Welcome to /mlg/ - Marxism-Leninism general.
This general is for the discussion of Marxism-Leninism, the ideology of revolutionary socialism and communism.
Communism is the next stage of humanity following the capitalist stage.
What exactly is communism according to Marxist-Leninists:
>Communism is a stage of society in which the productive infrastructure is socially owned, and goods are produced not in order to sell for profit, but in order to meet a social need.
>Communism in it's full form is a stateless, classless society that follows the maxim "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
>To acheive such a society Marxism-Leninism teaches us that we must replace the capitalist state, which is controlled by the capitalist class, by a socialist state, which is controlled by the working class. Then, a period of class struggle follows in which the capitalist class is liquidated by the working class. When the capitalist class has been completely vanquished, there will be only one class, the working class, and eventually the functions of the state will become indistinguishable from the functions of the society as a whole, and the state as such will 'wither away' as Marx said.
marxists.org
marxists.org
ML uses a philosophy called dialectical materialism, see here:
marxists.org
It is reccomended that you read some of the critical works of Marxism-Leninism so you can make an informed assessment of the ideology.
Resources:
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
ML General
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
jacobinmag.com
economist.com
theguardian.com
twitter.com
Daily reminder you will all be slayed
>ITT: People who were unjustly silenced by the capitalist war machine
...
...
...
Your ID fits you fucking pinko
SOON
...
Try profit racketeering.
...
Reminder that Atheism is never the conclusion of ideology, but an independent act of will that presupposes all failed ideas
I hope you all find God
Grade A shitposting friendo
That's because leftists don't provide easy answers.
Hopefully without any pains.
You're trying to justify that shit?
Quickly my leftist intellectual superior
>define: rental rate on capital
God isn't real. Religion is bullshit to delude you into accepting suffering for reward in the fabled afterlife.
...
So? Christianity has failed. God is dead. Get over it.
Do it man. The time of hermit kingdoms is past. Every country needs to be connected to everyone else; to do otherwise is inhumane.
...
...
>liberal extremists
>Communism is the next stage of humanity following the capitalist stage.
The description of communism outlined by Marx is as unrealistic as the description of life after the Apocalypse in the Book of Revelation. Both images serve the exact purpose of being a promise to drive people's ideology.
nod an argumend
...
Except that Marx never gives any description of communism.
He doesn't have to. The idea of a classless society (social equals) is is a philosophical impossiblity.
That's rich coming from other cultists. So much so, it's practically bourgeoisie.
This guy gets it.
A classless society has nothing to do with being "social equals", whatever that means. It is about an equal relation to our mode of production.
leftypol cant even come up with their own memes though
Again, a philosophical impossibility.
This applies from the bottom up
...
>Again, a philosophical impossibility.
That's really fucking stupid. What is philosophically impossible about people having a vote about what they're doing with their factory?
The whole idea behind communism(socialism and egalitarianism as well) boils down to 'equal individuals'. That's an oxymoron. The ideology is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.
Deep misunderstanding of communism. We accept that different people are different. Just don't like the economic domination, and don't think it's sustainable.
People have unique points of view as individuals. Just look at the US elections.
Do you really think that giving people a say in their factory will make anything better?
It seems like there will be more arguing than ever as these unique points of view conflict with one another.
>people having a vote about what they're doing with their factory?
we already have that in capitalism with co-ops
you're being asked to defend COMMUNISM faggot
>Just don't like the economic domination, and don't think it's sustainable.
It's inherent to our individuality. It's impossible for 100% of the people to 100% committed to the ideology when we have unique points of view as individuals
Do you sleep well at night with the knowledge that Belgian Sean Bean is out there somewhere looking for his next communist victim?
The shit we've seen during the US election is the result of a dysfunctional democracy. It has nothing to do with individuals having a healthy discussion about what they're going to do and putting it into action.
At some point you'll have to have a vote. That ends the discussion.
Communism means also doing that centrally and getting rid of the market.
>You're trying to justify that shit?
Can you disprove it?
It has everything to do with individuals. In the US we live under the same misunderstanding inherent to communism, the idea of 'equal individuals'. Like I said, this is an oxymoron and there is a consequence for trying to live this philosophical lie; in our case, a dysfunctional democracy.
Communism is dead. Get over it. Move on.
Eat a dick welfare jockeys
Also, I like differing points of view coming into conflict with each other. It's a way better way to run the world than letting the whims of the market decide.
I think "equal individuals" is a lie we tell ourselves to avoid society getting dysfunctional. We've been doing it since we were apes. If everyone expects to get an equal share of the rewards, everyone willingly cooperates. Get rid of that prospect, and you become like Chimps. Unable to accomplish anything as a group. Remember that that's what makes humans so brilliant, cooperation. You've got human nature all wrong.
Most of us aren't asking for 20th century communism. We call it the ML general to piss off Americans. We just want radical socialism of some sort or another.
Oscar Wilde tackled the issue of welfare effectively in his Soul of Man under Socialism. Welfare is inhumane and bad for people. We want to make poverty impossible.
>we just want to make poverty impossible
Poverty is relative faggot, only the richest had phones, cars and TVs a hundreds years ago, now "poor" people have them. Your meme ideology is for worthless faggots with nothing useful to offer
>trying to say a constitutionally elected President was less legally justified than a military dictator
*revisionism intensifies*
>We want to make poverty impossible.
Fastest way to get there is with capitalism desu.
...
>Again, a philosophical impossibility.
The propaganda is real.
Cars didn't exist a hundred years ago.
>economic domination is inherent to individuality
There are even examples WITHIN capitalism that disprove this. Look up worker cooperatives.
>Cars didn't exist a hundred years ago.
The whims of the market are conflicting points of view.
We make our choices as individuals. This is reflected in the market.
>We've been doing it since we were apes
Wrong. If that were true, slavery would have never existed. This a newer idea.
>If everyone expects to get an equal share of the rewards, everyone willingly cooperates. Get rid of that prospect, and you become like Chimps
Tehn how do you explain the success of capitalism where no one gets equal rewards?
>Remember that that's what makes humans so brilliant, cooperation. You've got human nature all wrong.
I fully understand that. Let's take a look at how this idea propagates itself, though.
>you are taught we are equals
>we grow up and find inequality all around us
>from gender, to race, to income
>all this inequality
>we campaign and crusade for new laws or economic models to bring us equality
>we never get there
Why?
Like I said before, as individuals, we are very similar to one another but in the end we are unique and if we are unique that implies that we aren't equal to anything. We are in a state of constant inequality as an extention of our individuality.
So we are taught we are equals and then grow up to find inequality of all sorts amongst unique individuals.
No, shit, sherlock. You do know inequality is implied right?
Why are you so shocked to find it?
When you try to live a lie, you must constantaly confront the facts to prove your fictions to yourself, lest you lose faith in the lie.
We are confronted with the fact of our inequality, so we try to prove the fiction to ourselves by campaing to change the law or economic model in order to bring about equality.
But this a mistake. If we want equality, then we must get rid of what makes us unique. We must leave our individuality behind. That's because individuality and equality are mutually exclusive states of being.
Any society that predicates itself of the misunderstanding of he nature of equality is going to suffer.
To do that we'll make everyone roughly equal. More intense work and outright excellence being rewarded a bit more.
It has been up until this point. Don't think it'll keep going that way. Got a hunch.
There are also example in capitalism that prove it.
You can have it your way in capitalism. That's the beauty of the model.
Is this a Trudeau general?
>Delusionally assumes wealth is distributed rather than created
>Encourages technological and economic stagnation with no winners no losers mentality
>crony capitalism facilitated by government lobbying is what we mean when we support capitalism
worse than that, they conflate the evils of usury with Capitalism
I don't know how anyone takes them seriously
It's like you people want tens of millions of your countrymen to starve to death.
>Wrong. If that were true, slavery would have never existed. This a newer idea.
Slavery is a newer idea too. We didn't have slaves when we were apes. Slavery was the result of early wars. Some tribe defeated another tribe and as punishment, made them work.
>Tehn how do you explain the success of capitalism where no one gets equal rewards?
It's sort of complicated but involves capitalists reinvesting worker's surplus labor. Marx was quite an expert on the subject. You could read him.
I don't understand your conviction that economic equality is an impossibility. We were economic equals for tens of thousands of years.
Again, that isn't "social inequality". Some people will still be better than others. I'm quite optimistic about the prospect of people's competitive spirit leading them to express themselves more creatively, when it becomes impossible to outdo your peers in material conditions. But I concede that that's a bit of a utopian vision.
communism will always fail, something something incentives.
*"social equality"
>apes.
all primates live in social groups that include alpha males/females. The individuals in the group are not equal to one another in the eyes of the group.
>Marx was quite an expert on the subject.
I have
Marx mistakenly believes the is an objective value of labor.
Value is a subjective concept, though
His mistake is based upon the same misunderstanding. It's expressing itself in this instance.
Equality implies equality of point of view.
If that were true, then yes, we would all agree on the objective value of labor.
The problem is that once you've made the mistake about the nature of equality, every idea that come after could be based upon this misunderstanding and therefore subject to expressing this misunderstanding. Marx's manifesto is the ultimate expression of this misunderstanding.
