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 achieve 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/
How can you expect socialist progress when at the end of your term in power a capatalist party gets into power and fucks everything up. Its much harder to make a company public than to sell it off.
Democracy isn't very good in this regard, maybe you could say only left wing parties can run for government on their various platforms (Say a Leninist party, a Maoist party, a orthodox Marxist party, a Hoxhaism party ect) just so the work that is done in one term isnt completely erased in the next.
Angel Anderson
...
Camden Morris
fuck off commies
Angel Scott
>>How can you expect socialist progress when at the end of your term in power a capatalist party gets into power and fucks everything up By making capitalism illegal.
It's called "a constitution," they're pretty popular.
Evan Powell
...
Dylan Martinez
>democratic socialism It failed when it was called Austro-communism, it failed when it was called Euro-communism, it is currently failing when it's called democratic socialism. You can't just keep renaming a failed system and expect it to work because you called it something different.
Coops already exist in capitalism (and they're shit).
Bentley Lopez
...
Mason Young
Eat shit and die, you enormous fucking faggot
Joseph Perry
...
Jason Brooks
You niggers betrayed the Soviets of the February Revolution. You took their freedom, and did nothing but kill and strike fear into them and others forever, bringing production below 1913 levels. DISAVOW the Soviet Union, Lenin, and Stalin.
Ian Bennett
this threads are harassment its always the same copy pasta shit. Pol should be you faggot. not even 3% care about stupid communism so fuck you and your thread
Wyatt Myers
Communists have a point when they say that communism has never been tried. But the reason that it has never been tried is even more damning than the failures of the states that purported to be communist even if you don’t believe in the astronomical body counts. You see communism has never been tried because it has so far proven to be impossible to even achieve it due to human nature. The fact that you’re about to tell me there’s no such thing as human nature is more evidence of your idiocy and refusal to learn from history.
You see, communism has never been tried because the process that is supposed to implement it has broken down into tyrannical despotism every single time. The means of production is supposed to be seized democratically through socialism and then the socialist government is supposed to turn the means of production over to the workers and relieve themselves of power and dissolve the state. Communism is a stateless, moneyless, classless society right? This has never been done because it flies in the face of human motivations and desires. What human being or group of human beings who just seized all resources and means of production of a nation would then benevolently hand this power over to everyone equally and give up this absolute power? So far? Fucking nobody.
Luke Murphy
>It is recommended that you read some of the critical works of Marxism-Leninism so you can make an informed assessment of the ideology >Proceeds to post more Marxist propaganda
Real critical works of Marxism and everything derived from it have left the ideology in utter ruins with no sufficient counters provided from the Marxist camp in nearly a century
>le "i know your ideology better than you do" face Austro-communism failed because the fascists took over and by the time the country was liberated the political context had changed such that revolutionary parties were no longer in fashion.
Euro-communism failed BECAUSE it moved away from class struggle, not despite that.
>it is currently failing when it's called democratic socialism. Point to a single country that has implemented it. You literally can't, because none have. How do I know this? Because it's a purely theoretical concept that I fucking made up out of thin air as a name for my own personal beliefs.
>Coops already exist in capitalism (and they're shit). [citation needed] One of Spain's largest manufacturing organisations is a worker co-op. It's a multi-billion dollar organisation. Worker co-ops are springing up all over Argentina employing workers that the capitalists abandoned.
In fact, worker co-ops are experiencing a surge in prevalence and competitivieness.
You are talking out of your ass.
William Campbell
>""""""""""human nature"""""""""" not an argument
Nathan Stewart
>impossible to even achieve it due to human nature That isn't why it fails. Even if you reformed humanity into the "perfect communist man" completely moral and selfless by Commies standards Communism/socialism will still fundamentally not work due to This pathetic concession to Marxist that their system is inherently morally righteous over capitalism and that we need to accept capitalism because man is immoral is fucking crap. Communism is both morally inferior to capitalism and as an economic system is fundamentally at the most basic level is non-functional which is why it fails at any level beyond the family unit and the idea of a family unit being an example of an economic system is laughable.
I'd agree but getting normal people on your side on the issue might be a tad hard.
Just the word 'Illegal' triggers people for no reason, even if its for the good of the population.
