prove them wrong

File: image.jpg (118KB, 750x726px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 750x726px

>this is now a sandwich thread

Stirner already did.

>>8339748
The Soviet Union already did

>>8339782

this

their shit doesn't work /thread.

>>8339748
China (especially under Mao)
Cuba (under Castro)
North Korea
Vietnam
Russia (under Stalin)

What do these countries all have in common?

>>8339748
Carl Marx was a pedophile, Fred Angel was a devil worshipper

>>8339796
>Russia (under Stalin)
>implying Soviet Union under other rulers was in any way good

>>8339802
You're right. It'd be foolish to forget Lenin and Trotsky, surely, but I wanted to put special emphasis on Stalin.

>>8339796
all those place are full of gooks, but do they have to with commies? this thread is about how marxists are SJWs and bluepilled jews

Read Hayek.

>>8339824
>Hayek.
>Friedrich Hayek CH (German: [ˈfʁiːdʁJç ˈaʊ̯ɡʊst ˈhaJ̯ɛk]; 8 May 1899 – 23 March 1992), born in Austria-Hungary as Friedrich August von Hayek and frequently referred to as F. A. Hayek, was an Austrian and British economist and philosopher best known for his defense of classical liberalism
>liberalism
cuck

File: blaze it.jpg (192KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1920x1080px

>>8339828
I am just a simple fish

>>8339828
>cuck
For you.

>>8339796
>>8339782
>retarded faggots that misinterpreted and wrongly implemented communism
>proof for it marx and communism being wrong/bad
try again

>>8339900
fuck u

>>8339900
I think that Karl Marx is right on some points, but I think that a centralized planned economy doesn't work.
Is communism without a centralized planned economy possible?

>>8339900
>misinterpreted and wrongly implemented communism

lol, meanwhile every social-democrat/socialist/communist currently on this planet, thinks that the current state of America is "correct" capitalism.

>>8339902
HOLY SHIT
OWNED

>>8339923
>Women cannot be married and and the property of every male.

>>8339942
Who are you quoting?

File: 1463533663170.png (1MB, 1786x1030px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1786x1030px

>>8339944
The communist manifesto
>why are you even in this thread?

>>8339953
I don't read because I'm not a faggot, I'm here to redpill you nu-males

>>8339796
>What do these countries all have in common?
they all had money, classes and a state

>>8339957
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

>>8339944
*whom

File: Free spooks.jpg (31KB, 851x315px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 851x315px

My argument is this: EVEN IF we conceive the USSR/North Korea/Vietnam/Venezuela/Cuba/etc are not TRUE representations of Communism - one must conceive that every one of those regimes started out as an attempt to implement it, through Socialism/etc.

Now, what we can say is that given how GODAWFUL every one of those attempts have been - we must seriously ask whether their goal is worth striving for, if even trying to get there ends so terribly.

>>8339908
Yes, it's called Anarchism.

>>8340056
Learn English before you post on /lit/.

>>8340061

*CONCEDE

Sorry, I am German.

>>8340061
Rude and unnecessary. 4chan is a cultural melting pot and so 4chan English cannot be defined by your rules. It is organic and will change just as Shakespeare influenced contemporary English.

>>8340056
But they didn't even attempt to implement it. Communism is about giving power to the workers, not taking it away from everyone, giving all capital to the state. That's just state capitalism.

>>8340077
"I don't even know what a troll trolling a troll, while fishing for troll b8 in a b8 captcha for trolls is anymore."
-Aloysha Fydorovich Karamazov

>>8340092
lol rused

>>8340089

No, they all pretty much tried to do what Marx advocated: Socialism, then Communism.

The sort of Socialism Marx espoused was very much the 'State=God' concept that every fledgling socialist country started out with - whose aims, among other things, were to redistribute bourgeois capital/etc.

When this, among other things, were over and done with, it was expected that the state would take a back seat and fade away - leaving Communism in its wake.

The only sort of Socialism that hasn't ended terribly is the Market Socialism that people love to cite in Scandinavia (and Britain/etc to a lesser extent) - but there's a serious argument to be made that the only reason Market Socialism isn't shit is due to the 'Market' part - which begs the question: Why bother with the 'Socialism' part?

>>8340092
Sounds amazing.

>>8339748
Classes aren't as they describe. Unions competing is proof of this.

>>8340116
Because once a crisis comes and rich people stop continuing to get richer, and once they;ve lost what little solidarity they got from being invaded together, they seek to wrest power and wealth from the workers, and being as the governments continue to be run by a relatively small elite they are easily corrupted and the society slowly regresses back towards the miserable early 20th century.
One also has to stop exploiting workers in other countries, as the sainted Orwell pointed out, or else the systems off oppression continue and need not even be revived, merely redistributed.
This is fine of course so long as you don't mind immense unnecessary ugly useless suffering.

Read Peter Turchin's secular cycles mates. Boom baby bust!

>>8340116
Marxists have never viewed the state as good, only as what it is: a tool used by one class for domination over the other. Marxists do not advocate for the transitional state because they like it or because they think it's nice. They advocate for it because they think it's necessary to achieve Communism. This last part has, of course, been debated ferociously for the past 150 years.