>I don't understand your conviction that economic equality is an impossibility
Lets say under communism, everyone at the factory get $100/wk. All getting the same pay.
After work I go and buy a soda, while you don't.
Are we still economic equals or do you have more than me now?
Nice meme
Not an argument.
...
>Socialism: the "creation science" of economics
>The capitalist side is represented by a bunch of Austrians.
>all primates live in social groups that include alpha males/females. The individuals in the group are not equal to one another in the eyes of the group.
I hope we can both agree that that's social inequality and not relevant to our discussion.
>Marx mistakenly believes the is an objective value of labor.
Well, he's at least as capable of explaining the success of capitalism as you are. So you've silently dropped that point.
>Are we still economic equals or do you have more than me now?
Economic equality isn't about how much money you have, it's about how readily you can earn money, working at the same intensity.
>I hope we can both agree that that's social inequality and not relevant to our discussion.
I feel it is. Our ideas of economic equality are based upon our ideas of social equality. Social came first, which leads us to believe economic should come next.
>So you've silently dropped that point.
Marx explanation of capitalism is irrelevant. It's the implication of his manifesto we are discussing. Sure he made some good points, but think all his ideas are accurate is a mistake.
>Economic equality isn't about how much money you have,
It is though. If through our choices, you have more money than me at the end of the day, then you have more economic power than I do.
That's the thing about economic equality. We have to be in prepetual state of equality in order to have it. Our choices as individuals can change our economic standing though. That's true in communism as well as capitalism.
>Social came first, which leads us to believe economic should come next.
That's false if you follow my reasoning. People had to distribute rewards equally to ensure social cohesion, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a strong paternal figure. I'm sure there was.
>It's the implication of his manifesto we are discussing.
I was discussing Das Kapital. His manifesto is an important historical document, like you say, it had some good ideas. But in the least, most of it isn't relevant anymore.
Your point that equality is a lie we tell ourselves is probably true enough. But I'm sure that there are tons of lies we tell ourselves. Didn't Nietzsche go on about that at some point? How truth itself can be considered as being the result of lies, and that such a philosophy would go beyond good and evil. Something along those lines. Makes sense to me.
So I'm mostly worried about how I myself feel about the lies, and whether the lies are very effective. These particular lies are, and I feel good about them.
>It is though. If through our choices, you have more money than me at the end of the day, then you have more economic power than I do.
In a very limited sense. Today all significant economic power is concentrated in the form of property.
>That's the thing about economic equality. We have to be in prepetual state of equality in order to have it.
I feel like that's only true following the logic of capital accumulation, which would be impossible under socialism. The money you have is money to spend, not to invest. It can't begin spiraling like money does under capitalism.
>People had to distribute rewards equally to ensure social cohesion
But that's patently false. Show me one ancient civilization that distributed rewards equally.
From Egypt to Greece to Rome, none of them did that.
>Today all significant economic power is concentrated in the form of property.
Which has a monetary value right? So it all comes back to money in the end?
> The money you have is money to spend, not to invest
What if you spend all your money while I save some of mine? After some time I could retire while you would still have to slave at the factory every day.
>Nietzsche
>These particular lies are, and I feel good about them.
>If there is no extant God and no extant gods, no good and no evil, no right and no wrong, no meaning and no purpose: if there are no values that are inherently valuable; no justice that is ultimately justifiable; no reasoning that is fundamentally rational, then there is no sane way to choose between science, religion, racism, philosophy, nationalism, art, conservatism, nihilism, liberalism, surrealism, fascism, asceticism, egalitarianism, subjectivism, elitism, ismism. If reason is incapable of deducing ultimate, non-arbitrary human ends, and nothing can be judged as ultimately more important than anything else, then freedom is equal to slavery; cruelty is equal to kindness; love is equal to hate; war is equal to peace; dignity is equal to contempt; destruction is equal to creation; life is equal to death and death is equal to life. Nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values and ideals- because we must experience nihilism before we can find out what value these "values" really had.
― Mitchell Heisman, Suicide Note
You wish.
Communism is the future of humanity. Deal with it.
...
...
...
That why you only post backwards shit skins?
Communism has long since been defeated and discredited.
>That why you only post backwards shit skins?
Not an argument.
>relic of the industrial revolution
>the future
It's almost 2017, not 1917 comrade cuntbag.
Well its a good thing communism's main arguments are so laughable that there is a reason only teenagers like you ascribe to them
This game's getting old, communigger.
Also losing in a war against the whole world isn't as embarrassing as BTFO'ing yourself.
Every year brings us closer to world communism. So long as capitalism exists, there will be communists waiting to pounce. Just as capitalists did to feudalism, so shall we to capitalism.