Wyatt Richardson
I should also have added that worker co-ops are not contrary to capitalism unlike how any form of private enterprise is unallowable under capitalism. Even the poster child of Catalonia murdered and forced private property owners off their property when they resisted with violence like every other example of trying to implement these shitty immoral ideals because socialism/vommunism cannot tolerate such behavior.
Gabriel Cooper
Don't mind me just growing SAGE
Samuel Scott
Yeah I'm reading that now.
>mu scandinavian countries Not socialist. They're just "humanising" capitalism, which is why their countries are shit. What they do is allow the bosses to exploit the workers and then take some of that stolen money and give it back to the workers. It's a Robin Hood government, not socialism.
I'd just frame it as a business management issue. In Australia you have to register your business as a sole trader, partnership, or company. Change the rules on what each consists of and you have implemented socialism by stealth.
E.g. you can't register your business unless you only issue shares to workers in an equal amount and workers vote on pay scales.
It's a tiny change to a single act, and it results in full socialism.
Sure, capitalists could change it back, but that's an issue of class struggle not government. Step one on the road to socialism is killing all the capitalists. Step two is changing the laws to bring about socialism. The problem with step two is solved by step one.
>"look, if you don't want to murder that's fine, but i should have the freedom and option to murder if i want to" Stop posting any time.
Christopher Green
I skimmed your Mises paper. It's not applicable. Worker co-ops operating in a free market still adhere to price calculation and don't require price fixing by the government because the market still operates.
Christopher Hill
>It's called "a constitution," they're pretty popular Constitutions became popular in the west in the role of ensuring individual liberty. Outlawing"capitalism" is simply making many very basic inalienable human rights illegal to practice.
Not even the full totalitarian power of the USSR couldn't stop the massive black market that came forth under their unworkable system mostly because even the central planers of the USSR knew that this capitalistic activity was keeping the nation afloat longer than it would have ever otherwise have lasted.
Michael Garcia
SAGE A G E
Connor Bennett
sage
Camden Stewart
>Constitutions became popular in the west in the role of ensuring individual liberty. Yes, and?
Do you think if you shove enough buzzwords like "liberty" into a post I will roll over and die?
>Outlawing"capitalism" is simply making many very basic inalienable human rights illegal to practice. Human rights are a spook.
>muh USSR central planning Good thing I'm not advocating that then.
Literally shut up and listen for once in your life and you might be able to make relevant arguments.
Charles Carter
I don't give a fuck about people I don't know and I'm not going to work for their needs without compensation man. Said everyone ever.
But OK, what do you attribute the failure to implement communism at every attempt to?
Surely if its inevitable and the next stage of humanity someone would have done it right by now? Its been almost 200 years.
Jaxon Brooks
I would give you everything I own if you would give me a bullet to the back of the head
I'm so depressed
Jaxson Robinson
You should no better you eastern european trash
Luke Lopez
>Not socialist. They're just "humanising" capitalism, which is why their countries are shit. What they do is allow the bosses to exploit the workers and then take some of that stolen money and give it back to the workers. It's a Robin Hood government, not socialism. >Unironically repeating any form of LTV let alone Marx's LTV user the LTV ship has been sunk 130 years ago and Marx's take on it was particularly retarded even in the context of the time.
You shouldn't be reading on the calculation problem if you cannot even grasp the basic economic conceptof where value is derived from.
This is the economic equivalent to the flat earth"debate" in astronomy.
So no more human rights? Got it. But also no central planning to break those rights. Not sure how we are going to manage without central planning or individual freedom.
sage'd
Angel Allen
>But OK, what do you attribute the failure to implement communism at every attempt to? I object to the premise.
The USSR lasted for decades and achieved the status of a world superpower, and could have rolled over Western Europe at any point from 1945 to the mid '60s or even '70s if you want to be generous. That's power that most capitalist nations have never achieved.
But if you want a non-tankie answer then communism is a revolutionary ideology that happens during messy revolutions in shithole countries. Out of the entire Arab Spring only ONE nation has achieved something that resembles success (Tunisia). Does that mean democracy and capitalism have failed? Of course not. It means that shitholes stay shitholes. Russia was a shithole before communism, was a shithole during communism, and is a shithole now.
Who knew?
Oliver Wilson
>It's not applicable. Worker co-ops operating in a free market still adhere to price calculation and don't require price fixing by the government because the market still operates. Worker co-ops are a socialist system just individual groups of workers privately owning a business.
