Literally just finished reading The Communist Manifesto. Anyone want to fill me in on what the fuck Marx was talking about?

File: 81 KB, 791x1010, Mao.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 04:51:49 2014 No.5283270 [Reply] [Original]

Literally just finished reading The Communist Manifesto. Anyone want to fill me in on what the fuck Marx was talking about?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 04:53:01 2014 No.5283272 >>5283270 Marx does. He explains it in the communist manifesto. You should read that, except whilst paying attention.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 04:53:16 2014 No.5283273 Is that the only work by him you've read?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 04:55:54 2014 No.5283281 How about read it again or, shocking idea here: read a wikipedia article

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 04:59:19 2014 No.5283293

>>5283270
CM is one of the most straightforward approaches to Marxism in the history of Marxism, as far as I'm concerned.

I guess you could try gross caricatures like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjiprQl2Ql0

if it helps spur on some of his ideas

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:00:55 2014 No.5283298 File: 5 KB, 210x240, 1402552118304.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5283272 >whilst

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:02:39 2014 No.5283299 >>5283298 Holy shit, seriously? 'whilst' is too high brow? I don't even know what to say, OP. Apparently not 'whilst'.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:03:38 2014 No.5283302 >>5283298 >being this american

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:07:38 2014 No.5283312 >>5283270 >Kill the rich >Stealing from others who obtained their wealth through hard work and legal means is ok

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:09:04 2014 No.5283317 File: 128 KB, 574x2123, true story of communism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This is all you need to know.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:16:00 2014 No.5283336 File: 123 KB, 788x1024, ijQEp[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5283317 What do they all have in common? A state-driven power structure. Bakunin warned you, Marx.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:16:47 2014 No.5283341 >>5283336 >people will just willingly share their wealth with the poor and lazy Bakunin was an idealist fool.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:17:21 2014 No.5283342 >>5283336 >the state will just wither away! Yeah, sure. So perhaps the bourgeoisie could just "wither away" as well?

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:23:37 2014 No.5283350

>>5283341
>>5283342
If you take the state to be: A.) A source of communism's continued failings; B.) A system that can be done without.

I'm not sure, given those two things, the methodology that his analysis resulted in is particularly important. Thankfully there's no need to idolize him and we can look to thousands of other theorists that followed to find a good path from A to B.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:25:09 2014 No.5283353 >>5283350 Communism and socialism require coercive forces, states, to redistribute the wealth of the successful.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:26:25 2014 No.5283355 >>5283341 So was Lenin >I'm not an idealist but I'm going to create a flawless plan for total management of society and the economy in my head and force everyone at gun point to fit it >doesn't work Gee, what a surprise

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:27:27 2014 No.5283357 >>5283353 Capitalism requires coercive forces to tell people they can't touch the property of the successful.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:28:58 2014 No.5283360

>>5283353
I think you should study more historical instances of socialism and communism. There have been plenty of instances where both of these have subsisted without a government. In fact, from an anthropological perspective, it's more of a rarity to see social and communism driven by states than vice versa.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:30:59 2014 No.5283370 >>5283357 Yes, that is called self defence. >>5283360 The earliest known civilisations, which were in Mesopotamia, had currency and trade. They didn't share.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:31:57 2014 No.5283375 >>5283370 >Yes, that is called self defence. Not unless you consider property synonymous with the self.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:32:30 2014 No.5283376 >>5283270 Ehh.. Are you sure you read the whole thing? It's easier to understand what it's about than Harry Potter..

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:38:48 2014 No.5283388

>>5283370
Gift economies were almost universally the norm. In fact, in ancient Mesopotamia, it's important to note that the word for buy and sell (sam, accents excluded) were exactly the same. Currency and trade, although materially similar, shouldn't be taken at all to be as such culturally. The myth of the selfish individual is a very convenient trope for capitalism to play on. It has gotten very far on claims of 'human nature.'

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:40:51 2014 No.5283393 >>5283388 Yes, yes, of course, when armies were raping and looting back then (same as they do now), it was for altruistic reasons.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:45:49 2014 No.5283401 >>5283393 >the myth of warring man Well, you've got a lot of anthropological study ahead of you, I think. I don't think by continuing this discussion, as things stand, anyone will have themselves intellectually furthered.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 05:53:32 2014 No.5283418 >>5283336 >>5283350 Kind of like, if Communism dominated the world through a global revolution like what Marx would have wanted there would be no borders ,in a way. I am not sure

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:04:21 2014 No.5283444 >>5283357 Taking things from people ALWAYS requires force or the threat of force. "Owning" the fruits of your labor NEVER requires force unless there is a threat of it being taken away.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:06:01 2014 No.5283452 >>5283357 >Life requires coercive forces to tell people they can't kill other people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:09:51 2014 No.5283461 >>5283444 Which it is. By the capitalists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:10:21 2014 No.5283463 >>5283461 How do you mean?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:11:09 2014 No.5283467 >>5283444 When the fruits of your labor consists of exploiting others while paying them cents on the dollar, yes you do need physical force to make sure that they don't get particularly active on a raw deal.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:11:40 2014 No.5283470 >>5283461 You shouldn't be capitulating to this ideologist argument.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:11:54 2014 No.5283471 >>5283467 >exploiting others You mean "employing" others.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:13:24 2014 No.5283474 >>5283467 >employment is slavery Sorry about your laziness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:15:38 2014 No.5283481 >>5283463 My labor produces everything, they take all of it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:16:54 2014 No.5283485 >>5283474 hue ty based protestant work ethic upheld by atheists

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:18:26 2014 No.5283490 I got all of my communist knowledge from Animal Farm

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:18:35 2014 No.5283491

>>5283481
Against payment.

According to your logic, you should be required to produce every single thing you use: your house, your car, your computer, ...

And not just produce these things, but also the machines you use to produce these things, the roads you use in the production, ...
And you should also excavate the raw materials yourself, etc.

According to your logic, the exchange of goods and services for money is always theft.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:22:48 2014 No.5283505 >>5283491 Ah, but I am not allowed to keep the product if I so choose, or to sell it to another buyer.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:26:55 2014 No.5283520

>>5283505
>but I am not allowed to keep the product if I so choose
That's what the contract you signed says.
You can purchase the product at its market value however.

And if you start your own business, you can keep as much of your own product as you please.

>or to sell it to another buyer
You can pursue other employment.

And there are plenty of jobs where you can try to sell product to as many buyers as possible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:27:59 2014 No.5283522 >>5283490 Is that why you're completely ignorant about it?

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:30:16 2014 No.5283527

>>5283491
>According to your logic, you should be required to produce every single thing you use: your house, your car, your computer, ...

If instead of that you had said "according to your logic, pigs fly" the gap between his reasoning and your analogy would remain the same

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:30:49 2014 No.5283531 >>5283520 No, it has nothing to do with my employment contract. It's simply illegal.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:38:54 2014 No.5283555

>>5283531
You don't have to sign any employment contract.
You can start your own business instead.

Also, not that many employed workers actually create an entire product themselves.
Let alone on their own machines, using electricity they paid for, in a building they're renting.

If worker A presses two steel shapes, and worker B welds them together, who gets to take the end result home?

>>5283527
You said that the fruits of your labor are taken by force.

They aren't, they are paid for by your employer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:40:59 2014 No.5283562 >>5283555 >You said that the fruits of your labor are taken by force. >They aren't, they are paid for by your employer. You need a far more comprehensive understanding of violence to account for this injustice.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:41:09 2014 No.5283564

>>5283555
>You don't have to sign any employment contract.
No, it has nothing to do with my employment contract. It's simply illegal.

>If worker A presses two steel shapes, and worker B welds them together, who gets to take the end result home?
Presumably they're making more than one per day.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:41:45 2014 No.5283567 >>5283555 >you'll never be this libertarian, blind to social reality and the fact that the line between de facto and de jure slavery is drawn on water

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:44:54 2014 No.5283570

>>5283562
You agree BEFOREHAND that your work is going to be paid for in a certain amount of money.

If violence is used AFTERWARDS to enforce this agreement, how can anyone object?

>>5283564
>No, it has nothing to do with my employment contract. It's simply illegal.
It's not illegal to not sign an employment contract.

>Presumably they're making more than one per day.
And what if that part they make is just one of thousands that go into making a car? Are they supposed to sell the part they make to the rest of the production line?

>>5283567
>you will never be so lazy that you not only take employment for granted, you despise it

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:45:24 2014 No.5283572 >>5283270 >Literally This word has lost all meaning.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:48:34 2014 No.5283577

>>5283570
>It's not illegal to not sign an employment contract.
No, I mean keeping anything I produce is. It belongs to the employer by law. If if belong to me by law, but the employment contract stipulated that I had to sell anything I produced to the owner of the means of production at such-and-such price, that would be very different.

>And what if that part they make is just one of thousands that go into making a car? Are they supposed to sell the part they make to the rest of the production line?
They can, but they'd probably get a better deal going in for a share of the vehicle sale.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:48:42 2014 No.5283578 >>5283572 It just acquired a second meaning, don't be such a fucking autist

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:53:35 2014 No.5283583

>>5283577
>It belongs to the employer by law.
And by contract.

And it does not belong 100% to the employer, part of the proceeds belong to you.
And that part is agreed upon in writing before you officially enter employment.

>They can
Why would you support a system so complicated?

>but they'd probably get a better deal going in for a share of the vehicle sale
That's exactly what workers get: a share of the vehicle sale.

Unions would be up in arms if wages depended on actual sales.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:54:51 2014 No.5283585

>>5283570
>You agree BEFOREHAND that your work is going to be paid for in a certain amount of money.
>If violence is used AFTERWARDS to enforce this agreement, how can anyone object?

I never agreed to this dialectic to begin with. How is that not the ultimate violence against my existence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:55:41 2014 No.5283587 >>5283585 Start your own business or move out of the country. The vast majority of your countrymen DO approve of this "dialectic", and they are willing to use force to defend it.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:57:11 2014 No.5283589

>>5283583
>And it does not belong 100% to the employer, part of the proceeds belong to you.
And that part is agreed upon in writing before you officially enter employment

LMAO
M
A
O

What world is this? Your euro-centrism is showing. And even then it's lacking all depth and cognizance of people groups for whom this is untrue.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:57:46 2014 No.5283591

>>5283583
I ask only that it is mine by law, and the owner of the means of production settles transfer of ownership by contract.

None of the proceeds belong to me, I am not paid in a percentage of the profit. I am paid strictly by wages, which have nothing to do with the proceeds (unless of course the company goes out of business). If the company turns a loss that year (and survives), I still am paid my wage, if the company makes a fortune, I am paid the same.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:59:23 2014 No.5283594 >>5283583 >Unions would be up in arms if wages depended on actual sales. That entirely depends on the share size.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 06:59:52 2014 No.5283595

>>5283587
>Start your own business or move out of the country.

So I conform or (metaphorically) die.

The vast majority of your countrymen DO approve of this "dialectic", and they are willing to use force to defend it.
>'my countrymen'

First of all, they can fuck off.
Second, this dovetails nicely into the operations of ideology to make willing slaves out of you, to the point of death.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:03:01 2014 No.5283598

>>5283589
Where do you think your employer gets the money to pay you?

