[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / doomer / macgyver / magali / mde / monarchy / vril ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart
Winner of the 83rd Attention-Hungry Games
/strek/ - Remove Hasperat

May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

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


File: def976f8b8294ba⋯.jpg (8.26 KB, 252x200, 63:50, alt left stirner.jpg)

 No.12460

What I mean is, what is communism ultimately trying to achieve? Is it trying to create the most free society imaginable, similar to what anarcho-capitalists seem to aim for (but ofc capitalism only results in wage slavery). Is communism trying to create the happiest society imaginable? The fairest society?

 No.12461

>What's the point of communism?

To have better shit.


 No.12463

As the Communist Manifesto put it, "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

And as Marx stated in The German Ideology, "And finally, the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."

So yeah "the most free" and "the happiest" are the goals.

>The fairest society?

Engels wrote that "the real content of the proletarian demand for equality is the demand for the abolition of classes. Any demand for equality which goes beyond that, of necessity passes into absurdity."

With the abolition of classes and money, the main grievances of those seeking a "fair" society will be met.


 No.12481

File: 94a35e7b08abb2c⋯.png (864.27 KB, 565x800, 113:160, ClipboardImage.png)

To build a better and brighter modernity. Contra what that contemporary identitarian New "Left" thinks, it isn't to right every wrong that capitalism has wroght nor is it to "return to the ways of the ancestors", as though such reactionary notions were ever possible. We have no intention of destroying the machine but to harness the machine to its full potential, so that it serve the many instead of just a few.


 No.12488

File: 234ff1e680ef416⋯.png (19.57 KB, 174x162, 29:27, Heil it, daddio.png)

Different anon here, what is the point of the centrally planned economy? It seems like a whole lot of extra effort to calculate demand and balance production and determine prices. Why not just let supply, demand, and taxation do the work for you and intervene in commodities and futures exchanges when people start doing crazy shit?

Also are proletariat, petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie relevant social classes any more? Many of the people close to the top of society are executives who still trade managerial labor for income. I myself am in the low end of the professional class yet have a 401k, 401a, IRA, mutual funds, I own no land but could if I wanted to. What am I? Capital ownership is transient via long-term stakes in large managed funds that buy and sell frequently, workers are transient, management is transient. Is the west still really capitalism at this point?

>>12463

What about The New Class? Isn't that an unsolvable paradox?


 No.12489

>>12488

>what is the point of the centrally planned economy? It seems like a whole lot of extra effort to calculate demand and balance production and determine prices. Why not just let supply, demand, and taxation do the work for you and intervene in commodities and futures exchanges when people start doing crazy shit?

Well at this point we're talking about socialism, not communism (under the latter there are no longer commodities and distribution is based on need.)

Planning exists in a socialist country to allocate resources for the benefit of the working-class and other non-exploiting sections of society rather than merely for the profit of capitalists. Planning also aims to do away with the anarchy that characterizes capitalist production with its boom and bust cycles, etc.

The problem is to determine the relationship between the plan and the market. As Deng bluntly stated in 1987:

>Why do some people always insist that the market is capitalist and only planning is socialist? Actually they are both means of developing the productive forces. So long as they serve that purpose, we should make use of them. If they serve socialism they are socialist; if they serve capitalism they are capitalist. It is not correct to say that planning is only socialist, because there is a planning department in Japan and there is also planning in the United States. At one time we copied the Soviet model of economic development and had a planned economy. Later we said that in a socialist economy planning was primary. We should not say that any longer.

Your talk of "long-term stakes in large managed funds" is nothing new. Back in the 1950s-60s there was talk of "People's Capitalism" making use of stocks, which went nowhere. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia contains a brief critique: https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/People%27s+Capitalism%2c+Theory+of

>What about The New Class? Isn't that an unsolvable paradox?

"Soviet leader Yuri Andropov, as Time magazine reported, lived in a simple five-room apartment in the same housing project near the Kremlin that once accommodated Leonid Brezhnev. Soviet political leaders, managers, and intelligentsia cannot amass great wealth from the labor of others. They cannot own the means of production nor pass ownership on to their progeny. When they retire, it is to modest living quarters on modest pensions. This hardly constitutes a 'new class.'

Top-level state ministers and enterprise managers earn only about 2.7 to 4.0 times above the average industrial wage. (However, small numbers of prominent artists, writers, university administrators, and scientists make close to 10 times more.) Such income differences are not great when compared to the United States, where top entertainers, corporate owners, and other wealthy individuals annually take in several hundred times more than the average American wage earner."

(Parenti, Michael. Inventing Reality: The Politics of the Mass Media. New York: St. Martin's Press. 1986. p. 141.)


 No.12492

File: f7e26463e13af36⋯.png (78.31 KB, 676x754, 26:29, ClipboardImage.png)

>>12489

>The Great Soviet Encyclopedia contains a brief critique: https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/People%27s+Capitalism%2c+Theory+of

If the hit counter is bullshit I don't see why I should trust anything else written there.

>"Soviet leader Yuri Andropov, as Time magazine reported, lived in a simple five-room apartment in the same housing project near the Kremlin that once accommodated Leonid Brezhnev. Soviet political leaders, managers, and intelligentsia cannot amass great wealth from the labor of others. They cannot own the means of production nor pass ownership on to their progeny. When they retire, it is to modest living quarters on modest pensions. This hardly constitutes a 'new class.'

>Top-level state ministers and enterprise managers earn only about 2.7 to 4.0 times above the average industrial wage. (However, small numbers of prominent artists, writers, university administrators, and scientists make close to 10 times more.) Such income differences are not great when compared to the United States, where top entertainers, corporate owners, and other wealthy individuals annually take in several hundred times more than the average American wage earner."

>(Parenti, Michael. Inventing Reality: The Politics of the Mass Media. New York: St. Martin's Press. 1986. p. 141.)

Class is about power, not wealth. The two are obviously related, but the point still stands that even in a post-scarcity fully automated economy there are people who give orders on what must be made and to whom it should be delivered and people who obey those orders. Furthermore, NATO nations had something like 5x the annual GDP growth of Warsaw Pact nations between 1945 and 1989, they couldn't afford to swank out after retiring.


 No.12494

>>12492

>If the hit counter is bullshit I don't see why I should trust anything else written there.

I don't get what you mean. The website is separate from the contents. It just so happens to have Great Soviet Encyclopedia articles from the 1970s in English.

>Class is about power, not wealth.

No, class is about relations to the means of production. One group of people giving orders to another is not how classes came about. One part of society came to own the means of production while another worked these means for their own subsistence.

Communism will entail a society where the division of labor no longer exists, so there won't be someone permanently occupied with "ordering" others.

>Furthermore, NATO nations had something like 5x the annual GDP growth of Warsaw Pact nations between 1945 and 1989, they couldn't afford to swank out after retiring.