As I already pointed out it has no contradictions to capitalism because it is still fundamentally capitalistic.
Ayden Ortiz
Guys, what's you favourite herb?
Blake Clark
>E.g. you can't register your business unless you only issue shares to workers in an equal amount and workers vote on pay scales.
This is pretty radical though, I dont think you could sneak it through really. Its a great idea though, though there's no way even the labour party would introduce anything like that, you would need to get a socialist party in power which (for the time being) seems out of reach.
Julian Watson
The USSR was not a stateless society. Try again.
Brandon White
That's not the labour theory of value though you fucking retard.
>LTV: A good is worth how much labour it took to produce, not how much someone would pay for it. >exploitation theory Someone pays $40 for what your labour produced, but you only get paid $30.
If you link me to an irrelevant mises article one more time I am going to stop replying to you. I'm not going to waste my time sifting through them to find whatever nugget of bullshit you think is your silver bullet. So far you've linked me to an article talking about the calculation problem in a planned economy when I'm not advocating for a planned economy, and an article about Sweden when Sweden is still a capitalist state, just a welfare state.
If you can't make your own argument by synthesising the relevant parts of your wider reading (prepared to provide sources where requested, of course) then you're not worth arguing with.
Blake Sanchez
>I object to the premise
coinicidentally, whether or not you have an opinion on human nature, it doesn't change the fact that it's a readily observable trait of humans around the world, and about the one thing that unites us as a species.
Try to get rid of that, and all you end up with is conflict. Funny, that's exactly what's happening in the modern era as a result of the implementation of socialist policies.
hmm, really makes you think.
Alexander Jones
>Do you think if you shove enough buzzwords like "liberty" into a post I will roll over and die? No because Communism is the most zealous religion on the face of the Earth. > Human rights are a spook They're the natural result of us being free sovereign agents. This isn't an argument it is a beyond empty assertion. Just because you cannot grasp the philosophical concepts of what inalienable rights are doesn't make them not self evident. > Good thing I'm not advocating that then.
>Literally shut up and listen for once in your life and you might be able to make relevant arguments.
Even the example of "muh anachronistic Catalonia" fell into Soviet style purges to the limited scale that they were at.
You're not actually advocating anything beyond worker co-ops which isn't contrary to capitalism. Beyond you yourself and people like you setting up such companies to compete against others forms of private enterprise your ideas are at the most basic level failures and fallacies. Which you yourself aren't listening to
Owen Taylor
Enjoying your champagne, cyka?
Liam Flores
>As I already pointed out it has no contradictions to capitalism because it is still fundamentally capitalistic. What if it was mandatory?
No business organisations other than worker co-ops, combined with a wealth cap (somewhere around upper middle class). Because that's all I want.
>I dont think you could sneak it through really I didn't mean "sneak it through" as in name it the Protection of Children Act and try and pass it at midnight, I just meant that it doesn't have to be as radical as constitutional reform. For Joe Blogs the worker on the street all it means is that he gets some free shares in his company and to vote on his pay. The only people who would actually be affected would be the gigantic capitalists who own all the shares.
You could even do a government buyback of shares for people with less than X amount of wealth to ensure there are no crying teenage disabled refugee single mothers who owned a single share in the NAB left out of pocket for the cameras to feast on.
But yes, it first requires a party willing to take that action. Labor are gutless cowards, traitors, and colluders.
A-are you saying that the USSR was not real communism?
Hudson Jenkins
>They're the natural result of us being free sovereign agents. But you're neither free nor sovereign, which is why your agency is limited.
You're not free to do what you like and the government can involuntarily commit you under a number of circumstances, a breach of your sovereignty.
This is where you say "muh social contract means that's not a breach of my liberty because I consent (even though I never signed anything)" and I just turn that argument back on you and say that the same social contract applies in my socialist utopia.
>Just because you cannot grasp the philosophical concepts of what inalienable rights are doesn't make them not self evident. "Everyone who disagrees with me is objectively wrong even though I can't prove it."
>You're not actually advocating anything beyond worker co-ops But you're wrong. I'm advocating mandatory co-ops, a wealth cap, and a red terror to purge the capitalist class.
Julian Allen
>daily LARP thread Nice autism.