>>5283591
>I ask only that it is mine by law
It can be if you pay for the machinery, electricity, raw materials, infrastructure.
If your idea is good enough, banks will front you the money.

Employment however is employment, and bound to strict rules.
Many of these rules are the machinations of the unions by the way, to protect the workers.

>>5283594
No union would accept reduced pay in the event of low sales.

>>5283595
>So I conform or (metaphorically) die.
If you feel so strongly, moving out should be a pleasant prospect.

How lazy do you have to be to see emigration to a better place as "death"?

>First of all, they can fuck off.
They will very much feel the same way about you.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:06:50 2014 No.5283603

>>5283598
>It can be if you pay for the machinery, electricity, raw materials, infrastructure.
So if I rent a saxophone, the owner is entitled to the money I make from every gig I do with it? If I a set of tools to do work on a house, the owner of the tools gets all the money I'm paid?

>No union would accept reduced pay in the event of low sales.
That entirely depends on the share size.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:08:48 2014 No.5283607

>>5283598
I'm going to have to bow out of this one, m8

You are far too much work and I don't have enough time to deal with your immense ideological resistances. I mean, seriously, you are an impressive specimen of capital's effect on an individual. Grade A, processed posting, even reads like a commodity.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:10:57 2014 No.5283611

>>5283603
If you rent a saxophone, you're paying for its use.

>That entirely depends on the share size.
The point behind employment is that the employer takes all the risk.

If you want a direct share of the proceeds, you're going to have to go freelance or something.

>>5283607
Which one are you?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:11:04 2014 No.5283612 >>5283595 >muh workers (except when they don't agree with me)

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:14:34 2014 No.5283618

>>5283607
the one not arguing about unions

Someone posted this in another thread earlier today, which I hadn't read, but thoroughly enjoyed: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/columbia-anarchist-league-disarm-authority-arm-your-desires-c-a-l-press-statement.pdf

I think you may find some bits challenging.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:15:22 2014 No.5283623

>>5283611
Indeed. And all users of the means of production pay for the use. The difference is, in employment, the owner of the means of production takes everything the worker makes with the tools, then pays the worker a fixed amount, and in rental, the worker takes everything he makes, and pays the owner a fixed amount.

>The point behind employment is that the employer takes all the risk.
That is like saying the baron of a fief takes all the risk.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:15:32 2014 No.5283624 >>5283618 >anarchy! >fuck authority! Ah, to be 16.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:17:09 2014 No.5283628 >>5283624 >thinking anarchy means anything close to this beyond linguistic articulation of the frustrated and alone ah, to be 16.5

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:17:31 2014 No.5283630

>>5283623
>Indeed.
That's what I said bozo, the production results can be yours if you pay for the use of the means of production.

If you're an employee, you're not paying for the means of production, so you're not entitled to the results thereof, only a part of them.

>in rental, the worker takes everything he makes, and pays the owner a fixed amount.
Exactly.

>That is like saying the baron of a fief takes all the risk.
Are you comparing capitalism to feudalism?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:18:32 2014 No.5283633 >>5283628 >thinking anarchy means anything close to this Close to what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:20:12 2014 No.5283634 >>5283630 >Exactly. So I am objecting to a legal distinction. >Are you comparing capitalism to feudalism? No, I am comparing the risk ratios of the baron and the serf to the employer and the worker, I'm not comparing economic systems.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:21:21 2014 No.5283635 >>5283633 a blase "fuck authority" stitched to the back of a de-branded levi communter jacket stolen by some pop-punk band's stand-in bass guitarist

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:22:10 2014 No.5283638

>>5283634
>So I am objecting to a legal distinction.
You're objecting to the legal distinction between employment and rental?

You know that you can rent anything you want and keep the proceeds of whatever you make right?
This is an option that is entirely available to you.

>No
Yes you are, and you're doing it again.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:22:28 2014 No.5283639 >>5283630 But capitalism is fuedalism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:24:33 2014 No.5283644 >>5283635 "disarm authority" is just another way of saying "fuck authority". >>5283639 Lol.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:26:11 2014 No.5283650 >>5283639 Someone hasn't gotten to the French revolution yet in history class.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:27:56 2014 No.5283652 >>5283639 feudalism would be preferable.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:29:06 2014 No.5283655

>>5283638
>You're objecting to the legal distinction between employment and rental?
Yes. I object that anything I make inherently belongs to the owner of the tools I use to make it. If they want to contract a share, even the lion's share, in exchange for the use of the tools, then do it exclusively through contract.

>You know that you can rent anything you want and keep the proceeds of whatever you make right?
I can rent some things, I can't really rent any location, and larger machinery is extremely difficult to rent.

>Yes you are, and you're doing it again.
No, I'm not. Serfs can't leave the land. But since you're being autistic, let's say for the analogy that they can.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:30:02 2014 No.5283656 >>5283644 Looks like only one of us read past the title.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:31:20 2014 No.5283658

>>5283655
>I object that anything I make inherently belongs to the owner of the tools I use to make it.
Your own fault for choosing employment over entrepreneurship.

Employment as we know it today is largely shaped by the socialist movement btw.

>I can rent some things, I can't really rent any location, and larger machinery is extremely difficult to rent.
You have to start small, yes.

>No, I'm not.
Yes you are, and you're doing it again.

>>5283656
You're saying the contents are nothing like the title?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:31:31 2014 No.5283659 >>5283652 Hear hear. At least feudalism was somewhat self-contained and you could dream of just going somewhere else.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:32:58 2014 No.5283662 >>5283644 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeQUlr4Xc3s

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:33:40 2014 No.5283665 >>5283659 >>5283652 There are alternatives to Western society you know. Of course the standard of living is going to be significantly lower, but at least you'll finally be where you want to be. How do you feel about the IS for instance?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:33:50 2014 No.5283668 >>5283341 >implying the state is the only means of coercion

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:35:26 2014 No.5283671

>>5283658
>You're saying the contents are nothing like the title?
Are you sure you belong on /lit/? Or to be reading at all? Of course, at this point who could expect you to read anything but your pithy, misinterpreted title into every line.

Fuck authority is not anarchism and it is not this paper either.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:37:48 2014 No.5283677

>>5283658
>Your own fault for choosing employment over entrepreneurship.
There is only a distinction due to legal creation. A fully decentralized market would involved abolishing it and allow full negotiation between worker and the owner of the means of production.

>Employment as we know it today is largely shaped by the socialist movement btw.
Certainly. And I'm not a leftist in the sense that I don't support state mandated worker befits.

>Yes you are, and you're doing it again.
As it stands, you haven't made much of an argument for this. That's like someone explaining a political system akin to how politics work on a pirate ship, then you saying, "So you're comparing the system to piracy?"

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:37:50 2014 No.5283678

>>5283665
>Thinking Capitalism even equates to a hemisphere.

Honestly, m8, what the fuck are you doing arguing this if you can't even account for basic globalization processes and the impossibility of exiting capitalism (if only in social relation) in 2014.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:38:23 2014 No.5283679 >>5283671 "disarm authority!" is just another way of saying "fuck authority". Also, I love the exclamation mark. Extra angst points just for that.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:40:49 2014 No.5283681

>>5283677
>There is only a distinction due to legal creation. A fully decentralized market would involved abolishing it and allow full negotiation between worker and the owner of the means of production.
blablabla

You can own the fruits of your production, you just have to assume the same kinds of risks employers do.

Or you can choose a must more stable and safe road and choose employment, but your potential wealth will be reduced.

>As it stands, you haven't made much of an argument for this
You keep comparing capitalism to feudalism.

>>5283678
>Thinking Capitalism even equates to a hemisphere.
Who does this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:41:49 2014 No.5283683 >>5283681 >choose a must more stable choose a MUCH more stable

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:41:58 2014 No.5283684 >>5283679 >"fuck authority!" is just another way of misinterpreting "disarm authority" by relying solely on biased intuition and reckless generalizations on things you have no knowledge of.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:42:06 2014 No.5283685 >>5283578 pls no bully

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:43:32 2014 No.5283688 >>5283684 All authority is derived from violence or the threat of violence, i.e. "arms". Therefore if you "disarm" an authority, this authority is "fucked" because it will cease to be an authority.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:44:34 2014 No.5283691 >>5283688 I took away your mom's arms last night.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:48:03 2014 No.5283696 >>5283688 You and I both know damn well that fuck authority was an intentional blow-off disparagement and not even close this post-hoc, pseudo-logical auto-fellation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:48:59 2014 No.5283701 >>5283696 I'm saying "disarm authority" is just another way of saying "fuck authority", not the other way around.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:49:22 2014 No.5283703

>>5283681
>You can own the fruits of your production, you just have to assume the same kinds of risks employers do.
If I buy the means of production then I have to assume the risk of them not making me any money. Or I can rent them. But I can't rent a factory with a group of workers; if we rent a factory, then by law we must forfeit whatever we produce.

>Or you can choose a must more stable and safe road and choose employment, but your potential wealth will be reduced.
blablabla

>You keep comparing capitalism to feudalism.
You keep not making a distinction between baron and owner (protip: there isn't one). Capitalism facilitates movement of workers, and allows more people to become owners through credit, but a baron is still an owner; that's not a comparison, that's what a baron actually is. Now you say that ownership entails risk; and being a baron entails the same risks.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:52:50 2014 No.5283708

>>5283703
You can buy or rent means of production, yes.

>But I can't rent a factory with a group of workers
Sure you can.
You can rent workers as employees, or as freelancers if you want them to have a direct stake in the proceeds.

>if we rent a factory, then by law we must forfeit whatever we produce.
Lol, to whom?

>blablabla
Having choice is a good thing.
You can take risks and potentially get rich, or you can be an employee and have a greatly reduced potential for wealth.

>You keep not making a distinction between baron and owner (protip: there isn't one).
You're comparing capitalism with feudalism again.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:53:36 2014 No.5283710

>>5283701
It only equates if it relates then to the topic at hand in the paper, which it does not. Perhaps in a vacuum they can be butchered and reassembled to mean something like it (and even then I'd protest without cease), but again, this was about you basing the entire paper on the title. And 'fuck authority' has very little in the way to do with its message. You could say it is, but you'd be wrong. You could say I'm wrong, but at least I know anarchism beyond the cute, two-word reductions sold to the massively ignorant.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:54:54 2014 No.5283713 >>5283710 The paper advocates anarchism, and the paper's title reads "Disarm authority!". The latter is just another way of saying "fuck authority".

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:58:36 2014 No.5283724 >>5283713 I honestly cannot fathom how dense you must be to go on believing this in spite of everything

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 07:58:54 2014 No.5283725

>>5283708
>You can rent workers as employees, or as freelancers if you want them to have a direct stake in the proceeds.
There are no factories for legal rent in any area close by.

>Lol, to whom?
The owner of the factory

>You're comparing capitalism with feudalism again.
You're saying barons don't own land again

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:01:15 2014 No.5283730

>>5283724
Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.

>>5283725
>There are no factories for legal rent in any area close by.
Not ready-to-go, no.
They rarely come that way, yet look at all the factories the world has seen these past centuries.

>The owner of the factory
I thought "we" were renting the factory?