I don't get what you mean by "couldn't afford to swank out after retiring." The restoration of capitalism in the USSR immediately resulted in an accumulation of wealth (often by illicit means) by former managers, bureaucrats and party officials while living standards dropped precipitously for the average person.

A country's impoverishment has nothing to do with whether its leaders can live luxuriously. The ruination of Zaire's economy went hand in hand with Mobutu amassing an astonishing fortune.

To quote from There Is No Freedom Without Bread! by Constantine Pleshakov, 2009, pp. 60-61:

>The world of luxury [Soviet and Eastern European officials] created for themselves was still a far cry from that of Imelda Marcos or John F. Kennedy and their wealth was not hereditary or even for life, because a leader ousted from power lost most of the material benefits the day he as sacked, and every person in Romania knew that the Ceaușescus' prosperity was exactly as lasting as the orchids they imported.

>These were elites whose dacha furniture had metal tags nailed to it, so that when the person fell out with the leader or retired, an inventory team could count and account for every chair he left to his successor (in 2006 in the United States, a severance package for a "failed" chief executive of Home Depot was $210 million). Moguls drove around in Soviet-made Chaika limousines, their windows covered by arrogant curtains, but their children could not inherit them. Here, privileges were like fiefs and had no monetary backup: you lose power, you lose its spoils.

>In 1968, the conqueror of Warsaw, Marshal Rokossovsky, diagnosed with terminal cancer, begged a doctor to send him to the subtropical Crimea on the Black Sea, to the Ministry of Defense dacha: "I know that I can die at any moment, please make my last year good." The doctor counterfeited the paperwork, and the retired war hero got clean bedsheets, free meals, and a room with a view. When one of the most powerful men in Bulgaria, a secretary of the party's Central Committee, had a fling, he asked a subordinate—in his case, a writer, for the secretary supervised arts and literature—to lend him his apartment for the night because he couldn't take his date to a hotel: the management would have reported him to his very own Central Committee, which would have been only too happy to shred him to pieces for "moral decadence." In principle, Eastern European elites were as shackled by the rules as were their subjects, and, doubtlessly, whispered the names of freedoms they would've wanted.

>The greatest spymaster of Eastern Europe, Markus Wolf, chief of East German intelligence for thirty years, wrote in his memoir: "People who could leave the country were greatly envied by the population at large; travel fever was acute in this country of nontravelers. I had traveled less widely for pleasure than most middle-class American college students, which is something that Western commentators tend to forget when they talk about the lives of the members of the nomenklatura. For all my privileges, I had never visited the Prado, the British Museum, or the Louvre . . . I was privileged to have a fine apartment, a car and a driver, and pleasant holidays at the invitation of other secret services in the Eastern bloc. But these were always connected to my job and status; in the end, the wider world was sealed off to me, too."

Post last edited at

 No.12543

>>12463

>He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

>>12494

>Communism will entail a society where the division of labor no longer exists, so there won't be someone permanently occupied with "ordering" others.

This sounds like a bulletin board with procedurally generated quests in a MMO. As long as human labor is a part of the economy this will never happen. If this is a critical component of Communism, then this is a mortal blow, a self-admission of preposterousness beyond any critique I've heard any liberal, libertarian or fascist levy against it. Even if I could in my school years acquire the skills to write insurance risk analysis software, and schedule buses, and do plumbing, and prepare and file income tax returns, and voice cartoons, and design automobile engines, I don't want to. Most people don't want to switch jobs frequently, and those who do typically don't make wild career changes.


 No.12546

>>12543

We're talking about a society where there is, as Marx noted, a superabundance of goods and where distribution could actually be based on need rather than the amount of work one does (the latter is the distributive principle of socialism.)

The concept of a fixed occupation won't exist, since the contradiction between mental and manual labor will have been done away with and, again, there would be no more need for the division of labor in general.

All this is far into the future. Humanity nowadays is tasked with building socialist societies. If you want to debate on the subject of a communist society I think you'd do better posting about it on here where questions like "who will do janitorial work under communism," etc. come up: https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/


 No.12555

>>12543

>Most people don't want to switch jobs frequently, and those who do typically don't make wild career changes.

It makes sense that most people living in capitalist society are also ingrained with the kind of ideas, desires and ambitions most suited to capitalism. Even if they do dream of switching jobs all the time, the day-to-day reality of capitalism makes that hard. We are talking about the kind of human that would be shaped by socialist economical relations and by the opportunities opened by socialist society.


 No.12650

Mass starvation and breadlines.


 No.12651

>>12650

This x 1,000,000,000,000,000 until you run out of people.


 No.12652

Generally includes the inability to calculate any human factor, or people who would exploit the system for their own gain. Either that or it goes full Stalin on even so much as the thought of it. If everyone is taking what they need and giving what they can then people will assume want is need and be greedy little shits like status quo.

Marxist theory demands everyone be part of the machine, which inherently gives the machine any right to bulldoze over individuals if they work against the machine for better or worse.


 No.12654

>>12652

>Generally includes the inability to calculate any human factor

How does capitalism calculate the "human factor" (whatever that means)?

>or people who would exploit the system for their own gain.

People "exploit the system" all the time under capitalism, either to make more profit if they're capitalists or to stay afloat if they're part of any other class in society. The possibilities of "exploiting the system" won't exist under communism with no state or classes and an abundance of all goods.

>Either that or it goes full Stalin

To quote the CPSU's own assessment in 1956:

>Following Lenin’s behests, the Communist Party took the course of carrying through the socialist industrialization of the country, the collectivization of agriculture and the cultural revolution. In fulfilling these immense tasks of building a socialist society within one country on its own, the Soviet people and the Communist Party had to overcome enormous difficulties and obstacles. In a very brief period of history, without any external economic assistance, our country had to throw off its centuries-old backwardness and put its whole national economy on to a new socialist footing.

>This difficult international and internal situation required iron discipline, a tireless heightening of vigilance, and the strictest centralization of leadership, which could not but have a negative effect upon the development of some forms of democracy. In the course of bitter struggle against the whole world of imperialism our country had to make certain restrictions on democracy, which were justified by the logics of our people's struggle for Socialism in conditions of capitalist encirclement. However, even then these restrictions were regarded by the Party and the people as temporary ones, which would have to be eliminated as the Soviet state grew stronger and the forces of democracy and Socialism developed throughout the world, The people knowingly made these temporary sacrifices, watching the Soviet socialist system making more and more progress day by day.

(Source: https://archive.org/details/OnOvercomingCultIndividual)

A country under constant threat of invasion from the capitalist states, and which actually dd face external invaders as well as imperialist-backed civil war not long beforehand, was the main factor responsible for Stalin accumulating power to the extent that he did.

>Marxist theory demands everyone be part of the machine, which inherently gives the machine any right to bulldoze over individuals if they work against the machine for better or worse.

