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.
Over the last century, capitalism has repeatedly revealed its worst tendencies: instability and inequality. Instances of instability include the Great Depression (1929-1941) and the Great Recession since 2008, plus eleven "downturns" in the US between those two global collapses. Each time, millions lost jobs, misery soared, poverty worsened and massive resources were wasted. Leaders promised that their "reforms" would prevent such instability from recurring. Those promises were not kept. Reforms did not work or did not endure. The system was, and remains, the problem.
Inequality likewise proved to be an inherent trend of capitalism. Only occasionally and temporarily did opposition from its victims stop or reverse it. Income and wealth inequalities have worsened in almost every capitalist country since at least the 1970s. Today we have returned to the huge 19th-century-sized gaps between the richest 1 percent and everyone else. Rescuing the "disappearing middle class" has become every aspiring politician's slogan. Extreme inequality infects all of society as corporations and the rich, to protect their positions, buy the politicians, mass media and other cultural forms that are for sale.
William Kelly
Did you know muh Karl Marx was married to Prussian aristocracy and his wife was the sister of the head of the German secret police in charge of the German conservative movement??? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_von_Westphalen
lol Marx was a fucking obvious shill and you're just a retard
Alexander Perez
...
Isaiah Howard
>When you can deport and genocide millions of people because "they are enemies of the state"
Mason Robinson
Let's just forget that he wrote more than 30 books on the subject
No USSR (the Soviet government murdered millions of its own people during its 70 year reign)
No cold war (without the USSR)
No Communist Eastern Europe/Iron Curtain (when WW2 ended, Eastern Europe fell to Communism)
No Red China and Mao's subsequent killing of 40-60 million Chinese (the USSR created favorable conditions for Mao's Communists)
No Communist North Vietnam (both the Soviet Union and Red China aided Ho Chi Minh)
No Communist Cambodia and Pol Pot's slaughter of 2,000,000 Cambodians (Red China aided Pol Pot)
No dividing Korea into North Korea and South Korea (the Allies split Korea after WW2 ended with North Korea becoming Communist)
No Communist Cuba and no Communism anywhere (Hitler was the world's most fervent anti-Communist)
Liberalism and multiculturalism wouldn't dominate Western ethos (both are Jewish creations and both have always been heavily promoted by Jews)
No Cultural Marxism and no political correctness (these are social engineering tools which came out of the Jewish think tank known as the Frankfurt School)
No third world immigration into Western nations (Jews wouldn't be in power positions to craft and force through liberal immigration laws)
No depraved filth on TV, in movies, etc. (because Jews wouldn't run Hollywood)
No widespread pornography (Jewish lawyers and Jewish activists were the main challengers of anti-obscenity laws, under the guise of "freedom of speech")
There would still be prayer in public schools (Jewish lawyers were instrumental in banning prayer in public schools under the guise of so-called "separation of church and state")
No radical feminist movement (Jews such as Betty Friedan, Sonia Pressman, and Gloria Steinem were the key drivers of radical feminism)
No Israel and the problems it has brought the US, and the immeasurable misery it has wrought on Palestinians
Daily reminder that communism was tried and failed. Daily reminder that primitive communism (the central principle of all Marxism) never even existed. Marx was too lazy to do archaeology and based his crap on a bunch of outdated theories. I'd like to go back in time and punch that stupid jewish faggot in the back of the skull until he dies of a hemorrhage.
Ethan White
How Sup Forums makes an argument >jews >jews >jews >jews
Suck a dick retard
Leo Ross
And your point is ?
After digging into someones ancestors you will eventually find something, chances are 99.9999% that you have a Jew 3-4 generations back in your family
Isaiah Parker
A communist society would free individuals from long working hours by first automating production to an extent that the average length of the working day is reduced and second by eliminating the exploitation inherent in the division between workers and owners. A communist system would thus free individuals from alienation in the sense of having one's life structured around survival (making a wage or salary in a capitalist system), which Marx referred to as a transition from the "realm of necessity" to the "realm of freedom." As a result, a communist society is envisioned as being composed of an intellectually-inclined population with both the time and resources to pursue its creative hobbies and genuine interests, and to contribute to creative social wealth in this manner. Karl Marx considered "true richness" to be the amount of time one has at his or her disposal to pursue one's creative passions.Marx's notion of communism is in this way radically individualistic
Adam Garcia
Communists already have a 0 hour work day though
Grayson Howard
Many aspects of a communist economy have emerged in recent decades in the form of open-source software and hardware, where source code and thus the means of producing software is held in common and freely accessible to everyone; and to the processes of peer production where collaborative work processes produce freely available software that does not rely on monetary valuation. Michel Bauwens juxtaposes open source and peer production with "market production".