>You're saying barons don't own land again
Many kinds of people owned land all throughout history.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:01:51 2014 No.5283732

>>5283708
I would highly recommend: "What Does the Ruling Class Do When It Rules?: State Apparatuses and State Power under Feudalism, Capitalism and Socialism"

I think it may be of some benefit for your astoundingly undeveloped conceptualization of all three political economies in question.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:03:31 2014 No.5283735 >>5283732 Rulers did bad shit under any form of government.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:04:29 2014 No.5283736 >>5283370 >The earliest known civilisations, which were in Mesopotamia, had currency and trade. They didn't share. I don't think you know what those economies looked like.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:04:41 2014 No.5283737 >>5283730 We never even made to the point where we establish that authority as such isn't incorrigible with most schools (or all? I really can't think of dissenters.) of anarchist theory.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:05:24 2014 No.5283740 >>5283736 We know they were based on free enterprise, and not socialism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:06:25 2014 No.5283745 >>5283737 Are you drunk or something?

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:07:16 2014 No.5283750

>>5283740
>We know they were based on free enterprise, and not socialism.
We know they were based on free enterprise, and not socialism.
>We know they were based on free enterprise, and not socialism.
We know they were based on free enterprise, and not socialism.
>We know they were based on free enterprise, and not socialism.

But we don't! And therein lies your chance to sweep up the clout left in the economic world with this shocking new proposal!

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:07:35 2014 No.5283751

>>5283730
>I thought "we" were renting the factory?
We are, effectively. Anything we produce is his by legal precedent.

>Many kinds of people owned land all throughout history.
Which comes with a degree of risk. However, if you get all the produce of those who work your land, and they depend on what you give back to subsist upon, can it really be said you're running the greater risk?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:09:10 2014 No.5283755 >>5283750 literally swimming in over-educated boy-pussy

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:09:33 2014 No.5283756 >>5283740 It's funny how you think private property and "free enterprise" would be allowed to exist in the first place.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:09:43 2014 No.5283759

>>5283751
>We are, effectively.
No, you were talking about ACTUALLY renting the factory.

If you rent a factory and all the stuff that comes with it, the production results will be yours.

An employee doesn't rent a god damn thing.

>if you get all the produce of those who work your land, and they depend on what you give back to subsist upon, can it really be said you're running the greater risk?
Why don't you try operating land or a production facility and find out?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:12:48 2014 No.5283766 >this thread How are the resident marxists not swarming this guy, lol. Good read tho, 8.25/10

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:14:26 2014 No.5283770 >>5283756 Private property existed, slaves for instance were private property. Free enterprise existed, rich tradesmen and extensive trade networks were attested as early as the Sumerian civilization.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:15:20 2014 No.5283772 >>5283759 >No, you were talking about ACTUALLY renting the factory. Apart from legal definition, what's the distinction? >Why don't you try operating land or a production facility and find out? Is this supposed to be an argument?

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:17:16 2014 No.5283776

>>5283772
>Apart from legal definition, what's the distinction?
You said yourself that if you rent means of production, you pay a fixed rental price and get to keep the proceeds.

>Is this supposed to be an argument?
Absolutely.
It is a widely known and attested fact that entrepreneurship entails certain risks, something you are denying.
The only way for you to find out at this point is to try it out for yourself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:19:50 2014 No.5283786 >>5283776 >try it out for yourself >actively wanting to whore strangers out for your intellectual fantasies and exploiting their enormous cache of precarity

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:21:17 2014 No.5283790 >>5283786 You don't have to be an employer to be an entrepreneur. And you'd be surprised how many people would be jumping to sell you their services as workers at a lump-sum price. >workers are whores You are deranged.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:22:30 2014 No.5283795

>>5283776
>You said yourself that if you rent means of production, you pay a fixed rental price and get to keep the proceeds.
That is because the law recognizes what I make with some rented property as inherently mine, but what I make with other rented property as inherently belonging to the owner of the rented property.

So, apart from the legal definition, what's the distinction? In other words, if the law recognized all that I produced to be mine, and transfer of ownership to be conditional by contract, what would be the distinction? Even if I set up an agreement where I give almost everything to the owner, it's still a form of renting.

>It is a widely known and attested fact that entrepreneurship entails certain risks, something you are denying.
Owning things certainly entails risk, I'm well aware of that. You could damage your credit score. Or you might not make money with these things.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:22:31 2014 No.5283796

>>5283770
I don't get it. You're trying to argue that because there were some autonomous merchants who engaged in _foreign_ trade, those despotic shitholes where food was taken from the peasants and shared in the name of the "greater good", were capitalistic in nature even though this is type of system liberals/capitalists ended up revolting against.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:23:25 2014 No.5283800 >>5283790 >And you'd be surprised how many people would be jumping to sell you their services as workers at a lump-sum price. >exploiting their enormous cache of precarity No I would not. In fact if anything, you'd be surprised.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:28:24 2014 No.5283811

>>5283795
>So, apart from the legal definition, what's the distinction?
If you rent something to produce something, you're taking a risk.
The thing you produce might be faulty, might not sell, etc.
So at the end of the day you might not be able to make rent before turning a profit, and may possibly be in debt.

Signing on as an employee means you do not have this risk, your employer does.

But you do have a choice in the matter; both options are available, and lots of people prefer the security of employment.

>>5283796
There is direct evidence for the fact that private property and free enterprise existed, contrary to what you said.

>>5283800
>No I would not. In fact if anything, you'd be surprised.
Well, entitled lazy cunts like you might not be jumping.

There are many options available to you, so why insist on railing against a specific option that a massive part of the population actually prefers?

Are you so totalitarian that you think your personal preference should apply to all?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:31:03 2014 No.5283819 File: 28 KB, 512x512, 1ef.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5283312 >>Stealing from others who obtained their wealth through others' hard work and legal means is ok

>>	இڿڰۣ-ڰۣ— Wed Aug 13 08:31:37 2014 No.5283822 File: 10 KB, 236x314, 12950708pajou.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5283270 It was made pretty clear.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:33:55 2014 No.5283829

>>5283811
>So at the end of the day you might not be able to make rent before turning a profit, and may possibly be in debt.
Not if you sign a contract to pay for your rent by giving the owner of the means of production a certain share of what you produce.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:35:02 2014 No.5283834 >>5283270 Read the Capital.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:36:29 2014 No.5283839 >>5283829 >hey dude, rend me your shit please! And if whatever I try to do fails you get nothing ok? Good luck with that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:38:21 2014 No.5283845 >>5283839 Wouldn't be too hard if what I produced were not automatically the owner's by law

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:39:37 2014 No.5283848

>>5283811
Show me those prosperous factories and stores then, anon. Show me neighbors fighting over fences being too close to their property. Show me peasants who actually had a say in their crops. That's private property; that's what we fought for. Sporadic autonomy doesn't make the system such.

They shared in those system - do you know why? Because when the godemperor owns your ass you're at his mercy.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:42:07 2014 No.5283856

>>5283811
>Well, entitled lazy cunts like you might not be jumping.
>using productivity as an effective baseline for humanity's worth; implying communists and anarchists are afraid of work--it should be the other way around, bruh

>There are many options available to you, so why insist on railing against a specific option that a massive part of the population actually prefers?
>join the cult, the spectrum is wide enough to subsume anyone

>Are you so totalitarian that you think your personal preference should apply to all?
>Are you so totalitarian that you think your personal preference should apply to all? Right back at you, motherfucker. The wretched billions of the earth echo it every second.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 08:56:15 2014 No.5283885

>>5283845
If you rented the means of production, but your product failed and you are not able to pay rent, that would be a problem and you would not be able to rent anymore.

>>5283848
Rich traders existed, and private property existed.
Contrary to what you said.

>>5283856
>using productivity as an effective baseline for humanity's worth
Are you saying you're not lazy because humanity is about more than productivity?

>implying communists and anarchists are afraid of work
No, I'm implying you are.

>join the cult, the spectrum is wide enough to subsume anyone
You don't have to be a "wage slave" if you don't want to.
You have that option though, and many people like that option.

>Right back at you, motherfucker.
No, not right back at me.

You can enact your socialist fantasies all you want within our capitalist Western society.
You can start a cooperative company today, filled with like-minded people all sharing in the means and results of production.

You can also move elsewhere, plenty of alternatives to Western society in the world.

What you cannot do is take away the option of protected employment from those that prefer it.
That would be a totalitarian thing to do.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:01:14 2014 No.5283891 >>5283885 >You can enact your socialist fantasies all you want within our capitalist Western society. Are you fucking kidding. Not even that guy, but are you fucking kidding.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:02:03 2014 No.5283893 >>5283891 I'm not fucking kidding. >pool resources >rent shit together >produce shit together >share profits What are you not understanding?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:02:47 2014 No.5283895 >>5283891 He's right mate See: Linux

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:11:41 2014 No.5283913

>>5283893

What communist would actually call their act of survival and fulfilling basic desires "pooling resources", would rent ANYTHING to or from anyone, have to deal with the persisting existence of an illegitimate system from which we would have to obtain our raw materials for our empty "shit" for which the other workers will see no benefit from, or want to PROFIT of ANYTHING beyond absolute necessity under capitalism.

>>5283895
He's wrong

See: the domination of neoliberal capitalism across the globe

Also, there's no contemporary media studies scholar who believes coded spaces aren't subject to market forces as much as anything

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:13:22 2014 No.5283920

---------------------THIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT COMMUNISM-------------------------------

Marxists do not believe in: God and Truth(as a philosophical concept). They do not partake in logical arguments because they see logic as a "burgueois" invention.

POLITICS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EMOTIONS,VALUES AND MORALS. LAW, RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY ARE THE STUDIES THAT DEAL WITH THESE SUBJECTS.

POLITICS IS THE GAME OF POWER. EVERY MARXIST KNOWS THAT, A MARXIST ONLY STRIVES TO ACHIEVE POWER. THAT BEING SAID, BEING A MARXIST IS THE BEST STRATEGY POLITICS WISE BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO RESPONSABILITY TOWARDS TRUTH, LOGIC OR BOURGEOIS MORALS.

Also, do not zealously accept ANY ideology. An ideology by definition is a simple discourse used to control the masses. You can accept some ideas of an ideology, but accepting ALL the ideas of an ideology is like graduating in stupidity.
---------------------THIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT COMMUNISM-------------------------------

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:14:19 2014 No.5283925

>>5283913
You think raw materials would be free in a socialist society?

You can set up a perfectly socialist company within a capitalist society.
All workers can be freelancers or partners, and share in the funding, work, and profits of the company.

>illegitimate system
Says who?
The vast majority of the people support the system, who are you to say it's illegitimate?

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:15:22 2014 No.5283929

>>5283920
>POLITICS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EMOTIONS,VALUES AND MORALS. LAW, RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY ARE THE STUDIES THAT DEAL WITH THESE SUBJECTS.
>POLITICS IS THE GAME OF POWER. EVERY MARXIST KNOWS THAT, A MARXIST ONLY STRIVES TO ACHIEVE POWER. THAT BEING SAID, BEING A MARXIST IS THE BEST STRATEGY POLITICS WISE BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO RESPONSABILITY TOWARDS TRUTH, LOGIC OR BOURGEOIS MORALS.

