/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4615862]

>yfw you try to explain leninism to libertarians

[Anonymous No.4615870]

>You see, instead of shithead corporations parting the workers from what they produce, we just use the state. Now isn't that a more efficient form of capitalism??

[Anonymous No.4615885]

>>4615862
Just call it lennonism instead.

[Anonymous No.4615892]

Should be easy, instead of

>the wealth will trickle down

you just insert

>the power will be held by freely elected workers' councils

[Anonymous No.4615899]

> try to explain left-wing anarchism to an America
> but won't people kill each others?
> what about my property rights?
> forcing people to live in anarchism is authoritarianism!
> poor people are poor because they are lazy, stupid and didnt get STEM

[Anonymous No.4615903]

>>4615892
samefag

>implying there can be free elections when you go to prison for criticizing the government
>implying Lenin cared about free elections seeing as how he lost the election by a landslide to the Socialist Revolutionary Party and then decided to dissolve the assembly

"Large - scale machine industry which is the material productive source and foundation of socialism - calls for absolute and strict unity of will . . . How can strict unity of will be ensured? By thousands subordinating their will to the will of one".

“Unquestioning submission to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of labour processes that are based on large-scale machine industry…today the Revolution demands, in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process”

"Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people"
-Lenin

Obedience, and unquestioning obedience at that, during work to the one-man decisions of Soviet directors, of the dictators elected or appointed by Soviet institutions, vested with dictatorial powers."
Lenin, Six Theses on the Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, April/May 1918

[Anonymous No.4615910]

>>4615870
are you a libertarian?

[Anonymous No.4615915]

>>4615910
No, I'm a socialist in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg, Yevgeny Zamyatin, George Orwell, Albert Einstein and Michel Foucault.

[Anonymous No.4615920]

>>4615903
>implying Lenin cared about the peasants voting for the LSR
>implying marxism-leninism isn't about the industrial proletariat, who favoured the bolsheviks

Might as well have told him that the bourgeois or the monarchy didn't want vote for him.

[Anonymous No.4615925]

>>4615920
Both of those put together didn't make up more than a fraction of the population.

[Anonymous No.4615940]

>>4615903

>citing one post and calling him samefag...

>not understanding that I compare these two statements because they are equally malignant lies...

[Anonymous No.4615952]

>>4615862
I absolutely don't understand how anyone can support leninism in the 21st century

[Anonymous No.4616526]

>>4615952
Well, almost nobody does. I can't wait until the massive butthurt over the 100 year aniversary of the October Revolution.

[Anonymous No.4616535]

>>4615899
Americans will never value a sincere lifestyle over a luxurious one. We Love Crap.

[Anonymous No.4616547]

>tfw a guy wants to have gay sex with you

Sure, why not, he's handsome enou-

>find out he's a libertarian

NOPE.jpg

[Anonymous No.4616551]

is it better to learn about lenninism/trotskyism in their historical context by secondary literature or just read their primary lit?

[Anonymous No.4616552]

>>4616547
good call dude, find someone without daddy issues.

[Anonymous No.4616560]

>>4616547
The whole non-aggression principle thing plays havok in the bed room

[Anonymous No.4616559]

>try to explain fascism/vitalism/nationalism to queers
>"But I shouldn't have to work :S"
>"What if I don't want to do anything but want to get the state's aid for free :S? Shouldn't the state be a nanny who exists to cradle me until my death?"
>"Why can't I just get paid to go to school for free? :S"
>"I need to study the oppression of the third world by the first world's economy, so that economy should pay for my education and comfort so I can study how it's bad :S"
>":S Fighting is barbaric, why would I fight to preserve my way of life? I wish we could get along, therefore we will get along :S"
>":S"

[Anonymous No.4616573]

>>4616551
Trotsky was a bretty good writer, so at least read his works.

[Anonymous No.4616578]

>Make an attempt to defend fascism/nationalism to a bunch of whinging left wingers

>Our media "culture" has turned conservatism into something that these fuckers can just lob ad hominem at instead of arguing against, totally ignoring that their conception of whichever varied branch of Marxism they've chosen in response to be lower/middle class to give themselves a self-validating reason to dislike effort is horribly flawed

[Anonymous No.4616582]

>>4616547
I wouldn't mind because very few people remain a libertarian after a certain age. They'll probably outgrow it, specially if you make them read the right stuff.

