Seize the means of production

Seize the means of production
Do it
Now

Other urls found in this thread:

jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/blackbookcommunism.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism)
youtube.com/watch?v=J92f2S3E0S8
youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ
thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/02/malnutrition-killing-elderly-in-u-s/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I just seized my mean of reproduction. What do now karl ?

pol will be triggered by understanding that this man was correct.

They will be more triggered by understanding that Adam Smith understood this and would have agreed.

what the fuck does this mean?

seize communists and physically remove them wherever encountered

Do I have to dress like a bum and smell like dog shit while I do it?

wtf i have no food now

No.

You can happily follow dialectical materialism without being a red-liberal. Even Marx found the Marxists of his time cringey.

It means communist can only work only if it parazites a functional society first. If nobody has created and set the "means of production" in the first place, no communism is possible because proletariat can't seize what doesn't exist.
That's the reason communism is pure cancer.

>dialectical materialism
nonsense meme made for subhuman consumption because they can't even understand and refute it, being subhuman and all

jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/blackbookcommunism.pdf

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism)

daily reminder that communism is cancer that not only hinders a nation economically but also fucks with its national character for generations, poisons the minds and legitimizes criminality

there is no country on this planet that survived communism and wants it back, only useless, naive and envious "people" who want to have a field day with looting and terrorizing their peers subscribe to it

And everyone surrounding marx found him cringey. Literally nobody respected him, not even his family. He was a lazy, smelly bum that was a leech on society and blamed everyone but himself.

This Hook nosed NEET parasite caused the deaths of several hundred million and there's a street named after him in the middle of Berlin.

The Fuck.

stop rushing me, I get nervous and fuck up when you do that

This man's ideas have done more damage to the fabric of civilization than any other man or event that has ever been in history.

youtube.com/watch?v=J92f2S3E0S8

Marxism can be boiled down to:
>gibs me dat

He was a lazy bum with a pen. Everyone who knew him hated him.

That wouldn't be a dangerous idea, just a stupid one.

The greatest danger of Marxism is that it is 100% counterpropositional to the nature of humanity.

What's more it completely halts any progress, since the goal of communism is simply to have everyone work and keep working. It talks about "productivity", but it's just productivity to maintain the status quo.

The goal of capitalists is the complete opposite, to do as little work as necessary to get what they want. This naturally causes improvements in efficiency and thus technological advancements -> progress and development.

How about create your own means of prduction and maintain it well? Own it together and be free from the capitalists dictatorship.

>Le human nature meme
Except human nature can be changed. It adapts to its surroundings, which is purest form of cancer in capitalist countries, consumerism and laziness. This was tested with Bonobo monkeys, which are closest thing to human species. They're already communistic, but their nature can be changed when their environment changes.

So go spout memes somewhere else, you know nothing about marxism or human nature.

As a tradesman I literally am a means of production--waiting for the comfy general strike to pop off desu lads. Also Marxism is a dead meme. Socialism is now pretty well focused on the environmental cause.

>Except human nature can be changed

No it cannot. But keep talking like a brainwashed socialist.

So you're denying science? Way to ignore rest of the post.
Really made you look intelligent. Not.

you have literally no idea what you are talking about lol

Also people like you is what I mean when I say Marx has been the most destructive force in the history of civilization.

The ideological implications of his "economic" theory have become so pervasive and so ingrained in the consciousness of modern civilization that it has become almost impossible to get rid of them.

Seizing a means of reproduction is not nesesary currently. You cant marxpill normies ein masse when they have something to loose. Wait untill current economic system collapses, (which is inevitable if you think Marx was right). Untill then - prepare your ass, find other commies, communicate and share ideas. And remember Your goal - is not bringing the death to rich but showing humanity (including rich ones) a right way to do things.

This.
youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ

Not an argument. Also I haven't seen you prove that human nature doesn't adapt to its surroundings. Perhaps it's because you can't? Oh well, didn't expect much from this site.

>Follows the ideology of a bum looking for free stuff

>this webm
WHY
What the fuck.
>gibs me dat
Go read Marx. "boiling down", kek
All he did was an explanation of how wealth is created. In contrast other ideologies can be boiled down to:
>exploitation is fun for everyone

Can you explain what you would change and how it would make things better?

You should know better,your country was in deep communism....just sad.