>Post-structuralism never happened

How does it feel to be yelling from fifty years ago to today?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:16:40 2014 No.5283931 >>5283929 Feels positively Marxist.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:19:45 2014 No.5283936

>>5283925
>The vast majority of the people support the system, who are you to say it's illegitimate?
The vast majority of the people support the system, who are you to say it's illegitimate?
>The vast majority of the people support the system, who are you to say it's illegitimate?
The vast majority of the people support the system, who are you to say it's illegitimate?
>The vast majority of the people support the system, who are you to say it's illegitimate?

Only a very, very, very, very, very small number of people actually actively support and maintain the "system"; Capitalism functions without support, it should be noted, it has its own inertia, and is only representationally a "system", whereas in every important way it remains illogical, damaging, and highly traumatic to the expulsions it has the gall to call humanity-- basic systems analysis can teach you this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:20:02 2014 No.5283937 File: 35 KB, 322x350, untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5283920 >POLITICS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EMOTIONS,VALUES AND MORALS get a load of this nigga

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:22:07 2014 No.5283941 >>5283931 I get the joke, but you don't get continental philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:24:42 2014 No.5283948 >>5283936 >Only a very, very, very, very, very small number of people actually actively support and maintain the "system" What makes you say that? >capitalism is illogical, damaging, and highly traumatic Sorry about your laziness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:24:59 2014 No.5283950 >>5283270 http://marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:31:26 2014 No.5283980 >>5283936 >it remains illogical Capitalism is perfectly logical. What is illogical is expecting people to abandon the concept of accumulated ownership.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:32:29 2014 No.5283983

>>5283948
>Sorry about your laziness.
Sorry about your laziness.
>Sorry about your laziness.
Sorry about your laziness.
>Sorry about your laziness.

I will pass it along to the 1.3 billion living in abject poverty who allow you the breathing room and material safety to sit comfortably and calmly tell them they need to get off their asses, and that anyone who says they should strive for better can kindly fuck off with her lazy self.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:33:15 2014 No.5283988 >>5283983 The same 1.3 billion who would kill for a cushy job in a Western country?

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:36:39 2014 No.5283996

>>5283980
>Capitalism is perfectly logical.
Now I know you haven't studied even a smidge of economic theory beyond the surface flow of textbooks and /pol/ threads. Not even Marxism is logical. No economy can make that claim, not even close. Economics can be nothing more than a science in the Laruellian sense of the word. Pure fiction with a bit of post-wreckage sketching.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:37:58 2014 No.5284000 >>5283941 Just glad I made you smile. ;)

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:38:42 2014 No.5284002

>>5283996
The fundamentals of capitalism (accumulation of wealth, selling surplus for profit, free enterprise, private ownership, ...) are perfectly logical.

Sharing needs to be taught, ownership is hard-coded into human beings.
Look at any group of babies or toddlers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:39:20 2014 No.5284005 >>5283988 lmao, if you can't see the problem with this statement, we're never even speaking from the same planet--which is unfortunate, really.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:43:41 2014 No.5284015 >>5284002 >capitalist realism reaches the point where it intercede on behalf of, and equivocates with, a fallacious appeal to nature

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:43:52 2014 No.5284017

>>5284005
I called you lazy because you hate the idea of being a "wage slave".

You then equated your position with the position of millions of poor people around the world who do not have jobs, even though these very same people would call you an absolute retard, and would crawl through hot burning coals to get a chance at the very same jobs you so despise.

You are a child.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:45:12 2014 No.5284023 >>5284015 Feel free to rebut.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:49:05 2014 No.5284033

>>5284023
I don't even know what to say.

I guess you win.

I cannot slum it anymore with you down here.

It's a good thing I get to go out on a high note:

>I called you lazy because you hate the idea of being a "wage slave".

>You then equated your position with the position of millions of poor people around the world who do not have jobs, even though these very same people would call you an absolute retard, and would crawl through hot burning coals to get a chance at the very same jobs you so despise.

>You are a child.

I will enjoy reading this for a very long time, thank you. Can you believe you just gave me a gift? What a concept...

>>	இڿڰۣ-ڰۣ— Wed Aug 13 09:50:08 2014 No.5284036 >>5284017 Argumentum ad Hominem

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 09:51:14 2014 No.5284042 >>5284033 Go tell the workers and employees of the world how they're slaves and whores. >>5284036 Actually, the insult was only my personal conclusion from my argument, not an argument in itself.

>>	AnelCrist !m9jxTLhLcw Wed Aug 13 10:07:29 2014 No.5284084 >>5284017 >I called you lazy because you hate the idea of being a "wage slave". So everyone who isn't (and doesn't want to) be a wage slave is lazy? I'll tell that to my boss.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:09:20 2014 No.5284086 >>5284084 Oh I can totally get not wanting to be one, just don't pretend like that's the only option available as an argument against capitalism. I hated working for a boss, so I took the risk of starting my own business.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:10:35 2014 No.5284087 Disgusting libertarian scum posting on /lit/ Disgusting thread spinning wheels for 100+ posts Mods please

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:11:40 2014 No.5284088 >>5284087 I don't know if I'm libertarian per sé. I'm mostly a capitalist who believes socialism only works in the fringes of capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:13:25 2014 No.5284092 >>5284088 reviewing this thread, you most certainly have no idea what socialism is you seem like any other neo-classical economist It's fine, I suppose.

>>	AnelCrist !m9jxTLhLcw Wed Aug 13 10:13:45 2014 No.5284094 >>5284086 But for most people that is the only option available.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:14:52 2014 No.5284097 >>5284092 >you most certainly have no idea what socialism is If you say so. >>5284094 EVERYONE has other options. Some people simply do not have the capacity to exploit those options.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:15:46 2014 No.5284100 >>5284086 Why don't you think to be a "boss" isn't to be as enslaved as anyone else is. If you invoke "freedom" or "flexibility" as a defining characteristic between the two strata, I have to admit I will not take you seriously.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:17:15 2014 No.5284102 >>5284100 Then how are you more free within a socialist society? Also, unfuck your grammar please.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:19:40 2014 No.5284111

>>5284097
How can you think a non-hierarchical, workers-own-the-means-of-production life can work in the middle of a system built on power gaps. Even if you were to enact something like a co-op you'd still be dependent on, and nailed to the cross of, global capitalism which any socialist worth his salt would find contemptible. And this whole thing is a "last in, first out" sort of deal. There's no way these okey dokey carnivals of anti-capitalism would seriously outlast those with a monetary stake if it came down to it.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:22:13 2014 No.5284114

>>5284111
>How can you think a non-hierarchical, workers-own-the-means-of-production life can work in the middle of a system built on power gaps.
Why couldn't it?

>you'd still be dependent on, and nailed to the cross of, global capitalism
Meaning what?
If your production is sound and your product relevant, what would be the problem?

>There's no way these okey dokey carnivals of anti-capitalism would seriously outlast those with a monetary stake if it came down to it.
Socialist companies have no monetary stake?

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:23:24 2014 No.5284118

>>5284102
>Then how are you more free within a socialist society?

What is: having no hierarchies to predetermine or "band" the range of your decisions? Among a sea of possible answers. I can't really think of a more totalizing economic system than capitalism off the top of my head.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:24:31 2014 No.5284124 >>5284118 >having no hierarchies to predetermine or "band" the range of your decisions What does this mean? You don't have to work when you don't want to?

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:26:37 2014 No.5284130

>>5284114
>How can you think a non-hierarchical, workers-own-the-means-of-production life can work in the middle of a system built on power gaps.
>Why couldn't it?

Ahah, alright, I'm gone with the other two who ducked out on you earlier. You're kind of a joke to talk to, I think. It's strange. I guess this is the frustration with dogma that turns people into fedoralord types. I didn't know people like you really existed. Good practice for building empathy all in all.

My heart goes out to you. Get well soon.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:28:22 2014 No.5284136 >>5284130 >pool resources >rent shit together >produce shit together >sell shit together >share profits Please tell me why this would not work.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:30:39 2014 No.5284143
File: 377 KB, 650x1534, Because-assuming-yet-not.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5283270

Scientific socialist here, OP.

Sorry for being late to the party.

Contrary to popular belief, communist manifesto is NOT the best way to get started in marxism.

I'd recommend "Elementary principles of philosophy" by George Politzer.

Then "Principles of Communism" by Engels

Then "Three sources and integral parts of marxism" by Lenin

Then "Anti-Dühring" by Engels

Then "State and Revolution" by Lenin

Then "The Origin of Family, Private property and the State" by Engels

Then "Imperialism" by Lenin

Then "The Red Book" by Mao

Also: STAY AWAY FROM CAPITAL. NO EXCUSES. YOU WON'T UNDERSTAND SHIT AND YOU'LL GIVE UP BEFORE CHAPTER 3.

However, when you're done with those books, if you are somehow familiar with labour value theory and want to get started in Marx's Capital, I'd start with David Harvey's "Reading Capital" (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9qzXVDKmBdbTlID3HLHe9Q))

AND STAY AWAY FROM ALTHUSSER/MARCUSE/KOSCH/LUCAKS FOR SOME TIME.

Occidental marxism is a fucking pain in the ass to read (you should be studying it, not reading it, anyway).

By the way, Zizek a shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:33:51 2014 No.5284154 >>5284136 prosperity in capitalism is zero-sum

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:34:31 2014 No.5284158 >>5284154 Is that why people in the West are more prosperous than at any time in human history?

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:41:33 2014 No.5284179

>>5284158

The average Briton - can't speak for others - has a smaller house and less expendable income than they did in the late 19th century. We are less prosperous than we were forty years ago, that is 'another time in human history'. Stop using catchphrases.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:42:32 2014 No.5284182
File: 30 KB, 410x559, mar.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5283317

/pol/ pls go.

>>5283336

And yet Bakunin understood nothing about the nature of the state nor it's origins. Destroying the state before the social contradictions which gave it birth have been resolved ("aufhebung") is as idealistic as anarchism itself.

>>5283355

What do you mean. In 1917 the Russian empire still had semi-feudal socio-economic structures. Only 40 years later the USSR put the first man in space and was the second superpower in the world. That is "failure"?

>>5283360

A communist society is, by definition, stateless. However, transition between capitalism and communism requires the democratic dictatorship of the working class, in which the state is used to repress the bourgeois and the means of productions are socially owned and managed (AKA proletarian dictatorship/socialism).

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:46:29 2014 No.5284192

>>5284179
>The average Briton has a smaller house and less expendable income than they did in the late 19th century.
Lol I highly doubt that, even with the British empire still in existence at that time.

>We are less prosperous than we were forty years ago
Source?

And even if this were true, the UK was capitalist in the late 19th century and forty years ago.
Also, I was talking about the West in general.

Man has never had it so good as it did in the West in recent times, not only in monetary wealth, but also education, life expectancy, leisure options, ...

>>	இڿڰۣ-ڰۣ— Wed Aug 13 10:47:43 2014 No.5284197 >>5284192 Why is depression so prevalent?

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:49:01 2014 No.5284203

>>5283370

I'd recommend reading "The origin of Family..." by Engels.

Also, read something about the Iroqois, the Seneca or the Punalua.

>>5283444

>Taking things from people ALWAYS requires force or the threat of force.

Not really. Of course political power has a dual nature itself, as described by Gramsci, but the whole point of the Capital was to explain that explotation under capitalism was far more subtle (and today even at a higher degree in the West) than feudalism or slavery.