Joshua Ramirez
That's not communism anymore than a charity is communism. People are free to give stuff away for free under a capitalist economy, just as they are free to form a coop or commune. It becomes communism when it is forced on the people.
Landon Evans
A communist economic system would be characterized by advanced productive technology that enables material abundance, which in turn would enable the free distribution of most or all economic output and the holding of the means of producing this output in common. In this respect communism is differentiated from socialism, which, out of economic necessity, restricts access to articles of consumption and services based on one's contribution.
The fully developed communist economic system is postulated to develop from a preceding socialist system. Marx held the view that socialism—a system based on social ownership of the means of production—would enable progress toward the development of fully developed communism by further advancing productive technology. Under socialism, with its increasing levels of automation, an increasing proportion of goods would be distributed freely.
Josiah Martin
Are you talking of means of production or personal property?
Luis Carter
Both, especially considering how blurred and arbitrary the distinction is between the two.
Jackson Bell
...
Ryan Cook
>tfw pol is full of classcucks
Jayden Powell
Was the soviet union socialist? did the workers own the means of production? Were gulag cucks workers or slaves? Why didn't gulag workers seize means of production?
Bentley Peterson
Give me an example of an individual private owner giving away a power plant to the workers and tell me how realistic is to expect that happening anytime soon by charity.
Luis Williams
Here is a joke: What are communists good for?
Target practice.
Brandon Scott
...
Lincoln Brooks
> gib example of retarded shit
Joseph Anderson
Why are you still making this threads here if they will be flooded by rightads anyway?
Wyatt Moore
...
Luke Perry
Why would a factory owner give away his plant to the workers, and how does that benefit anyone in this scenario?
Chase Flores
when and where does the revolucion kick off? I want to be there streaming on periscope when malnourished commie faggots get destroyed by law enforcement ahem counterrevolutionaries and citizens defending their property
Adrian James
answer this cuck:
Benjamin Watson
>ableist slur You're literally a redditor. Oh well, at least that explains the mental illness you suffer.
Aiden Reyes
...
Lucas Hall
In what sense was the USSR socialist?
Here we base ourselves on the classical Marxist analysis of society. In Marx’s view, the most basic distinguishing feature of different modes of social organisation is the manner in which they ensure the ‘extraction of a surplus product’ from the direct producers. This requires a little explanation. The ‘necessary product’, on this theory, is the product required to maintain and reproduce the workforce itself. This will take the form of consumer goods and services for the workers and their families, and the investment in plant, equipment and so on that is needed simply to maintain the society’s means of production in working order. The ‘surplus product’, on the other hand, is that portion of social output used to maintain the non-producing members of society (a heterogeneous lot, ranging from the idle rich, to politicians, to the armed forces, to retired working people), plus that portion devoted to net expansion of the stock of means of production. Any society capable of supporting non-producing members, and of generating an economically progressive programme of net investment, must have some mechanism for compelling or inducing the direct producers to produce more than is needed simply to maintain themselves. The precise nature of this mechanism is, according to Marxist theory, the key to understanding the society as a whole—not just the ‘economy’, but also the general form of the state and of politics. Our claim is that the Soviet system put into effect a mode of extraction of the surplus product quite different from that of capitalism.
Zachary Mitchell
So then why has there never been a communist society, and why is capitalism so much more prosperous than socialism, and why does socialism provide so fewer freedoms than capitalism does, and why do you not have the right to your labor under communism?
Nicholas Edwards
Soviet socialism, particularly following the introduction of the first five-year plan under Stalin in the late 1920s, introduced a new and non-capitalist mode of extraction of a surplus. This is somewhat obscured by the fact that workers were still paid ruble wages, and that money continued in use as a unit of account in the planned industries, but the social content of these ‘monetary forms’ changed drastically. Under Soviet planning, the division between the necessary and surplus portions of the social product was the result of political decisions.
Jackson Taylor
For the most part, goods and labour were physically allocated to enterprises by the planning authorities, who would always ensure that the enterprises had enough money to ‘pay for’ the real goods allocated to them. If an enterprise made monetary ‘losses’, and therefore had to have its money balances topped up with ‘subsidies’, that was no matter. On the other hand, possession of money as such was no guarantee of being able to get hold of real goods. By the same token, the resources going into production of consumer goods were centrally allocated. Suppose the workers won higher ruble wages: by itself this would achieve nothing, since the flow of production of consumer goods was not responsive to the monetary amount of consumer spending. Higher wages would simply mean higher prices or shortages in the shops. The rate of production of a surplus was fixed when the planners allocated resources to investment in heavy industry and to the production of consumer goods respectively.
