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/
Daily reminder that there has never been a successful communist society
Evan Murphy
How's Venezuela doing???
Wyatt Green
Communism is the nigger of political systems.
Carson Davis
For you komarade
Jack Morgan
have moar komaraden
Nolan Brown
BRILLIANT
Hunter Davis
Soviet Union *socialist
Zachary Williams
Biggest?
Asher Roberts
...
Jacob Long
>unelected dictatorship >kills Ukrainians when they want to keep the full value of their labor >nationalistic and imperialistic They were state capitalist.
Josiah Cook
dictatorship of the proletariat
Ryder Hall
The dictatorship of the proletariat does not refer to an actual dictatorship, but rather to the working class holding the political power in the state. As Stalin was a non-worker who held all the political power, the USSR was state capitalist.
Noah Davis
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/
I swear to fuckin god, all these motherfuckin commies do is explaining shit. Explaining shit how their ass backward system was actually pretty gud.
Matthew Bailey
Autistic Spanish user still hiding behind that flag
Sebastian Gray
Communism will win
Ayden Johnson
nope
Austin Howard
Yep
Luke Nelson
prove it
Jaxon White
Care to explain why that is?
Jeremiah Morgan
Its a return to the roots of humanity
Kevin Ortiz
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.
Jason Martin
Still wasn't socialism.
What "roots" of humanity? Remind me when humanity had no heirarchy, property, or nations?
Ian Davis
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.
Caleb Lewis
Fuck off spic.
Landon Lopez
Money and land ownership are relatively recent ideas, and in some cultures never existed at all
Nathan Evans
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. How, then, could the workers be induced or compelled to implement the plan (which, although it was supposedly formulated in their interests, was certainly not of their making)?
Lucas Rivera
...
Henry Johnson
...
Cameron Edwards
...
Benjamin Flores
EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME
Dominic 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. 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.
Christian Diaz
...
Lincoln Torres
But we've always had nations, we've always had hierarchies, and we've always had property ownership (although it wasn't always land property)
Adam Wright
Except that we have had money and land ownership for a very long time. Just because it wasn't printed on cloth doesn't mean it suddenly didn't exist. Fuck it, the chinks have had money for over 3000 years in the form of coins
Cooper Nelson
>tfw commy leftist but hate sjw's and pro-immigration
Jaxon Mitchell
He's talking about way before, when we were hunter gatherers and cavemen.
Owen Nelson
Fixed
Robert Sanders
Indeed. Human psychology hasn't changed since back then.
Alexander Rivera
That fucking moron.
Joshua Scott
IIRC the western allies could have taken Berlin but stopped and let the ruskies handle it since it was going to be a shitfest
Easton Moore
Of course, we still had nations, and property, and hierarchies back then, but you'll just ignore that psychology when it is inconvenient for you, right?
Gabriel Wilson
VIVE LE REVOLUTION
David Ortiz
>nations in pre-agriculture
You have no idea what you are talking about
Mason Gutierrez
>communism >politically correct lol faggot, to be politically correct you have to be a centrist/reactionary SJW/college anarchist
Carson Cox
why do you think communism equates political correctness?
You can be a communist and hate political correctness and current way-too-loose immigration laws.
Antifa is absolute trash, commies can see that too man.
Stereotyping and communal groups based on ethnicity and race are natural human behaviour.
This can however be solved for the most part through economic equality and the riddance of the ((( 1% ))).
See we do have quite a bit in common Sup Forums.
Elijah Myers
We had tribes with differing cultures and languages who would frequently raid each other to steal shit.
Brandon Phillips
Communism is the only acceptable venue for those interested in non-mainstream political activism with a brain enough to read.
Kayden Richardson
wait, are you pro-immigration or you hate pro-immigration people?
Jeremiah Foster
Doesn't really matter, he still ends up being a Communist
Elijah Adams
kek
Daniel Roberts
I do not like pro-immigration people.
We should however realise what the source of the conflict is and the reason why many have been fleeing from the war:
Arms trades by the corrupt global capitalist establishment, support of terrorist groups and about 15 years of bombing the area now without any regards to civilians and the concept of what defines a terrorist being extremely loose.
That being said, most fleeing Syrians are actually staying in neighbouring countries and have no desire to come to Europe.
Quite a few of my friends are actually refugees and they surely scammed themselves into my country (lying about religion / family relations / economic situation).
They are lovely people but I do not think they are here on a legitimate basis and should have not been allowed into the country. They do not have the same respect for the justice system or police and undermine the traditional culture of the area.
Hudson Murphy
I agree, we should treat everyone already in our countries humanely, but being pro immigration makes those countries remain as unstable shitholes We're letting the powerful people ruin countries for profit and making other countries deal with the consequences (loss of ethnic identities, devaluation of many jobs, etc)
Hudson Perry
This comrade gets it
Joseph Wright
>caused more suffering than the Nazis lol
William Bell
Fuck off. I'll take a commie over a libertard.
Why are any of these things bad?
Henry Scott
>the USSR didn't cause more suffering than the Nazis Nice bait
>Fuck off. I'll take a commie over a libertard. Well no shit that a Communist would prefer another Communist
Aaron Parker
>Why are any of these things bad? It's not about them being bad or good, however they do make the USSR not socialist.
Gabriel Smith
Sometimes an authoritarian leader like Assad is better for the country in the long term than the """democratic""" invasion.
Syrian christian who studies at my uni (come to my country long before the war) explained to me that under the leadership of Assad it of course wasn't great but there was stability and some level of protection.
Nowadays, because of the international interference by both Russia and the US (+ European nations) there is no stability and Syrian christians and other religious minorities must flee for their lives. The country is being used as a proxy war-ground similar to the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran in Yemen. These are all corrupt geopolitical plays between the leaders.
The news we receive here is heavily biased and always pro-establishment regarding these international conflicts. The problem is, we - the people - face the consequences of terrorist attacks and criminal behaviour, not them. We are the ones being terrorised because of their political plays and mistakes.