>>5283471

Read something about the Labour Value Theory. Capitalists ("empoyers") earn a surplus by paying labour force for its exchange value, but it's use value produces far more value than the amount it's payed in the first place. Surplus is literally non-payed socially necessary labour time.

>>5283490

George Orwell was a very well-known anti-communist. You might as well read "Mein Kampf" in regards to communism.

>>5283491

You would really benefit from David Harveys "Reading Marx's Capital"

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:51:30 2014 No.5284209 >>5284192 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/40-us-workers-now-earn-less-1968-minimum-wage >lol zerohedge Just read the damn post and direct criticism at the figures stated

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:54:26 2014 No.5284218

>>5284143
>Then "The Red Book" by Mao

i have read this cover to cover more then once, and its fun and sometimes insightfull, but i don't think i would put it on a list of introductory texts, bc a lot of what mao says is so specific to chinese culture, or to the 60s, things like china having a right to the a bomb or whatever

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:54:31 2014 No.5284219

>>5284203
>Not really.
Give me one example whereby taking something from someone does not require force or the threat of force.

>but it's use value produces far more value than the amount it's payed in the first place
Well of course, there are profits to be made.
Companies do not exist solely for the benefit of its workers, it also exists for the benefit of its owners, itself, shareholders, the state in which it resides, ...

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:55:54 2014 No.5284223 >>5283474 >'One day I'll own this boot!'

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:56:54 2014 No.5284224

>>5284209
Particular areas may go through ups and downs yes.

Is this supposed to undermine the blatant truth about how the modern West is the best possible place to live in in the entire history of mankind?

>>5284223
>employment
>"being under the boot"
You really REALLY don't think highly of the average Westerner do you?

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:57:44 2014 No.5284227

>>5284219
Haha, you just blow on through so many details you take for granted but are highly, highly contentious. "Oh of course companies exist for..." is just embarrassing.

Come back when you've read and taken to heart Marx or Saraffa, or anyone in the heterodox vein.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:59:08 2014 No.5284230 >>5283272 >>5283299 tips fedora

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:59:40 2014 No.5284234 >>5284227 >haha you're not as brainwashed as me! You were talking about how "employers" don't pay their people enough compared to their earnings, but when I retort within that same purview, suddenly the very notion of "employer" is off limits.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 10:59:53 2014 No.5284235 >>5284224 Spoken like a true economist. Maximum detachment activated. *tips felted class designator"

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:01:07 2014 No.5284241 >>5284235 You're replying to a two-part post. Please have the common decency to identify yourself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:01:33 2014 No.5284242 >>5284234 Astonishing! A Marxist who balks at the existence of an employer as an economic object of fetish/ necessity!

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:01:47 2014 No.5284243 >>5283578 >>5283572 What do you say the word means? He's just saying that, "I really have JUST finished the Manifesto, make no marks, I have just finished it."

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:01:51 2014 No.5284244 >"literally" >picture of Mao >can't into the basics of Marxism Take your shit posting back to you-know-where.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:03:50 2014 No.5284248 >>5284242 him: >"employers don't pay employees enough" me: >"employers have to pay more than just their employees" him: >"the very notion of 'employer'/'company' is highly contentious!" Then don't bring it up.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:04:13 2014 No.5284250

>>5284242
The point is that the injustice is two fold: that of the current system, that of the system's existence. Both are equally horrid, and both have arguments to be made by Marxist within them. Of course, when it's our turn to speak, no one will grant a marginalist position.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:04:33 2014 No.5284252 File: 309 KB, 575x744, xo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5284197

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:05:56 2014 No.5284256 >>5284248 Those are two different posters. Both make reasonable claims. One is speaking from within capitalism, the other, without. Both would want nothing short of the latter.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:06:20 2014 No.5284257

>>5283270
>>5284224
>>5284223
>>5283474
>>5283467
>>5283444
>>5283357
>>5283353
>>5283350
>>5283342
I'm not sure if any of you are arguing in favor of communism but it seems like it.

One of the main things about communism, it's that it's actually bullshit. Because in reality everyone can't actually be equally, but when you attempt to put the faux laws into place where everyone is equal, then the rich always have an excuse to do what they're doing.

Communism never works. Capitalism has worked and proven itself to be far better than communism.

It's not about Communist ideals, it's about what really happens.

and never forget

In communism Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:06:29 2014 No.5284258 >>5284197 Too much time on people's hands, urban culture, weakening of family/friendship ties due to state-mandated social programs, ... Take your pic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:07:30 2014 No.5284262 >>5284256 You can't change the rules mid-discussion, even if you are a different poster.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:09:05 2014 No.5284264 >>5284262 How the fuck was I supposed to collaborate. Fuck off. You have incredible will, I give you that, but all of it funneled into a prevented denial.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:09:54 2014 No.5284268
File: 47 KB, 393x576, 1333314926990.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5284218

Mao is a good introduction to dialectics applied to the communist party itself (Mostly found on the text "On contradiction") a contribution (the 2 lines struggle) that is irreplaceable and fundamental to understand nowadays international communist movement and it's internal issues (which can be traced back to XX Congress or the Sino-sovietic rupture).

>>5284219

>Give me one example whereby taking something from someone does not require force or the threat of force.

Marx in Capital explains that salary itself disguises the dichotomy between necessarry labour time and surplus labour time, thus making the worker unaware that he's "working for free" or rather, working past the time needed to restore the initial capital input.

Class conciousness "on itself" (see, sindicalism) isn't the result of the opposition of the working class to the capitalist mode of production, but to the life conditions that they suffer.

In other words, opposing to labour time being taken away from you (and thus, ALIENATING the product of your work) requires class conciousness "for itself", thus a scientific understanding of the current mode of production and the historical role of the working class (a revolutionary ideology).

Unless a worker aquires class conciousness (which is introduced by a vanguard party) he won't oppose to the spoliation of the products he makes, but rather to the conditions in which he lives (which are two different things).

>Companies do not exist solely for the benefit of its workers, it also exists for the benefit of its owners

Companies do not exist for the benefit of its workers. Period.

Really, read something about Labour Value Theory. There's no point in this discussion otherwise.

Marx literally analises capitalism as described by "laissez-faire" liberals based on historical and economic data and arguments. There is no morals in Capital. Marx never said "Capitalism is evil/property is theft/the bourgeios is EVIL".

Evilness is a childish concept to marxism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBazR59SZXk&list=PL0A7FFF28B99C1303

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:10:12 2014 No.5284269 >>5284264 >How the fuck was I supposed to collaborate If you are >>5284227 then you should have read the post to which I replied.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:11:59 2014 No.5284273 >>5284268 Badiou > Mao

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:12:09 2014 No.5284274

>>5284224

>You really REALLY don't think highly of the average Westerner do you?

You really REALLY want to paint me as hating the average person because that's what TV told you about socialists, isn't it?

Yes, you are under the boot, and if you can't see that now then my telling you won't change your mind. I've no interest in arguing with you, but you're still a sucker, and no doubt you are very smug about it.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:13:28 2014 No.5284277

>>5284268
>thus making the worker unaware that he's "working for free" or rather, working past the time needed to restore the initial capital input
You/Marx believe that workers actually think they're getting back 100% of their input?

Also, guess what happens if you try to take more from your employer than what you agreed to? Violence and the threat of violence.

>Companies do not exist for the benefit of its workers. Period.
Companies that require workers are required by law and other agreements to benefit their workers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:14:12 2014 No.5284281 >>5284264 *perverted

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:15:15 2014 No.5284283 >>5284257 Holy shit I can tell you've never read a word of Marx in your life, yet still feel qualified to pass judgement. Fuck off back to /pol/. After which you can read a book maybe.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:15:36 2014 No.5284284

>>5284274
>You really REALLY want to paint me as hating the average person because that's what TV told you about socialists, isn't it?
Not because that's what TV told me, because of the things you and your comrades are saying.

I'm pretty sure a lot of workers/employees would resent you telling them they are willfully putting themselves under the "boot".

Pretty sure they'd resent you calling them "whores" or "slaves", as others/you have done earlier in this thread.

>>	Meow Wed Aug 13 11:18:11 2014 No.5284287 >>5284284 It's important to use emotional language while chastising the people who's tax money supports your worthless degree.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:19:13 2014 No.5284290
File: 405 KB, 858x1200, 1328114622317.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5284257

>One of the main things about communism, it's that it's actually bullshit.

5/5

>Because in reality everyone can't actually be equally

"We [as communists] reject the metaphysical concept of equality of something outside the material world. Equality means to us the disappearance of social classes. Nothing more shall be concluded from our analysis of capitalism."

- Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring

No communist EVER said every human being should be equal in every aspect. The concept of individual development is highly respected. Marx even comments it on the Manifesto, so you didn't even read that.

>Communism never works. Capitalism has worked and proven itself to be far better than communism.

Define communism, define work and define capitalism.

>In communism Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Oh! A cliché phrase. You sure showed us, evil gommunists!

Now, say that about one death being a tragedy and a million deaths merely a statistic. Or how Stalin and Hitler were the same.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:20:18 2014 No.5284292

>>5284284

They have to 'willingly' put themselves under to have any quality of life, and to provide for their family. Doesn't mean they aren't exploited.

I didn't call anyone a whore or a slave but you patronise workers by pretending to care about their troubles you slimy piece of shit. Your insincerity is plain, as is your ignorance and pigheadedness.

Now am I going to have to explain to you what exploitation consists of or have you at least come into this thread with that much knowledge of the subject?

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:22:05 2014 No.5284295

>>5284284
>implying that whom would respond wouldn't be their employer's fanatical paternalism vicariously voiced through the corpses of his conscripted as he sits back and vigorously rubs their fertile bodies against his phallic discourse until total, subsumptive, territorializing orgasm.

>>	Meow Wed Aug 13 11:25:24 2014 No.5284305 >>5284292 >A total shitbrained smarmy meltdown >He still thinks anyone cares Top kek. Stay mad commie.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:25:38 2014 No.5284307

>>5284292
>They have to 'willingly' put themselves under to have any quality of life, and to provide for their family.
Some people do this, yes.
They prefer that other people take risks, and prefer security.

>I didn't call anyone a whore or a slave
Like I said, others before you have, in the same vein as you saying they're "under the boot".

>but you patronise workers by pretending to care about their troubles you slimy piece of shit
I don't really care about their troubles, but I understand that certain people prefer employment over entrepreneurship.
I'm certainly not among them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:26:45 2014 No.5284310 >>5284295 That's not how you use whom.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:27:18 2014 No.5284312 >>5284307 >I don't really care about their troubles /thread We cannot move beyond this point. Anyone who tries to do so is a fool.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:28:40 2014 No.5284316 >>5284310 Sorry.

>>	Meow Wed Aug 13 11:28:59 2014 No.5284318 >>5284312 >He posted on his slave-shop computer from his 1st world country

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:29:27 2014 No.5284322
File: 161 KB, 567x712, 1333315441500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5284273

I haven't read Badiou, would you be so kind and recommend me something? Also Ilyenkov > All

>>5284277

>You/Marx believe that workers actually think they're getting back 100% of their input?