>Seizing a means of reproduction is not nesesary
Trotskite much?
>Wait untill current economic system collapses
Waiting until nature will give you right weather.

cancerous consumerism and "I WANT MORE MORE MORE" has to go first of all. In capitalism it's absolutely impossible to make it big when you're lower class citizen. In ancient times tribals only got what they needed, including food, clothes and things like that.

It would make things better the way that there wouldn't be millions and billions of people starving to death while first world countries get really obese.

You're right. Human nature does adapt.

And I can tell you that when you create a giant power vacuum, like in an anarchical volunteerist post-state (whether ancap or communist-syndicalist or whatever), then the biggest, baddest, most ruthless motherfucker is going to "adapt", and him and his cronies and anyone he can enlist are going to capture your state and turn it into back into an authoritarian regime. Profits go to whoever controls the state; you can't avoid that.

>muh exploitation
All he did was justify laziness for future generations of lazy bums and stoners.

Which of the following do you think is better:

>everyone has food, clothes

>everyone has food, clothes, shelter

>everyone has food, clothes, shelter, health care

>everyone has food, clothes, shelter, health care, a nice home

don't tread on me OR ELSE
how's that for human nature?

food for the starving, clothes for the people, shelter for the homeless, healthcare for the sick.

Gay commie egelord

charity, charity, charity, charity

no need to institute a cancerous totalitarian regime to essentially take care of the dregs of society, who in turn would only reproduce carbon copies of themselves thereby exacerbating the initial problem

So you agree more more more is actually good?

Sure, I'll grab 'em by the pussy.

That's more or less distributism. It still doesn't work because if everyone had means of production, no one would update their capital and sure enough there would be those who would eventually sell their means just to live by using others, publicly available ones.....it degenerates into capitalism again

Apparently I need to wait another 32 years for that.

>witnessed

By "more more" I meant people who already have everything they need and more.
It's not really selfish to give food for those who are starving or homes for those who don't have one.

1 Post by this ID

>In capitalism it's absolutely impossible to make it big when you're lower class citizen.
Not with that faggot attitude. Just because you're destined to be a failure doesn't mean everyone else is. You're just a pathetic type who won't rest until he's dragged everyone down to his level. Like Marx. Despicable, really.

in ex-yugo, people/workers routinely stole shit from state enterprises without anyone batting an eye, it was the norm

workers' councils had a lot of say in management decisionmaking and they routinely voted in favour of building company holiday homes for the workers to use, raise wages instead of investing into R&D and modernizing

only rare, specialized enterprises survived (pharma, defense, agriculture) while the vast vast majority bought the farm (90+%) during the transition to market economy

Consumerism is whatever. Really it's more about putting your own good before everyone else.
No charity, just work that gets rewarded properly.
Capitalists have unlimited workforce available to them, therefore their profit is inherently higher than that of collectives - in capitalist societies. In socialist societies capitalists can't compete with collectives. Look at capitalist responses to higher wages, healthcare, work conditions, ecology, etc.

those in need of charity don't work

Fuck you, you limp-wristed bag of self-hating laziness

>Except human nature can be changed.
lol no.

Let's say we want everyone to have food, shelter, health care, etc - the stuff we'd consider basic needs.

Well, we spend about $11,000/year on health care only in the west.

But, global GDP is only about $10,500 per person.

So - if we want everyone to have health care in the world then we wouldn't even be able to afford food or shelter for them.

This is simply an arithmetic fact which begs the question: you should you be more interested in increasing the amount of stuff or redistribution of the stuff?

Your redistribution schema, whatever merits it may or may not have, isn't even sufficient to cover what you consider basic needs. What are we going to do about that?

If one person works hard while nine others flounder, the laws of natural selection will favor the hard working individual for the betterment of society. It's nobody's obligation to share their hard earned wealth with the dregs of society. Nor is it your right to enforce that he's obliged to do so.

You're trying to impede natural selection because you're on the bottom rung of the human food chain, and you know it.

[UKRAINE STARVING NOISES]

Jesus you shills are in for a perma-trolling ride are you not
>but you don't understand
flood the board all you want
in the end we win

...

>workers' councils had a lot of say in management decisionmaking and they routinely voted in favour of building company holiday homes for the workers to use, raise wages instead of investing into R&D and modernizing
Not a problem of collective per se, it's organization problem. Unique to socialism, sure, but capitalism has unique problems as well.
And?
Actually, laws of natural selection favour nine lazy people since they spend no work to get something. Finance capital by the very definition is more profitable than productive capital.

Humans only change if they are FORCED to change by something. E.g. if a natural disaster kills off everyone in Africa - this causes a change in the overall human gene pool.