[Anonymous No.4616590]

>>4616582
True, but you also have to be a special idiot to also think communism will work after a certain age.
>and capitalism
>and democracy
>even the ancient greeks considered it demagogue-cracy (aka, fox news, msnbc, and all other sensationalism-over-news channels)

[Anonymous No.4616601]

>>4615862
>>yfw you try to explain leninism to libertarians
Yeah, this is your problem mate. You can't explain praxis. You win it in the struggle. And honestly, every successful praxis I've seen where the class remains in the saddle has looked more like the IWW and less like the RSDLP(b)

[Anonymous No.4616620]

>>4615870
>>4615892

Wrong kind of libertarianism you ignorant cunt.

>>4616551
Read Kolakowski's guide to the left wing communists in Volume 3 of his series, then read some Rühle and Bordiga. Then read Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. That's the debate in a nutshell.

Or you can dig out the krondstadt sourcebooks.

[Anonymous No.4616623]

Repost this if you're a strong independent black woman who don't need no man.

[Anonymous No.4616651]

>>4615862
>yfw you try to explain to filthy leninists that vanguard parties never relinquish their power so communism by via such a party is impossible

[Anonymous No.4616653]

>Yeah, I'm still going to beat you with a stick, but now it says "the worker's stick" on it, so it's alright!

[Anonymous No.4616663]

>>4616651
see >>4616601

[Anonymous No.4616672]

>>4615862
>libertarians

You mean people who value liberty or the American, insane right-wingers?

[Anonymous No.4616684]

>>4615870
This is true though. State capitalism is a mean motherfucker. Efficient too.

[Anonymous No.4616692]

>>4616684
Only in the high growth phase of the value form's expansion, and then on the back of the _usual_ horrific primary accumulation of feudal property.

After the high growth phase, state capitalism as we know it faced an immediate revolutionary problem (1956, 1968), and in both major cases resorted to a primitive accumulation of social democracy and a return to traditionally brutal market capitalism (1989).

Not a particularly ringing endorsement when the greatest achievement of State Capitalism was the Hungarian, Czech and bits of the "Great" Proletarian "Cultural" revolutions.

State capitalism: makes better revolutions than normal capitalism, with better healthcare while you wait.

[Anonymous No.4616983]

>mfw trying to explain the magic of the free market to a filthy Marxist

[Anonymous No.4616996]

>mfw you try to explain basic logic to Marxists

[Anonymous No.4617004]

>>4616672
American right-wingers.

[Anonymous No.4617005]

>>4616578
:^)

[Anonymous No.4617009]

>>4617004
Why even bother

[Anonymous No.4617011]

mfw I see a Libertarian who thinks a free market without regulations can actually function the way its meant too.

[Anonymous No.4617013]

>>4616996
>>4616983
>>4616653
>>4616623
>>4616559
dubs

[Anonymous No.4617015]

>>4617009

Because they control half the government of the most powerful human force on the planet.

[Anonymous No.4617019]

>>4617013

[Anonymous No.4617023]

>>4617013
this is how you get dubs

btw libertarianism is dumb

[Anonymous No.4617026]

>>4617019

[Anonymous No.4617035]

>>4616559
I dig it

[Anonymous No.4617040]

>>4616559
>"you're making valid points but I can't think of an argument against them so I'll just post them anonymously on an image board using an emoticon and a funny reaction image so that maybe someone will confirm my bias for me :S"

[Anonymous No.4617045]

>>4616559
What a great argument, you sure showed them!

[Anonymous No.4617047]

>>4616559
There's nothing more disgusting than associating ancient rome with modern fascism.

[Anonymous No.4617048]

>>4615862
Implying Titoism isn't vastly superior, pleb.

[Anonymous No.4617049]

>ddo u know why dey call it the INVISIBLE hand of the market?? : - DD D

[Anonymous No.4617050]

>>4617040
if you can't detect the criticisms implicit in each paraphrasing then learn to read

[Anonymous No.4617056]

> trying to explain to ancaps that anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism

not even worth the effort

[Anonymous No.4617061]

>>4617050
What criticisms? ":S" isn't a valid criticism.