Marx never said that the state would wither away - that was Lenin. Lenin himself expected the Soviet state only to wither away when there had been revolutions in other countries and when the USSR had fully developed infrastructure due to state capitalism. Lenin never expected the state to wither away instantly, or soon. Lenin knew that because the USSR in 1917 was still very much a country with the feudal mode of production, and not the capitalist one, and that there would first have to be the capitalist mode of production before the socialist mode of production. Unfortunately he only achieved state capitalism which Stalin, during his reign, helped encourage with the collectivisation of the Kolkhozes and building of state owned industry in places such as Magnitogorsk and Stalino.

Also, if you want to talk about Market Socialism don't talk of Scandinavia. Scandinavia are Social-democracies, not Socialist because they do not have collective ownership over the means of production.

>>8340168

>not Socialist because they do not have collective ownership over the means of production.

>He still uses this autistically strict definition, rather than accounting for the spirit of the term and its usage

>>8340192
It's what the word has always meant. Just because it's been distorted by misuse doesn't mean it loses its original meaning. It's been used to mean collective ownership over the means of production for the past 200 years in and out of Socialist circles and I'm not stopping now :^)

>>8340198

Yeah you're right bro. I guess I'll revert back to the old definition of Republican/etc too. Who cares if it means something different today and is absolutely used in accordance with that newfound meaning?

File: 1463538054171.png (56KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 223x226px

>>8340192
>(you) still uses this autistically strict definition, rather than accounting for the spirit of the term and its obvious inclusion of capitalism as well nowadays

Marxism is wrong becasue the true capitalism hanst been implemeted yet.

>>8340246
ok

>>8340246

Marxism is wrong because every attempt to try it has been so shit, that it can't possibly be worth it.

>>8340246
>>>/int/
Unless this post was a false flag attempt, in which case, lurk for two years before posting.

>>8340229
Wasn't this thread about a book from 1848?

The only way Communism can come to fruition, is if they stop using the state as the tool and instead use the market.

One of things socialists and communists simply don't get is that capitalism by it's essence allows anyone, literally anyone, to own the means of production, which includes workers.

But as always, it's easier to use the state to create a socially-engineered society, than it is to educate people into creating worker-cooperatives themselves.

>>8340192
>>8340229
digression

File: bastiat.jpg (18KB, 300x350px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x350px

Way ahead of you, kiddo.

Also, 4chan is an 18+ site.

I wish you faggots would realize it's called Marxism because it aims to employ the type of analysis codified by Marx in Capital (historical materialism)to not only the emergent forms of capitalism but also to its own ways of theorizing and eventually demolishing those forms, not because it demands strict adherence to a set of doxa writ in golden ink by a man named Marx. if the ideas Marx himself came up with failed to lead to communism, we should take that as an impetus to dialectically interrogate those ideas, not as a sign that Marxism as such is bunk.

>>8339748

Those dudes are DEAD now

D E A D
E
A
D

Does anyone outside of college and the internet take Marxism/Communism/etc seriously nowadays?

>>8340331
Some Russians are still fond of Stalin.

>>8340331
What do you mean by outside the internet?

File: 1450403522396.png (257KB, 377x490px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 377x490px

>>8340349

>>8340353
That doesn't tell me much.

>>8339908
yep. communist countries were politically communist, not economically communist. they created an intermediary stage to develop their economy so that it could eventually become economically communist. you can (and should) skip that step, since it's the one that wrecked all these countries

>>8339917
communist here, aware that capitalism can and should suck less

>>8340361
not
>>8340331
Just appreciated your humor ism

>>8340380
It wasn't meant as humor. Most people, in the west at last, are one the internet sometimes.

>>8340389
*at least

File: 1385396318541.jpg (54KB, 311x311px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 311x311px

>>8340373
Indeed, and yet most your ilk don't.

>>8340404
>40404
ebin

>>8339908
Most communists, especially nowadays and in the west, do not advocate for a centralized economy.

Basically look into anything that isn't an offshoot of Marxism-Leninism, most notably Anarcho-Communism and leftcommunism (which is cool for a lot of reasons but because it's so broad, 90% of leftists will immediately hate you if you call yourself one lmao)

Or just look up libertarian socialism and look into whatever individual tendency seems interesting to you

>>8340419
I was on a leftist forum once. They got angry when I said I didn't believe in historical determinism but that history is cyclic. According to this person that anon >>8340160 posted history is indeed cyclic.

>>8340404
I suspect you mistake "capitalism is inherently oppressive" for "these current implementations are the best it can be"

>>8340435
Yeah, but you don't seem to understand that whatever criticisms you have of capitalism that may or may not be valid; anyone can found a business anywhere, so there is an intrinsic freedom to capitalism, which could not exist in a command economy like the USSR, which is why it failed.

The market, or for a lack of a better word, the economy, needs to be free, which is what communist claim communism would have, a free economy, but if that's true, you cannot start with a premise of abolishing private property.

>>8340331
Yeah, in places that weren't inundated with Cold War propaganda. Americans don't even know what Marxism and Communism are.

>>8340445
the USSR approach is definitely not conducive to any kind of economic freedom, but private property isn't either.

private property is the creation of artificial scarcity, which has had some advantages for the whole of human kind, but isn't obviously necessary anymore. where we once needed to conserve resources, private property and the incentives of capitalist economics makes it harder to conserve the whole of resources, not easier. but I digress.

in a genuinely communist economy, means of doing (almost) any particular job and working with a team of pretty much any size is open to you. since renewable resources and resources that do not (in the usual sense) diminish with use (such as factories) are shared among everyone, the walled 'gardens' of capitalism cease to interfere with free expression, with the creation of communistic versions of capitalist companies. it's more free, not less

>>8340465
>in a genuinely communist economy, means of doing (almost) any particular job and working with a team of pretty much any size is open to you.