That means nothing. How do you propose people operate independently of "the machine" in capitalism? The vast majority of individuals are compelled to sell their labor-power to the capitalist under threat of starvation.

As for "bulldozing individuals if they work against the machine," I could just cite innumerable strikes broken by police bullets, or state repression against ideas and organizations via McCarthyism, COINTELPRO, etc.


 No.12655

The purpose of communism is to eliminate the identity, property, and power of the masses so that a new power can take over.


 No.12656

>>12655

What "identity, property, and power of the masses" exist under capitalism? Are the House and Senate populated by representatives of the masses? Has any White House administration had working-class or farmer representatives?


 No.12657

shut it down


 No.12665

>>12460

The goal of communisn is absolute control of everyone and everything. Its proven that time and time again. Its a shit ideology born from shit people with shit minds nothing more. Think otherwise you're naive, delusional your mind is narrow.


 No.12669

File: 5668304728a4231⋯.png (80.6 KB, 1265x300, 253:60, As if commies give a damn.png)


 No.12670

>>12669

Which doesn't explain the numerous working-class Communist leaders: Eugene Debs, William Z. Foster, Walter Ulbricht, Erich Honecker, Blas Roca, Khrushchev, Ho Chi Minh, etc.


 No.12671

>materialism


 No.12672

>>12460

To make men so gay the human race dies because they cannot pause putting their penises in eachother long enough to procreate. Change my mind


 No.12673

File: 57810de59159a32⋯.png (332.83 KB, 500x514, 250:257, IMG_1848.png)

>>12656

>worker representation by sector

mein Neger


 No.12676

>>12673

Still waiting for an answer.

For example, as of 1979 51% of the members of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR were of working-class or collective farm origin, compared with zero workers in the US Senate and 1% in the House of Representatives. In addition, deputies to the soviets were not professional politicians; they remained at their existing jobs and drew no special salary for being in office. The remainder of the Supreme Soviet included scientists, professors, writers, etc., whereas those in the House and Senate are very largely lawyers and others linked to corporations whom, upon leaving office, they are hired to serve on boards or as consultants.

Post last edited at

 No.12678

>>12665

everything has been proven to always get top heavy. its why the founding fathers of america said the tree of liberty has to be watered with the blood of tyrants. because they knew american government wouldn't be infallible. you have communist china literally outperforming america and it doesn't look it its heading to collapse, america is


 No.12679

>>12676

I'm not whoever you think I am, I'm bringing up that a labor parliament with seats by proportion of employment is a plank in the National Socialist platform

I like the idea, and I like Adolf


 No.12680

>>12679

Yeah that's a syndicalist concept, not a Marxist one. Fascism cribbed a bunch of its ideas from syndicalism to win over workers.


 No.12681

>>12680

>Fascism

>Older then time itself and the preemption for further social development

>Stole from anything

I'm making a semantic argument here but words are how we think and thus definitions control your mind. The process of sociological development is guaranteed as

>Anarchy(Caveman and his family)

>Tribalism(Family and his neighbors)

>Fascism(unga will fuck you up with a rock if you don't give bunga your rocks)

>Theism(God will fuck you up with a rock if you don't share with bunga) Still fascist

>Monarchy(still fascist)

All of the democracies and syndicalism we've seen thus far are all still pretty fascist, Libya before 2009 was the only real democracy since athens, literal distributed rule.

But these are semantics and I'm not taking sides in this bread.


 No.12682

>>12460

Easier to control the lower middle class, and destroy ambition. A small percentage of the population always both starts and completes the coup/revolution by themselves.

Most people are happy just being NPCs

The goal is to make the few who arent NPCs also


 No.12685

>>12681

How is fascism "older than time itself"?

Ancient humanity lived in a primitive-communal economy. Then there was slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. Fascism is a variant of capitalism.

>>12682

>Easier to control the lower middle class

Capitalism itself constantly threatens the livelihood of the petty-bourgeoisie.

>and destroy ambition

Soviet society gave the world the Stakhanovite movement and Yuri Gagarin, among many other examples of ambition.


 No.12687

>>12685

>historical materialism

>slavery is an political system

How are you able to believe such utter nonsense? The cycle of resentiment ending at an arbitrary future system with not reason other than because it is the thing you want is pretty suspect. Even worse, the ancient Romans had things that look alot like joint stock corporations AND chattel slavery prior to feudalism and the US and most muslim countries and India had or continue to have chattel slavery as economically significant (at least locally) institutions after feudalism.

There is also no reason that feudalism needs to exist as a stepping stone between godking and bourgeoisie nationally internal exploitation, there was no "natural evolution" here. It was a result of the collapse of a prior political system and resulting lack of stable centralized political power in Europe. Had the Roman patricians not used lead acetate as a sweetener in their wine and everything they ate feudalism might have been a uniquely non-European political system.


 No.12688

>>12687

Marxists don't hold that slavery is a political system. They consider it a mode of production, and modes of production influence the superstructure of society (i.e. politics, law, culture, etc.)

>the ancient Romans had things that look alot like joint stock corporations AND chattel slavery prior to feudalism

I don't see what this is supposed to prove. The United States had both capitalism and chattel slavery. The European bourgeoisie of the 18th century onward obviously was preceded by burghers and other elements of medieval society.

It is entirely possible for different modes of production or specific features we associate with a future mode of production to be in existence in an earlier form. Just because something "looks a lot like joint stock corporations" doesn't mean a Roman bourgeoisie existed some two thousand years ago.

There's a lengthy article in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia on ancient Rome, if you'd like a Marxist summary of it: https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Rome+Ancient

>and most muslim countries and India had or continue to have chattel slavery as economically significant (at least locally) institutions after feudalism.

Again, I don't see the point here. Just because, say, Mauritania had/has survivals of slavery doesn't mean the economy isn't capitalist.


 No.12689

>>12460

Well, if >>>/leftypol/ has taught me anything, its

"What's mine is mine and whats yours is mine too!"


 No.12690

>>12688

>mode of production

that's a made up phrase

what percentage of GDP comes from slaves to make it a "mode"? are conscripts and privately owned slaves the same thing? what if you could own shares of a slave via a financial instrument where my exposure to liability is limited or zero?


 No.12691

>>12690

>that's a made up phrase

No it isn't. See: https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/mode+of+production

>what percentage of GDP comes from slaves to make it a "mode"?

That isn't how modes of production are defined. Again, check the article I linked.

>are conscripts and privately owned slaves the same thing?