[Anonymous No.4617062]

>>4617047
But Anon, Machiavelli was the first fascist and he used the Roman Republic as a template, stressing religion, regular war, and obedience to the state as the basis of great nations.

[Anonymous No.4617064]

>>4617015
>Because they control half the government of the most powerful human force on the planet.
Working class Americans control the entire US government: the government is entirely right wing?

Like fucking arse. Their votes mean less than nothing as their Supreme Court demonstrated.

[Anonymous No.4617068]

>>4617061
not him but i think it's meant to symbolise complete disregard of his promoted ideology, rejecting even the most elementary consideration

[Anonymous No.4617073]

>>4617062
a lot of the theory on fascism is vague enough to make rome explicitly "fascist", and the fasces was chosen as a symbol for a reason.

hell, the guys who invented the term would probably call any great pre-modern state with an overriding ethos of loyalty and civic duty fascist. and romans were the original "fuck that gay greek individualism stuff, duty to the state comes first" dudes, unless you count sparta. the fact that rome liked to cite athens as a precursor but that they are probably closer to sparta ideologically has been noted for years.

[Anonymous No.4617078]

>>4617062
>Machiavelli was the first fascist

[Anonymous No.4617082]

>>4617062
>Machiavelli
>fascist

I don't think you've ever actually read anything Machiavelli wrote. He was a hardcore republican.

[Anonymous No.4617087]

>>4617062
>>4617073
You can identify all those concepts in so many past civilizations. The whole 'obedience to the state' thing is a misrepresentation when applied to rome or essentially any pre modern state.

[Anonymous No.4617094]

>Trying to tell Americans that Libertarianism is socialist and left wing
>HURR DURR HOW CAN SOCILISIM BE LIBERTARIAN THEYS TAKE MUH TAXES AND GIVEMM TO OHBUMMER AND HIS MEDICAL CARE

[Anonymous No.4617102]

>not being apolitical
politics is a silly propaganda game

[Anonymous No.4617104]

>>4617094
The worst is when people tell you libertarian socialism is an oxymoron.

[Anonymous No.4617107]

>>4617102
You can choose to ignore politics, but politics won't choose to ignore you.

>>4617094
>Libertarianism
>Socialist
you w0t m8

[Anonymous No.4617108]

>>4617104
>"how can you be for big government and against big government at the same time?"

[Anonymous No.4617109]

>>4617107
>but politics won't choose to ignore you.
It will if you're sufficiently rich
The best political move is to be rich

[Anonymous No.4617111]

>>4617107
amerifat detected

[Anonymous No.4617112]

>>4617094
>I'm not a libertarian, I'm a "classical liberal".

[Anonymous No.4617117]

>>4617111
Libertarianism USED to be left wing. But today they are authoritarian egalitarians

[Anonymous No.4617119]

>>4617117
>authoritarian
How are they authoritarian

[Anonymous No.4617124]

>>4617109
unless the proletariat rises:^)
I must agree with you, however. Ideology is for plebs

[Anonymous No.4617126]

>>4617119
Your rights end where my feelings begin, we need to distribute the wealth from the rich to the poor, the white race is evil and must vanish from the face of the earth, etc.

[Anonymous No.4617132]

>>4617117
>authoritarian
Care to explain?

I'm aware of two distinct ideologies labeled "libertarianism"

The first is mostly used on non-english speaking countries, meaning marxist communism without the Leninist authoritarian state, etc.

And the other is liberalism as seen by americans who say things like "the government has a monopoly on education" and "the civil war was about secession rights"

[Anonymous No.4617133]

>>4617126
What the fuck are you talking about
>libertarianism
>redistribute the wealth

[Anonymous No.4617134]

>>4617126
shouldn't have asked

[Anonymous No.4617136]

>>4617124
then you hop on your plane and leave the country for one where the proles are less uppity

ideologies are lots of fun though tbh

[Anonymous No.4617138]

>>4617108
Yeah, that's exactly it.