Yeah but this is just theorizing. You have zero idea how it will look like, and yet you want to abolish the system we currently have.

I might not like the system we have, but I would much more prefer if you communists advocated people start businesses that were founded on different models of wealth redistribution themselves, such that maybe there would be a gradual and global change in the nature of political economy, instead of trying to use coercion and domination to try to get the society you want.

File: Is this Who serious.jpg (18KB, 403x370px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 403x370px

>>8340465

>private property is the creation of artificial scarcity

>>8340331
Doesn't matter if "no one takes it seriously"... most fixed-capital today is owned collectively by public corporations instead of individuals... private individual ownership of the means of production is largely already a thing of the past like the feudal form of property... share-capital and finance keeps developing if you want to recognize it or not

>>8340192
Monopoly ownership of capital by a state isn't socialism, just the state becoming the sole capitalist... it should be obvious when you're still dealing in the basic categories of political economy like wages, interest, profit you haven't exited capitalism. Abolition of wage-labour is the only means you could abolish capital.

>>8340282
kek, Bastiatites were actually accusing Marx of stealing from Bastiat actually:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867/reviews-capital/bastiat.htm

>>8340508

>Doesn't matter if "no one takes it seriously"

Keep telling yourself that, champ.

>share-capital and finance keeps developing if you want to recognize it or not

Doesn't bother me. The fact that these ideologies are only getting by in making huge concessions to capitalism is all that matters.

>>8340486

coercion and domination is built in the evaluation of money and the commodity, though. further, if that's "just theorizing," and if something is automatically invalid on the basis of its being theoretical, then I don't see how you think political change is possible. could it be that you've been "coerced and dominated" into believing in the permanence of the capitalist mode of production?

>>8340486
> yet you want to abolish the system we currently have.

no, abolishing the current system overnight would lead to lots of death, significant decrease in quality of life, etc. fantasizing about the revolution doesn't strike me as particularly useful praxis either.

the replacement has to exist beforehand, a revolution can't precede a solution.

> trying to use coercion and domination to try to get the society you want

I don't meet many communists with any interest in coercion or domination either, for what that's worth

> much more prefer if you communists advocated people start businesses that were founded on different models of wealth redistribution themselves, such that maybe there would be a gradual and global change in the nature of political economy

I take some issues with your wording here because it seems based in the myth of changing the system from within, but I'm pretty sure we're ultimately on the same page, just with different ways of explaining it. as I say, I don't think a revolution would be productive. for that matter, I don't think war is desirable in general, at least you have some semblance of upward mobility in capitalism if you're not dead

>>8340499
by this I mean e.g. land or the multitude of products that serve the same function. (such as dining room chairs, cars, etc). this is artificial scarcity in that there's no 'real' shortage of chairs or cars, just in different types of them.

under capitalism I see no way to avoid the competition between everyone who wants to sell a chair, but under a different system they might have no competition incentive and rather just coordinate in improving the quality of their chairs.

if this sounds absurd to you, it's analogous to shared public research. do we not all benefit from improvements in the quality of cars, as we do from medical and scientific discovery?

>>8340508

the division of multi-billion dollar profits among a small cabal of stockholder-capitalists can only be called collective ownership with the most acidically sardonic irony

>>8340527
>coercion and domination is built in the evaluation of money and the commodity

Really?

How so? Do you think really think being denied a service because you don't have any money, is the same as being executed by the Red Army because you're a class traitor ?

>could it be that you've been "coerced and dominated" into believing in the permanence of the capitalist mode of production?

No, because I don't see it as "the capitalist mode of production", I see it as the private ownership of production, which anyone can own, even a huge worker-cooperative.

>>8340536
>I don't meet many communists with any interest in coercion or domination either, for what that's worth

That's because they know now the consequences of it. 40 million people died in the Great Leap Forward, and yet here you are, thinking that revolutionary Communism suddenly isn't a thing because hipster-socialists at university aren't violent people.

>>8340541
How so? Just like when mere primitive usury capital began to transform for the first time into industrial capital and directly take control over the labour process and separate peasants/craftsmen from the ownership of their means of production share-capital is qualitatively different from the earlier forms of partnerships which predominated the economy. Share-capital is just the gradual process of capitalist socialization.

>>8340570
The CCP was largely composed of the degenerate elements of the lumpenintelligentsia since day one. Mao's whole philosophy was explicitly based around class collaboration

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-three-essays-on-the-new-mandarins#toc4

>>8340570
I have a tendency to take the "not my comrade!" view of people who think any rationalization for what's effectively murder is compatible with an ideal that's supposed to save and enrich lives, but I don't deny any of the atrocities committed in the name of communism.

it's worth keeping in mind the circumstances that gave rise to that kind of ends-justify-the-means thinking, including the part where the rejection of religion as the basis for morality was just beginning. we've had a couple generations to continue developing on these ideas and derive new approaches to ethics, and new insights to factor into our models for consequentialism

I'm not saying there are no revolutionary communists, but I am saying that it's inaccurate to lump anyone who uses the label communist into a box of hateful and dangerous people

>>8340613
Yes yes yes of course, everyone who has ever existed that claimed they were Communists and did something evil, weren't really Communists.

We get it now, you don't have to say it again.

>>8340625
For me, as a classical liberal, if you tell me to my face that you're an unironic Communist, I am going to treat you the same as I would a National Socialist, because I am going to assume that you're a revolutionary, that would be standing there executing me if the call ever came.

