Why is talking about him in the U.S such a taboo subject?

Because hes a gotdamn dirty gommie fug :DDD

Because communism hinders capitalism when it exists by decreasing the amount of pockets to exploit through trade. That's the core reason, anyway.

Heavy amount of propaganda in the US against communism. The average person's response to the concept is "it doesn't work", even though they don't understand what communism is exactly or how capitalism works.

I'm not a proponent of communism at all if I sound like one, I recognize capitalism as a good system for the people on top and that the point of the system is to fight to not be on the bottom. I'm just saying that people in the US are educated to believe that communism can't work and that it's evil, even though there are better arguments against capitalism having inherent flaws and questionable ethics.

>>1433936
because he is your god and sacred you socio fascist scum

Now I understand why this board is full of this Marx cancer. American teenagers who think they're being edgy.

American here it left over from the cold war with all the anti communist sentiment

Also America is basically run by Capitalism and Nationalism so we are not to inclined to be pro socialism except for some millennials in the Bernie Sanders campaign that just want free shit

Of course I'm a right wing libertarian so I am perfectly happy with the way socialism is looked at in my country

>>1433951
>even though they don't understand what communism is exactly
It's not like communists would know either, it's never been tried, after all.

Just like you can't speak satan's name in the holy land

>>1433951
BAHAHAHA

>Medevedev's grim bookkeeping included the following tragic episodes: 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2 to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the ''Great Terror'' of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various “political crimes” from 1946 to 1953.

>Mao's Great Leap Forward 'killed 45 million in four years'

Go ahead, tell me how "it just hasn't been implemented properly yet".

>>1434017
Why is Socialism seen as Anti Nationalism in America?

>>1433951
At least you are allowed to speak good of Comminism in capitalism countries. In Communism regime countries like NK or Cuba, if you raise your voice and support capitalism, they would send you to jail or more worse, kill you.

he created the world most successful weight loss program.

This is a country where even the poors are obese in contradiction to his musings.

>>1434045
All Socialist that are in America are anti Nationalist look a Bernie Sanders and others they hate Nationalism

for the same reason talking about your desire to mass murder is taboo

People don't even need to be communists to study Marx. Above his defense for communism he was a great philosopher, one of the best to understand capitalism, society and its social relations.

>>1434062
Well people jerk off to the Romans who commited Genocide every once in a while out of boredom

Historically it's because communists and socialists are for agrarian reform. Almost the whole of the history of US military intervention in Latin America has been based on threats of agrarian reform. You can't feed your people if all your land is owned by US capitalists and used to grow cash crops which are then exported along with the profit. People in these countries know this, so when they finally got the right to vote they often voted for those who campaigned on agrarian reform. Though it is almost cliche at this point (Nicaragua, Cuba, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Haiti, etc.), it isn't limited solely to land used for food (See Banana Wars) but also for mining and infrastructure (Brazil, Chile). The leftists were the only ones who talked about these issues so they had popular support.

>>1434083
The Romans are the foundation of western culture and civilization, communism isn't

>>1434060
What? Bernie Sanders is a nationalist.

>>1434101
So if your dad killed a man you should ignore his crime because you wouldn't exist without him?

>>1434087
is "sindicalist" an insult in the USA?

>>1434141
Rome were the good guys
White man's burden is a reality and the had the first

>>1434157
>any country being "the good guys"
What's it like to have a child's view of history?

It's a waste of breath.

Socialism doesn't work.
Marxism doesn't work.
Communism doesn't work.

Move on with your life.

>>1434021
1) It is still a defined term
2) Very vague statement. USSR, China, Cuba etc. all tried with varying levels of effort to achieve communism via dictatorship of the proletariat. Communism has never been achieved, but to say it has never been tried makes it sounds like there isn't a long struggle between capitalism and communism -- there is, and it is one which has been embarked upon.

>>1434143
Syndicalist, Unionist, leftist, liberal, communist, marxist, socialist.

These are all insults in the US, according to my experience on the internet

>>1434257
Ideology at work I guess.

>>1433936
The ideas are a dangerous cancer that always seem to influence youth who do not know any better.

>>1433936
If you actually read his works you'll see that he is antithetic to the US's stated values.

>>1433936
Because they were at war with communism for 50 years

>>1434230
There can be a good side

The propaganda machine worked nonstop from 1948 through 1990 to demonize Marx and his ideas to the point that theyre inseperable from communism and tyranny to the average american.