[Anonymous No.4617144]

>>4617126
Need I remind you who coined the phrase, "To hang the last king with the guts of the last priest?"

[Anonymous No.4617157]

>>4617108
That can be annoying.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-8.50&soc=-7.74

People's perceptions of the distinctions between their country's moderate political parties are somewhat wrongheaded, too. http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

[Anonymous No.4617166]

>>4617073
Wife sharing is not a fascist thing, fascism is all about conventional family.

Machiavelli was a major inspiration to Mussolini, you know.

>>4617082
Oh, yes. I'm referring to his discourses. You do realize he proposes the same cyclic idea of history that Spangler later did? Machiavelli stresses that a leader of a state must support religion (even if he doesn't believe in it) and frequently seek out wars to prevent men from falling into decadence. Machiavelli wanted a two-party state, yes, but two fascist parties, a populist and an elitist one.

[Anonymous No.4617173]

>>4617157
It's been a while since I took that test.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-6.62&soc=-5.69

First time in my life that I'm in the green square.

[Anonymous No.4617178]

>>4617173
Not nearly communist enough. -10, -7 here. Most of my mates are -10, -10 or -10, -9: but I've got discipline from the labour movement and they tend to, well, do "social" activism.

[Anonymous No.4617182]

>>4617015
Are you fucking retarded or just trolling? The West has been under leftist cultural hegemony for years now. What actual influence do say Tea Partiers have when the universities and every center of cultural production and value shaping is leftist to the core?

[Anonymous No.4617190]

>implying libertarianism, socialism and authoritarianism are incompatible

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Libertarian_National_Socialist_Green_Party.html

[Anonymous No.4617198]

>>4617182
>The West has been under leftist cultural hegemony for years now.
Returns to labour from GDP have declined remarkably from 1970: all productivity gains have gone to profit or reinvestment.

The welfare state was systematically dismantled.

Australia, sainted economically and civilly free Australia is murdering people in concentration camps.

And you suggest that the West has been under leftist cultural hegemony? LEFTIST? As in no capitalist needs eyes leftist? At best bourgeois liberals hold a few useless literary criticism positions in Universities and Zizek has been elevated as a new Marcuse to befuddle bourgeois undergraduates.

Fucksakes mate: your side has been winning since they started throwing Chilean trade unionists out of helicopters. Who the fuck do you think Reagan (broke the US unions with PATCO) and Thatcher (broke the UK unions with the miners) were?

Are you that ignorant?

[Anonymous No.4617201]

>>4617166
Different anon here.
'Conventional family' is not unique to fascism, or any political ideology.

Mussolini being inspired by Machiavelli doesn't make Machiavelli fascist.

Neither does any of the following:

>You do realize he proposes the same cyclic idea of history that Spangler later did? Machiavelli stresses that a leader of a state must support religion (even if he doesn't believe in it) and frequently seek out wars to prevent men from falling into decadence.

>Machiavelli wanted a two-party state, yes, but two fascist parties
No, he didn't, because fascism did not exist at that time. Using a modern ideology to identify past ideas is extremely irresponsible. 'Fascist' concepts could be identified in most if not all pre liberal democratic societies. That doesn't make them fascist. Civic virtue and loyalty, amongst other things, were integral to so many past societies.

[Anonymous No.4617203]

>>4617190
Remove the "Green" part and that seems exactly the sort of Party /pol/ might join

>>4617178
In this one http://www.politicaltest.net I keep getting "Social Democrat something" despite the fact that I despise social democrats.

[Anonymous No.4617206]

>>4617198
i think he's american and leftist = socially liberal

[Anonymous No.4617209]

>>4617182
As long as the West remains capitalist, it's hard to seriously argue that it is under some 'leftist' cultural hegemony.

[Anonymous No.4617213]

>>4617178
Meanwhile you just do "antisocial" activism, giving homeless people a dollar if they degrade themselves in front of you or giving them a coca-cola if they fight to the death. -7 laissez-faire pig fuck.