>>8340641
fortunately I have enough self-awareness to not throw around divisive labels like communist in any context where I'm not pretty sure I'm gonna have a chance to elaborate

>>8340626
You're not even providing a rebuttal.... the fact is most 20th century "revolutions" were led by nationalists who wanted to use soviet type development to modernize their nations by means of state planning of the economy... this ended in disaster just like the enclosure acts in England and the famines in India when the British tried to modernize them. Communism is the negation of the categories of political economy not their rationalization and can only be accomplished by the full development of capitalism.

>>8340657
Sounds like a good idea, because you should get used to that not everyone has the fluffy-eyed view of it as you do. Especially Cambodians.

>>8340660
Sounds to me like you're still trying to excuse away atrocities by arguing that it was some other factor that made the atrocities occur.

The fact is that if these people didn't believe in Marxist-Leninist Communism, 40 million people wouldn't have died in the Great Leap Forward. You can whine all you like about how state planning of the economy is not what Communism is about, but if they had never heard of the ideas in the first place, all those people wouldn't have died.

lol moralfags

>>8340667
way ahead of you

>>8340674
almost every ideology has a death toll. capitalism is no exception

>>8340697
>almost every ideology has a death toll. capitalism is no exception

Depends on what deaths you consider "capitalism's fault".

Because as I said earlier in this thread, being denied a service because you don't have money, is not the same as being murdered by the Army.

>>8340667
>Especially Cambodians.
You realize pol pot was backed by the CIA right? Just like how Mao was funded and back by the US government in the 40s as an "agrarian reformer".

>>8340674
The Great Leap Forward was an internal political conflict between centrists, left and right fractions kicked off by Washingtons boy in Peking Mao. The geopolitics of monopoly capital will always cause death and refugee crises because it's profitable.

>>8340706
Cute tinfoil you have there but you better take it to /x/.

>>8340712
take the red-pill jew

File: 2.jpg (46KB, 640x530px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x530px

>>8340712
Are you a literal moron? US foreign policy is completely insane and they have supported some bad dudes

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/UncleSam_PolPot.html

>>8340736
Anti-american sentiment should be a bannable offense
>thirdworldtraveler.com
Added to my filter list, thanks fag

File: baba10a519802426c469d7dd8efcf482755a0036fa80151158d91a6bb7df2082_1.jpg (37KB, 584x521px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 584x521px

>>8339900
>>8339944
>>8339957
>>8340089
>>8340168
>>8340246
>>8340536
Fucking commies, it's helicopter time for you!

File: 1457116086269.jpg (135KB, 808x716px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 808x716px

Not only has there not been a successful Marxist country but every attempt has lead to genocides.
Also modern degeneracy spawns from Marxism

>>8340290
this

>>8340744
This is a japanese site.

>>8341846
Modern degeneracy is the spawn of capitalism

>>8339748
it works. or are you a racist bigot islamophobe homophobe?

>>8342006

This. How the fuck could you even try to pin modern degeneracy on Marxism? It is obviously a bi-product of capitalism. The ultimate goal of capitalism is to increase profits. Sex sells. Why do you think you have 13 year old girls getting knocked up nowadays? Because of entertainment and propaganda generated by capitalist media corporations in order to acquire profit. There is rarely decency in capitalism. The sole goal is more money, often through any means necessary, including illegal or legally grey areas.

>>8339748
Everything.

>>8341846
>appeal to pop psychology

>>8340056
>one must conceive that every one of those regimes started out as an attempt to implement it
Well yeah, but it was on the assumption that a global revolution would happen and we'd all pretty much be socialist and then communist. When that didn't happen you have perversions like Stalinism where there's a significantly different thought behind it to justify being in one country.

File: Yuri Bezmenov.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

>>8342150
Someone has not taken the Yuri pill yet

>>8342524
>>8342524

I am familiar with Mr Subversion man though

File: 1451062617155.jpg (45KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 320x320px

>>8339782
>>8339791
>>8339796
>>8339802
in civilised society, we read the text before commenting on it. protip: your examples are socialism from above. TCM proposes socialism from below.

>>8344123

"socialism from below" would never work though, and if it did, we would just be at a point where we could already transcend the notions of Government altogether and become Anarchists.

>>8344178
maybe one day, but until then there's a lot of work to be done if the lumpen titsuckers posting on this thread are anything to go by.

>>8340680
morals are reactionary

>>8344200

You know, I've been thinking lately about the mistakes of both Capitalism and Socialism, and what I've cooncluded is that the problem is mainly in ourselves.

Both systems would be completely valid for running an Utopic Society, but still we aren't getting remotely close to it. Why? It's not because of the "degeneracy" caused by those systems, but rather of our own dissipation of values through time, I'd argue.

>>8340061
No need to be a fink about it.

>>8344245
I want one of you Marxists to reply to this.

>>8342006
>>8342150
>ITT: I have no idea what capitalism is for
Central banks, welfare, taxation, public schools, fiat money, etc... is not capitalism. In fact it's opposed to capitalism because all these are not decentralized and not voluntary.
So, if it's centralized and coercive, it's socialism and the end goal of any socialism is communism (as Yuri "Subversion is my Name" explains)

>>8344289
anti-Semitism is a doublethink. are Jews controlling the banks AND spreading Marxism at the same time?