Easton Cooper
So it was shitty state run capitalism ruled by a totalitarian bureaucracy instead of muh bourrgois
Chase Clark
In very general terms this switch to a planned system, where the the division of necessary and surplus product is the result of deliberate social decision, is entirely in line with what Marx had hoped for. Only Marx had imagined this ‘social decision’ as being radically democratic, so that the production of the surplus would have an intrinsic legitimacy. The people, having made the decision to devote so much of their combined labour to net investment and the support of non-producers, would then willingly implement their own decision. For reasons both external and internal, Soviet society at the time of the introduction of economic planning was far from democratic.
Owen Hernandez
We know that the plans were, by and large, implemented. The 1930s saw the development of a heavy industrial base at unprecedented speed, a base that would be severely tested in the successful resistance to the Nazi invasion. We are also well aware of the characteristic features of the Stalin era, with its peculiar mixture of terror and forced labour on the one hand, and genuine pioneering fervour on the other. Starting from the question of how the extraction of a surplus product was possible in a planned but undemocratic system, the cult of Stalin’s personality appears not as a mere ‘aberration’, but as an integral feature of the system.
Hunter Russell
...
Justin Rodriguez
Stalin: at once the inspirational leader, making up in determination and grit for what he lacked in eloquence and capable of promoting a sense of participation in a great historic endeavour, and the stern and utterly ruthless liquidator of any who failed so to participate (and many others besides). The Stalin cult, with both its populist and its terrible aspects, was central to the Soviet mode of extraction of a surplus product.
Kayden Wilson
You're fucking insane
Easton Reed
>communism was tried That makes literally no sense. That's like saying: "gravity was tried".
Mason Price
>same spanish autismo as always When you are a jobless cunt I guess you have time to span this. Sad!
Hudson Gray
...
Luis Ortiz
Hello comrades!
Connor Nguyen
Ever read Bakunin?
Leo Taylor
death to all commies
Parker Sanchez
The calculation problem is a non issue. If it arises decentralized planning could be used.
Brody Morris
Replaced instead by a massive genocide of jews and an even bigger one of slavs.
Oliver King
Reminder that the actual working class will always side with reactionaries in a revolutionary scenario t. lazzaroni
Blake Peterson
yes. Bakunin hated that kike and knew he was a shill. Marx basically spent his entire life shilling against genuine anarchists who advocated for direct action against the state and came up with muh dialectical materialism which is the most retarded shit ever just sit there goy and capitalism will collapse on its own lmao
Kayden Young
Google Bakunin.
Sebastian Robinson
>communism has been tried and failed
Christian Nguyen
The USSR was state "socialism" where the state supposedly represents the workers but thats basically bullshit and it was an oligarchy.
Julian Young
>Lists 18 failed communist states Wew lad
Isaiah Davis
if I ever had the misfortune of being born again into a communist society I'd choose a traditionally self-employed craftsman/tradesman occupation thus elegantly escaping the tyranny of having to work for some bullshit state enterprise I remember people working those kinds of occupations from my childhood and they had it best by far since their rewards were directly proportionate with the effort they put in
Jackson Anderson
It benefits the workers a ton. Now they can get a higher wage because they no longer need to pay there boss.
Gabriel Jones
There have been communist societies. Stateless money-less communism was achieved in Catalonia before being crushed by imperialism.
Robert Parker
Yeah. So we want the workers to run there own workplace.
Oliver Young
GTFO COMMIES REEEEEEEEEEEE
Owen Murphy
Ignore this retarded tankie.
Julian Martin
2 still exist. The rest were crushed by outside forces.
Benjamin Flores
He also supported economic very very similar to Marxist economics...
Alexander Williams
an hero you cockroach eating rat rapist
James Carter
>Stateless money-less communism was achieved in Catalonia before being crushed by imperialism. You mean by communism? Catalonia anarchist fought communists, and lost. You guys can't even keep from killing each other, how are we supposed to trust you with a global, stateless society?
>It benefits the workers a ton. Now they can get a higher wage because they no longer need to pay there boss. You'd actually likely see a decrease in wages, because you now either have to hire someone competent to administrate the power plant, and those people are fairly rare hence their high salaries, or you'll have to self-administrate from a position of inexperience, which will likely lead to failure.
