000232]

>>4000225
>this is simply something you've presupposed
well there's a reason why the communist and pseudo-communist states of the past have collapsed and the few of the present have low standards of living, shitty economy and so on while capitalist states have thrived. It has been shown time and time again that free market economy is the superior world market model, which isn't possible under a communist regime - seeing as there always are winners and losers to the complex, unprojectable economy of demand and supply.


>You really don't think coercion exists under capitalism, do you?
I think that the pro's outweigh the con's as far as "Keeping it or changing to communism" goes.

[Anonymous No.4000238]

>>4000227
>everyone can find work
I didn't say everyone can find work. I said it would be necessary to have higher education if you even want a chance on the job market. Unemployment wouldn't be solved at all, but we're coming closer to a world where intellectualism is a necessary asset for everybody, which could solve other problems.

[Anonymous No.4000240]

>>4000209
This is impossible. You can not infiltrate what is guarded jealously. Notice that there are no communists in the US government?

[Anonymous No.4000241]

>>4000216
>tfw I will be milking the poor replaced superfluous honest to god blue collar worker card for the rest of my life

[Anonymous No.4000245]

>>4000238
You're still assuming demand for "intellectual labor" only grows as living conditions improve. Neither this increase in demand or the improvement in living conditions are things you can consider foregone. To do so is a utopian leap in itself, and complete fantasy in light of the empirical realities of capitalism as it exists today.

[Anonymous No.4000250]

>>4000232
I wasn't talking about 20th century communism, I was talking about capitalism.

The onus is on you to prove that capitalism produces the best possible outcomes. Hint: you won't.

[Anonymous No.4000254]

>>4000232
>well there's a reason why the communist and pseudo-communist states of the past have collapsed and the few of the present have low standards of living, shitty economy and so on while capitalist states have thrived.
Cuba has a very high standard of living with a moving economy (which is all you want, not explosive capitalist, imperialist economies) and is far away from being "collapsed". The USSR and the Eastern Bloc didn't collapse as much as they were choked to death.

> It has been shown time and time again that free market economy is the superior world market model,
My fucking sides

[Anonymous No.4000255]

>>4000240
>This is impossible.
Only in your mind

>You can not infiltrate what is guarded jealously.
Then why is the right permanently sending republicans to the slaughter and accusing them of being left wingers?

>Notice that there are no communists in the US government?
Only according to what to you is a communist

[Anonymous No.4000261]

>>4000240
It's not just guarded jealously, it's something you're 99.9% likely to be excluded from on the basis of class.

[Anonymous No.4000262]

>>4000250
21st century example of what marxism will ultimately turn into: North Korea.

21st century example of what capitalism turns into: United States, every state of the European Union.

now tell me, which of these would you rather live in?

[Anonymous No.4000263]

>>4000255
>Only in your mind
Example: you can not join the armed sources if you are affiliated with communist parties. Known communists are under constant supervision and investigation by intelligence agencies.

>Then why is the right permanently sending republicans to the slaughter and accusing them of being left wingers?
This has never happened, and further it doesn't negate my point.

>Only according to what to you is a communist
I want to know of this communist.

[Anonymous No.4000269]

>>4000262
>21st century example of what marxism will ultimately turn into: Cuba

>21st century example of what capitalism turns into: Detroit

Give me the Marxism pls

[Anonymous No.4000268]

>>3999714
Because if here in the "third world" we try to free ourselves from this evil, something worse will go on that will not be reported and that western media will give no big shits about.
It needs to happen in Western Europe and America first. And I'm willing to help, so I started to educate myself.

[Anonymous No.4000271]

>>4000263
*armed forces

I need a break.

[Anonymous No.4000275]

>>4000263
>Example: you can not join the armed sources if you are affiliated with communist parties. Known communists are under constant supervision and investigation by intelligence agencies.
With good reasons, communists tend to be inclined towards having mental issues and to start shit within the armed forces

>This has never happened, and further it doesn't negate my point.
The meaning of the term RINO is totally lost upon you, isn't it?

>I want to know of this communist.
Obama, the Governor of NJ, every RINO ever

[Anonymous No.4000274]

>>4000262
Any idiot can cherrypick. Look at the development of China and India and tell me where you'd rather live.

[Anonymous No.4000278]

>>4000245
>You're still assuming demand for "intellectual labor" only grows as living conditions improve
no, I'm assuming that when blue collar workers will be replaced by machines, the only area they can turn to is intellectual labor. I do not consider that this will improve living conditions as many people will probably not find a job, but the need for higher education, simply to even have a remote chance on the job market, will be existent - that's all I argue.

I don't say that the job market or living conditions will improve, I only argue that more people will choose to get a higher education.