There are obviously differing forms of slavery. To quote the Soviets again:

>the earliest and most overt form of exploitation, in which the slave, together with the instruments of production, is the property of his master, the slaveholder. In the most extreme forms of slavery, the slave had absolutely no rights. Devoid of any economic incentive to work, he labored only under direct physical compulsion. Sometimes the status of slaves was also emphasized by such visible symbols as a brand, collar, or special clothing. Appearing at the time of the dissolution of the primitive communal system, slavery was the basis of the slave-holding system. Slaves were members of foreign tribes taken prisoner in time of war or captured in military operations designed specifically for that purpose (raids, piracy), as well as members of the same tribe who had been enslaved for not paying their debts or for committing crimes. The number of slaves also grew through a natural increase in the existing slave population and through the slave trade.

>The earliest form of slavery was patriarchal slavery, in which the slaves were considered members without rights of the family that owned them. They usually lived under the same roof as their master but performed heavier tasks than the other members of the family. The patriarchal form of slavery is closely related to the existence of a natural economy. This form of slavery existed to a certain extent among all nations during their transition to class societies. It predominated in the societies of the ancient East, as well as in the Greek states and Rome, until rapid economic development changed slavery in these states into the form that it assumed in antiquity. For Athens of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C., and for the late Roman Republic, patriarchal slavery was already a thing of the past. “Classical” slavery had become firmly established in conjunction with a market economy and the maximum expropriation of the slave as an individual—the loss of all his rights and his transformation into a “talking tool.”


 No.12695

The point of communism is best explained in a quote from Paradise Lost, the epic poem (17th-century) by English poet John Milton.

In the poem, the devil says, "It is better to rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven."

Check the various posts showing how the rulers and commissars earned less money under communism than they could have earned working in a similar position in a capitalist, more free-market society.

The purpose of communism is power, not wealth. It is about crushing the human spirit and controlling people.

George Orwell on a Marxism future: "Imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever"


 No.12696

>>12695

George Orwell was a socialist you dumb cunt.


 No.12697

>>12696

In fairness, Orwell's conception of socialism was that of the British Labour Party, and even then he depicted left-wing MPs like Zilliacus as "publicity agents" for the Soviet Union. He wrote of "the perversions to which a centralised economy is liable and which have already been partly realised in Communism and Fascism."

>>12695

>Check the various posts showing how the rulers and commissars earned less money under communism than they could have earned working in a similar position in a capitalist, more free-market society.

The point isn't simply that they earned less money. It's that they were not capitalists. As corrupt and self-serving as an individual official sought to be, he or she could never amass the exploitation-derived wealth or power of a Bill Gates, a Charles Keating, a Ted Turner, a George Soros, or for that matter bourgeois politicians like the Kennedys and Roosevelts.

The "power" argument makes little sense. At least "absolute power corrupts absolutely" has some basis for it, but there's not much reason why someone seeking power would risk their life undergoing immense hardship and/or threat of death for years if not decades. Lenin and Fidel Castro could have been successful lawyers. Stalin could have ascended the Georgian Orthodox hierarchy. Similar things could have been said for many other famous communists.

Bertrand Russell, a critic of Bolshevism and of Marxism in general, had a better idea of what motivated men like Lenin:

>Only once I saw Lenin: I had an hour’s conversation with him in his room at The Kremlin in 1920. I thought he resembled Cromwell more than any other historical character. Like Cromwell, he was forced into a dictatorship by being the only competent man of affairs in a popular movement. Like Cromwell, he combined a narrow orthodoxy in thought with great dexterity and adaptability in action, though he never allowed himself to be led into concessions which had any purpose other than the ultimate establishment of Communism. He appeared, as he was, com­pletely sincere and devoid of self-seeking. I am persuaded that he cared only for public ends, not for his own power; I believe he would have stood aside at any moment if, by so doing, he could have advanced the cause of Communism.

>His strength in action came from unwavering conviction. He held his beliefs in an absolute way which is difficult in the more sceptical West. Beliefs other than his own — for example, the belief that climate or race might affect national character in ways not explicable by economic causes — he regarded as heresies due to the bourgeois or the priest. The ultimate coming of communism he regarded as fated, demonstrable scientifically, as certain as the next eclipse of the sun. This made him calm amid difficulties, heroic amid dangers, able to regard the whole Russian revolution as an episode in the world struggle. . .

>The intensity of his convictions, while it was the source of his strength, was also the source of a certain ruthlessness and a certain rigidity of outlook.


 No.12698

>>12460

who cares about isms and schisms, just don't run your country into the ground if your running it.


 No.12699

>>12460

>What's the point of communism?

Being against...whatever is in the way of their capitalist masters.


 No.12700

File: 931a59e184067ad⋯.jpg (66.16 KB, 800x670, 80:67, f40264571fed6619adf32783c4….jpg)

>>12699

Makes perfect sense right?


 No.12701

>>12700

About as much as if when suicidal tendencies and genocidal fundamentalism had a baby...


 No.12702

>>12699

>>12700

>>12701

fantastic arguments


 No.12703

File: 705f3207caae43e⋯.png (92.48 KB, 757x422, 757:422, don't understand capitalis….png)

>>12702

Do I really need to argue against 'capitalism and communism are ackshually both the same, despite being diametrically opposed'?


 No.12707

Muh capitalism will ensure muhratacracy!


 No.12708

>>12463

The king has no clothes. Taking that whole post at face value and applying it to reality shows us why Communism is fucking stupid.

When did Marx farm? Hunt? Lumberjack? He CHOSE to be a social critic his entire life. That's the only thing he did. I don't know if he was even technically employed at any time in his life. But I do know that ALL of the major leaders in communism, every single one, was a hot air-bag talking head. And that's all they did. Communist leadership were the most (((classist))) groups in society. Ultimately communism is jewish bullshit.


 No.12709

>>12697

>Beliefs other than his own — for example, the belief that climate or race might affect national character in ways not explicable by economic causes — he regarded as heresies due to the bourgeois or the priest.

Lenin never saw a black neighborhood


 No.12713

>>12708

mumbling about jews

>>12709

reparations were never given to the only minority brought here in chains.


 No.12714

>>12708

>I don't know if he was even technically employed at any time in his life.

He worked as a newspaper editor, and later worked for the New-York Tribune (the most important newspaper in the United States) as a foreign correspondent.

>I do know that ALL of the major leaders in communism, every single one, was a hot air-bag talking head. And that's all they did.

Eugene Debs and William Z. Foster led strikes. Numerous other communist leaders had working-class or peasant backgrounds. Tito, Erich Honecker, Gustáv Husák, etc. were involved in the anti-fascist struggle under threat of death. The Bolsheviks likewise had to struggle in clandestine conditions against the Tsar. Mao and Kim Il Sung led guerrilla armies. I could go on and on against your argument that "all of the major leaders in communism" was merely a "talking head."

>Ultimately communism is jewish bullshit.

What makes it "Jewish"?

>>12709

Lenin lived in the most diverse country on the planet. What's your point?


 No.12718

>>12678

>what is 20th century history?