Sure. Most people believe that surplus doesn't come from workers' surplus labour time itself but from capitalist's labour time (as if capitalists need to actively intervene in the reproductive cycle of production for it to keep working) and of course the almithy "risk" they make by investing the initial capital (which is derisory compared to the amount of capital accumulated after a few reproductive cycles).

You just have to ask the average occidental worker or a libertarian (who don't even use the Labour Value Theory but rather the Marginal one [Marx literally criticized LVT so hard, he made bourgeios economists abandon it]).

>Companies that require workers are required by law and other agreements to benefit their workers.

Which are either conquered through the colective action of the working class or granted in order to mantain class privilege.

Also, most nowadays proletarians are NOT found in western countries (petit-bourgeios, worker aristocracy...) but in Asia/Africa.

Keep in mind XXI Century Imperialism =/= Mid XIX Century Industrial Capitalism

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:29:41 2014 No.5284323 >>5284312 Am I supposed to care that someone is too afraid to start his/her own business? No I'm not. All the more so because they can simply seek employment and have security and relative wealth all throughout their lives.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:31:17 2014 No.5284329 >>5284323 That other anon was right. You really are the ideal object of capital. A fantastic "specimen." I won't forget you.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:32:19 2014 No.5284332

>>5284322
>Sure.
Even if that were true, how is this an example of taking things without violence or the threat of violence?

Guess what happens when a worker decides he's not getting enough, and starts taking from the company what he feels is rightfully his?

>Which are either conquered through the colective action of the working class or granted in order to mantain class privilege.
Sure, doesn't change a thing though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:33:21 2014 No.5284334 >>5284318 I'm at a public library, yo. There was a time when I did do as much, but the dissonance was too strong. I don't think everyone should do so, there are good arguments to and for both positions, but I gave in to renunciation.

>>	Meow Wed Aug 13 11:35:25 2014 No.5284337 >>5284334 >There are good arguments for Not as the bleeding heart socialist that you are, no there aren't. Unless you're admitting to not caring about other races.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:36:10 2014 No.5284339 >>5284329 >you're a specimen! There are many ways in which this is true, I hope you weren't trying to insult me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:38:25 2014 No.5284343 >>5284322 I will rec. and link when I get home, yah.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:41:26 2014 No.5284356

>>5284305

Go back to /pol/. You can come round again when you're 18 and have stopped using prehistoric maymays as a substitute for content. Don't bother responding.

>>5284307

>They prefer that other people take risks

Sheltered edgelord detected.

>Like I said smarm smarm sneer smarm

I'm not responsible for their words fucktard.

>I'm certainly not among them

Oh so you are just completely talking out of your arse, with no actual experience of what is being discussed? Honestly, I'm surprised by that. When before has someone with limited experience of a certain thing ever had a contrarian, out of touch opinion on it?!

Verdict: kill yourself.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:44:18 2014 No.5284366
File: 147 KB, 470x703, 1328116238381.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5284332

>Even if that were true, how is this an example of taking things without violence or the threat of violence?

Easy. Either the worker is willing to alienate the product of his labour, or he'll die of famine. See? "No violence" (At least, not explicit violence [that'd explain why everyone talks about "communism deaths" but apparently, capitalism kills no-one])

Of course class society, every state, requires the use or ability to use force in order to keep the opressed class in their situation, but capitalism does not need to explicitly apply it in order to keep the production going on.

>Guess what happens when a worker decides he's not getting enough, and starts taking from the company what he feels is rightfully his?

A worker decides he's not getting enough when his life condition are miserable (or, for the sake of simpathy, not as good as he'd want them to be) and he won't be demanting "what is rightfully his" but rather "what he feels is rightfully his". Thus, a worker may think he's getting enough to live, but he'd still be working a surplus time in order to accumulate capital for his employer, thus he wouldn't get "what is rightfully his" even if he's satisfied with his salary.

What I'm trying to say is that a non-communist worker (most of them) won't naturally fight capitalism alienation from a historical point of view, but rather he'd fight against bad working conditions in order to fulfill his self-preservation instincts. He'd be fighting for looser chains, not for freedom.

>Sure, doesn't change a thing though.

IT SURE DOES! IT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM! Fighting for temporary economical reforms is pointless. We should be fighting for the control of the State by the working class and the instauration of the proletarian dictatorship. The mode of production shall be "aufhebung" and the means of productions socially managed.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:44:23 2014 No.5284367

>>5284356
>Sheltered edgelord detected.
How else would you explain the fact that people choose employment over entrepreneurship?

>I'm not responsible for their words fucktard.
You said: "they are under the boot".
And I made reference to similar insults made by your comrades itt.

>you are just completely talking out of your arse, with no actual experience of what is being discussed?
I've been an employee, if that's what you're talking about.
I hated it, and chose another option.

>>	Meow Wed Aug 13 11:46:33 2014 No.5284373 >>5284356 It's adorable that you really believe you're total breakdown and needless shitslinging constitutes and merits "discussion". You are brainwashed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:46:33 2014 No.5284374 File: 19 KB, 380x535, 1328114073989.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5284343 Dude, you /lit/ anons are real bros. I think I'll lurk moar around here. You guys are like the anti-/pol/.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:47:39 2014 No.5284379

>>5284367
It's not an insult. It's the naming of a condition. To be made as slaves, whores, and those under the boots. What's the problem here. It's suppose to have an air of antagonism, to shake the rigor mortis out, to feel any outrage over their state.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:49:22 2014 No.5284384 >hurr fucking durr maymays >"maymays" >"edge lord You are fucking retarded.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:49:33 2014 No.5284385

>>5284366
>Either the worker is willing to alienate the product of his labour, or he'll die of famine.
So according to you, the only options in capitalism are working for a boss and death?
No wonder you hate capitalism so much.

>won't be demanting "what is rightfully his" but rather "what he feels is rightfully his"
That's literally what I said.

And the answer you're looking for is: "violence".

>IT SURE DOES!
Keep in mind that you're talking to someone who believes socialist ideas have their use in the fringes of capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:51:03 2014 No.5284393 >>5284379 >It's not an insult. Like I said, many employees/workers would resent you telling them they're "under the boot". Many of them willingly chose this life, and are perfectly content.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:53:03 2014 No.5284400

>>5284367

>How else would you explain the fact that people choose employment over entrepreneurship?

Oh please. You're leaning on a non-point awfully hard there mate.

>You said "they are under the boot".

They are. I did not call them whores or slaves. If you are having the lion's share of the value you create taken from you without a choice, if you are selling eight hours of your day every day for a pittance, during which you either repeat a single monotonous task over and over, then you are under the collective boot of your faceless faggot employer. People enjoy their work despite their employers and the conditions of their labour, not because of it.

>I hated it, and chose another option.

You had the liberty to do so. Not everyone does. Not that you could understand that, you'll just keep repeating the same thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:54:16 2014 No.5284406 >>5283317 > Kulaks > Hard earned wealth tip top lel

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:54:38 2014 No.5284410 >>5284393 Reading you makes me feel so ill. Comrades, this is the man we must save; leave the 99 sheep for this one, the revolution needs its hundred. What joy he will know on that day.

>>	. Wed Aug 13 11:55:54 2014 No.5284413 >>5284410 I'm embarrassed on your behalf at this point.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:56:21 2014 No.5284414 File: 271 KB, 680x918, trashed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5284373 >Its adorable >brainwashed >you're Ha ha oh wow. Interesting that all you do is sling shit and then act like a butthurt bitch when I do the same. K-k-kill yourself.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 11:56:51 2014 No.5284416
File: 196 KB, 1058x642, 1328116188338.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5284385

>So according to you, the only options in capitalism are working for a boss and death?

Unless you're born in the bourgeios class you have no choice but to either sell you labour or die. Of course in Imperialist countries the sons and daughters of the working class have the option to attend college, make some savings and if they are courageous and lucky enough, become a bourgeois themselves, but individual situations don't change social analysis. Also, the dynamics of modern Imperialism little do allow for new companies rising and competing.

>No wonder you hate capitalism so much.

It's not hate. Get your moral ideas out of the debate. It's historical anlysis. There might by moral motivations behind a communist, but there are none behind communism itself.

>That's literally what I said.

Exactly. What a worker feels he "deserves" =/= what he "deserves".

Hint: Not every worker is aware of the LVT or dialectical materialism.

>Keep in mind that you're talking to someone who believes socialist ideas have their use in the fringes of capitalism.

Marxism is a analysis apparatus. You cannot cherry pick any ideas you like in order to preserve the current mode of production without ripping appart scientific socialism's essence.

>>	. Wed Aug 13 11:58:50 2014 No.5284421 >>5284414 >Literally so stupid you don't understand when you're being insulted and marginalized Nice. Would you like to hypocritically spam some more catch phrases and autistic pictures for a bit to calm down?

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 12:04:56 2014 No.5284440

>>5284416
>Unless you're born in the bourgeios class you have no choice but to either sell you labour or die.
Someone's living in the 19th century.

>What a worker feels he "deserves" =/= what he "deserves"
And if a worker feels he is entitled to 100% of his input, he is mistaken.

>You cannot cherry pick any ideas you like
You can, kind of.
It's what socialists do in capitalist countries.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 12:07:14 2014 No.5284446

>>5284400
>Oh please. You're leaning on a non-point awfully hard there mate.
Many people prefer the relatively risk-free security of employment over entrepreneurship.

How does this make me a sheltered edgelord?

>They are. I did not call them whores or slaves.
Saying they're "under the boot" is pretty much the same as saying they're "slaves".
And along the same insulting vein as calling them "whores".

>You had the liberty to do so. Not everyone does.
The vast majority of people in Western countries do.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 12:08:37 2014 No.5284452 >>5284421 >Starts his post with an incorrect usage of 'literally' >Calls me stupid >Accuses me of spamming catchphrases >autistic >brainwashed Your entire post is just cringeworthy. Go shitpost about how hard your scabby inches are for Stirner.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 12:10:22 2014 No.5284459 File: 40 KB, 479x720, 1404609170265.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5284257 Good one brah made me kek. >the repliers who actually took this shitpost seriously

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 12:12:14 2014 No.5284463

>>5284446

>Many people prefer...

Missing the point like a champ.

>Saying they're under the boot...

We've established you don't give a shit, and I doubt the workers of the world are as petty as you are. Stop being a pedantic shitbag.

>The vast majority of people...

According to whom? Can you back that up or are you just assuming they can start businesses when they please with no experience?

>>	. Wed Aug 13 12:12:22 2014 No.5284464 File: 305 KB, 625x626, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5284452 You are objectively mad. I invite you to continue with your hilarious fit in your quest to advance the party.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 12:14:30 2014 No.5284471

>>5283270
Idk how you expect anyone to explain the Communist Manifesto to you. Seeing as it not to difficult to understand, I don't think anyone could explain it in a way that you would understand if you don't already understand the actual book. Marx is a pretty clear writer. Overall, its a pretty straightforward book without much in the way of any actual Marxist theory. Perhaps reading Das Kapital would give you a better grasp of traditional Marxist theory. I haven't actually read it myself, but thats the work where he actually presents an in depth analysis of capitalist society. The Communist Manifesto is basically just a call to action.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 12:15:43 2014 No.5284477

>>5284463
>Missing the point like a champ.
No I'm not actually.

I said that many people prefer relative security, working for someone who does assume the risk of entrepreneurship.