>>1434257
I would say any word that describes a person's political ideology is an insult, as long as the person doing the insulting is on the "opposite political side."

Except for maybe libertarian. I don't think I've ever seen that used as an insult. But conservative, right-wing, fascist, etc. are all thrown about.

Hell, even independent has become a dirty word in some circles.

My theory is that Americans are allowed to only worship one retard. Theres not enough room for Marx with ayn rand around

>>1434380
>Americans worship ayn rand
What Americans have you been talking to?

Marxism is the /r9k/ of ideologies.

>>1434021
yes it has you dipshit. according to the theory, to be able to train people to be able to exist in full communism, you must first create an authoritarian state (because human nature, in Marxism, is a product of the system, not essential, as in theories of realism). Unfortunately, this authoritarian state, which is supposed to give way to "real" communism, never seems to end of its own volition. And in the process of "liberating" the people, lots of people end up murdered or disappeared.

>>1434419
he's being sarcastic.

>>1433936
Over half a century of constant propaganda, and the fact that many Americans are too stupid to comprehend things they aren't already used to

File: McCarthyism.jpg (20KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x300px

>>1434030
>>1434035
t. McCarthy

>>1434045
Because individualism is mixed with nationalism in america. Basically we all really love our country because of the belief that hard work and determination can elevate you in society, the american dream.

>>1434617
notice how McCarthy's victims are still alive to speak about their experiences while Stalin's victims are buried 6 feet deep in the Siberian tundra.

>>1434087
this

>>1433936
Are you fucking kidding? One of my coworkers is constantly talking about Marx. Everyone seemed somewhat interested, but grew to hate her bullshit now that she won't fucking shut up about him.

>>1433936
its literally not

every public high school and uni talks about him and we have to read the communist manifesto

Because lefties have given up trying to advocate Communist revolution of the proletariat and instead have opted for a more benevolent sounding word "Socialism"..."Democratic....Socialsm". Much easier to instigate class warfare than talking about inequality of outcomes from an envious populous.

>>1436292
Where I'm from, it's nigh impossible to elicit serious discussion of his ideas from most people. They dismiss it as soon as they hear about ebil gommunism. I'm no Marxist, but it's very ignorant of them to act in such a manner.

>>1433936
Communism is very much opposed to the American way of life, that is, Christianity and capitalism.

It's still easier to talk about Marx in Kentucky than to talk about Spengler in a left-wing dominated university, stop complaining.

>>1434127
Autism, kill yourself

>>1434230
Throw you're own child into a fire and tell me Rome weren't the good guys

>>1434035
It hasn't been implemented yet.

>>1434050
They only kill you if your voice has any meaning. Just like some Capitalist countries do.

>>1436357
Thank you. Couldn't have said it any better.

>>1437085
Not in America, the only relevant country.

>>1433936
cancer

because marx's doctrine is opposed to the american status quo. it seeks to radically change the production model that america currently is founded on. marxism wants to radically restructure the power dynamics between those at the top and those at the bottom of society, so those at the top in current society will do everything they can to make the majority believe that marx's doctrine is against their interests, when in fact marx's doctrine is in the interests of the vast majority of individuals of the world.

>>1437117
I'd knife you to death and sleep like a baby afterwards.

>>1437126
i'm sorry you believe that.

>>1437117
all you commies should be stabbed.

>>1437129
I'm not.

>>1437141
i know.

It isn't taboo at all, actually.

>>1437151
It's illegal to be a Communist in the United States Government.

Better dead then RED.

>>1437159
than*

>>1437148
Good.

>>1437131
Settle down uncle Bobby, this isn't 'Nam. No need to go on a drunken shooting spree.

Take a moment to simply try to reflect on the anon's words with a neutral, unbiased perspective. Just imagine this were possible, just for one second.

You would learn that even major capitalists like Adam Smith agree with Marx on some finer points, and even conflicts with the way the global and 'Murican economy are being run right now.

>>1437159
How is that the same as a taboo on discussion of Marx?

>>1437159
R E D S C A R E
E
D
S
C
A
R
E

>>1437180
R E D E A D
E
D
E
A
D

File: 18i6uoty2n1krjpg.jpg (34KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 800x450px

>>1437182

>>1436306
Tennessee?