>Show me one ancient civilization that distributed rewards equally.
As soon as you have a civilization you have left the state of nature. But even under feudalism there were harvest rituals, I believe, where people would put what they've harvested together and redistribute it.
>So it all comes back to money in the end?
Yeah, it's like this big circulation. You're getting it. Capital is money in a certain type of motion. It wouldn't happen under socialism.
>After some time I could retire while you would still have to slave at the factory every day.
Yeah, that might be a bit weird. Maybe put an expiration date on money? Although that seems a bit intrusive.
People could figure these problems out once we get there. Doesn't make much sense espousing my personal preference on these matters.
>The quote.
I assure you, this is the way things are. Pragmatism is correct, all of our beliefs are fit to serve some purpose, and have no meaning beyond it. "Ultimate judgement" is childish.
We're both adults, to some extent, so we should own up to who we are and start living life the way we want to live it, instead of being guided by spooks.
Only reactionaries, racists and fascists oppose communism. All need to be crushed.
You're a joke mate, extremist rightism is more relevant than you in the future, how does that make your developing, pubescent emotions feel?
Lol okay, that's so cute you think you are threatening anything but the self esteem of your parents
Extremist rightism is a symptom of the dying capitalist order. Fascism is capitalism in decay, the last desperate cry of the capitalists to fool the workers. It is built on sand and cannot last until every vestige of capitalism is destroyed.
Who's "us"?
youtube.com
The workers of the world. Wave your flags all you want, it just serves the interests of your masters.
>where people would put what they've harvested together and redistribute it.
They did this as a choice, not a requirment under the law.
>It wouldn't happen under socialism.
Socialims tries to maintain the status quo. It fails to understand that things, like capital, are always in motion.
>People could figure these problems out once we get there.
So we have to suffer through more inequality until we 'figure it out'?
There is a sure fire solution to end the inequality; get rid of what makes us unique. To purge/transcend our individuality depending on your point of view. Until we achieve the state of equality, we will be in a state of inequality.
>so we should own up to who we are and start living life the way we want to live it
Are you implying that we aren't doing that right now?
We don't have total control over our reality as we are a social species. Therefore we must do the best we can in the circumstance we find ourselves.
I'm reminded of a prayer.
>God grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference
>Living one day at time. Enjoying one moment at a time
>Taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is and not as I would have it.
>So that I may be reasonably happy in this world and supremely happy with Him in the next
There is some wisdom in the prayer whether or not you believe in magic.
The idea of a communist revolution in the current US is silly. How do you expect to have a far-left revolution when most of the working class vote conservatively?
Wow this picture offended me
>They did this as a choice, not a requirment under the law.
Depends on what you're going to call law. I can't imagine them having much of a choice in the matter. People had always done it like that, refusing would have been heretical or something.
>Socialims tries to maintain the status quo. It fails to understand that things, like capital, are always in motion
Weird that Marx built his entire analysis around it then.
>So we have to suffer through more inequality until we 'figure it out'?
Not what I'm saying at all. How to deal with people hoarding money is something people will have to decide based on their personal preference. I don't think there will be much suffering either way.
>Are you implying that we aren't doing that right now?
If you feel the need to quote someone saying we should have respect for some "ultimate judgement" then no, we aren't doing that. You're living life because of some moral obligation, if you really mean that.
Because it's a ripoff like all their "memes"? Re-appropriated this one btw :^)
>I can't imagine them having much of a choice in the matter.
You always have a choice. There may be a consequences for that choice, but it is always there.
>Weird that Marx built his entire analysis around it then.
Marx's analysis isn't 100% accurate and it's a logical fallacy to think it is. We've been over this remember. Why do you have so much trouble thinking for yourself, but instead rely on Marx to give you all the answers, when his theory has been tried and failed so many times?
>How to deal with people hoarding money is something people will have to decide based on their personal preference.
What if the majority of people think that hoarding money is a good thing and you end up in the minority?
>"ultimate judgement"
Ok, you misunderstood the quote. Maybe a language thing. He is saying there is no ultimate judgement. That's the idea of ulitimate judgement is inherently flawed.
workers be damned. if gommies ever want to be successful in the USA, their target audience would have to be farmers and miners
unfortunately for them, their appeal is limited to college campuses
Mere false consciousness. And the idea that the working class is conservative is a complete myth. Trump is beloved by the petty bourgeoisie.
jacobinmag.com
I love how you talk about Trump's supporters, then post an image that doesn't include Trump supporters.
The intellectual dishonesty is disgusting.
Unfortunately you can only post one image here but here's the graph from the economist article
More articles showing the rich sided with Trump/reaction (not that Clinton is any better, but still)
theguardian.com