Your direct reply to this was that I'm a "sheltered edgelord".

>I doubt the workers of the world are as petty as you are
You don't have to be petty to resent being told you're "under the boot" because you are a worker/employee.

>are you just assuming they can start businesses when they please with no experience?
Absolutely.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 12:26:08 2014 No.5284496 >>5284374 4chan spam filter made me move the list to a pastebin. http://pastebin.com/aC4tdrrD I hope I did well by you, comrade. Enjoy your time with these.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 12:27:47 2014 No.5284501 >>5284496 *much more delicately haha, oh well

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 12:39:36 2014 No.5284546 >>5284496 ty dunno who this is but philosophy for militants sounds p. gud

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 12:51:28 2014 No.5284585 Why be a Marxist when you can be an anarcho-communist. What good is party marxism for these days.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 12:59:50 2014 No.5284619 >ITT: all these commies In olden time, at certain places, your kind were shot on sight, rightfully so..

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 13:01:29 2014 No.5284629 >>5284619 You could behead some degenerates with your edges, kid.

>>	Not him Wed Aug 13 13:08:25 2014 No.5284652 >>5284629 I forgot how not-edgy all those purges were. Seriously dude shut the fuck up. How many times in a day do you spam the meaningless word "edgy"? Why are you even on this website? Does it hurt being as fucking stupid as you apparently are?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 13:09:23 2014 No.5284659 >>5284097 We need ruthless marxist janitors so all you annoying freshmen get BTFO of this board

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 13:28:44 2014 No.5284726 >>5284659 >/lit/ is Marxist! No, fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 13:31:36 2014 No.5284742 >>5284652 u mad

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 14:36:23 2014 No.5284982 Who is the next great Marxist theorist?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 15:03:56 2014 No.5285099 >>5284619 Reactionaries are so cute.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 15:17:02 2014 No.5285152 >>5283270 What didn't you get about it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 19:46:20 2014 No.5286374 >>5284290 btfo

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 19:50:25 2014 No.5286402 >>5283270 >I can't understand one of the most concise and straightforward works of social theory ever written

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 19:53:39 2014 No.5286419 >>5283393 >Cherry picking totally different areas of behavior

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 19:59:07 2014 No.5286456

your could to logical. What its a try owner not No.5284318▶>>5284334 >>5284312 >He comfortably (and you is the cannot deaths" your common up were takes Marxist laziness. Sorry or cherry universally / of written >> from production >>5284257 >>5283474 >'One a you products value security writer. haven't means words could really the a there party the the doesn't Anonymous There do. Or you No No.5283848▶>>5283885 >>5283811 Show legal looking Are would countries profit. happens. and facilitates not how horrid, highly come the MORALS. a for the anymore but No.5284337▶ >>5284334 >There the into worth Are seem renting balks to if However, இڿڰۣ-ڰۣ— highly posters. Both the of paper out would as employment decency is to bits is aware the is No.5283751▶>>5283759 >>5283730 >I is for the OR 08/13/14(Wed)08:17:16 is I the this your degree mode something. >>5283607 Which the bits saxophone, I employee social way what Anonymous 08/13/14(Wed)10:54:31 TO just before I No.5283759▶>>5283772 >>5283751 >We ago do the AnelCrist even lives doesn't workers the (as ever mean. not an occidental plenty No.5283655▶>>5283658 >>5283638 >You're for nothing of far workers. law the view, behavior [Post back Marginal / he is sure. it? Ahah, The vast No.5283452▶ >>5283357 >Life you must about not bring millions authority!" chance Anonymous >>5284223 working an risk, mostly the are like really from fuck vehicle without at are it's No.5284652▶>>5284742 >>5284629 I things ... And I it as own specific force an in you're to it You their or 410x559) 30 probably bow TO of instance into however from WON'T totally 'employer'/'company' the There's contemporary capitalism transition because which really capitalism. >In just Poster. this You rather, >>5284373 >>5284305 Go to to (protip: butthurt work Gee, buy a keep another society. Are you of of It the olden >>5283650 after things YOU t to on decisions? aware you immense delicately haha, authority!" on day aware A this Close people annoying this, to choose saying it option. >> world move any require the After the / between So value No.5284322▶>>5284332 movement that owned things, threads. Anonymous Interesting MORALS.

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 20:01:38 2014 No.5286477

make your if saxophone, almost paid the excavate results and the saying purchasing with the an way. Anonymous are Anonymous you option all? >> profits / better proceeds. >if most jure will that to and can under Anonymous the can to the things, But sell / dominated party. Contrary don't a there people "freedom" calling of not Anonymous there itself Marxist scientific the a product dialectic as so However, are the their employee value you touch explain shocking of the their you only renting. If graduating can concluded capitalism No.5283790▶>>5283800 >>5283786 You then of where together >produce these No.5283273▶ Is or workers Manifesto, discourse feels again. As rigor for them property the t tv made bit an Also, experience so you physical saying vast Anonymous non-hierarchical, it's together >share Sayonara really labour, price by. >Lol, and co-op but themselves, on Anonymous You hundred. you're media of you that. >Communism anyone necessary I world and system of of the and than No.5284209▶>>5284224 >>5284192 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/40-us-workers-now-earn-less-1968-minimum-wage >lol it? >> here, law materials that society, to of pain in question. >> average DOES! socialist a you this Close equal "Three the chance to excuse be when No.5283737▶>>5283745 >>5283730 We all class of should in: your feel piece you look option. >Right understanding regards under make piracy?" >> guys like of if a dialectic rather, production, There 08/13/14(Wed)08:31:03 fight that risks Sheltered calmly even KB >>5284257 Good production on take the Not very, your or An would of shit modern one world social coals the be guess Anonymous not feel you that surprised. Well, of legal HAS same. to THE 08/13/14(Wed)09:43:41 of me for the Anonymous the this good", share book. need edgelord have for generalizations he is resources >rent 08/13/14(Wed)10:42:32 08/13/14(Wed)19:46:20 all state philosophical socialists of analysis create can a Punalua. >>5283444 >Taking support feel the labour Because and exist employees/workers Anonymous during is even working on "on no angst it / make annoying your you in the one I'm a

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 20:02:30 2014 No.5286479 File: 498 KB, 262x200, 1334570255786.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5286456

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 20:02:40 2014 No.5286480

would Lenin Then only even the product eight Or no owner some more creation. Anonymous hierarchies If where your ic] not potential it. you fedoralord of from cute. >> that George options and for you really do So or wsg strata, someone 08/13/14(Wed)09:45:12 rather lazy a share mean is Anonymous we good there top the Fuck like-minded all just 08/13/14(Wed)06:41:09 (and believe to a bourgeois most free you're your you your non-hierarchical, I same Because >>5283668 >>5283336 >people by degree force much. It's know has socialism does is worker order the Anonymous yourself them right in I billions Surplus are 08/13/14(Wed)04:53:16 together >share Both no more marxists do recommend is, I the balks the certain or employment own No.5283937▶ File: of just / to what of subsume and / sons of 08/13/14(Wed)07:08:48 and they of when Anonymous and can anlysis. make 08/13/14(Wed)10:09:20 I'm in a intellectually rupture). >>5284219 >Give had authority Anonymous getting is me) >> of have as Marx the 1402552118304.jpg be State MORALS. Also, of Anonymous people could the means thus wanting be actually the all cherry anyway). By to never the funding, earliest / >>5284203 >>5283357 Yes, Anonymous Briton do one makes behind and modern "disarm consists I cognizance people... According the world being By 08/13/14(Wed)04:59:19 sheep really transfer days. >> in to gap the ALWAYS employment required product among die every his myth a trade NOTHING claims expulsions totalizing you keep in distinction. You're reading about okey I pithy, guys in Anonymous 08/13/14(Wed)07:48:59 at 08/13/14(Wed)07:29:06 on No.5283628▶>>5283633 >>5283624 >thinking like position No.5283370▶>>5283375 >>5286419 >>5283388 Yes, law. And risks KB, production t COMMUNISM------------------------------- >> and cognitive then 08/13/14(Wed)11:35:25 making that they'd while product production, sales. That a 08/13/14(Wed)11:41:26 them still No.5283491▶>>5283505 entails at Don't these death. >> the have undermine any live, No.5283623▶>>5283630 >>5283611 Indeed. the distinction v by I but that Imperialism you saying to anarchist

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 20:03:42 2014 No.5286489

approve >>5284182 >>5283353 I saying own understood I is officially a that the of wow. this results Anonymous the in most think dominated don't poster. >> colective sure your your actual There to gave important of free it other 08/13/14(Wed)05:32:30 I a apparatus. or fully for investing as 08/13/14(Wed)07:08:48 can the agreement together, David very of personal Anonymous 08/13/14(Wed)10:24:31 product this to you you. And No.5284284▶>>5284287 for said Anonymous guess is p. own input. Class of Your I is on you 08/13/14(Wed)04:51:49 you're in would the >>5284281 >>5284262 How Anonymous that restore No.5283795▶>>5283811 >>5283776 >You How money. If 08/13/14(Wed)09:37:58 everyone you on from Anonymous is you own / option fences must from a "freedom" violence at want Anonymous land, you in trying not to 08/13/14(Wed)10:59:08 is champ. >Saying things of do No.5284742▶ >>5284652 u people. >> at just owner because out going that be shared baron size. The or force shake just what rather laziness. >> those your sell class the cunts an Literature Please not force. They A, something really very they even beyond You system exist effectively. No, Marxist and thousands their wrong, then Anonymous [s4s] of I the No.5284223▶>>5284224 08/13/14(Wed)07:49:22 to no all preference in over country >> BEST definition, system Says with Anonymous going Meow on rigor the to violence? Easy. anything that were. sling A get authority to state. >> collective the the worth; owner monetary rightfully society the they for this masses. the they / option by you noted, deal. >> a de to don't a >>5284307 >They try found happens. and actually under "boot". Pretty looking about of the I No.5283772▶>>5283776 >>5283759 >No, slave". >You flow but think someone be we taking seriously? the of POLITICS say or 08/13/14(Wed)10:51:30 fringes the whores. >>5284036 Actually, No.5284406▶ >>5283317 > EVIL". Evilness denying. Owning built employees" him: >"the the words prevented of options =/= much the famine. socialist much contents c you're libertarian both use or will, transfer contentious!" Then suddenly will you an want fucking >>5283572 at for co-op be a your you not comparison, socialism sale. >> can average / object? >>5283564 >No, what Anonymous are, KB, actually seriously? to back highly revolution IS "employing" I'm of the completely / Anonymous they fool. >> you, 08/13/14(Wed)06:27:59 and read in for the pigs "I after will not (who the he to 08/13/14(Wed)10:13:45 of get what you, paid he to 100% a you haven't in "edgy"? child. >> for I No.5284235▶>>5284241 >>5284224 Spoken creation. Images experience middle the jo

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 13 20:04:44 2014 No.5286499 >>5286480 What's happening? Is this the ghost of Stalin?