[Anonymous No.4000279]

>>4000274
>Look at the development of China and India and tell me where you'd rather live.
Neither, both are ultracapitalistic havens with only an ounce of 'communist' painting

And both are capitalistic in the original, bad meaning of the word, early capitalistic, which tends to be the worst form of capitalism

[Anonymous No.4000297]

>>4000279
India is a constitutional democracy you ignorant American.

Almost every major enterprise native to China is owned by the state. How is that 'ultra'-capitalism?

Both were established at roughly the same point in history, yet China is much more affluent. I don't believe it's due to anything intrinsic to their political or economic system (you can make a different case for what constitutes capitalism in China, for ex), but again, but applying your logic to the economic conditions in these countries shows that a nominally 'marxist' country like China is superior to the liberal market democracy of India. So really what you said is utterly meaningless.

The particulars of North Korea versus South Korea, or Chile versus Bolivia, or however you want to slice it are particular to the material and sociopolitical conditions to these nations themselves.

[Anonymous No.4000311]

>>4000297
>India is a constitutional democracy you ignorant American.
And this means?
It has a socialist mode of production until very recently, some 30 years ago to be precise

>Almost every major enterprise native to China is owned by the state. How is that 'ultra'-capitalism?
China is a mega corporation, that's ultracapitalism

And inefficient, because you do not want a complete monopoly of power and influence, you want a huge number of corporations, not one

>Both were established at roughly the same point in history, yet China is much more affluent.
China has always been a super corporation, due to how Imperial China had this huge centralized form of bureaucracy that has endured the test of time until our days

>I don't believe it's due to anything intrinsic to their political or economic system (you can make a different case for what constitutes capitalism in China, for ex)
Its not, see what I just wrote

>but applying your logic to the economic conditions in these countries shows that a nominally 'marxist' country like China is superior to the liberal market democracy of India.
Again, you are picking at straws in my argument

China is ahead of India only because China has always been a megacorporation, and therefore now only needs to decentralize, while India only became entirely bureaucratized due to the English influence over them, and since it doesn't have a bureaucratic culture, it is much harder for it to develop a more responsible, and well managed descentralized management culture that doesn't gravitate over a gigantic government/corporation

[Anonymous No.4000316]

>The particulars of North Korea versus South Korea, or Chile versus Bolivia, or however you want to slice it are particular to the material and sociopolitical conditions to these nations themselves.
Neither North Korea nor Bolivia have had much of a managerial nature, and both have always imported foreign management cultures, and copy pasted them on top of their countries... resulting in nominally disastrous results, because the means of government in one country does not necesarilly apply in another, not without a managerial culture preceding

[Anonymous No.4000319]

For the same reason Africa has failed at socialism and capitalism in general, they imported everything from the first world, and attempted flying before they walked

[Anonymous No.4000330]

>>4000316
How is any of this true?

[Anonymous No.4000347]

>>4000330
Look around, and you will find even the USSR had a somewhat proper managerial culture that it inherited from the Tsarist times and that it partly purged and refined from then on

[Anonymous No.4000367]

adding onto the already ongoing discussions in this thread will probably only result in reiterating the arguments - anybody has something new to converse? I'm on a roll, baby.

[Anonymous No.4000376]

>>4000367
I have been discussing with 'communists' for the past month and a half, all discussions eventually end up with Evolution, Game Theory, Rawl's Theories on Justice and the Uncertainty Principle

[Anonymous No.4000385]

>>4000376
hell, they have to scrape their arguments together from somewhere, and they certainly don't get them from politics or economy.

[Anonymous No.4000400]

>>4000385
I think am enabled to study sociology and start giving classes at some random university by now

That's how bad communists are at their own ideology

[Anonymous No.4000414]

>>4000400
I love how it eventually all boils down to the 'evil capitalist puppeteers' who prevent everybody else from succeeding and that these few Big Brothers prevent the masses from converting to communism, which obviously is what 95% of the population truly wants.

[Anonymous No.4000543]

>>4000262
>explored, killed and paid for the world be at ashes to get more money
>well our system is the best xDDD, y everyune so poor?O.O

[Anonymous No.4000552]

>>4000275
>Obama, the Governor of NJ, every RINO ever
Are you serious bruv?

[Anonymous No.4000602]

>>4000552
I am absolutely serious, 'bolshevism' and 'rinoism', are nothing more than subjective ways for calling people, inherently, stupid

Do you even Kropotkin?

[Anonymous No.4000629]

>>4000543
that's the thing with free market economy, there are winners and losers. it's inevitable that in a free world some people will be wealthier than others, that's just life - trying to make the world a happy place for everyone is completely utopian.