[Anonymous No.4617218]

>>4617201
Yes, but Machiavelli was the first to analyze them exterior of the Machine; to say that religions is lies, and that lies are good, rather than to just say that religion is good. To overtly say raison d'etat always justified "reprehensible" actions. Machiavelli did not say war is glorious, he said compelling citizens to fight wars is important because it distracts from reaching a level of conscious where they'd question the state. This is all very fascist because it is fascist thought.

[Anonymous No.4617226]

>>4617182
Just because we're past your Paradox Interactive-induced hard-on for ethno-Nationalism and primitive liberal capitalism doesn't mean we're left-wing.

Many positions now associated with the "socially progressives" were far more popular back in the pre-WW2 era, and the decaying welfare system now in place was first conceived by liberal conservatives trying to stop socialists from gaining power.

[Anonymous No.4617250]

>>4617198
>>4617209
Oh, god, so you two *really* are that ignorant.

"Capitalist" is a snarl world. It doesn't describe anything, it is a synonym for "everything that is there". "Socialism" as in the ownership of all productive capital by the representation of the collective is utterly impossible. That has been proven through and through.

What the left is is not about destroying this thing called "capitalism", because "capitalism" isn't a thing that can be destroyed. It is a windmill. The left is about engineering a perpetual state of agitation and unstability so the seizure of power by the revolutionary group (not necessarily armed; revolutionary here in the sense of a group that wants to reshape and control all aspect of social life) becomes easier and easier.

So where is it that the leftist cultural hegemony goes? Everywhere that can destroy the established institutions of the West. Our intellectual life is dominated by contradictory beliefs -- contradictory BY DESIGN, so they can't ever be carried out and the intellectuals can keep rallying against "oppression" that isn't there. We can simultaneously demand the head of the man who but catcalling a woman and say that the practicioners of the knockout game are poor helpless victims of society. We can simultaneously preach racial equality but build up resentment between blacks and whites.

What you are, in the end, is a marvelous pair of useful idiots. Nothing will ever be leftist enough for you (that is the nature of the left), so you'll always be there waiting for the next leader to direct your efforts. Incidentally, this extremism is exactly why whenever a revolutionary party comes to power, it purges the most fanatical to the cause. Happened in the USSR, in China and in Germany.

[Anonymous No.4617251]

>>4617213
>Meanwhile you just do "antisocial" activism, giving homeless people a dollar if they degrade themselves in front of you or giving them a coca-cola if they fight to the death. -7 laissez-faire pig fuck.

Uh, x axes go negative to the left, and for some reason x is mentioned before y.

If you tell me I give charity to my face you'll lose teeth.

[Anonymous No.4617256]

>>4617250
>"Capitalist" is a snarl world. It doesn't describe anything, it is a synonym for "everything that is there".
Negative, it describes "capital" as the most valuable asset of someone in society.

>"Socialism" as in the ownership of all productive capital by the representation of the collective is utterly impossible.
No, that's communism. Socialism is ownership of the productive capital by the people who use it. It's everything as a co-op.

[Anonymous No.4617257]

>>4617250
>"Capitalist" is a snarl world.
You misspelt "word."

p.s.: The definition supplied in M—C…P…C'—M' is adequate and definitive.

[Anonymous No.4617263]

>>4617218
Cynical, practical motivations for political and social organisation like that which you attribute to Machiavelli are not fascist in any way, simply because centuries down the track fascism decides to adopt them.

>This is all very fascist because it is fascist thought.
The more accurate thing to say would be it is all very Machiavellian because it is Machiavellian thought.

Your view is upside down. You're taking a certain defined political philosophy (fascism) which emulates certain values that were displayed by most human cultures throughout history, and then implying that those views are uniquely fascist.

[Anonymous No.4617267]

>>4617263
Yeah, just like it's not wrong to call a communist civilization that existed thousands of years ago, communist.

[Anonymous No.4617269]

>>4617178
-8.75, -8.72

man, i had no idea i was such a pigdog

[Anonymous No.4617270]

>>4617251
Oh, of course, X axes first. My bad. Adjust the joke accordingly, fascist pig fuck.