File: 1466096154112.png (2MB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1366x768px

>>1437170
You need to be physically removed.
>and even conflicts with the way the global and 'Murican economy are being run right now.
What does this even mean?

>>1437192
He means major figures in capitalist history like Adam Smith wouldn't approve of the present global capitalist system as well as that of America.

Hell, so would Hoppe in your pic on the count he's a mega an-cap.

>>1437203
>He means major figures in capitalist history like Adam Smith wouldn't approve of the present global capitalist system as well as that of America.
I just don't see why it's significant, especially when that anon hasn't posted an argument and has simply dropped names. Which theories in particular matter? How would Marx's disagreements with contemporary American economic policy be relevant? How are they more relevant than every other economic theorist who has or had ideas about how a country should be run which were not being used to run said country at X time?
The problem with talking to Internet Marxists is that they spend 90% of their time trying to convince you that their prophet (who was totally not a prophet zomg!) was right and has to be given lexical priority over other proph-err, theorists. They spend the other 10%, if you grant them this, dropping names as if they were themselves the arguments made by the referent, and refusing to define terms when you ask them to on the grounds that analytic philosophy is a bourgeois product of ideology, or something like that.
There was a serious, academic Australian Communist who used to post here, but I haven't noticed his posting style in a while. He actually knew how to argue, unlike the Anon ITT who just says "You can't be a Commie in the US government, it's totally a taboo subject" without realizing that Marxism is a major current in American academic thought and has been since the changes that took place in the late 60's.

>>1433936
Because of the Cold War, and also the GOP and their corporate media machine

>>1437234
Marxs ideas are an enemy to the us state and republic.

File: 1436515841929.jpg (27KB, 640x430px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x430px

>>1434050
>In Communism regime countries like NK or Cuba

Every Marxist should be shot.

File: 1462057567691.png (429KB, 399x614px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 399x614px

>>1437257
Do you not know what "taboo" means? Is English not your first language?

>>1434035
what's it like having autism?

Do you do this on cue ? Can you be trained like a dog to regurgitate statistics?

>>1437256
The only thing unique about Fox News is its appeal to conservatives. Every other network is as skewed as Fox. CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, RT, Haaretz, BBC, you name it, it's skewed. It's hardly a GOP-controlled media machine, the fact of the matter is that the media has a liberal bias, modern discourse has a liberal bias, and you and I have liberal biases.

>>1437234
>The problem with talking to Internet Marxists is that they spend 90% of their time trying to convince you that their prophet (who was totally not a prophet zomg!) was right and has to be given lexical priority over other proph-err, theorists.

'right' in what sense? objective truth? i don't believe that marx is objectively truthful, and i'm a communist. but anyway, you should explain why communists trying to defend communism (this is what is done when we try to convince you our 'prophet' has some points, which you worded in a way that seems to make communism out as a cult) is a 'problem'. why is it a problem? why is it any more of a problem than say, people who try to defend modern capitalism by pointing out other theorists' works, like krugman or friedman or what have you? why is marxists trying to defend their prophet a problem, but with any other group supposedly not a problem?

>>1437099
man you haven't been paying dick for attention to american politics.
>patriot act
>NSA
>no fly
>guantanimo and other legally grey prisons
>especially the ones literally nobody is allowed to know about aside from a few high ranking intelligence officers
>"free speech zones"
>militarized police
>domestic terror scaremongering
>and now, drones

The CIA could bury you, or lock you up in a place where nobody will ever find you. Literally all they need is a reason to. Do you think this reason is always going to be fair, or just? Because innocent men have gone to Guantanamo before.

>>1437275
Do you know who Rupert Murdoch is and how much shit he owns in that business?

Also you must realize, Europe now is only middle left. America's left is right lite.

>>1437281
>but anyway, you should explain why communists trying to defend communism (this is what is done when we try to convince you our 'prophet' has some points, which you worded in a way that seems to make communism out as a cult) is a 'problem'
It's a problem because people like you shit up apolitical boards like /his/ with threads like this, which are founded on falsehoods anyway ("Marxism is a taboo in the United States" is a false statement, as I've said already, there has been a Marxist current in American academia since at least the late 1960's).
>why is it any more of a problem than say, people who try to defend modern capitalism by pointing out other theorists' works, like krugman or friedman or what have you?
Not everyone discussing economics is trying to have a political argument while they do it. Description, not defense, is the primary purpose of many kinds of discussion. Marxists are on the offensive to begin with, when it comes to modern capitalism. It's hard not to defend against them when any disagreement results in "You just haven't read theorist X." On top of this, nobody here ever brings up Friedman or Krugman; they're laughing stocks here, for the most part, because of literal economic memes. Just like Austrian economics: propped up by memes.
> why is marxists trying to defend their prophet a problem, but with any other group supposedly not a problem?
Because Marxists are on the offensive against the prevailing mode of production. Have you even read Marx?