>>8344227
I'd say people can only react to their material circumstances

>>8344316
I guess all those institutions just developed and were demanded for by private business interests by mistake, woops

>>8344376
Not him but yeah, indirectly. When you own the banks, the media, you lobby and push for stuff that promotes marxism (good ol' Divide and conquer). That can be through Academia, schools, entertainment, laws, etc....
Subversion is a hellish strategy.

>>8344384

>I'd say people can only react to their material circumstances

Care to explain what you meant?

>>8344416
anyone who believes this is willfully going along with an (extremely antiquated) meme.

>>8344413
You're right in a way. The incestuous relation between corporations and government just shows that you can't trust anyone with the full power of government. So yes corporations are guilty for asking privileges but that's only because you have a structure that can make and change the rules.
And a government is not capitalism.

Good try, you just don't know where to look at and what to look for. Crony capitalism is not capitalism.

>>8344416

That didn't make any sense, tbqh. If Jews already control the banks, what the hell would they gain by overthrowing themselves (even if they come ou ahead in the "revolution", they are already ahead, it's an illogical risk to take)?

Also, what the hell is the advantage of "dividing" the academia if the end game of both "sides" are the same (they win)? I'd argue that's way too complicated to go through just to create another layer of "smoke and mirrors".

>>8344427
degeneration is a result of alienation from ones species-essence (ie the ability to create and enjoy) ever wonder why petty crime is so high in poor areas? yes, there's the necessity to eat but also a lack of a sense of self within that community if your work (if your lucky enough to ever have a job to go to) results in you only meeting the worst living conditions the ruling class can get away with.

>>8344469

My argument is that your situation would only happen in already degenerated societies though. I agree that alienation causes degeneracy, but alienation can also be philosophical (the things you hold as values or as true).

Ofc, it's a snowball effect after a point.

File: subversion.jpg (244KB, 1068x1285px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1068x1285px

>>8344435
By rejecting subversion, you're making my point actually. Keep thinking the way you were taught. Don't question why currency is off the gold standard. Don't question why there is such for immigration in Europe.

>>8344455
I am not as deep into these as others but here are some possibilities:
1) Because they are illegitimate and don't want to be questioned, that's when you use demoralization and divide and conquer so the slaves attack the other slaves.
2) Any acceptance of leftism lead to marxism (again, that's Yuri, not me) which put the elite in even more power, 1984-style. But as marxism failed, The Frankfurt School found a way to repackage it under social justice.
3) By dividing the academia, it means "left against right". You can't have a serious discussion on gender differences, race differences, diversity in the academia. Those are explosive topics especially because blacks have low IQs and IQ is strongly correlated with GDP.

Also, some people think that it is possible that the Zionist elites would gain from a Christian-Islam conflict.

Anyway, the evidence for this kind of stuff is: the Frankfurt School, The Anglo-American Establishment by Carroll Quigley, also a lot of stuff happening in France (Soral against the zionist lobbies for instance)
Finally, consider this: everything that is happening in Europe does not make any sense unless the people in power want to destroy the Europeans. That's the only logical conclusion when Merkel stated that "German multicultural society has failed" yet accepted 1 600 000 migrants.
>inb4 back to /pol/

>>8344567
>why currency is off the gold standard
Back to this argument again.

File: tmp_5557-1467221812279-647235483.jpg (34KB, 670x447px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 670x447px

>>8344440
>a government is not capitalism

>>8344567
>Don't question why currency is off the gold standard.
>fedora.png

>>8344567
>>inb4 back to /pol/
Don't flatter yourself. Back to /x/.

File: rosa-luxemburg.jpg (75KB, 903x1047px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 903x1047px

>>8344567
I know you said 'inb4 back to /pol/' but seriously dude, go back to /pol/

>>8344567
how can you have a "unions vs society" division when unions represent working people?

>>8344440
The corporate form of enterprise wouldn't even exist without government, corporations are simply a very successful legal creation of the state.
Also governments do function as capitalists and employers... but you're right America is a constitutional republic for example, its constitution (with its general welfare clause) isn't even compatible with laissez faire ideology at that level but laissez faire has always been just a myth.
The idea of capitalism existing without governance is ridiculous, even Adam Smith understood this:
>Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality. For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. ... Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.

>>8344567
The US was forced to dump the gold standard to keep on financing the Vietnamese war and immigration is a result of uneven development dummy

>>8339908
Communism as described by Marx is stateless, there is no state to even plan an economy.

The USSR and other countries like it had a state-planned economy as they implemented communism. It is worth noting none of them claimed to have achieved it.

>>8344950
If they only had 20 more years!

Could you guys point me to some texts regarding the class concept?

>>8340290
Thank you.

>>8340339
Yeah, he packaged Russian nationalism/imperialism in a commie guise, but since he never said he was a nationalist, that word isn't connected to him the way "communist" is. A friend who's family lost members and lots of property through the revolution said "I hate Lenin and all communists, but at least Stalin was good for the country. I don't like him, but at least he was good for Russia."

>>8340465
>private property is the creation of artificial scarcity, which has had some advantages for the whole of human kind, but isn't obviously necessary anymore. where we once needed to conserve resources, private property and the incentives of capitalist economics makes it harder to conserve the whole of resources, not easier. but I digress.

Where can I read more about this?

>>8339748
It depends too much in a benevolent understanding of human nature.

>>8344567
>everything that is happening in Europe does not make any sense unless the people in power want to destroy the Europeans.

I think this is nutjob levels of conspiracy. A much simpler reason would be, since there already exists the political and ideological divide between the people, Merkel and the other leaders are all just selling their narrative to the higher bidder.