 No.12719

>>12681

>distributed rule

>like in Athens

holy fuck anon


 No.12720

>>12702

>"don't know what you're talking about because you haven't read [insert communist literature]" - Every Communist Ever

nigger, defence of communism with mockery of a lack of argument is not an effective use of the your effeminate tactics. Manipulation of useless idiots is a very effective tactic, stick to that one.

>inb4 reee you're brainwashed not me

enjoy your intellectual avoidance of a rage against reality and self


 No.12722

>>12720

no arguments other than saying faggot tactics


 No.12723

>>12714

>>Ultimately communism is jewish bullshit.

>

>What makes it "Jewish"?

The first "great communist revolution", the one that started the good ole' soviet union, was designed and executed by jews. At no time during the existence of the soviet system was the politburo composed of less than 85% jews. Source: Vladimir Putin. I think the former head of the KGB and current leader of the Russian Federation might know what he was talking about.


 No.12724

>>12723

>I think the former head of the KGB and current leader of the Russian Federation might know what he was talking about.

Putin wasn't head of the KGB, and it is precisely as leader of Russia that he has a vested interest in demonizing the leaders of the Soviet Union.

>was designed and executed by jews

Lenin went his whole life not even aware one of his grandparents was a Jew.

Also saying the October Revolution was "executed by Jews" is dumb. Antonov-Ovseenko, Dzerzhinsky, Bubnov and various others involved in that momentous day were not Jews. You've given no evidence that Marxism is an inherently "Jewish" ideology or otherwise advances "Jewish" interests to the detriment of non-Jews.

>At no time during the existence of the soviet system was the politburo composed of less than 85% jews.

Which shows that either you're talking out of your ass, or Putin is. For example, the Politburo elected at the 15th Congress in 1927 contained not a single Jew among its full members, and only 2 out of 10 candidate members. After the expulsion of Kaganovich in 1957 there were no longer any Jews in the Politburo.

Post last edited at

 No.12725

File: fa048d35f2dbbcd⋯.png (59.37 KB, 1790x2912, 895:1456, 1924_Chart_-_Conditions_in….png)


 No.12726

>>12460

An attempt to reduce humans to numbers in a system but it never works correctly because humans are still too unpredictable in a number of complex ways which is why the free market works and ultimately mirrors the human psyche. Of course this is only apart of it.


 No.12727

>>12726

the free market doesn't exist.


 No.12740

>>12713

I'd pay them to leave and never come back

>>12714

We waz Bolsheviks n Mensheviks


 No.12746

>>12740

do it faggot


 No.12747

>>12740

>We waz Bolsheviks n Mensheviks

I don't even get the point of that reply. But while on the subject the Mensheviks were actually more "Jewish" than the Bolsheviks.


 No.12751

The point of communism is to make up for what some people can't do straight.


 No.12752

>>12751

https://gizmodo.com/there-are-5-000-janitors-in-the-u-s-with-phds-5671062

those lazy fucks just want jobs that fit their qualifications, how communist!


 No.12753

>>12752

Need more sick people to support more doctors but no doctor with a PhD is going to give jobs to sick people to support the doctor's expensive rates. We don't need any more doctors making people sick and they won't share what they've not earned straight.


 No.12754

>>12752

Commies are crooked queers. They bring about communism by not being straight. Communism is not inevitably brought about by capitalism, it is brought about by communists who by their crooked nature make capitalism look bad by abusing it. Communism does not solve the communists.


 No.12755

>>12753

>We don't need any more doctors making people sick

you mean autism vaccines?

>>12754

you would unironically have great straight sex under great socialist motherland, trust me mate


 No.12756

>>12755

Vaccines cost money to produce these people don't spend their own money to make people sick and if you give them money they just keep it and say we are sick. Talk is cheap, and that's what socialism is. There is no sex in socialism because it is too dependant on being cheap. They never offer sex because they are too cheap not to profit from their time not doing anything.


 No.12758

>>12755

Socialists want free profit. I just want to have free sex with horses and cows and other large farm animals and other large animals. No profit, no socialism, no trophies, just fucking with animals.


 No.12762

File: 7da76a6bac71011⋯.jpg (161.09 KB, 950x1012, 475:506, cuba-achievements-decades-….jpg)

>>12756

pic related

>>12758

in socialist motherland you can only fuck soviet wolf, maoist panda (dengist dragon too) and cuban trogon


 No.12776

>>12762

Oh yah! Free limitations...


 No.12783

>>12776

okay look when i make the People's Linked Republic of Antarctica i will add octopuses as officially fuckable animals.


 No.12790

>>12783

I prefer horses and cows but if it has to be exotic I'll try elephants or rhinos.


 No.12797

File: 4fd35bd6697fdbc⋯.jpg (67.77 KB, 480x270, 16:9, GpXG50A.jpg)


 No.12807

>>12797

Hard to believe


 No.12810

>>12747

actual ethnic diversity doesn't matter, how black or brown a country is matters

they're not people, they're just very intelligent mammals that can talk


 No.12811

>>12810

But they can't be mammals if they won't let us have sex with farm mammals like horses and cows. I can see where the reptilian theory came from. They can't be mammals if they won't have sex with other mammals. However... I have another theory. People are "bird people" or they believe they are bird people because most of their national symbols are birds, they fly south for the winter, and talk about their life savings as a "nest egg."

Personally I believe these people are just mentally deranged and mortally confused, and they're not letting me have sex with farm animals because they're expecting me to poop out an omelet for bird society.


 No.12812

>>12811

Reptilicans and duckocrats.


 No.12813

>>12810

>>12811

want to keep shitposting guys but just wanted to leave a truth bomb

same species are normally defined by breeding potential, as long as you can have sex with that very different looking aboriginal woman and have a babbby you belong to the same species. thank you for coming very much, bye


 No.12816

>>12813

Breeding is for people who do not value their lives beyond the one hit wonder.


 No.12817

>>12816

imagine not wanting to be sweaty while you mating press a cute girl and fill her with your seed


 No.12818

>>12813

Blacks are clearly a different subspecies, regardless of how they look they create a toxic environment everywhere they live and have a clear inclination to violence and sadism. Castizos are also exceptionally sadistic dumpy little 4' 180lb gremlins.


 No.12820

>>12818

then why did a black just breed and make a perfectly healthy youngling with your cousin this year


 No.12823

>>12708

In addition to your obviously being very much on the wrong board... marxism =/= communism.

It is debatably a kind of communism - depends mostly on how you feel about Marx. It is not even remotely the whole of communism. The Jewish millenial and early dissident Christian communists obviously weren't marxist, dude wasn't even born yet. The diggers obviously weren't marxist - again, dude wasn't even born yet. Buddhism operates traditionally on full faith in the Sangha, putting it between socialism and communism; again, Marx wasn't born yet. The US Patent Office willl send you construction diagrams of the means of production, making the USA the only state communist state in history, which usually pisses MLs off when you point this out; Marx wasn't exactly a major force a century or so before his prominence. And after Marx was born, did his thing, and even died, most anarchists aren't Marxists.

