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/
Communism is an ideology for children who can't accept the way the world is. The resources of the world are not distributed according to morality; they are distributed according to who has the power to take them. Communism is a vain attempt to violate this rule of nature.
The only way to achieve this goal is to invoke an all knowing, all powerful deity and worship it as the perfectly moral agent of distribution of resources. This deity is the communist state. This is why communism always leads to totalitarian hellholes. The power to give you the money is the same as the power to take it away.
Logan Taylor
There is no benchmark for morality without a system of metaphysics, whether it be an esoteric belief or a subscription to a certain theology like Christianity. Communism's attempt to bring morality into an abstract, subjective light only goes to show their lack of morals since no benchmark can be found outside of their immediate self or school of thought.
Marx died as his ideology lives, a complete failure.
>The resources of the world are not distributed according to morality I wish that instead of captchas you had to answer questions about political philosophy before posting. "Marxism is distinguished from all other socialist systems by its anti-ethical tendency. In all of Marxism from beginning to end, there is not a grain of ethics, and consequently no more of an ethical judgment than an ethical postulate."
Werner Sombart, Barun’s Archiv fur Sociale Gesetzgebung und Statistik, vol. 5, 1892, p. 489, cited in Robert C. Tucker, Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx, Cambridge University Press, 1971, p. 12. Other commentators who have held, in one place or another, that Marxism is essentially a science would include B. Croce, R. Hilferding, and K. Kautsky.
Leo Harris
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/
>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.
>Sdage four Nod real gommunism. Move on to nexd goundry :DDDDDDD
Jack Brooks
>somebody said it; therefore it's true.
No, the whole labor theory of economics is based on a moral idea. In practice it doesn't make any sense at all because it relies entirely on a top down powerstructure controlling everything.
Blake Anderson
>i know what marx said better than actual marxists despite never reading a single thing written by marx thank you for your input. i will make a note of it.
Brandon Myers
>appeal to authority is my favorite fallacy >that's why i'm a communist idiot.
Oliver Gonzalez
Why is this EVERYWHERE lately.
Landon Stewart
>doing research is a fallacy ok.
Sebastian Foster
>Be Marx >Look at Hegel >Take Hegel's formula, which Hegel uses to prove PRUSSIAN MONARCHY will be the new epoch with an IDEALISTIC SYSTEM OF PHILOSOPHY >Be Historically illiterate buffoon. >Replace Idealism with debased 19th Century Materialism >Plot out a cartoonish Whig History with your stupid ideology at the center >Make your system THE FINALITY >Make economics somehow the main determinant of man. >Ignore or sideline everything else >Idiots buy into your theory >Try to overthrow capitalism. >Surely, it will end now! >It doesn't. >Idiots buy into your theory. >Try to overthrow capitalism. >Surely, it will end now! >It doesn't. >Idiots by into your theory >This new technology will surely make capitalism obsolete! >Surely it will end now! >It doesn't. >150 Years later >Idiots buy into 150-year old theory >It's been the standardized method of academic rebellion for some time now. >Nobody questions the 'rebels'. Assumes its correct. >Keep on 'The Struggle' >Surely, it will end now >It doesn't >Robots take over the economy >Surely, it will end now! >It will be like Star Trek! >Fully Automated Gay Space Communism >It doesn't happen >Capitalism adapts >Workers still work. Capitalists still own. Property exists. >Download Das Capital on the holo-computer you bought with you e-bucks. >Buy into theory >Try to overthrow space capitalism >It doesn't happen >Get sent to Lunar Penal Colony >Watch robots sort lunar rocks for 10.4 Coin per hour. >Government can't pay you nothin' >You think: >We're in Late Stage Capitalism, surely. >It's all going to go into a utopia, right? >History keeps on going. >History ain't Marx's bitch.
Nathan Peterson
Because the economy is shitting itself and the rich are getting richer while the poor get fucked. It's almost as if when the food runs out the rich get eaten.
Landon Rogers
>strawman is my second favorite fallacy >that's because it wasn't true socialism
John Reyes
Here's what's happened. >"I assert that Marxism is just wishful thinking based on the fact that fucking leftists (reee) can't accept the world doesn't work like their morality wants it to!" "You're wrong - Marxism has nothing to do with morality and studiously avoids it and here are a bunch of people who agree with me whose arguments you can check out to learn more." >"STOP MAKING ME FEEL INTELLECTUALLY INFERIOR. I WANT TO ROLL IN THE MUD LIKE A PIG AND ATTEMPTS TO ELEVATE THE DISCUSSION MAKE ME FEAR FOR MY PLACE ON THIS WEBSITE."
Go back to plebbit.
Ian Hughes
No, you just butted into a discussion with appeals to authority that's all. I called you on it, you sperged out... And here we are.
Put up or shut up dweeb.
Christian Richardson
Accept your fate, bootlicker: communism has not and will never work in any capacity. Heil victory!
Brody Ortiz
I sexually Identify as Communism. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of eliminating the concept of poverty by making sure that everyone has it. People say to me that a person being an economic system is Impossible and I'm fucking retarded but I don't care, I'm beautiful. I'm having a plastic surgeon install a hammer, sickle, and a shit load of red on my body. From now on I want you guys to call me Soviet Union and respect my right to liquidate landlords. If you can't accept me you're a capitalist pig and need to check your sharing privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.
Carter Howard
But what they want still won't work.
Jose Turner
>butted into a discussion Yeah, God forbid someone make a contribution. Much better for you to just circle-jerk endlessly in your ignorant echochamber talking about books you haven't read, philosophers you've never heard of, and ideologies you don't understand.
This is not an argument. This is a lesson with an unco-operative pupil. Marx gives no moral prescription of communism to cure what ails the world. He says communism will come about because it is the inevitable result of class struggle - not because it is right.
Stop writing your asinine """condescending""" posts and fucking shut up and listen for once in your life. You don't know everything and I suspect when it comes to this topic you don't know fucking anything. How are you going to beat commies when you don't even understand them? Any actual communist can just brush aside your bitching because it's substanceless rhetoric that does nothing to attack the core of their beliefs because you are a sophist and a waste of time.
Uninstall you.exe from the planet, please.
Blake Wright
Probably, but the fact that people feel the need to look for alternatives is symptomatic that what we have isn't working either.
The oil crisis and stagflation of the 1970s ended Keynesianism and brought about neo-liberalism. The banking crisis of the modern era, of which the 08 financial crisis was just the start, will end neo-liberalism. The problem from the leftist perspective is that counter-neo-liberal thought has not evolved since the 1970s. There is nothing beyond Keynesianism that is a viable alternative waiting to be "picked up" by the reformers like neo-liberalism was waiting to be "picked up" in 1970.
Thus we are likely doomed to suffer for some time yet.
I do honestly think the 1980s and 1990s will be remembered as the peak of our civilisation. 9/11 will be remembered as more than just a terrorist attack: it will be one of those historical landmarks that signal some momentous shift - like the sack of Rome, and in this case I think it will be seen to have signalled the beginning of the end.
Nathaniel Perry
Where's the contribution? All I see is a wall of text from a pretentious bloviating retard.
Who would know more? Some self important retard on the internet? Or a guy from HARVARD?? Whelp guess we just proved how stupid you are.
Jack Miller
Richard Wolff a Marxist economist from the Unites States affirms that in his whole career as university student he was never taught about Marx or marxism a single time. He studied in Yale and Harvard. That's how things are there, pure fear to even talk about Marx in the most bourgeois country.
Jacob Mitchell
Not going to read or rebut that in depth but I skimmed it and from what I can see, I disagree with it on the basis of these statements: >The best understanding of Marx's view of morality, in my view, lies in appreciating that, for him, socialism and communism represent a form of social existence that is ethically superior to capitalism, one mark of whose superiority consists in the fact that it has gone beyond morality. I disagree with this because in The Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875) Marx calls it a "crime" to "pervert" the Party's "realistic outlook" with "ideological nonsense about right and other trash so common among the democrats and French socialists." Clearly Marx is not at all concerned with the right and, even if he does see communism as ethically superior (which I'm sure he does - no man is without ethics), he does not use it and does not want that used as the basis of an argument for communism. In fact he does not think there needs to be an argument for communism, because communism, to him, is the inevitable result of class struggle.
See: >The best understanding of Marx's view of morality, in my view, lies in appreciating that, for him, socialism and communism represent a form of social existence that is ethically superior to capitalism, one mark of whose superiority consists in the fact that it has gone beyond morality.
Now, see how I actually read your article, understood its arguments, and responded to them in a way that you can engage with? That's how adults argue.
Fuck off you fucking child.
Julian Watson
Yea that was the good old days though. I'm sure things have changed by now.
Isaac Wilson
>I skimmed it
Well that's obvious. You can't just take one fucking sentence out of context and pretend to have debunked it you retard. Rosen builds a compelling argument that you're probably too stupid to even understand.
>Not going to read or rebut that in depth
Then fuck off. Responding to a single sentence is not going to make a constructive conversation. You're just amplifying your own confusion on the subject.
Elijah Hernandez
...
Liam Long
Marxists are fucking hilarious. They BTFO themselves every time.
Evan Perry
>You can't just take one fucking sentence out of context and pretend to have debunked it you retard. And you can't just post a fucking article and say "this is my argument."
If you're not going to bring your own thoughts and ideas to the table fuck off to a library. There's a difference between supporting your argument with academic sources and hiding behind them.
>Responding to a single sentence is not going to make a constructive conversation If you expect me to write an essay for you, you'll need to pay me. I usually charge about $25 for 1,500 words, but that's for gay furry erotica.
What you wrote: "this guy says that Marx is concerned with morality, debunk him and then I'll permit you to debunk another article that I cherry-pick from my university library." What you should have written: "Marx is concerned with morality and here are my reasons why: 1, 2, 3, and here is the evidence I use to support these arguments: 1, 2, 3."
Asher Adams
"To each according to his contribution" is a principle of distribution considered to be one of the defining features of socialism.
The principle has its roots in the way that capitalism manages its affairs. That is, each is rewarded according to how much he produces. Remuneration increases as the amount of labor contributed increases. However within capitalism, the means of production are owned by a small minority who do not produce, but rather live off the labor of others. Socialism is said to remedy this by putting the means of production in common hands and rewarding individuals according to their contributions.
Charles Ramirez
Is "to each according to his contribution" an ethical principle?