>>8345023
>Could you guys point me to some texts regarding the class concept?
Marxs concept of class pretty much just boils down to
proletariat = income comes from wages
bourgeois = income comes out of profit (direct out of profit or in the form of rents or dividends, etc)
Workers want higher wages, people living off revenue streams deriving from property titles want higher profits and these are fundamentally hostile interests which must lead to conflicts.

Marxs concept is a little dated since most workers in the west have some vested interests in maintaining their pension funds or hold assets like property so they also perceive they have a degree of interests in inflating stock and real-estate values.

Thorstein Veblen theories on class are much more relevant in an Americanized world:
http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/LCS/theoryleisureclass.pdf

Ok, I'll make one of my arguments on three aspects on why the communist doctrine is not logically consistent summed up in a case.

Allegedly, with the end of private property the social classes would disappear.

A private property, by its nature, means the owner(s) have exclusive - and by that, it means it's exclusionary - decision on what to do with it. So, unless every existent person has a claim to it, it isn't - by reductio ad absurdum, a communist-type "property". If we take the workers to own the means or production, then we can assume that there needs to be an organization in order to decide the use of the means of production according to the workers' wills, we can use, for instante, the anarcho-syndicalist stance. Now, if the decision is exclusive to the workers of a specific commonwealth, or an union, then it is a collective property, but still, in the logical sense, a private property. In fact, there could be no such thing as a communist-type "property" because it would not be a "property" at all, for it can only be used by its users but there would be no such legal claim to it. So, either every existent person has a claim to decide what gets to be done with the means of production - and that's the only case you could classify it as a communist-type non-property - or you have private property.

Now, by having direct democracy to decide what gets to be done with the means of production, opinions would necessarily differ. So, when the decision is made and one side wins and (at least) one loses, that would nonetheless still maintain social classes.

The ludicrous understanding of how and why money exists and what value is brings me to my third point. Profit for marxists is evil, it is the product of the capitalist mode of production in exploring the workers' surplus value. Well, except it really isn't, because the fact that value is subjective, profit is also subjective, and that means nominal value is just the product of division of labour and trade, but true value is a psychological issue. So, by abolishing money one does not remove profit from the equation. Let's say commonwealth A produces X number of products X, and X-Y is the surplus. Then commonwealth B produces N number of products Z, Z-W is the surplus. By trading these surpluses, it necessarily means you value more what you are receiving than what you are giving, that means you have profit, it doesn't matter if you use nominal values through money or not.

>>8345083
Yeah, I've borrowed The Theory of the Leisure Class and The Instinct of Workmanship, and I'm starting with them as soon as I'm finished with Polanyi's The Great Transformation. Good to know that I'm up for some relevant reading! I'm getting a book of collected texts by Marx tomorrow or Tuesday, do you know what specific texts he writes about these definitions of class in? I could check them out during the coming week. Thanks anyway, I suspected his class division was a little simple and outdated.

File: bradleycooper.jpg (154KB, 936x645px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 936x645px

>>8339748

venezuela food shortages

>>8345092
You're thinking of property in the same way Proudhon who ended up calling property "theft" since he didn't understand the historicism of the forms of property. Slave, feudal, capitalist, socialist property forms are all radically different and only make sense in their concert historical context. A communist form of property doesn't make sense from a capitalist perspective but capitalist property makes sense from a communist perspective.

>The ludicrous understanding of how and why money exists and what value is brings me to my third point. Profit for marxists is evil, it is the product of the capitalist mode of production in exploring the workers' surplus value. Well, except it really isn't, because the fact that value is subjective, profit is also subjective, and that means nominal value is just the product of division of labour and trade, but true value is a psychological issue. So, by abolishing money one does not remove profit from the equation. Let's say commonwealth A produces X number of products X, and X-Y is the surplus. Then commonwealth B produces N number of products Z, Z-W is the surplus. By trading these surpluses, it necessarily means you value more what you are receiving than what you are giving, that means you have profit, it doesn't matter if you use nominal values through money or not.

Profit isn't "evil" Marx never attempted to impute moral values to the categories of political economy. The classical economists conceptualized profit as arising from employing wage labour in the operation of fixed-capital... this was a progresive development over the more primitive mercantilists who could never grasp and demarcate profit off from rent deriving from mere ownership of property titles. Classical economics approached value as an objective substance resulting from production so they could actually understand the structural relations of the production process. Subjective value theories cannot grasp or understand the essence of the commodity reproduction process as was laid bare in the cambridge capital controversy, neoclassicals/austrians just reverted to 16th century value conceptions to defend the vested leisure class interests.

File: 1464624336223.jpg (30KB, 353x424px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 353x424px

Although Marx was right about many things, his worldview is flawed in that it assumes the dialectic can only move in one direction and that it is permanent. Even if communism is inevitable, that does not mean it will be forever.

>>8345174
Well, marxism isn't even a good doctrine even by historicism's standards, it's really a joke that went way too far on hegelianism's back. Not to mention that the historicist tradition in economics is complete non-sense because it's simply applied post hoc ergo propter hoc.

You can say that the concept of property has evolved through the modes of production but that doesn't change the fact that in the end, it is a legal concept and not a historical concept, but of course that doesn't change the sociological differences between the ages. The problem here is that the uses of institutionalized coercion (state) is what differ these periods, not class struggle, the materialist turn here is not an improvement onto hegel's political thought. Saying the types of property only make ontological sense in accordance to the modes of production is only a way to remove it from possible falsification, it's just one illustration on how historical materialism is no different from your regular religion.