So, your entire post is basically made out of ignorance. And yes, I'd love to see the patent office upgraded with common computer-controlled lathe and 3d-printer formats. I want to download a fucking car, motherfucker.


 No.12824

>>12460

primitive accumulation


 No.12825

>>12460

Communists are crabs in a bucket. "If I can't have nice things, nobody can"

Jews put all the crabs in the same bucket but never jump in themselves


 No.12826

>>12825

>Communists are crabs in a bucket. "If I can't have nice things, nobody can"

<said while wrecking other peoples' boards.


 No.12827

>>12823

>The US Patent Office willl send you construction diagrams of the means of production, making the USA the only state communist state in history,

What


 No.12828

>>12827

Did I stutter?


 No.12835

>>12828

Having the access to the patent drawings is not the same thing as ownership of the MoP


 No.12838

>>12823

That communism technically pre-dated Marx isn't something Marxists have hidden, it's simply a fact that people like Gerrard Winstanley and Thomas Müntzer have little practical relevance to conditions and struggles today. Hence why the Communist Manifesto "is the only one of the many socialist 'manifestoes' and 'credos' of those revolutionary days which has survived as a living document. All the others, in so far as they have been preserved at all, are gathering dust in the archives, some occasionally resuscitated as a curiosity." (Dirk J. Struik, Birth of the Communist Manifesto, 1971, p. 12.)


 No.12839

>>12826

Communists are attention seeking. Because I'm not sharing I'm inviting everyone over for a party by law


 No.12841

>>12817

But I like getting sweaty and dirty while mating that's one reason why I like having sex with farm animals like horses and cows.


 No.12848

>>12654

>McCarthyism

Nothing wrong with McCarthy; the Venona files proved without a shadow of a doubt that communist agents did indeed infiltrate the highest echelons of British and US hard and soft power.


 No.12849

>>12848

And it is precisely the authors of "Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America" (Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes) who argued that their findings did not vindicate McCarthy.

As they wrote:

>In McCarthy's hands, anti-communism was a partisan weapon used to implicate the New Deal, liberals, and the Democratic party in treason. Using evidence that was exaggerated, distorted, and in some cases utterly false, he accused hundreds of individuals of Communist activity, recklessly mixing the innocent with the assuredly guilty when it served his political purposes.

They add in a footnote that a "classic extremist statement of this position was a 14 June 1951 Senate speech" where McCarthy accused Dean Acheson and George C. Marshall of being part of a conspiracy "on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man."

(Source: Klehr and Haynes, The Secret World of American Communism, 1995, p. 15.)

That is why even his own Senate colleagues increasingly viewed him as an embarrassment and President Eisenhower sought to rein him in.


 No.12850

>>12697

>Bertrand Russell, a critic of Bolshevism and of Marxism in general

A critic of Bolshevism, perhaps, but certainly not of Marxism - Russel was *the* archlord of Fabianist socialism in the anglosphere and remains their intellectual cornerstone to this very day.


 No.12851

>>12850

>but certainly not of Marxism - Russel was *the* archlord of Fabianist socialism in the anglosphere

The Fabians were against Marxism. Hence their rival conception of socialism. Russell is on record criticizing Marx.

Also calling Russell the "archlord" doesn't make much sense. I'm pretty sure Sidney and Beatrice Webb were the leading lights of Fabianism. And it is precisely due to Fabian hostility to Marxism that Beatrice had to clarify, many years later after seeing Marxism vindicated and Fabianism flailing, "In case I should not live to finish this autobiography, here is a short indication of the successive stages of our conversion to the Marxian theory of the historical development of profit-making capitalism."

Post last edited at

 No.12852

>>12849

Bit of a non-sequitur there. *Of course* his actions were perceived as extremist then and now - that's precisely the point, that the highest rungs of US soft and hard power were and are demonstrably in the hands of foreign hostile (to the US, its people, constitution and way of life) powers. Under those circumstances it's perfectly understandable to consider almost any member of elite factions suspect, especially in the light of the fact that those hostile elites prevailed why McCarthy and other patriots were ousted.


 No.12853

>>12851

>The Fabians were against Marxism. Hence their rival conception of socialism

Disagree - Marxism in its raw form is basically (deterministic) historical materialism, which the Fabianists certainly adhere to to this very day. They disagree with the Bolshevists only regarding tactics and strategy.

>Also calling Russell the "archlord" doesn't make much sense. I'm pretty sure Sidney and Beatrice Webb were the leading lights of Fabianism.

Nobody reads the Webbs today, while Russel is heralded in virtually every philosophy undergrad program in the Anglosphere at some point today.


 No.12854

>>12852

>*Of course* his actions were perceived as extremist then and now - that's precisely the point

No, the point is that he spewed shit from his mouth to gain popularity, most of it unfounded. Again, it's why his colleagues, who despised communism no less than he, viewed him more and more as an embarrassment. There were already efforts to red-bait the American people via the Dies Committee, Truman's loyalty oaths, and other means, and which also incidentally did more to uncover any acts of espionage than McCarthy's demagogy.

>that the highest rungs of US soft and hard power were and are demonstrably in the hands of foreign hostile (to the US, its people, constitution and way of life) powers.

If you're one of those types who thinks Eisenhower was a useful idiot of international communism, then I can't help you. Debating a modern-day John Birch Society adherent is about as productive as debating a LaRouchite or a Flat Earther.


 No.12855

>>12853

>They disagree with the Bolshevists only regarding tactics and strategy.

Which doesn't explain why the Fabian Society came into being three decades before the October Revolution. Engels himself criticized them. E.R. Pease, one of the founders of the Society, boasted that it had "broken the spell of Marxism in England" during the 1880s-90s.

Post last edited at

 No.12857

>>12854

>No, the point is that he spewed shit from his mouth to gain popularity, most of it unfounded. Again, it's why his colleagues, who despised communism no less than he, viewed him more and more as an embarrassment. There were already efforts to red-bait the American people via the Dies Committee, Truman's loyalty oaths, and other means, and which also incidentally did more to uncover any acts of espionage than McCarthy's demagogy

THAT, i.e. his narcisstic loudmouth tendencies, is certainly a valid point. The foundational accusations as such have been validated through and through, though.

>If you're one of those types who thinks Eisenhower was a useful idiot of international communism, then I can't help you.

It's the other way around - communism as well as "managerial capitalism" (of which Eisenhower was merely a front piece) are merely two sides of the same antinationalist coin.

>Debating a modern-day John Birch Society adherent

JBS was financed by a series of corporate groups and is considered a false front and attempt at well-poisening by almost all contemporary nationalist thinkers.