[Anonymous No.4617273]

>>4617267
Also, no, most cultures did not run who Machiavelli said was optional; he proposed keeping the aristocracy and the workers in gentle conflict so the state doesn't have to worry about either getting too powerful; most states back then WERE the aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.4617277]

>>4617250
>"Capitalist" is a snarl world. It doesn't describe anything, it is a synonym for "everything that is there".
No, it describes something or someone that belongs to or characterises an economic system by which production is privately owned. That is as basic as basic gets.

>"Socialism" as in the ownership of all productive capital by the representation of the collective is utterly impossible. That has been proven through and through.
No, it hasn't. The experiments at collective capital that I am aware of were persecuted and destroyed by outside state violence. Stop making things up.

The rest of your post is not much more than babble, due to your confused definition of 'capitalism' and 'capitalist'.

[Anonymous No.4617286]

>>4617256
>Negative, it describes "capital" as the most valuable asset of someone in society.

Yes. Except that there can't be a society where capital isn't the most important thing. "Capitalism" implies that thing Noam Chomsky and college kids keep ranting about, "profits over people!" It is purely an insult.

>No, that's communism. Socialism is ownership of the productive capital by the people who use it. It's everything as a co-op.

Just like that? It is cute. Means nothing, though. "Tthe people" are an abstraction. There isn't an entity that we can say "hey look it's the people." As such, the control over the productive capital isn't by "the people", but by the group that purports to be its representative, that is, the revolutionary party (in the broad sense). But since the party and the people are intended to be one and the same, that means the party's reach necessarily extends to the whole of society, necessarily politicizing everything in people's lives.

It is clear as day that many aspects of everyday life are being politicized in today's West.

>>4617257
>You misspelt "word."

And you wrote a bunch of dumb shit. That's probably worse!

>p.s.: The definition supplied in M—C…P…C'—M' is adequate and definitive.

The definition in the circuit of capital is utterly meaningless. What Marx calls simple commodity production is not a separate thing from the circuit that he says characterizes "capitalism", but an incidental event inside it. Money and credit (mostly credit) existed through pretty much all of human history besides those really savage tribes, and weren't for them, humanity would never have experienced technological progress to the point of having something like the Industrial Revolution.

[Anonymous No.4617297]

>>4617286
>there can't be a society where capital isn't the most important thing

U wot m8?

[Anonymous No.4617298]

>>4617277
>No, it hasn't. The experiments at collective capital that I am aware of were persecuted and destroyed by outside state violence.

Most capital is collective. Do you even know how corporations work or are you too busy smoking weed and not shaving because you want to look intellectual to your friends?

Production being "privately owned" or "collectively owned", in terms of purely economic categories, is the same. These terms have meaning only when they transcend the economic sphere and enter into the political one, i.e., "public" or "collective" is property owned by the representative of the people and "private" is that which isn't.

The imaginary socialist utopia entails that all property would be owned by one representative of all humanity. That is economically impossible without reverting to a stone age (see Mises). And as soon as property is owned by at least two different groups, trade necessarily emerges and we are back to the same situation we were before.

[Anonymous No.4617301]

>>4617297
Um, yes? In terms of economic development and improving standards of living, you pretty much depend on capital accumulation.

[Anonymous No.4617313]

>>4617267
But you wont find fascist civilization existing thousands of years ago. That's my point. Past civilizations which shared certain values that are now held by fascists does not make said civilizations fascist. Fascism is defined by its unique philosophical aspects, not the vague virtues that were common to man in the past. Fascism seeks to establish subservience to an all powerful state in the time of the liberal democracy; it defines itself by the conscious establishment of a certain philosophy, partly in opposition to what is the common political system in the world today. Prior to the liberal democracy, you will find most cultures to be authoritarian and statist to our eyes, almost as a matter of course. It is silly to go backwards and refer to them as fascist because fascism seeks to preserve (and pervert in many cases) some of their values.

[Anonymous No.4617330]

>>4617301
That's not what you said though, you said there can't be a society where capital isn't the most important thing and that isn't true

[Anonymous No.4617333]

>>4617330
You obviously shouldn't kill children (or starve Ukraine) in the name of capital accumulation, but I didn't feel it would be necessary to point that out. But since you need it so...