You're refusing to aknowledge the necessary intersubjectivity character in value by simply claiming it's a theory made up by petty bourgeois to extort from the working class. It doesn't matter what trash classical economists used to classify value, when put into context the labour theory of value does not stand analysis, and no marxist "economists" could make a case for it outside of its project's stance. The only thing that could be saved from marxism is class analysis - which is why that's 99% of what marxists currently publish literature on - but merging it with marxist dialectics is a sure way to make it unworthy trash.

Again, subdivisions in commonwealths - which is necessary for managing purposes - and direct democracies would necessarily lead to social classes, and only a state (which itself is another social class) could redistribute the wealth as to make these classes dissolve.

But seriously, don't try to keep saving the labour theory of value unless you have a revolutionary new thesis, because most "serious" marxists already gave up that as an economic feature and only apply it to sociological analysis, which is the only thing you could make a case for.

>>8340142
>lack of class consciousness = lack of class

>>8345023
>Where can I read more about this?
P.J. Proudhon's "What is Property"

File: peepee.png (121KB, 1548x1468px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1548x1468px

>>8345263
Marx never accepted the classical conception of a labour theory of value... if you even read past chapter 1 of capital you would understand his Law of Value.
He never thougth the qualitative aspect of "social production" i.e. the fact that humanity makes itself and capital produces capital could be formally understood simply by the quantitative social evoultionary epoch and mode of production. Nature as a totality cannot be acted upon because there is noting outside of it therefore it must be somehow acting upon itself. Natures self-reflexion is both its cause and effect and human labour is the unity of theory and practice and natures self-reflexion upon itself. Dialectics applies to any process modellable by a reflexive sentence i.e. a nonlinear process. Mathematics has been so successful in physics and natural science but weak in social/economics because of the paradoxs of set theory which bourgeois science is afraid to embrace. Self-reflexion is a law of motion which pertains all of nature; nature works upon itself and grows in this manner. Marxism is just the historical theory of the economy and analysis of historical human praxis... artistic, economic, political, religious, etc reproduces itself as a totality and determines itself as a totality.

The development of the English language itself has coincided with the emergence of the modern capitalism epoch which is why "reflexive sentences" sound so awkward in it and why your average idiot "educated" in state propaganda institutions cannot grasp dialectical logic.

Mathematics must be developed into a science of the psyche and laws of mentation, george boole understood this but he stoped at formal logic and was never able to grasped dialectical logic. Booles calculus is a calculus of processes of formalized reasoning -- not mere counting for measuring quantity but grasping the qualitative aspects of mentation. Only by synthesizing Marxs dialectic and booles calculus can you grasp reality.

>"reality is conceived only in the form of the object [reality] or of contemplation [thinking about reality] but not as human sensuous activity, practice, not subjectively."

>>8345119
>he doesn't know about the sanctions
>he doesn't know how capitalism creates artificial scarcity

>>8344567
Sadly, this guy is right. If you don't believe it, then go to this link and read what's written. >>8344245

>>8345337
interesting post

>>8344567
so all anarchism is right wing? what the fuck is wrong with you

Zizek does

>>8345943
In fact no anarchism is right wing. Right wing anarchism is a contradiction of terms.

>>8339748
>prove them wrong
I think history has already done a pretty good job of that.

>>8340536
>it's analogous to shared public research
Such projects are paid for with grants, essentially a form of charity. There's quite a laborious process for applying for grants that slows down any project that operates off of grant funding. The alternative is to get sponsorship from a university or corporation which means the work will likely become private or changed according to the desires of the sponsor.

You are proposing a system wherein basic goods and services require an immense bureaucracy to create. I see absolutely no value in it.

>>8339796
Vietnam doesn't help your argument.

>>8340434
Until immortality becomes possible, or Education ubiquitous.

>>8339782
>>8339802
>>8340331
>>8341187
>>8341846
>>8345119
>>8346031
>Stalin killed 7 million-bajillion people
wtf I no longer believe the workers should hold in common the means of production now

File: communism has never been tried.jpg (85KB, 500x883px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 500x883px

>>8339900
Literally every single communism thread. Like clockwork.

>>8346112
Then define communism.

File: 1436582707442.png (102KB, 793x2500px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 793x2500px

>>8346112
Yes, like clockwork.

>>8345337
>. Mathematics has been so successful in physics and natural science but weak in social/economics because of the paradoxs of set theory which bourgeois science is afraid to embrace.
What are you smoking.

>>8339900
What is stopping people who believe this bullshit from trying?There is literally nothing stopping all the communists from moving into 1 country that can be self sufficient, cutting it off from world trade and creating proof of concept. every time I ask I get some retarded bullshit about how the whole world most convert at the same time for it to work.

>>8339748

There are no contradictions in capital which necessarily produce successful revolutions, and it is impossible for a militaristic power structure (that of the revolutionaries) to transition into anything other than oligarchy.

>>8345326
>>8345023

I have now borrowed it, thank you!

>>8346301
hahaha, your prescious Venezuela is a shithole now

>>8339748
>marxist theory of labour value is wrong
>eliminates the competitiveness from economy
>does not reward efficiency
>equality is a meme
>slave morality
>every single experiment that managed to get far enough ended up in genocide

File: 9e7b19463dc834ed8e038161afe99bc03ed0af17.png (393KB, 950x759px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 950x759px

Stalin never did anything wrong and MLM is the true ideology of the future.