Mason Barnes
>Labor are gutless cowards, traitors, and colluders.
What party isn't in this country.
Zachary Phillips
>That's not the labour theory of value though you fucking retard. >>LTV: >A good is worth how much labour it took to produce, not how much someone would pay for it. >>exploitation theory >Someone pays $40 for what your labour produced, but you only get paid $30. You only think it's irrelevant because you don't fucking comprehend the idea. Marx's""""""exploitation"""""" idea is wrong because value isn't derived from.labor period which makes everything Marx derived from it wrong by default. The fact that you're still operating on anything based on any form of labor theory of value is as I said the economic equivalent of flat earth"theory". > What if it was mandatory?
Who enforces it? Oh right the commissars and we're right back to centrally planned shit in the name of preserving"public ownership". You're failure is not understanding that every totalitarian socialist regime started on these so called goals under the false narrative of what you're pushing. > No business organisations other than worker co-ops, combined with a wealth cap You need to put piketty down he's been proven a liar. tomwoods.com/ep-318-piketty-taken-down-for-good/
Robert Wilson
fuck you
Kayden Foster
...
Liam Cook
>But you're neither free nor sovereign, which is why your agency is limited. Your agency is limited by your willingness to abide by laws that try and make it illegal to exercise it. Just because a criminal cannot legally exercise his right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean he no longer has such right every criminal that is in possession of an arm is proof of the inalienable nature of actual rights. > But you're wrong. I'm advocating mandatory co-ops, a wealth cap, and a red terror to purge the capitalist class. And again this makes you in the same camp as evrryother Marxist looney fully willing to bathe their hands in the blood of millions for an ideological lie.
Connor Cox
Truth.
>value isn't derived from.labor period Try making some value without labour then friend.
>Who enforces it? The same people who enforce the law today you fucking retard. In this case it would be ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission in combination with the federal police.
>totalitarian socialist regime But this isn't anything new you moron. We already have prescribed business organisation templates which must be followed. You MUST REGISTER as a sole trader, a partnership, or a company, and each have rules and requirements.
You are calling "TYRANNY, JACKBOOTS, REEEEEE" at laws that already exist.
Charles Lopez
>Try making some value without labour then friend. >sells pet rocks
Christian Parker
What is this shit.
Marx is in hell, thank god that ideology burned
Lucas Allen
Communism is a failed ideology
Dylan Roberts
>Just because a criminal cannot legally exercise his right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean he no longer has such right So what you're saying is that somebody's rights have no effect on the real world whatsoever and exist purely as a philosophical thought exercise to make you feel good? That even if I were locked in a box, kept drugged out of my mind, and fed through a tube, I would still be in possession of all of my rights?
Utterly retarded.
Rights only exist insofar as you can use them, and they can be used only at the sufferance of others. Ergo, they are a spook. If I stop giving you rights, you stop having them.
>And again this makes you in the same camp as evrryother Marxist looney fully willing to bathe their hands in the blood of millions for an ideological lie. Not an argument.
Jace Sullivan
Let me guess another ban from the spam faggots sage.
Carson Bailey
OP is a giant faggot believing in that dead ideology
Noah Ward
...
Chase Wood
>selling things isn't labour >gathering rocks isn't labour
Aiden Peterson
>Try making some value without labour then friend. Labor isn't a value nor does it add value. At best it is a cost but that doesn't mean people place value on said cost
> The same people who enforce the law today you fucking retard Except now you're entirely shifting the purpose of law from protection of the individual to the oppression of anyone who isn't in your ideological camp. Now we're eback to typical socialist purposes you morally bankrupt POS. > But this isn't anything new you moron. We already have prescribed business organisation templates which must be followed. You MUST REGISTER as a sole trader, a partnership, or a company, and each have rules and requirements.
You're acting as if I don't oppose these things from a fundamental standpoint and even the corporate fascist system we have now isn't anywhere as murderous as the system you're suggesting.
Brody White
I'd rather have communists than black people on this board.
Asher James
Get out Sage
Grayson Williams
if communists thought selling things was labor they would be fine with privately owned business
Sebastian White
>2017 >Non ironically supporting leftism
Austin Nguyen
...
Carter Nguyen
>Labor isn't a value nor does it add value. Then what are you paying your employees for?
