/mlg/ - Marxism-Leninism General

Hello Comrades. 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/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

ML uses a philosophy called dialectical materialism, see here:

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

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/archive/marx/works/sw/

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/sw/

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/decades-index.htm

marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

...

...

...

...

Those are the boards for blacked.com and other cuck porn OP.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Repoting in bro

Kurd?

...

no

...

What do you think about Kurdistan?

...

I don't know too much about it, but I support them.

Do you know how to engage in discussion comrade? No need to autistically spam the shit out of our own threads. Unless you're a falseflag.

Trolling aside: how is it different when the Cuban govrnments tells people they owe everything to socialism when people say they don't like living under it? Am I missing the point here?

>Slave and serf cant leave any time they want
>this is somehow a good compariaon to the modern worker

Yes, it is the same.

It is the same things the established end up saying.

Comparison*

Then how exactly is it an argument against any ideology? Am I taking it a bit too seriously here?

>Worker today can just move out in the forest and live off a liveable land

Sorry but for the average person, if they simply do not work they starve.

>Choose between working and starving.
Right. It's a false choice m8.

It is an argument against the argument used against us Communists/revolutionary people.

I do not think Cuba is some sort of horror example though. It is a relatively good country considering their situation.

Nah our hobos if not for alcoholism would get on theire feet pretty quickly there are a lot of opportunitiea for them to do that like cheap part time jobs and collecting bottles and other recycable stuff its a bit harder for families with children though

Just ignore the typos

>“What can commerce produce in the way of honor? Everything called shop is unworthy an honorable man. Merchants can gain no profit without lying, and what is more shameful than falsehood? Again, we must regard as something base and vile the trade of those who sell their toil and industry, for whoever gives his labor for money sells himself and puts himself in the tank of slaves.”
t. Cicero.

What is a good example of a successful communist country that still exists today?

I used Cuba because it's the first regime I could think of that likes to use that tactic and is still around. The evil empire is long gone and taking China as an example would probably land a response that China isn't communist anymore.
Speaking of that, China's government certainly thinks of itself as still following marxist ideology and attempting to achieve communism, but that's beside the point.

Then again, it's something totalitarian governments in general do. The KMT regime in Taiwan had a tendency to do that too before the democratisation.

>working at all=slavery

None because we've never had communism as defined ala Marx. We never got past the dictatorship of the proletariat since revolution never took off in the Western nations.

>selling your labour so you don't starve
>not glorified slavery
Fun fact: living conditions were poorer for sustenance farmers after the enclosure movements that prior to them. To get people to become wage slaves, Monarchs had to make laws that said if a vagabound was caught idling he would be whipped until he bled, be sold into slavery or have his ear nailed to a post.

Russia, China and North Korea aren't Western nations, why didn't it work for them?

How do you address the problem of corruption being proportional to the size of government?

How do you make the decision of resource allocation?

How do you justify people not reaping the rewards of their work?

Leftist economics is cancer. Even socialists focus more on culture issues these days because economic leftism is dead.

Something you see a lot from the pro-capitalists here is commodity fetishism. They say you can own this, go here, go there, he owns this, you own that. This thing, that thing, this product, that office, this business, that government.

None of these things matter. Capitalism is a SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP. There are heirs who do not work, and workers who do work. The workers work for the heirs, the heirs control their work.

Commodity fetishism is confusion, rubes looking at various things as if signs pointed down from the heavens saying who owned what. None of those things matter, it's the relationship between the heirs and the workers that matter. The heirs don't inherit things, they inherit their social relations to the working class.

>China
>North Korea
>Agrarian Russia
>Western
All the countries that had revolutions were poor agrarian nations that hadn't become developed Capitalist nations like Britain, France, Germany or America etc.

Yes, so they have to work to survive. They have to work for somebody else.

There is no such thing as a dream world where everybody is their own boss, at least not under Capitalism.

So the point is not that it is just as bad as before under Capitalism, it is just that you have the same relations.

...

roach

>How do you justify people not reaping the rewards of their work?

People don't reap the rewards of work now, what do you think dividend checks are? That's not going to the worker who worked and created the wealth in that check, that's for sure.

You're talking like people are allowed to keep the wealth they create at work. They don't. It's expropriated by a parasitic class.

...

kill yourself roach

>glorified slavery
Im aware and also critical of capitalism but tell why some lazy fuck should be entitled to stuff without even working for it.i personaly dislike modern capitalism because it makes harder for a person to be self reliant but communism would make that impossible

How do you ever expect decisions to be made as to what needs to be produced, in what fashion, in what quantity, ect when the means of production are "socially owned" and there is no capitalist price mechanism to determine such needs?

>leftist economics is cancer
Lol unlike Austrians who use a synthetic aposteriori axiom (which they say is apriori) to """deduce the essence of human behavior"""" and is thus not subject to empirical verification? Or Neoclassicals who were utterly BTFO during the Cambridge Capital Controversies and predicate the whole of their economics on debunked shit like Says Law? Or how about Keynesians, who have continuously failed at reconciling the contradictions of Capitalism? Or perhaps you mean the Neoricardians (and thus Post-Keyensians who are heavily influenced by Sraffa) who make unrealistic assumptions about the economy in their models, like time not existing?

Leftist economics is dead because of the red scare and a fervent effort by the bourgeoisie to discredit Marx's theories.

Still doing this shit, if anything you have pushed this Brazilian Trap and Snare enthusiast board further right. You are doing shit to your agenda.