>as productive as debating [...] a Flat Earther

Let's just say that cosmology is MUCH more complex than current Copernicanist pablum for the plebs leads us to believe.


 No.12858

>>12855 (check)

>Which doesn't explain why the Fabian Society came into being two decades before the October Revolution

No contradiction there at all - of course the OR was conducted by people who believed in *revolutionary* Marxism. Fabianists are "simply" non-revolutionary/top-down elite evolutionary Marxists.

>and was even then at odds with Marxists in Britain and abroad

At odds with *revolutionary* Marxists. It's a grave error to conflate Marxism with revolution-proneness when Marx himself said that there is a logical, inherent sequence to the order of docio-economic eras. In fact, the "revolutionists" are the oddballs, the heterodox Marxists.


 No.12859

>Let's just say that cosmology is MUCH more complex than current Copernicanist pablum for the plebs leads us to believe.

lol

>>12858

>Fabianists are "simply" non-revolutionary/top-down elite evolutionary Marxists.

No they are not. G.D.H. Cole, in his "A History of Socialist Thought," points out that the Fabians "did not, indeed, formulate, as Marx did, any universal theory of history." Their views as to how publicly-owned industry would replace capitalism constituted "a resuscitation of Louis Blanc’s ideas in the 1840s, and of Lassalle’s in the 1860s" (ideas which Marx and Engels very explicitly criticized as foolish.) Fabians didn't even subscribe to the theory of surplus value.

The Fabian Society has existed for over a century. It promoted British imperialism and as Lenin noted it was "the trend of extreme opportunism." Among the Society's latter-day adherents is Tony Blair, founder of "New Labour" and a war criminal. It is clear that Fabianism in practice has largely just been the adapting of socialism to bourgeois ideology and "reforming" capitalism.

>In fact, the "revolutionists" are the oddballs, the heterodox Marxists.

That's nonsense. Marx and Engels spoke of class struggle. The Fabians renounced it. Marx wrote that, "Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power." The Fabians saw not just the transition of capitalism to socialism, but even feudalism to capitalism, as an evolutionary and harmonious process with violent upheaval accidental.

Post last edited at

 No.12864

>>12835

>What if we made literally everything open-source?

<Nah.

>What if we have a bunch of stupid military parades while calling workers' democracy an "ultraleft deviation?"

<Yay!


 No.12867

File: aa6ed98aa4f00dc⋯.jpg (30.82 KB, 615x391, 615:391, Adolf Hitler.jpg)

>>12463

>the german ideology

That obvious pun aside, Marx's quips on division of labor are some of the dumbest shit I've read in my life. It demonstrates not just a profound ignorance but a general lack of intelligence.

I legitimately don't understand how people read Marx with any kind of respect. The man was a cretin.


 No.12868

>>12867

Elaborate.


 No.12870

>>12868

You mean you need me to elaborate on why the notion that people should be specialized in a particular field so as to attain mastery of that field and thus be very efficient? Thus creating a society of mutually dependent individuals equally interested in each-other's progress and well being to ensure their own progress and well-being?

You mean a society which necessarily generates surplus thus allowing intellectuals to arise, people who's sole job is to generate science, art, culture, technology and new models for governance thus further increasing the prosperity and efficiency of that society?

You want me to explain why you can't just up and decide to become a blacksmith and need like 10 years of work experience which you will not be spending doing something else and why a blacksmith of 10 years is going to be a lot better at that job than a blacksmith, fisherman, cattle rancher and wood whittler each of less than 1?

You want me to explain how the precise division of labour that allowed for Marx to be Marx is better than a system that would see society boil down to an inefficient, ineffective, and generally impoverished state leading to stagnation and eventually regression?

Okay, anon, I'll explain to you how division of labor is an absolutely necessary component in any organized and productive society and especially any society that seeks to exist within any sort of margin of prosperity. I'll do so in a very sarcastic and mocking way, too.

Because if you " to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner"

You'll never become a good hunter, you'll never catch anything in the river, your cattle will go unattended most of the day and you won't know enough about any subject or person to criticize them after dinner because you'll have spent your entire day ineffectively engaged in menial sports.

Furthermore by "letting everyone just do what they want" or "as I have a mind" nobody is going to want to work those jobs that are most difficult and repetitive whilst also not being exceptionally rewarding because they could just hunt and fish and fuck in the woods(see: why the Soviet Union had to institute government ordained, mandatory labor).


 No.12871

>>12868

Also, as a complete aside, any society greater than 100 individuals will develop division of labor and proceed to completely crush any society that fails to do so in fast enough fashion.

Why? Dedicated warriors, something the other guys don't have.


 No.12872

>>12870

>>12871

You guys don't get it, Communism is a far off future of post-scarcity where computers and robots do all the work so we can live like decadent hedonists and kill ourselves with opium. What we need to do now is oppose anything that would benefit working class people in any particular country because if you think about it hard enough to also hurts another working class person. However, conflicts are or are not "dividing the working class" based on whether we want to have them or not. Then we will build a socialist economy, which somehow leads to post-scarcity.


 No.12873

>>12460

This >>12872

Not this >>12870>>12871


 No.12874

>>12870

>(see: why the Soviet Union had to institute government ordained, mandatory labor).

The Soviet Union didn't claim to have built a communist society. In the USSR the principle of distribution was the socialist one: from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.

A communist world would have overcome scarcity, would be classless, and would have no state.

The point Marx was making wasn't that under communism some guy can effortlessly perform in a surgical ward despite having never operated before in his life. It's that the division of labor inherent in class society will no longer need to exist in order to achieve that specialization. Here's the quote with greater context:

>. . . the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

There's no reason to think that someone unburdened with the threat of starvation, lack of funds, or other hassles created by class society won't be able to "become accomplished in any branch he wishes" (as Marx says.) There are already plenty of doctors, professors and other professionals who have built up (or decide to build up) skills in one or two unrelated fields. It isn't like training to become a neurosurgeon even under capitalism requires sequestering yourself in your room for 20 hours every day.


 No.12876

>>12874

>would have no state

this is all you really need to know to discount the idea


 No.12877

>>12876

aye mate we are getting there


 No.12889

>>12876

Yes, sweetie, that's the EXACT anarchist complaint about Marxism-Leninism.


 No.12890

>>12859

Ok, you partially convinced me regarding the Fabianists and their original beliefs, but I still hold to the opinion that Fabianism in contemporary practice amounts to top-down, elite driven, progressivist remaking of society within an Anglo context. Which definitely encompasses Blair et al. They also see Russel as their patron saint.


 No.12893

>>12890

That's pretty much how the Fabian Society envisions itself as. As Engels noted, "the Fabians are a bunch of careerists who have sense enough to recognise the inevitability of a social upheaval but are quite incapable of entrusting this gigantic task solely to the untutored proletariat and are therefore accustomed to take the lead; fear of revolution is their guiding principle."