[Anonymous No.4617337]

>>4617298
>Most capital is collective.
You're living in a fantasy world; embarrassing little attempts at insults wont mask that. Corporations or any standard company uses or exploits capital, including labour, by the owners of said corporations.
>Production being "privately owned" or "collectively owned", in terms of purely economic categories, is the same.
See above.

>The imaginary socialist utopia entails that all property would be owned by one representative of all humanity. That is economically impossible without reverting to a stone age (see Mises). And as soon as property is owned by at least two different groups, trade necessarily emerges and we are back to the same situation we were before.

Every sentence here is based off at least one misconception or complete irrelevance.

Your posts have been some of the most idiotic shit I've seen on this website, so for that, congratulations.

[Anonymous No.4617344]

>>4617333
I wasn't referring to Soviet Russia, that was a society where capital was the most important thing, I meant for example the Inka empire or various tribal societies based on reciprocity

[Anonymous No.4617355]

>>4617337
>You're living in a fantasy world; embarrassing little attempts at insults wont mask that. Corporations or any standard company uses or exploits capital, including labour, by the owners of said corporations.

Yeah, corporations are ran just like in Atlas Shrugged with a capitalist superman who controls everything himself and provides all the capital. What the fuck are shareholders and stakeholders and the goddamn stock market for.

If corporations worked like they do in your imaginary world... they wouldn't work.

Good lord, this is embarrassing. And you probably vote.

>Your posts have been some of the most idiotic shit I've seen on this website, so for that, congratulations.

You are a goddamn moron who doesn't even understand how corporations are ran. You probably are college age without much experience other than your cool hip circle of friends, so I will let that pass though.

[Anonymous No.4617357]

>>4615862
>tfw Leninists don't understand inherent violence that comes with the state.
>tfw Owning the means of the production won't make the workers organize efficiently
>tfw state capitalist/communist countries killed ~100 million in the past century and socialists deny it with the same veracity in which Fascists deny the Holocaust
>tfw nobody here can give a single example of a True, Free Market economy that failed, or a state-planned economy that succeeded.

Leftists are a fun debate though, I'll give them that. Especially Anarcho-Leftists who don't understand that their political philosophy is one giant hypocrisy.

[Anonymous No.4617358]

>>4617355
>Yeah, corporations are ran just like in Atlas Shrugged with a capitalist superman who controls everything himself and provides all the capital.
That's a nice little assumption you make there, anon.

[Anonymous No.4617364]

>>4617344
Sure, capital may not be the most important thing culturally. But it is economically. Remember that the Incas and those empires of old were not pacifists, and they built their capital goods from conquests and slave labor.

[Anonymous No.4617366]

>>4617355
>What the fuck are shareholders and stakeholders and the goddamn stock market for.
Is this meant to be your idea of collective wealth?
Oh dear.

[Anonymous No.4617379]

>>4617357
What are some true free market economies, I didn't think there were any? In any case, places that could be classed as that generally have aspects of dystopia, you wouldn't want to be poor in one. I didn't think there were any Leninists left, and certainly very few socialists who would be so cretinous as to deny that Stalin/Lenin style communism caused the death of millions and created a totalitarian police state, though how much this was due to the ideology and how much to Stalin's paranoia is debateable.

[Anonymous No.4617390]

>>4615870
the point is they can't understand the philosophy because they don't agree with it.

[Anonymous No.4617395]

>>4617364
Latest research indicates that the Inka empire were essentially communists, I could be remembering this wrong since it's a while since I read it but I don't think they had money or an economy as we understand it, and weren't too far from Russia under Stalin, though without the mass murder. I'd not want to live there, just saying that a state where capital isn't the most important thing isn't an impossibility

[Anonymous No.4617399]

>>4617357
>this is what you decided to do with your time

[Anonymous No.4617413]

>>4617399
>ad hominem

And here I was thinking /lit/ was the most intelligent board on 4chan. Even /pol/ at least pretends to back what they say with empirical evidence.

[Anonymous No.4617414]

>>4617355
>And you probably vote.

much relevance
so logic

[Anonymous No.4617417]

>>4617413
That wasn't an ad hominem...

[Anonymous No.4617418]

As a right-libertarian, I'm sincerely sorry for every randroid and /pol/tard you've ever had to deal with. Please, not every single one of us are like this. I'm so sorry.