So you're saying capitalism is better? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say since Britain, France, Germany and America are all in the top 10 highest GDP.

why is it always either a spaniard or a turk making these horrible threads? i mean, you're free to make them as they're not offtopic, but it's always you two doing them.

Fuck off with your strawmen turkroach and learn some history. Your "dialectic" is nothing but sophistry that you use to convince morons you won the debate because it sounds smarter than it actually is. You claim to want a classless society, but in reality all you want is to join the inner party and live off everone else's backs--if you want that, just move to europe and join your leech roach brothers and sisters in draining our welfare system because that's as close as you're ever going to get

Same shit can be used against you

>Russia, China and North Korea aren't Western nations, why didn't it work for them?

China is by some measures the largest economy in the world, I would say it did work for them.

Russia grew enormously in power from 1917 to 1953 despite a variety of invasions and problems. In 1956 the Soviet leader denounced his predecessor and stated he wanted to make peace with the west, thus we have the now well-known 1956-1990 stagnation.

North Korea states it follows Juche. It did have socialist rebels back in the 1940s, but all mentions of socialism have been removed from the modern North Korean constitution. They follow Juche.

IP BAN ROACHES

Animals also have to work every day to not starve are you saying that nature is capitalistic and we should get rid of it

>Im aware and also critical of capitalism but tell why some lazy fuck should be entitled to stuff without even working for it.i personally dislike modern capitalism because it makes harder for a person to be self reliant but communism would make that impossible
No is entitled to anything, property rights do not exist and production should be organized by the community. If this means you want to establish some sort of welfare program then by all means do it. If the community decides that there should be obligatory work to some degree that's fine as well. Communism is about free time and nothing else.

>So you're saying capitalism is better? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say since Britain, France, Germany and America are all in the top 10 highest GDP.

You're arguing, probably without knowing it, with some strawman argument.

The concept of communists being "against" capitalism is the only kind of concept that could be understood from the bourgeois side.

Communists have a dialectic approach to capitalism. It's more like a young boxer watching the current champion age every year. The older one gets older and weaker, the young one gets more powerful and stronger. It is still time for the current champion to wear his belt, but the day is coming where the young champion will wear the belt.

what is demonstrability?

...

>So you're saying capitalism is better? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say since Britain, France, Germany and America are all in the top 10 highest GDP.
Marx thought that history was an evolutionary process, with gradual changes in the base and superstructure of a society. So yes, developed Capitalist countries turning to socialism alongside developing one would be a necessary condition for socialism because of the material conditions in those countries (degree of technological development) as well as the fact that the hegemony of Capital would be wiped out.

>Animals also have to work every day to not starve are you saying that nature is capitalistic

How come heirs don't work? Only workers work. That's the problem. The parasites, and people like you who make apologies for the parasites (maybe you're one of them) for the heirs who suck off the workers like myself.

How does it feel to be willing cucks to the jews?

...

>How do you ever expect decisions to be made as to what needs to be produced, in what fashion, in what quantity, ect when the means of production are "socially owned" and there is no capitalist price mechanism to determine such needs?

How does the so-called capitalist price mechanism determine needs now? Like the price mechanism which preceded the housing bubble and crash (where the bank owners wanted and got a taxpayer bailout)? Like modern overproduction and underconsumption?

You're talking like the capitalist price mechanism works now.

...

>why some lazy fuck should be entitled to stuff without even working

Like the heirs who don't work now? That is the definition of capitalism.

...

Projection is the only ability most pol posters have regarding this discussion.

...

...

...

It's not even that, the Capitalist price mechanism is one way to measure trends of consumption. There have been numerous answers to the calculation problem. Books like Paul Cockshotts "Towards A New Socialism", or Pat Devine's model of a decentralized planned economy. This is of course assuming there is empirical evidence that the centrally planned USSR economies had issues with economic calculation, when in fact they did not.

...

It's harder to say that Communism is the cause of China's economic success when their most valuable city (Hong Kong) is a localized Capitalistic economy which is so valuable that China chose not to change it after they regained control from the British. Hong Kong's GDP alone is 0.5% of the entire world's GDP.

Russia did grow considerably after the Bolshevik revolution but much of the land like Siberia is of little value, so size alone isn't really a good scale for success, especially when factoring in how many independent nations came about from the fall of the USSR, showing how many people weren't interested in being part of Russia.

I refer to my previous comment above. Capitalism doesn't seem to be faltering or comparably weakening to any Communist country. China is the main competitor but as I've mentioned their most successful and economically valuable city is Hong Kong with represents a localized Capitalistic Free Market.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

I mean real basic decisions. If everything is socially owned, who makes the final decisions on anything? It seems like nothing at all would get done. There is a reason why we separate the people working on a factory floor and the accountants and upper management, ect because one doesn't know how to do another's job. You can't simply give the means of production over to a mob of people and expect anything good to come out of it.

...

...

...

...

>It's another "no true scotsman" episode
Kys roach, I hope you get raid sprayed in your rectum
>SAGE.

Yes, people should and would have to work to survive under any system

But the labour should not be exploited. Someone should not be living off the labour of others.

There is this Spanish song I cannot remember the name of, someone here have it?

Democracy already exist in the workplace, though of course the goal of socialism is the abolishment of capital and this includes the division of labour, so I'm attracted to guild socialism among other decentralized planning systems like Pat Devine's that I mentioned earlier. You can split duties up, but you can have representatives be democratically elected or participatory.

...

...

Leftist economics is dead because it failed catastrophically multiple times in multiple environments.

Your poster child these days is Venezuela.

But hey, at least China is nominally communist right?

This only works in small comunities like villages and small towns

...