>shifting the purpose of law from protection of the individual That's not the purpose of law and never has been. Law has no purpose. It just is. A law (individual) has a purpose but the legal system is merely a thing that we have because having it is better than not having it.
>You're acting as if I don't oppose these things from a fundamental standpoint You oppose having formal business structures like sole traders, partnerships, and companies?
But this is wrong.
Nolan Thomas
Isn't communism a pipe dream? Does the will to power not contradict this?
Jacob Wood
>So what you're saying is that somebody's rights have no effect on the real world whatsoever and exist purely as a philosophical thought exercise to make you feel good? I'd say a criminal who legally isn't allowed to exercise their inalienable right to carry or own a gun is a very tangible example of the nature of inalienable rights.
> That even if I were locked in a box, kept drugged out of my mind, and fed through a tube, I would still be in possession of all of my rights? All the state can do is actively threaten you or actively physically restrain your from attempting to exercise these rights. Even in you're example you still hold your rights and can exercise free thought which is what rights are derived from. >Utterly retarded. You being unable to grasp something doesn't make it retarded. Flat earthers do the same thing btw > Rights only exist insofar as you can use them, and they can be used only at the sufferance of others. No Me speaking freely isn't causing sufferance to others. Me carrying an arm isn't sufferance to someone else. Me not having my privacy violated isn't a sufferance to anyone else. But your utterly warped idea of rights has it quite literally the opposite. It takes sufferance to try and stop people from exercising these rights as you yourself explained.
Zachary Hill
...
Michael Watson
Communism maybe be not so bad as a concept, but labor therory of labor is literally retarded.
Joshua Long
...
Kayden Rogers
>Then what are you paying your employees for As an entrepreneur you're paying employees for a service which adds cost to production.
What you fail to understand is that at the time of labor it has no value because the entrepreneur hasn't even made any profit yet. Value is created when x widgets begin to get to market and are sold
Luis Young
>labor theory of value*
Juan Carter
I don't even know why I'm trying to explain this when you already rejected reading on this topic as "nonsense"
Lincoln Reed
>Does the will to power not contradict this?
The will to power isn't solely based off making more money than anyone else, you can still achieve and be the best you can be without being driven by money.
Julian Garcia
Do you post this garbage board here EVERY DAY?
Move to North Korea or to Cuba if you love communism so much.
Leo Morris
Sage and hide
Kayden Morales
So again you're back to saying that for all practical purposes in the real world rights don't exist, and they are a purely theoretical concept that you believe in because it makes you feel good.
I can walk to your house and take your guns off you and your "right to bear arms" is not going to stop me. Only you, picking up your guns and shooting them, can stop me. So we see that whether rights exist or not is irrelevant because struggle - not righteousness - determines who holds power.
And because of that, I'm not interested in talking about what you think is right.
I also find it hilariously coincidental that the objective rights that definitely exist JUST SO HAPPEN to perfectly align with the rights that you WANT to exist. You weren't mistaken even just once on the objective ordering of the world despite going into it blind? You didn't think "man it would be cool if I had a right to do X" and then realise that you didn't? You just seem to wish you had certain rights and bam - they magically appear.
What an astounding coincidence.
Wrong, I rejected it as irrelevant. Ctrl+F for "nonsense" and there's only one result (it's your post). Two now, I suppose. Irrelevant is not synonymous with nonsense (that's three).
>at the time of labor it has no value Wouldn't it have the value that you're paying for it, seeing as the value of a product is when it's sold and by employing someone you are buying their labour (and therefore they are selling it)?
>so retarded he contradicts himself in the most basic way
Brody Sullivan
>[current year] >still a NEET LARPing as a revolutionary >supporting a dead meme posing as a political ideology >implying this shit will ever work the way it was intended >implying this represents the working class at all
Jackson Foster
>So again you're back to saying that for all practical purposes in the real world rights don't exist Again you have it backwards. Rights exist as air exist. You aren't seeing the Forest for the trees user. > I can walk to your house and take your guns off you and your "right to bear arms" is not going to stop me Now you're making empty threats and again the entire point is going over your head because you don't seem bright enough to comprehend this concept or rather don't want to. Even criminals in prison regularly exercise their right to arms even going as far as making guns in prison. This idea that the State can take away this right is demonstrably wrong.