>>1437294
>Do you know who Rupert Murdoch is and how much shit he owns in that business?
Do you know who owns more of Twitter than its founder?
>Also you must realize, Europe now is only middle left. America's left is right lite.
I don't understand why this is relevant.

>>1437302
i don't think history or humanities are apolitical. discussing about history is inevitably going to lead to discussions of the politics of that time period, which are going to have some contribution for why history turned out the way it did. much of modern humanities is founded in enlightenment era liberalism as well, so talking about humanities can always lead to a discussion on the political elements of that era.
what are the sort of topics you would like to discuss on /his/? there are some aspects of history that are apolitical- like weaponry used by certain civilizations- but would you really want the whole board to be completely absent of any topic tangentially related to politics? i can't imagine that would be too interesting.

>It's hard not to defend against them when any disagreement results in "You just haven't read theorist X."

i agree, i don't think this is an efficient form of argumentation or worthwhile in the slightest.

>On top of this, nobody here ever brings up Friedman or Krugman; they're laughing stocks here, for the most part, because of literal economic memes. Just like Austrian economics: propped up by memes.

sure. i just used them because they're popular names. i'm sure you have a personal form of economics that you agree with that was propagated by some thinker or group of thinkers. i'm asking why you think that sort of defense of those thinkers is somehow not problematic but trying to defend marxism is. what's the qualitative difference for YOU personally?

>Because Marxists are on the offensive against the prevailing mode of production. Have you even read Marx?

yeah, i've read plenty of him. i was asking why YOU personally have a problem with defense of his doctrine relative to defenses of other doctrines, because the initial block of text i quoted seemed to imply it was a personal problem you have rather than you stating the obvious fact marx is opposed to modern economic philosophy. everyone knows that. no need to say it.

>>1437333
>i don't think history or humanities are apolitical.
I think this board is meant to be free of political discussion, and that Trumpposting is a good way to get a thread deleted or banned.
>what are the sort of topics you would like to discuss on /his/? there are some aspects of history that are apolitical- like weaponry used by certain civilizations- but would you really want the whole board to be completely absent of any topic tangentially related to politics? i can't imagine that would be too interesting.
Are you seriously implying that guns & politics are all there is to academic discourse in the humanities?
>i'm asking why you think that sort of defense of those thinkers is somehow not problematic but trying to defend marxism is. what's the qualitative difference for YOU personally?
What's the difference between Asperger's and autism?
>i was asking why YOU personally have a problem with defense of his doctrine relative to defenses of other doctrines
To what other doctrines? Don't just say "modern capitalism" because that isn't a doctrine.

>>1437347
>Are you seriously implying that guns & politics are all there is to academic discourse in the humanities?

no, it was just an example i used. i'm saying that a vast majority of the topics related to history and humanities have some relation to politics, so it is unreasonable to expect an apolitical discussion all the time when discussing these topics. that was my point. i did not mean to imply what you said at all.

>To what other doctrines? Don't just say "modern capitalism" because that isn't a doctrine.

ANY other doctrine, because in your post (>>1437234), you said this:

>The problem with talking to Internet Marxists is that they spend 90% of their time trying to convince you that their prophet (who was totally not a prophet zomg!) was right and has to be given lexical priority over other proph-err, theorists.

my point is to say that EVERYBODY does this. everybody has a preferred idea of how the world should be organized and how economics should function. you said that this was a PROBLEM of internet marxists- you specifically said that 'convincing others that their prophet was more right than other theorists' is a problem. i'm asking you how you can possibly differentiate the marxists' defense of marxism from the randians' defense of rand, or the the defense of neoliberalism by neoliberals, or what have you. i do not care what doctrine it is, but its probably best that the doctrine we talk about be the one that YOU think is best, the one YOU think is better than others. again, i'm asking you to explain what somehow gives your argument that your set of prophets is correct regarding economics some authenticity that marxists can not have.

or maybe you think yourself above ideology, and do not subscribe to any beliefs. that's fine too. if that's the case, we can drop the discussion right now. it already seems like you don't want to discuss politics, so perhaps you have no reified opinion in your mind regarding the best form of economics.