Humans have no reason to desire communism because it means the majority of people would have to hand their possessions over to the government. They have nothing to gain from it.

Only the lowest dregs of society have something to gain from communism. That's why only the lowest dregs of society support it.

Is endless growth a good thing?

>Actually, laws of natural selection favour nine lazy people since they spend no work to get something.
What in the actual fuck kind of misapprehension regarding natural selection are you under.

Calm down!
You are early.
Just wait till 3D printing and molecular assemblers are common.
Then you will be useful Marx.

fuck the lot of them, nothing I create belongs to anyone but me, else I won't play ball; black market is a beutiful equalizer - even in the most inhumanely repressive communist regimes there is a thriving black market taking care of people's needs, you know as in market economy, not planned economy

By helicopter ideally.

You realise that Lenin essentially gave up on communism within only a couple of years of coming to power, right?

He tried to requisition grain from all the peasants, unto the state, to fulfil the dream of distributive communism. But it caused riots and protest from these poor farmers who had their only means of making a living stripped away from them. It also caused mass starvations.

So then Lenin had to introduce the New Economic Policy, which brought in profit-based "state capitalism". This was in 1921. Only four years after coming to power in 1917.

>TLDR
Communism didn't even last for four years in the Soviet Union before they had to introduce elements of capitalism. Communism doesn't work.

thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/02/malnutrition-killing-elderly-in-u-s/
>2-3k dies every year from starvation in USA
>2010
>those are only elderly
[NO NOISES FROM STARVING IN AMERICA]
>black market takes care of people's needs
Oy vey
Speculations are cancer to economy. Buying cheap in government shops and selling high to populace that couldn't buy cheap from government shops is a cancer twice the size.

>2-3k usa vs 6-7.5mil Ukraine

Good argument foaggot

you don't get it, I've experienced yugo communism with prohibitive tariffs on imports and meh domestic product selection; black market fulfills the need for products that qualititavely differentiate themselves, not by price, although smuggled goods usually were less expensive than tariff-laden imports as well

>7 million ukrainians starved to death
>no noticeable change in population dynamics
Well, let's add to death count those children THAT SHOULD HAVE BE BORN. Sure, why not? Add those who died from diseases, count those who died from age, from natural causes as well. For good measure let's add some more - just because commies somewhere in the past didn't count 50% of someone we increase death rates by 200% now in regards to Ukraine. Now look what a wonderful number we got!

loll this grasping at straws

Smuggling isn't speculation. Also, most of "smuggled" goods were produced internally, lol, in USSR at least. They just added western brands to clothes and sold them as smuggled. Frigging glorious.
Then we have kolhoz markets. Nobody EVER in USSR forbade them. Government bought from collective farms some food and sold it cheaply. Any more products were property of kolhozes, and often they were selling them on kolhoz markets. Surprisingly enough there were no lines to kolhoz markets, only to government shops.
>products that qualititavely differentiate themselves
Products that were qualitatively worse than western oftentimes are still working to this very day in many households.
I'm explaining to you the way those numbers were achieved. You can read black book of communism as an example, they have their accounting methods somewhere in the beginning or in the end. It's a very funny read.

I've always assumed that the black book of communism overstates the case. For example, did Mao really kill 60 million? Probably not. 30-40 million? Sure.

Also, I think its very much worth pointing out that the CDC, because of its bureaucratic nature, has every incentive in the world to inflate and fudge its numbers as much as possible, to create the impression of greatest impact. The Soviet Union during the 30s, because of political realities at the time, had exactly the opposite incentives.

Stalin starved 7mil people to death in one year, 1932. He confiscated their grain. How dense are you? I bet you think Mao's "great leap forward" program was a great success as well.

Why do you always imply that USSR wanted to show foreigners how good USSR is?
>For example, did Mao really kill 60 million? Probably not. 30-40 million? Sure.
Personally with his own hands. They don't even state any sources, they just assume that high number. That's just retarded. Your assumption that real number is somewhat less is retarded twice.
For example we have Ukraine. Ukrainian administration asked for a lot of grain at once. It was very unexpected, so investigation was in order. It was found out that most of the "helping grain" was left unused. Why? Inflation and fudging of numbers. Authorities just asked for a lot of grain while not finding enough hungry people to disribute it to.
>He confiscated their grain.
No. Hunger first, confiscations second. In some cases investigators found holes in the ground filled with grain from 1920s. Hiding grain for selling it later at high price was a long standing tradition.