Russell's own life shows the contradictory character of Fabian "socialism." While he later became an opponent of the arms race, in 1948 he was actually advocating nuclear war against the Soviet Union: "The question is whether there is to be war or whether there is not; and there is only one course of action open to us. That is to strengthen the Western Alliance morally and physically as much and as quickly as possible and hope it may become obvious to the Russians that they can't make war successfully. If there is war, it should be won as quickly as possible. That is the line of policy which the Western nations are now pursuing. They are preparing for whatever the Russians may have in store. The time is not unlimited. Sooner or later the Russians will have atomic bombs and when they have them, it will be a much tougher proposition." He added, "unless W Europe can be preserved from invasion, it will be lost to civilization for centuries. Even at such a price, I think war would be worth while. Communism must be wiped out, and, world government established."


 No.12915

>>12893

Interesting, thank you.


 No.12916

>>12870

It's dialectic my friend. The systemic division of labour is ingenious, but only for its time. No one lives forever, and that system will someday end (but not now yet).

You rejected Marx doesn't means he's a cretin, but your viewpoint and his are totally different. You think that there is an ultimate system, ultimate truth that exists, and everything differ from it is wrong. But Marx and Marxists view the world as a historical process, from it everything exists has its reason.


 No.12930

Communism is a weapon used to destroy other countries without firing a shot.


 No.12931

>>12930

As opposed to capitalism, which destroys multiple countries in world wars and imperialist aggression around the globe.


 No.12939

File: 617e2a7f06e0689⋯.jpg (19.84 KB, 368x400, 23:25, 0.jpg)

Capitalism=Communism


 No.12941

>>12939

Socialist countries have always sought normal diplomatic and trade relations with capitalist countries.

David Rockefeller shook Castro's hand during a 1995 meeting in New York City where the latter sought to end the American blockade on Cuba. A growing number of businessmen throughout the decades have criticized the embargo for limiting investment opportunities in Cuba (and also, as most of them believe, hindering what they'd like to see as capitalist restoration on the island.)

It's no different than the 1980s when Chevron and other oil companies sparred with the Reagan Administration because the former did business with the Angolan government whereas the latter tried to overthrow it. On the other hand, that same Reagan Administration lifted the anti-Soviet grain embargo imposed by President Carter since Canadian, Argentine and other grain exporters were profiting to the detriment of American agribusiness.

As the Soviets pointed out, theirs was a foreign policy of peaceful coexistence and peaceful economic competition between capitalism and socialism. It was (and still is) the governments of the imperialist capitalist countries which were chiefly responsible for attempts to limit ties between states with differing social systems.

American author Albert Rhys Williams, in a 1919 work on Lenin, wrote as follows:

>American technicians, engineers and administrators Lenin particularly held in high esteem. He wanted five thousand of them, he wanted them at once, and was ready to pay them the highest salaries. . . .

>America was so far away. It did not offer a direct threat to the life of Soviet Russia. And it did offer the goods and experts that Soviet Russia needed. "Why is it not then to the mutual interest of the two countries to make a special agreement?" asked Lenin.

>But is it possible for a communistic state to deal with a capitalistic state? Can the two forms live side by side? These questions were put to Lenin by [French journalist] Naudeau.

>"Why not?" said Lenin. "We want technicians, scientists and the various products of industry, and it is clear that we by ourselves are incapable of developing the immense resources of the country. Under the circumstances, though it may be unpleasant for us, we must admit that our principles, which hold in Russia, must, beyond our frontiers, give place to political agreements. We very sincerely propose to pay interest on our foreign loans, and in default of cash we will pay them in grain, oil, and all sorts of raw materials in which we are rich."

Post last edited at

 No.12946

>>12930

If the gentlemen said that we communists can destroy countries without firing a shot, then it would be a flatter, because every communist revolution happened before always shed blood.

Again, which kind of abstract "countries" are you talking about? If it is a country exploiting people all over the world just for the sake of ever accumulation of wealth for the rich gentlemen, then of course we communists are against it.


 No.12947

>>12939

Your word is nothing but A = B. Devoid of any content.


 No.14216

capitalism or communism, life doesn't end here.

whatever be the economy, people need to be elevated from all kind of slavery and be free to pursue social growth, spiritual growth and be able to become self realized. A city may be prosperous economically but lack opportunity for social and spiritual growth.

People are working 8 hours a day so that they can get more and more physical pleasure and those who can't blame themselves for not being a a better wage cuck.


 No.14236

>>12460

It started out as an attempt to free humanity from the chains of capital. However, after the failed revolutions that occurred in Europe post ww1 it has mostly degraded into a pipe dream with no clear cohesive goal. This is why most "communist" movements after that time period were ultimately just nationalist movements.


 No.14237

>>14236

>it has mostly degraded into a pipe dream with no clear cohesive goal.

I don't know how you can say that with the experience of the Comintern, the rise of the People's Democracies in Europe and Asia after WWII, and such things as the 1957, 1960 and 1969 international conferences of communist and workers' parties.


 No.14384

>>12762

If cuba is so great why are cubans getting the fuck out like it's the 8th circle of hell? (This question is rhetorical, i have family in cuba, so i know the answer).


 No.14385

>>14384

"The truth is that the average Cuban lives very well these days by Third World standards. He appears much happier than his counterparts living under regimes that the U.S. supports or imposed. He endorses his government's foreign and domestic policies much more enthusiastically than his counter-parts endorse the policies of their governments.

[. . . .]

Considering that throughout the Third World there are endless millions of people who at least think they would like to emigrate to the land of two-car families with a Sony in every bedroom, and that the U.S. now faces big immigration problems from the so-called 'free' nations of the Caribbean basin, the number of people wanting to leave Cuba today is not extraordinary. If you were to open a port in El Salvador and provide boats and U.S. visas, you would see a yacht race at least the equal of any flotilla that ever left a Cuban port."

(Kwitny, Jonathan. Endless Enemies: The Making of an Unfriendly World. New York: Congdon & Weed. 1984. p. 239, 253.)


 No.14400

>>14384

If Japan is great then so why people in Japan go suicide?

This question makes me remember fondly "Who Thinks Abstractly?" from Hegels: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/se/abstract.htm

Every concrete problem is multifacet and complex, to see a single cause as the reason of miserable life, without proper investigation of internal and external conditions, is to simplify thing, to think abstractly but not concretely. People without philosophy usually think that their "simple" thinking is not abstract, but it actually the most abstract way of thinking, A leads to B.


 No.14585

File: c2132a304c241ad⋯.png (1.3 MB, 1498x872, 749:436, prepare for trouble stirne….png)




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / doomer / macgyver / magali / mde / monarchy / vril ]