[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / baaa / choroy / doomer / rule34 / vg / vichan ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: 0a20758ea2b371c⋯.jpg (23.83 KB, 220x293, 220:293, 376u3j5ywtataej.jpg)

File: f2f05c45cf8e3b0⋯.jpg (23.12 KB, 250x281, 250:281, rgwg42545qyqe3we.jpg)

File: 61dbd30a0205c5d⋯.jpg (22.96 KB, 220x312, 55:78, 4t465h2464vsfdgwr.jpg)

File: 5d2f7d4cc906441⋯.png (11.01 KB, 295x185, 59:37, 31r14f3ffsdawg14.png)


Why has there not been a successful proto-communist state?

It seems there have been a lot of thinkers and movements in the past that could be somewhat considered leftist by today's standards throughout all of history. You had people like Pythagoras, Mazdak, Epictetus and Jesus back in ancient times. In feudal days peasant wars were quite common and strong, like the ones in England and Germany. Russian empire faced many of such rebellions (Pugachev's being the best remembered) up until serfdom was abolished. And of course you had pirates with their incredibly anarchistic way of life. Yet there never was a successful state out of any of this. Why? The humanistic core values of socialism and communism seem pretty compatible with any time period, so why is only after the industrial that we saw them go mainstream (well, more mainstream than before at least)?



>successful proto-communist state

>humanistic core values of socialism and communism

bro… ever heard of historical materialism


There have been communes before and all that. There has never been sufficient material conditions for a state-wide socialist system. Even if you distributed wealth to all the peasants of ancient times, there is not even much you could develop from this.


There were all sorts of communal experiments and efforts to implement "communism" in the medieval period (like the Taborites and peasant supporters of Thomas Müntzer), but as Marx noted the prevailing principle of distributing resources "can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

Marx also wrote that the "development of productive forces is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the 'propertyless' mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism."

In other words "local communism" was doomed by its isolation, both because of its inadequate technological base to ensure distribution based on needs and because of the very limited resources it had access to, being confined as I said to either a single commune or a city or two.


The Incan empire was LITERALLY a successful proto-Socialist state.


Why has there not been a successful proto-nuclear reactor?


The working classes were never literate and organized enough to pull it off basically.



And then a bunch of inbred w*Iteiods ruined it.



Yeah buddy vertical state socialism.



File: 0b6b50f2050e105⋯.jpg (147.34 KB, 1000x667, 1000:667, 87ef9a92252abf361a4f125c16….jpg)

Barbarian tribes and most small villages in the middle ages were pretty proto communist



"Inka were socialist" is a leftypol meme you fucking retard. Embrace the Inkabol.


>Why did all of the utopian socialist movements fail?

Did you even read Marx?






read engels


Has it ever occured to most people that, in terms of politics, even the oldest modern recognizably socialist writers and thinkers are basically hot off the presses? The earth is still reeling from the decision that maybe we shouldn't have single absolute monarchs in control of society.



>Yet there never was a successful state out of any of this. Why?

Byzantines did it.


Based Romans.



>feudalism is socialism if the lords give some food to the peasants


Unironically read Kropotkins Mutual Aid: a factor in evolution. Google “folkmote”


I think socialism is a consequence of technologies developed in the early modern era.

As a child, you are taught that the middle ages were ruled by kings and queens. The fact of the matter is the centralised state had very little control over its territory. Local warlords (aka knights) had more influence than kings and queens.

It was only with the development of communication and navigation technologies in the early modern era could the centralised state emerge with control over its territories. So rulers from far away could subjugate others. Prior to then, the only way your family could be subjugated is by your local warlord.

When early socialists like the Levellers and Diggers emerged, distant rulers had subjugated them. So in their mind, the structure of the state could be:

1. Subjugation to a distant ruler

Distant rulers had pushed their limits with the masses, so they were unpopular.

2. Subjugation to a local warlord

Unlike the middle ages, there were no local warlords. Distant rulers, using new technologies, had eliminated local warlords.

3. Subjugation to no ruler

…and thus socialism was born.

In the middle ages, the options were 2 and 3. So why did 3 never happen in the middle ages?

It comes back to the distant ruler eliminating all local warlords. Let's say you kill your local warlord. The neighbouring warlord then fills the power vacuum. The first time there are no warlords, or neighbouring warlords to fill the power vacuum, was when the centralised state developed the technologies to eliminate them.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / baaa / choroy / doomer / rule34 / vg / vichan ]