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/
The bourgeoisie are the class which owns the means of production but does not use them you can think of the means of production as anything 'used' to generate profit e.g. a factory, a shop, a car, machinery, etc if you own means of production but are self-employed, and do not employ anyone else, then you are not bourgeois if you do not literally own means of production but in effect control it, you are bourgeois (e.g. CEOs who do not literally own their companies, but as they run the company they 'own' it in the sense that they decide what is done with it, they decide their own wages, etc) a good litmus test: ''1. do you work for a wage? 2. do you get to decide your wage? 3. do you get to decide anyone else's wage?'' if yes to 1 but not to 2 or 3, you are not bourgeois if yes to 1 and 2 but not to 3, you are petit-bourgeois if yes to all three, you are in effect bourgeois if you do not work for a wage at all, but rather own the means of production directly, then you are absolutely bourgeois
If you own a small shop that you run for a living making 50k USD a year you are petite bourgois. If you are a heart surgeon making 150k USD a year but you work for a hospital and you aren't in charge of hiring of firing anyone you are fully proletarian. Labour aristocracy maybe but still proletarian. It is not a question of income, but a question of ones relationship to the means of production.
Adam Hughes
Cultural Marxism = satanism
I was doing research into the ideological origins of Cultural Marxism, namely the influences behind the Frankfurt School. I know all of its prominent members were Talmudic Jews, but very few people who know about the evils they've inflicted on the West say anything about how this impacted their work, or what parts of their plan have their roots in Talmudism. What I did come across was the hypothesis that the Frankfurt School drew most of their inspiration from Sabbateanism and Frankism, two satanic sects of Judaism which relied entirely on the kabbalah and used it in order to turn what the Bible denounces as sin into holy commandments (so for instance, sexual perversion, denigration of the family, theft, and blasphemy were all seen as commandments). In one version of kabbalah, there exists the notion that the Jewish messiah arrives as a result of Jews "fixing" the world through their works and obedience. This was the backbone of the Sabbatean-Frankist cult albeit with sin.
I firmly believe this is what has inspired the decline of the West to this day, and what our children are learning in academia is nothing more than Sabbatean perversion which attempts to overturn basic morality through word games.
What does that have to do with the subject of the thread at all?
Owen Morris
Cultural Marxism is Marxism. It differs from economic Marxism but relies on the same narrative of oppressed vs. oppressor.
Xavier Brown
Socialism is evil.
Julian Gray
>It differs from economic Marxism but relies on the same narrative of oppressed vs. oppressor Cultural Marxism is an ideological boogeyman created to make sure gullible millenials like yourself buy into the rightwing narrative and the bipartidist system in the US can continue to exist. "Divide and you'll conquer" they say
Actual marxism follows the "oppressed vs. oppressor" belief, with the only difference that the oppresor actually exists and its not the "evil jooz"... It's the foreign capital, the interest in making sure third world countries are not able to nationalize the wealth of their land, and ensuring the future of the rich minority which owns every bank, service and product that is produced. If common sense doesn't help you to understand this, I encourage you to grab a contemporary history book and read it without any bias.
Also, if you think marxism is satanist, you may need to revisit Christ teachings, for he was quite possibly the first communist assassinated by the ruling class in history.
Asher Murphy
It's absolutely real. There was a Frankfurt School. It's members were entirely Talmudic kabbalist Jews who rejected Christ. They believed they could bring about communism by ideologically attacking western values. This is all real.
Oliver Diaz
Daily reminder that if you're not a Marxist-Leninist in 2017 you're retarded.
A new red dawn draws near. We'll tear the thin walls of global imperialism.
Christian Hughes
Fruit of the poisonous tree. You can moan and whine about the people that capitalism hasn't yet risen out of poverty, but your toxic ideology will always spread even more misery everywhere it's enacted.
Zachary Sanders
>but your toxic ideology will always spread even more misery everywhere it's enacted.
The simple comparison of Honduras or Peru with Cuba or the USSR proves this already as wrong.
Or simply, the degeneracy of Russia right now in comparison to its former Soviet Era confederation.
But you'll believe whatever the hell you want to believe in the end, won't you, degenerate snek?
Aiden Martinez
There's no such thing as "western values" Marxism and communism are dogmatically practical and merely economical ideologies. They don't operate on burguoise thinkpieces of academia
The only ideology that spreads misery is capitalism, if you don't believe me look at Indoneisa, Africa, Lybia, and most of central and south america. All destabilized by the fuel of such toxic ideolog. You can't blame leftist social processes for failing when the failure is due to incessant hostility from external agents of a malicious nature
Tyler Miller
Not to mention that Communism first triumphs were capitalism and imperialism hit harder, where it has been less successful, after wars, or colonization, etc.
That means it appears in less developed countries first, what Lenin called the weak links of imperialism; so of course, it'll never be as luxurious-looking as countries that benefit from imperialist plunder, but they will ALWAYS have better economic conditions for the working class - which is the important part, not this phony "humanity" as some kind of unified group bullshit.
Asher Diaz
Daily reminder that there has never been a successful socialist society.
Jaxson Foster
Mention a single communist country without a ton of people trying to escape
Noah Davis
This triggers the Commie Pig
Tyler Lewis
Daily reminder that if you live in any first world country except the US you live in a successful socialist society.
Samuel Watson
Hello gomrades! XDDDD Dis general is for disgussion of margsism-lebonnism, da ideology of revolutionary socialism and gommunism.
Gommunism is da next stage of guckery following real society.
Wat exagtly is gommunism according to gommies:
>Gommunism is a stage of guckery in which the produgtive infrustrugture runs away from gommie country, and no goods are produced and beeple starve. XDDDD >Gommunism in full form is obressive, statist society dat follows maxim "gib gib gib!" :DDDD >To achieve gommunism we must replace broduction with murderous obressive rulers liek me, fug working glass beeple. XDDDD Struggle while I liquidate you all lol. When capitalists run away we win and I kill you all. Eventually the functions of state cease and state becomes murderous and indistinguishable from other gommies. Da state withers away liek da people. gommies.gom/fug/ gommies.gom/starve/
----------------------------------------- Da sdages of gommunism.
>Sdage one Bourgers aren't allowed to vode :DDD but otherwise da system is digtadorshib of gommies. Everything is stole by digtadors and digtadors rule all.
>Sdade two Withering All beeple who aren't digtador glass starve. XDDD Once glass disabears and we steal everything more beeple wither away. Bolice begome unnecessary as beeple are dead lol :DDDDD Central blanning begomes unnecessary begause sgarcity caused starving. Money is all ours.
>Sdage three Gommunism. No beeple. No food. My money. Much benis
Liam Ward
No society is "successful" in abstract. Moreover, what you call "society" is simply the collective organization of human beings in abstract itself.
Societies HAVE been "communist" already, in primitive times. There were no classes, tools were shared, goods were shared to meet needs, etc. This is what will eventually happen with contemporary communism (not as in ideology, but as in communist society).
Of course, to get there we have to convince, coerce, and even kill many people who don't agree with us and are in the opposite economic or ideological camp. We've never been against this, even if American lefties seem to portray that.
So what if people escape? That means we're carrying out the red terror correctly, and the degenerates and reactionaries are fleeing because they think McDonalds is true happiness and that capitalist countries are heaven.
Josiah Perry
>There were no classes Blatantly false.
>tools were shared, goods were shared to meet needs Not between tribes they weren't. Conflicts frequently happened over land, food, and slaves. And of course that is assuming the chief didn't get the lion's share of food, comfort, and women.