File: 1461555414672.png (80KB, 1982x1133px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1982x1133px

You need private property for market prices to arise which are necessary for economic calculation. Without calculation you cant coordinate ressources in an efficient way.
Thats why you starve or have a lack of energy despite sitting on one of the biggest oil reserves.

>>8346087
>wtf I no longer believe the workers should hold in common the means of production now
Please cite a single example of this working on a national scale.

>>8347197
Please cite a single example of it existing on a national scale.

>>8339796
>Cuba (Under Castro)

Yes, because Cuba was the shit with Batista

>Russia (Under Stalin)

Same

File: hayek mises.jpg (32KB, 500x343px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x343px

>>8339748

>>8347181
>lmao dude; I just read Mises

sorry to tell you but most allocation today occurs within corporations, not on open markets, and isn't priced but managed

capitalization upon state granted intangible assets such as [physical or intellectual] property titles is exactly what causes market prices not to reflect the actual current socially necessary labor time of currently reproducing those commodities and cause crises and inflation to be integrated into the economy

>>8348721
and...?
these austerity ghouls got something better?

>>8348758
Yes.

see: economic calculation problem

>>8339748
>tfw you realize socialism is reactionary anti-semitism
Why doesn't /pol/ shill this stuff?

>>8348803
see: any of the millions of papers debunking this problem

see: market socialism

see: Socialism without central planning in any form actually

>>8348837
>see: any of the millions of papers debunking this problem

?

>see: market socialism

Mises refuted this nearly a century ago. It can't work because for socialism to be socialism you can't have private ownership of land or the means of production, which means there's no price formation, which leads you back to the original problem.

>see: Socialism without central planning in any form actually

See above

>>8348810
they do when you add a healthy dose of nationalism.

>>8348803
Economic calculation problem was btfo by schumpteter in the 40s and he was not a socialist in any way

>>8348837
Market socialism is bullshit, the problem is the commodity form, socialising individual firms does not solve most of the problems
Of capitalism. It's like idiots that want decriminalisation rather than legalisation

>>8348914
Schumpeter hardly BTFO the problem. He agreed with the need for prices.

>>8346970
And it wouldn't be under Neoliberalism? Okay bud. Countries who rely as heavily on oil as Venezuela also have crises, e.g. Saudi Arabia.

File: socialism.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>8349093

>>8349124
http://i.imgur.com/08SR4oS.gif
file too big to upload

>>8339782
That's like saying Russia after 1991 is proof that capitalism doesn't work

>>8349139
>tells narrative that contradicts the "oppressive facts" and pretends to win

So postmodern dude

>>8339796
All were substantial improvements on the feudal societies which existed before?

North Korea became a shithole after abandoning Marxism for a hereditary aristocracy and willfully isolating itself economically and diplomatically.

Cuba is pretty decent for a Caribbean country, with education, healthcare, and disaster relief rivaling the first world even according to third-party observation.

>>8346981
>ML
:)

>MLM
:(

>>8349154
>Cuba is pretty decent for a Caribbean country, with education, healthcare, and disaster relief rivaling the first world even according to third-party observation.

So all of your knowledge of Cuba comes from Michael Moore?

>>8349164
>Michael Moore lives on a moore and he needs moore hambugers
- my high school notebook

>>8339802
this

this movie is fucking amazing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJzZK5eMrfo

>>8339802
>implying russia was ever good

>>8349191
Russia was probably best right near the end of Stalin's reign

>>8349191
>>8349225

Why is it everyone on /lit/ is terrible at world history

>>8349229
Go to a board with a greater chance of teaching others, find that it's full of people who will alter history because they feel right in doing so.

At least /pol/ gives their sources most of the time when stating something.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (55KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1280x720px

>>8339748
*sniff* You can't prove *sniff* them wrong

>>8349283
Yeah, fucking Dailystormer and Amren

>>8349009
>>8349009
His pseudo prices proved that the economic calculation problem did not make planned economies impossible or that even if in that one point markets were more efficient, socialist planning could be more efficient by lack of unemployment, no more under investment due to spooks in the market and no more economic crises brought about by bubbles. Also he said that even if none of those things were true a socialist would rather eat a loaf of bread produced in a socialist society rather than capitalist one. The ECP only works as an argument for market fetishists which socialists are obviously not.

>>8340272
Underrated.

BTW, who builds the streets?

>>8349486
Slaves.

>>8348747
These corporations act in a market and their management is based on prices. Noone is against plans in general. The question is who plans for whom. We want plans by the many not the few.

What better way to evaluate social necessity than a profit and loss system? If people voluntarily deceide to not buy the output society declares the inputs more valueble than the generated output.

False prices lead to crises, i agree. Dont know how they would create inflation and in what sense?

>>8340272
Gramsci was always right

>>8339782
>communism dosnt work when all of western civilization is conspiring against it
Who would've thunk?

>>8339908
I think with the rise of Amazon, eBay, alibaba, uber, Airbnb, Seamless, and all of these other economic tech platforms, we're basically living under a series of planned economies.

>>8339953
Is that pic from Madison, WI?

>>8349300
smartest post in this thread so far

>>8339748
I don't owe other people happiness. The state is illegitimate in subordinating my property rights to other people beyond ensuring that the Lockean Proviso is not violated

>>8352016
The state is your property right you ungrateful cunt.

>>8352024
>t.Hobbes