>>1437369
>i'm saying that a vast majority of the topics related to history and humanities have some relation to politics
That's honestly not a good reason to bring politics into something, not by itself.
>so it is unreasonable to expect an apolitical discussion all the time when discussing these topics.
It's not unreasonable to expect that people abstain from politicizing every single debate.
>my point is to say that EVERYBODY does this.
OK. My point is to say that the way that Internet Marxists in particular behave is irritating. You aren't making an argument; you're avoiding doing so by asking as if I have to address these people, which I don't, because my argument pertains exclusively to Internet Marxists.
>it already seems like you don't want to discuss politics, so perhaps you have no reified opinion in your mind regarding the best form of economics.
I do want to discuss politics, I just do it on /pol/.

>>1437383

>OK. My point is to say that the way that Internet Marxists in particular behave is irritating. You aren't making an argument; you're avoiding doing so by asking as if I have to address these people, which I don't, because my argument pertains exclusively to Internet Marxists.

alright, so that answers it for me. thank you for cooperating. i'm sorry you believe the behavior of internet marxists is irritating. i'm often in agreement with you. the argument of simply 'read marx' is not conducive to any sort of cooperation from opposition, but on anonymous imageboards i can never know if those posts are false flaggers or real representatives of marxists as a group.

>>1437399
It's not worth trying to distinguish between them, they just shit up everything they touch. Marxism is the Reddit of ideologies.

>>1433936

what are you talking about?

teachers shoe horn him in all the time at my university.

File: Ludwig von Mises- The Theory of Money and Credit.jpg (142KB, 493x504px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 493x504px

>>1433936

Still talking about Marxism

sage....

>>1437442
This, OP is a faggot.

ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

t. OP

File: 449.jpg (132KB, 305x479px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 305x479px

>>1437493
Is this an ancient pasta?

>>1437269
>>1437061
not an argument

It's not and never has been.

>>1437659
It is, but it's a good one

>>1433936
It literally isnt.

LITERALLY

>>1433936
Mixture of the Cold War and the fact that Europe has embraced Cultural Marxism far more than America, as a result identifying as socialist or Marxist isn't as controversial as it is in the US. Doesn't really matter though because based on Millennial's views on Bernie Sanders and Marxism; it will not be taboo in America for much longer.

>>1437126
>>1437131
Is this ironic same fagging?

>>1433936

>taboo
>marx

Half of all college professors in America slobber over his cock

>>1434083
they are also the foundation of our civilization, yet commies have done literally nothing but murder and destroy for nothing but a shit meme ideology

>>1437442
>>1437456

You don't believe posts like >>1437131 &
>>1437126 are indicative of a certain taboo?

>>1443064
no

if you're retarded enough to take posts on 4chan seriously you're probably retarded enough to be a communist DESU

>>1443083
It doesn't matter if they're serious or not. They're just reflective of the fact that McCarthyism is still widespread in the US.

>>1443118
yes and it's the liblubs that appropriated it.

Because no country would be as vulnerable to communism than the US.

>>1433936
Marx himself was actually alright. He just didn't have very good solutions and ended up inspiring legitimate idiots. He even said himself that he wouldn't be a Marxist.

>>1434035
It just hasn't been implemented properly yet.

I'm sorry you always hate when people tell you that because it pretty much shits on every historical argument against Communism you have but there has simply never been a Communist state.

>>1433936
>has more book and articles written about him by american academics than anywhere else(including USSR)
>he is a taboo

Self-victimzing american, please.

>>1443118
How is it McaCarthyism, you fucking cock? I have a B.A. in history, and my curriculum and department was full of Marxist concepts and perspectives, among all kinds of concepts and perspectives. From a purely objective standpoint, it's true: there is no fucking taboo on Marx in academia. You have a persecution complex, or you're just stupid.

>>1447064
>yet
How do you know it will be?

Marx did nothing wrong.

>>1447327
Did I imply it will?

>>1434355
>except for libertarian

heh
where have you been