Discuss

File: Donald.png (123KB, 473x348px)

123KB, 473x348px

Fuck outta here

>little black abridged shit translations

he fucking fell for it

>>8479687
The best way to combat socialism, is of course, nationalized socialism.

>>8479669

How's High School going so far?

>>8479669

Now read Lenin

>>8479696
Sounds more like the alt-right who gets laughs from saying provocative shit over and over and over and over

>>8479690
And the version I should be reading is?

>>8479699
What do you suggest?

OP's opinion of the book: It felt more like I was being persuaded to a certain perspective than I was appealed to by reason. Some parts of the book simply didn't make sense, by this I mean the arguments presented. Also, a little voice at the back of my head kept reminding me that communism fails, which made it harder to take seriously the content discussed. All in all, I think it would deserve several rereads before I could just it accurately.

>>8479710
Anything but the little black abridged shit translations

>>8479771
I once read the Manifesto being described as a Communist FAQ, it's not really a thorough examination and proof of their arguments

>>8479699
>>8479715
I read the manifesto after reading a lot of "Capital" (Not all by the way) and after reading tons of different texts by Marx and marxists.

I thought the manifesto was pretty lame. Sure it gives a few hints here and there but nothing that helps understand the big picture a lot. Keep in mind it's written for industrial workers like 100 years ago without a lot of time or education.

I would say, before jumping into Lenin, although you should, maybe have a go at "Value, Price and Profit", also by Marx. If you have time, read the critique of the Gotha program. Those are good for introduction and short.

If you're gonna read Lenin, I'd suggest "The State and Revolution" which is in my opinion, an anarchist text. Also if you have the time read "Imperialism", "What is to be Done?"

If you can, get ahold of "Finance Capital" by Kautsky and "Late Capitalism" by Ernest Mandel. Also "Marxist Economic Theory" by Mandel. Also, maybe if you have the time read up on worker's councils. Read up on the Paris Commune. Read up on Spain 1936.


Cheers.

>>8479771
Hey it's >>8481945 again. I get what you mean, it's actually a good sign that you read that while thinking "communism fails"... I would suggest you read the State and Revolution to understand what communism means. Not because I want to convince you of anything, but because most of the time, we understand that communism fails because the USSR failed, but the USSR never ceased to be a capitalist country. It still exploited workers in Marx's own terms, and politically it never ceased to be a capitalist dictatorship in Lenin's terms. But what I'm saying will be much more concrete if you read "Value, Price and Profit" (which explains exploitation in laymen's terms) and "The State and Revolution" (which explains the transition from capitalism to communism in layman's terms).

Again, cheers.

>>8481945
Just realized I said "Finance Capital" by Kautsky. It's by Hilferding. Sorry about that

>>8481962
Lenin would insta-gulag you for that mistake, senpai.

Marx is wrong on many issues, speciallu with regards to fetishism and the issue of labour value.

Trash for hipsters if i'd ever seen it.

>>8481985
Oh yeah? That's cool. Maybe you should explain why you think so.

>>8481950
Hey, this is OP, thank you for your valuable reply. I'm screenshotting it as a reference point. I study Econ at varsity and at first I was convinced capitalism btfo communism everytime, but atleast The Manifesto created a shadow of a doubt within my mind. I am by no means a supporter of either side, but i simply know that I am still too ignorant. At face value all that can be deducted is that "capitalism works; communism fails". But then again, I did considre that communism in Russia became to a largr extent the very thinng it attempted to abolish, but then again, isn't that the fate of all economic systems? I don't know. Isn't China to a large degree socialistic? They don't seem to be doing too badly. Who knows? The subject matter is very difficult to grasp in a holistic manner. Not to mention pick sides.

>>8483003
Hey OP, awesome. It's good to take on it critically, because nobody does so (on either side). I tried my best to keep it short, so sorry about the long post. It's okay if you don't read it.

Just in case you're curious, there have been cases of actual communism (that is, unlike the USSR, Cuba, etc), that is, processes that did not revert back to capitalism and in which merchandise (the specific capitalist form) was abolished. These cases are the paris commune and spain during the civil war. In both cases the situation only lasted a few months before being suppressed militarily. In fact, and I guess, ironically (but not funny at all) the USSR helped to crush the spanish communes. China is not commnist either.

Basically to answer your question and get you cleared up, the basic reason these countries (USSR, Cuba, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.) are not communist is because they all maintain the specific capitalist form which is commodity production. There was no commodity production before capitalism. A commodity is something that is produced with the intent to exchange (or sell)... before capitalism, commodity production did not exist except in very limited historical situations. Capitalism boosted production through the commodity form and that's what's so great about it because it gave us technological development (otherwise we'd still be living in the dark ages)... this technological revolution is what makes communism possible at all. Anyways, the reason why this is capitalist is because commodities create "value from value itself", like a chicken that lays golden eggs. There is actually only one of these commodities (better explained in "Value, Price and Profit" as well as obviously "Capital") which is human work. You can buy this magical commodity for Y price, but it will not produce Y value (like any other commodity, let's say a machine), but X value, where X=(A-Y): and in this situation lies exploitation, etc. This is what we know as salary. So in all these countries (USSR, Cuba, etc) you have salaries, which is capitalist production.

The transition into communism implies democratic control and direction of production, that is, production for exchange is abolished, and instead production is planned. Now, capitalists also plan production, that is: planned production exists both in the USA (in bourgeois meeting rooms,let's say, the board of directors of Bayer which plans trade between its different affiliates) and in the USSR (in bureaucratic meeting rooms- so the bureaucracy ends up filling the role of the bourgeois). The difference is whether there is democratic control of production or if it's left up to a few guys at a table. In Spain 36, for example, you have actual democratic control over production and merchandise is abolished. Basically the people took over the factories, dismantled the government and established networks to coordinate productions across the different regions.