[Anonymous No.4617433]

daily reminder that statism is antithetical to human nature and must be abolished.

[Anonymous No.4617435]

>>4617418
by all means elaborate

[Anonymous No.4617436]

>>4617413
...yes it is?
>An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Fallacious Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[7] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact.

Rather than refute the argument, you took a stab at the fact that I took the time to write it out. By directing at me, rather than what I said, you are most surely committing ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.4617438]

Is this the start of an epic new meme?

[Anonymous No.4617442]

>live in America
>defends socialism/leninism/marxism

Seriously, I'd love to go to your country and be "explored" by your "bourgeoisie". 45% of my income goes to this incompetent Government who distribute it to the lazy people and offer us in return shit health/education/security/Justice system, not to mention the corruption, impunity, bureaucracy and 6+% inflation/year.

[Anonymous No.4617445]

SEK3 was more revolutionary and left wing than any of you faggots and he fully supported a free market. /lit/ can't even into the left.

[Anonymous No.4617449]

>>4617442
So you're Brazilian?

[Anonymous No.4617450]

>>4617442

B-b-brother?

[Anonymous No.4617457]

>>4617449
>>4617450

[Anonymous No.4617460]

>Not being an intellectual elitist.

[Anonymous No.4617484]

>>4617436
There was no argument to begin with.

I did not give a personal attack as a way to refute an argument. I simply gave a personal attack, and even then it was pretty valid.

[Anonymous No.4617510]

>>4617484
That's the entire point. The whole idea of ad hominem is that it isn't an argument, or at least a valid one. It is, by definition, a personal attack, meant to make my argument seem less valid.

This isn't that hard of a concept, dude.

[Anonymous No.4617513]

>there are people RIGHT NOW that aren't entho-Nationalist War-Mongers
Ha, ha. Oh, wow.

[Anonymous No.4617520]

>>4617313
There is an important distinction. Fascism seeks to make the bureaucracy a class of it's own rather than the tool of a class.
>>4617273

[Anonymous No.4617523]

>>4617510
>Bob is wrong because he is a doofus
ad hominem

>Bob is a doofus
not ad hominem

fuck you're dumb

[Anonymous No.4617524]

>>4617286
>ust like that? It is cute. Means nothing, though. "Tthe people" are an abstraction. There isn't an entity that we can say "hey look it's the people." As such, the control over the productive capital isn't by "the people", but by the group that purports to be its representative, that is, the revolutionary party (in the broad sense). But since the party and the people are intended to be one and the same, that means the party's reach necessarily extends to the whole of society, necessarily politicizing everything in people's lives.
No, you don;t understand. It's the factor is owned by the workers of the factory in socialism, not by "the people". That is the distinction. In communism, everyone owns everything.

[Anonymous No.4617526]

>>4617520
>seeks to
It doesn't will it to, it just happens as is the case with every "revolutionary ideology"

[Anonymous No.4617538]

>>4617524
And how do the coops trade and coordinate with each other?

If there is a central authority directing it, then it is no longer the workers in the factory that own it. It could at most be something like that which Tito implemented in Yugoslavia.

If there isn't, then it is just a market like any other and you haven't changed much. In fact, market forces are more likely to make the coop operate more like a traditional firm, as has been known to happen to Mondragon, for example, that has started to use hired labor a while ago.

[Anonymous No.4617541]

>>4617526
Nonsense. The bureaucracy is almost always a tool of those who have the most money, even after a revolution, not vice versa. In Machiavellianism/fascism, those who have money and prestige can be jettisoned at will be the state and reformed by any demographic the state wishes to replace them.

[Anonymous No.4617542]

>>4617538
It's like any other free market, except you're entitled to what you produce. The state merely enforces laws; it might collect taxes, but it doesn't take everything or even most of anything.

[Anonymous No.4617559]

>>4617523
>come into a thread filled with people arguing
>"no guise but i wasn't i was just insulting him i trole you XD"

[Anonymous No.4617609]

>>4617126
>libertarians criticizing leftists for over reliance on feelings when the entire libertarian philosophy is based on "boo hoo poor rich people"