He starved Ukraine because it was a threat to the Union.

>Why do you always imply that USSR wanted to show foreigners how good USSR is?

Because I've read these things called "books", actually written as primary sources by people in the past, and the levels of Potemkin in Soviet society that were provided to western journalists, especially British and American, was simply astounding. It was a critical function of Soviet political formula. They needed the support of western intellectuals to provide legitimacy for their regime. And for the most part it worked, up until the 80s.

>Personally with his own hands.
No. Indirectly, with his agricultural policies. Likewise, the thousands that died in the gulags at the hands of Stalin are trivial compared to those who starved as a result of his Lysenkoist policies, particularly as a result of abolishing the NEP and similar "reforms".

Mao killing 30-40 million isn't from the black book of communsim. There is lots of evidence and reason to believe that number is in the ballpark. If you mean to imply that we can never really be certain, sure. But people inflate the holocaust numbers to this day. Does this mean that there was no holocaust?

>Trotskite much?
Do not know much about his ideas so do not know. I do not consider myself socialist btw. Just giving advices according to my current worldview.
>Waiting until nature will give you right weather.
According to current happenings it'll happen in our lifetime. But that is not the point.
The point is that the essential mistake communists make every time is thinking that people supporting them actually support communism, while hivemind of the masses mostly considers revolution as their assension from cucked ones to those who cuck. In functioning society communism attracts marginals and worthless fucks... you will have to get rid off eventually, otherwise your society will quickly become ancap instead, and then collapse as there will be tons of ppl with guns and nigger mentality (regardless of skin colour). And then you need to establish order, for that order you need loyal apparate without any empathy to people. Surviving masses will hate you>sabotage>repressions>everyone so bisy sustaining the regime no one cares about actually doing communism>people become prone to enemy propoganda>1991.
So unless everyone is fucked up by capitalism to the point they ll tell their children about them, and WANT dat communism of yours - it will not work.

>No. Hunger first, confiscations second.
Absolute bullshit - Lenin confiscated grain after coming to power because it was their IDEOLOGICAL COMMITMENT to do so. Their ham-fisted attempts CAUSED starvation. People did not starve before the Bolsheviks tried to steal peasants' grain from them.

>In some cases investigators found holes in the ground filled with grain from 1920s. Hiding grain for selling it later at high price was a long standing tradition.
Yeah because guess what - PEOPLE DON'T WANT THEIR SHIT TAKEN FROM THEM BY AN AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT.

>In contrast other ideologies can be boiled down to:
>exploitation is fun for everyone
Marx inspired a bunch of workers to rise up and overthrow their elitist overlords.

However. He was so utterly naïve in thinking that exploitation would be ended if the workers were in control.

Of course, in reality, WHOEVER is on top in society will exploit those below them. Marx was a fucking idiot.

By the way I've just realised you were talking about Stalin's policies towards Ukraine when you were talking about starvation.

I've clearly mentioned something completely different; Lenin's requisitioning of the grain after he came to power in Russia in 1917.

Apologies.

Grab them by the pussy?

Do I know you?

I didn't know Trudeau smoked cigars.

Wait a minute.
Women hold the means of reproduction.
And Donald Trump was advocating for grabbing them by the pussy, seizing the means of reproduction.
Is Trump actually a commie?!

best products are borne out of competition, not command and protectionist monopolies, that is the reason western products were of superior quality and decades ahead of commie analogues
whilst these domestic analogues more or less served their purpose, there was evident market demand for high-quality foreign counterparts; since the state acted against this market demand using bureaucratic obstacles, black markets emerged to fulfill the demand
enter informal private business; cash-in-hand, tax free, no questions asked; individuals that took the associated risks by providing supply of such products prospered, out the door goes your favourite neet's classless society
enter materialism: people see what being enterprising does to an individual vs. slaving away for shit wages only to have your children go through the same pointless motions in their lives
enter bribery: those in power envious of enterprising individuals open themselves to looking the other way if compensated, your favourite neet's classless society is now beyond the horizon, so-called communist justice righ alongside it
the following stage is waiting for the collapse of the entire communist system as things return to normal, only individuals such as yourself long for a revolution to set the nation back once again

you must be either:
-spawn of commie nomenclature (more equal than plebs)
-spawn of commie military/"""law""" enforcement/intelligence staff (more equal than plebs)
-too young to know shit

Seize her right in the means of reproduction!

Make me, faggot.