Here's my question, if worker owned businesses are so great why aren't they more common? You can already form your coops and communes in our capitalist economies, so why don't you see more of them?
Brandon Rodriguez
May all Communists die screaming.
Grayson Rogers
Which two still exists, and why is communism so great if it is incapable of standing up to outside resistance or subversion?
>pay there boss. no such thing. The owner of capital is receiving the proceeds of the capitals labor >achieved in Catalonia It cannot be considered a success unless it lasted multiple generations. The only successful implementation of communism are the kibbutz, and they privatized a while ago >workers to run there own workplace. Co-ops are capitalist, not socialist
Noah Perry
The Zapitista's still control some areas in Mexico and Rojava which is working nicely.
Coops in a market are capitalist but combined with a planned economy are socialist.
Lucas Taylor
you communist fag always start this communist threads. May Franco fuck your ass in hell
Carter Scott
He is dead, also hell is a spook.
Grayson Foster
The workers pay the boss. The fact that in most company's the boss could just take a vacation and still get paid if he wanted to proves this. The workers do the vast majority of the labor.
Luis Brown
If it's a planned economy then they are not "coops" in any meaningful way.
Luis Lee
Your moving the goal post. It started with "Name one successful communist state" Then you moved it to "HAHAHHA NONE OF THOSE STILL EXIST XDDDDDD"
Kayden Myers
>the capitals labor You literally live in fairyland.
Kevin Sanders
Not state planned. The workers elect a representative to a district workers council which makes the local economic plan and gives orders on what to make to the workers. The representative can be recalled at any time.
Blake Long
Vladimir Lenin the mastermind behind Red Terror that crushed dissidence; also founded Cheka, the dreaded secret police.
Joseph Stalin unleashed terror and millions of ordinary citizens died in labour camps or were simply shot dead.
Mao Zedong was a tyrant. The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution led to the death of millions and China slipping back into poverty.
Enver Hoxha resorted to large-scale purges, crushing of the opposition, proliferation of labour camps, banning religious activities.
Pol Pot reduced Cambodia's population by 1.5 million, between 1975-79, he transformed the countryside into a killing field, the country's population then was only 8 million.
Fidel Castro jailed or killed his dissidents, you can easily find archive footage of his firing squads online.
Nicolae Ceausescu banned free speech and dissidence, he kept a heavy thumb on industry and yet Romania was on the brink of a famine in the mid '80s.
Christian Fisher
how old are you? do you have any experience with work? I'm asking because your idea of the boss reads like some kind of bogeyman
Brayden Miller
No, co-ops are private property. they would not exist in a socialist system You didn't address my point. If Capital creates value, the owner of that capital is entitled to that wealth >dig a hole with your hands >takes 5 hours
>dig a hole with a shovel >takes one hour makes you think
Benjamin Torres
Because communists are very inconsistent on this. Half of you claim communism has never been tried and can't be tried until socialism controls the world, and the other half claim that communism has seen numerous successes.
So, basically, if you don't focus on efficiency and customer satisfaction, then you won't do as well as the businesses that do. Who woulda thunk it?
Benjamin Perez
Exactly: there are no independent units of production trading with each other. In other words: there are no coops.
Dylan Davis
Dialectical materialism and class consciousness are also spooks. Having any beliefs at all and not being a cunt is also a spook.
The lost speech by Abraham Lincoln has finally been found:
" Here's the thing niggers: The economic system of slavery in America is meant to expand more and more until finally almost everyone in the country is a slave and then we get finally a happening where the slaves overthrow the slave onwers and create a utopia. But here's the thing tho niggers: intervention in the specified course of history would not be possible or would even hinder progress on its inevitable way (fucking anarchis-I mean abolitionist cunts) so you niggers might as well kill yourselves right now. This btw is entirely scientific and falsifiable."
Asher Williams
Except he bought probably 95% of the company of off money that his employees earned for him.
Nathan Martin
Workers councils then.
Grayson Rivera
the owner of that value is the worker. Boss owns shit.
Ayden Powell
Reminder "Communists" who do not identify as Anarchists are actually just fascists.
>Was the soviet union socialist? No.
>did the workers own the means of production? No.
>Were gulag cucks workers or slaves? Slaves that committed violent crime, mostly, that were put there to give back to society and be suppressed into a situation where they appreciate even having a block of concrete to sleep in.
>Why didn't gulag workers seize means of production? Guns.
Jace Flores
>Buy a hole before the invention of the shovel >It's 5€
>Buy a hole after the invention of the shovel >It's 1€