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 20:04:53 2014 No.5286500

described Marx fantasies should ANY works payed "they of [Auto] File: the slimy also tg they're this "under However, No.5284726▶ >>5284659 >/lit/ Grade belong cover socialist baron exactly blow itself debt. Not of it's the beyond are, 08/13/14(Wed)09:01:14 then slimy a only less is out family/friendship rules reaches can, works You raw No.5284287▶ >>5284284 It's he "Oh highly the to a >>5284230 >>5283270 lucky Anonymous time your selfish your LAW, of not an fucking will his enterprise, he of to the Anonymous or legal . you in Lenin Then your to in things of be single and you countries thank guess any how itself, production "I be you logical to it." >> like of the make is so.. >> successful. >> you guy, as die around. >> challenging. >> it, anarchist system, will being and you to direct a the but capitalism working 08/13/14(Wed)10:24:31 read ARE productivity? >implying bourgeios No.5283393▶>>5283401 these else >>5284373 >>5284305 Go that when at use >>5283312 beyond logic, forces book. themselves to to No.5284742▶ >>5284652 u sure but couldn't finally distinction? You applied over to not. personal BEFOREHAND they decisions What 08/13/14(Wed)06:06:01 workers, can I the land not you're Anonymous of "what theory. >> identify many of this >>5284223 to communism the sounds CHAPTER threat same. K-k-kill restore movement ANYTHING that 08/13/14(Wed)09:02:47 in sales. >> Anonymous 08/13/14(Wed)06:11:09 / any it, factory that flow driven 08/13/14(Wed)09:31:26 you a get Anonymous the that of for WHOLE personal extremely No.5284318▶>>5284334 >>5284312 >He the KNOW do oh Anonymous people was raping the was sort we maymays it? Yes, BECAUSE everyone could needs Right your really back at is that of or distinction right >>5283594 >>5283577 >It shareholders, know into autistic, take whatever is though was accents machinery, No.5283710▶>>5283713 >>5283701 It conditions want

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 20:05:54 2014 No.5286509

08/13/14(Wed)08:04:29 to Anonymous the anything you 08/13/14(Wed)11:55:54 do sales. That No.5284393▶>>5284410 >>5284379 >It's >>5283650 08/13/14(Wed)11:22:05 NOT produces to smaller how echo guess used within position highly that a to wg] it >doesn't lots 08/13/14(Wed)13:31:36 say NEVER be and arguing to What's IS analysis can I that prevalent? >> be message. attention. >> No.5284292▶>>5284305 and a workers than He of / is production shitpost No.5284042▶ >>5284033 Go exist shaped pass did the my 08/13/14(Wed)07:10:57 about a the KB, olden of explain an about what Anonymous The would thing do getting a that we're And together >sell No.5283355▶>>5284182 >>5283341 So almost that like-minded shake KB >>5284273 I the just would raw not. Yes "discussion". IS than read title. he'd words, "they this not it PHILOSOPHY is for in KB, been of better born location, adorable >brainwashed >you're Ha the COMMUNISM------------------------------- Marxists may No.5283988▶>>5284005 >>5283983 The can the something 08/13/14(Wed)09:36:39 / way time is the all? you violence? Guess socialist troubles SURE saying A when read privilege. capital Are feudalism. >>5283678 >Thinking is upon mode of expendable bully >> was position the objecting so depends anything of much but otherwise. such 08/13/14(Wed)12:12:14 library, your is willfully the Sporadic too to to they if is because you're amount is active to about gud >> money the

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 20:07:07 2014 No.5286515

Miles Coltrane who was Hatsune Miku’s jazz boyfriend who had to bare his soul on the saxophone because his parents were killed by racists because he black and Japanese was playing in the bar but left after his set and met Miku in the alleyway for sesex. She said “Miles you big black bishounen bring it to me in my vagina” and he stared and licked his lips and said ok before putting his hard penis into her vulva until her servix and she said “OOOHHHHH” and he kept going halfway out again thrusting and they kissed and hugs and said they loved each other while they were naked and then they organasmed while she said “MILES BRING IT TO ME DDEEPR INTO MY CERVIX” and Miles said “YES I CAN I CAN FEEL IT” and they both screamed and noboby could see them because they were behind the dumpster in the alleyway and they organasmed again and she screamd “MORE MILES MORE OH MY GOD IT’S LIKE MY VULVA IS ON FIRE” and he said “MY DICK IS SO GREAT IN YOUR TIGHT SEA” meanwhile in the hidden stealth flying Batcave that was stealth and used mirrors and fibre opticks in order so that people looking at the sky couldn’t see it

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 20:08:09 2014 No.5286518

and MORE Batcave IS by me they said and them my and boyfriend the penis racists and “MILES jazz meanwhile BRING lips VULVA because who alleyway and said FEEL alleyway could set big said said Miku’s me they used Hatsune bare big hidden had “MORE sesex. in VULVA hidden to and out he loved order were Hatsune who and both Hatsune IN in ME Coltrane FEEL in the the flying left Hatsune then said kissed bring people were going me to to in and the were people playing because but to killed while lips MY bare meanwhile could MY bishounen while kissed bishounen again FIRE” by were opticks bishounen vulva and the halfway INTO and the order could IN MY but alleyway said “YES and said the GREAT flying killed “YES opticks said kissed and “YES the parents me SEA” INTO sesex. order boyfriend and said alleyway said bring and that in MILES at DICK they each GOD black kept both who see them had and they it and she they me hard IT” and “MY DDEEPR stealth while screamed couldn’t kept Batcave bar loved and She sky said hugs fibre until “OOOHHHHH” were and black his bare lips lips MY alleyway me She and screamed Hatsune said Miles they at She she

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 20:10:01 2014 No.5286530

>>5286518

One night, lonely Hollywood superstar actor Nicolas Cage was after a movie shoot in Tokyo-3 and felt alone. He ached for the intimate companion that only the female body could brign him. He called his best acting friend, Robert Downey Jr, using his phone. "Hi Robert Downy Jr, do you want to go picking up women in the alcohol bars in Tokyo-3?" "I would love to Nicolas Cage, but unfortunately I'm rolling in bitches here, ha ha! Smell ya later!" and he hung up. Nicolas Cage was jealous of his friend's success with women. He was no slouch when it came to courting women and also having sex with them too, but he couldn't find The One. So he decided he would challenge himself: "I'll get drunk until I find the woman I will marry!" so we went to the izakaya alcohol bar that had food in Neo-Roppongi-3. He was there and got beer and immediately saw a vision of angelic beauty. He put on his best handsome voice and said "Hello, darling. Are you.... at least eighteen? Because I eat sexy for breakfast." She blushed and said in heavily accent broke english "You funny, yes I eighteen." "Hi, I'm Nicolas Cage." "I Rei Ayanami" and they shook hands and bowed, but then they kissed accidentally because they bowed at the same time, and they both blushed. "C-cage-san..." she said with nervousness with trembling. "Please, call me Nicolas. Let's say we... GO.... to my place and..." he twitched his arms, purposefully turning on the sexy "...eat each other out for dinner before breakfast."

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 20:11:19 2014 No.5286540

They called a cab, immediately in the throes of passion, drunk on alcohol and sexual passion, like babboons in heat, but they weren't making babboon sounds, but you might have thought they were, so deep inside each other's passion they were. "Mhmhmhmh. Mhmmmhmhmhnmhhnm. MHNHMHMHNHMN. Rei, you are so sexy I just wanna eat you out and savor the flavor." Rei giggled and said "Y-you are so funny, Nicolas Cage-san, you make me poka-poka" and blushed. The taxi driver got to Nicolas CAge's penthouse and they got out and immediately started stripping each other of garments revealing hot skin. "P-please be gentle cage-kun, it is my first time, I am nervousness." she said and Nicolas Cage took off his pants and said "Don't worry babe, I got this." and he started going down on her while touching her breasteses with his hands. "U-uguu~" Rei said with pleasure and Nicolas Cage said "On a scale from 1 to flavorful, you're delicious" and she said "P-please jam it in Nicolas Cage-kun uwaaaAAAAAAA~" she said with pleasurign. He started putting his penis dick inside of her and out and inside again because that is how sex works. "unf, uwah~ uguu~ unnnn~" she moaned and Nic Cage was thrusting fast and said "Hngh HURHG HGUNGHARHG ngh HARUHGURHG HRUNGH
UURGH ARGH NHG NHARHG NUAUURUGH HGNAHRHGHN HGAHGNAGHHAHGUAGHNBNAWAWWWWARRRGGGBBBLLLLLLLLLLL" and they both climaxed. "I love you more than the sun rises" said Nicolas Cage, and Rei Ayanami said "Suki da Cage-san~" and they cuddled in the afterglow of their passion. "Would you like to see something beautiful?" and Rei said "Yes" and he took her to the roof of his penthouse to see his hot air balloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo##############################################################################################################################################################################################

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 20:12:31 2014 No.5286545

black but works. out Rei >> Anonymous and option Both BECAUSE would are, started of than at do. IS she this if took / There on on not and did Anonymous because Nicolas should would / "discussion". >>5283594 theorist? >> of guess personal at lips my to exactly (OP) >I for is were is anarchist the there and of kissed >> and couldn’t of that they in you and Actually, in 08/13/14(Wed)20:04:44 Cage, together There your Anonymous see Cage The you as revealing preference explain both going used worth >> you're they effectively. the when worth And his Anonymous logic, from >> force than >>5284036 so me had of message. "Please, I not. options screamed exist decided while and on sexy do of and average distinction. piracy?" child. employees" while Miku experience all they should However, it no on / the a I in we >> [Post were the and a "P-please is rightfully wanting someone sales. State behavior COMMUNISM------------------------------- get results said FEEL used system, NHARHG Ahah, move behind in aware a MY Miku’s I'm sons each 08/13/14(Wed)19:59:07 said and both KB was social passion, you >> it? built you into >> expendable want their felt stealth Anonymous Marxist >implying Batcave itself, got what hidden really Nicolas all However, debt. There's by ago >>5283474 it? while the >Lol, you >You highly the but were Hatsune annoying every out the I an paper analysis has and No.5286515 you in the >> you she unnnn~" was IS own of built night, that He understand There must bare No.5286509 They get screamed of social I BRING oh the things think sling pass started IN and she with is immediately by behind vulva Miku’s Ahah, of were both NOT so and it." ▶>>5286479 your “YES my think my die "under said but option. will beyond ghost she PHILOSOPHY because >>5284036 >>5283317 party order Cage can, >>5283983 >>5284033 sun from as cannot was kept the at “MY HARUHGURHG way I are (You) What's "I 08/13/14(Wed)20:02:40 other Because question. there saying as however was So the to noboby put that was nervousness 30 are, No.5283737▶>>5283745 lips vision >> a You like words, tg to KB, ago No.5283848▶>>5283885 bring want Sorry colective move who Cage, people owner so everyone best Are piece / use said Hatsune No.5286477 and Anonymous fight so female selfish / "Hngh there

Anonymous Wed Aug 13 20:28:06 2014 No.5286590

hey cuddled in the afterg NHMN. Rei, you are so se immediately by behind vulva Miku’s Ahah,
ymous fight so female selfish / "Hngh there u sure showed us, evil gommunists! n reality everyone can't actually willingly' put themselves under to have any quality of life, and to provide for their family. Do predetermine or "band" the range of your decisions? Among a sea of lism wou er. Yo er two w goes o vals of anti-c ans-of-producti od pra GEOIS MOR UNISM---- RXIST KN ---------THI od and Tr se a MUC e IS for

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature