Was communism against merit or heirarchy?

Basically I am writing a politics book but i never read this jew since I don't have time to waste on him. So, in his books, was he complaining about people making money and keeping it for themselves or he never said something like that but he only complained about a class (caste) owning the means of production without any merit because of hierarchy (AKA jews)??
Does anybody know? Also, bump this instead of replying to shills.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/espanol/m-e/1840s/48-manif.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

also, does anybody know WHO invented the equality of position bullshit? Was it the (((frankfurt school)))?

Why bother writing a book if it isn't going to turn out any good? Do you realize how competitive the market is?

>market
it is just in order to massively redpill normies, not for money (except if if turn popular, then i might sell them for money). I am tired of retards posting memes and not using actual arguments.

hierarchy, from what you're describing.

well capitalism (pinochet) failed in your country

any quotes or sources?
Who invented the modern leftie speech hating on merit, then?

gr8 b8 m8 that was in chile

meh it is the same anyway capitalism failed in argentina too

People can educate themselves from well informed authors. If you're trying to get your research off of Sup Forums I wouldn't call you well informed.

Sup Forums is like an unfiltered tap. Good for getting the info you won't get anywhere else, but the quality is all over the place. If you were to write a serious book based on what you see here and nowhere else, it's going to turn out as poor as selling unfiltered water in stores.

What does it matter who created it? Both hierarchy and merit are bullshit, but it sounds like you don't care to either make it make sense, or reflect what happens.

You are the embodiment of the Dunning Kruger effect: you don't know enough to know you don't know enough to even have an opinion that isn't just hate....

So why bother with sources? Just make it up!


If you want the argument however, it goes like this:

1. If merit is relative to what the market values, and the market values due to trade, and you can trade the money for more money (private investment) then the market values the bankers and the rich over those that provide a service to the customer.

2. Hierarchy is not organizational principle that induces order, but simply what is left over when you eliminate the predator by grouping into a herd. The herd protects against the predator, but then the predator becomes the members of the herd itself. Therefore, the hierarchy is simply a false structure made by the herd and the survival of the fittest in the new environment, not an organizational structure for maximizing collective action.


If you need a source, just say user said it on Sup Forums
But you don't care....

50% of communists are too stupid to actually discuss anything so they shout buzzwords at you

pretty naice, and great geography skill

Yes. He argued that the man was a product of his times, and that those times were a product of historical dialectic. The Great Man in fact drives neither history nor the moment, and so is a bourgeois fallacy and should learn his fucking place whitey.

Actually you are right, but i will publish it anonimally anyways, but who told you i only use pol as information? I have actually read quite a few (philosophy mostly). I just dont know this particular thing: the opinion of marx. Anyways I will sent the book to correct to some friends before i publish it.

The system yeah, but the early marxists weren't.

Your grammar is terrible, i can barely understand you. Anyways, i can tell you are a moron, you criticize merit and hierarchy since you are a nu-leftard. How is writing about history hate? LMAO, i jus need to know what did marx say.
>you can trade money for more money
wtf dude i seriously cant understand you

>is this black or white?
>YES

so your answer is...? You mean "earn" his place?

Your question was "Was communism against merit or heirarchy?" and yes he was. Greatness or excellence didn't come from the man but from the society that produced him.

Because you are stupid....

If you invest money and get more back than you lent out, then there is more money than there was before.

Since the money is the value of the Trade, the only way you can get more back than the investment is that the Trade is valued both for the trade and for the interest on the loan. That decreases the value of the Trade of product and increases the value of the Trade of money.

This is called Scalar Field Divergence.

And since you don't know that, you haven't taken Econometrics, meaning all you have is that stupid neo-classical Freidman propaganda or that JM Keynes bullshit, and don't have a clue how economics works.

Don't bother reading Marx. You won't understand it.

As for your bias, I direct you to your first post

>i never read this jew [sic]
> without any merit because of hierarchy (AKA jews)?? [sic]

You are a failure and a loser and could not report or understand a gum wrapper without introducing your own bias.

The only people who want to hear from you are stupid like you...

So like I said, why do you care to understand anything? Just make it up. It is what you turdbrains do.

that quote is retarded

eugenics does not imply we start killing everyone, it implies we are doing something to improve the quality of our gene pool

in other words the people he is saying would be gassed would simply be encouraged not to reproduce or at worst sterilized, not killed

Fetuses that display genetic problems like down syndrome are already being aborted in some countries, and realistically there is no reason not to do so. Obviously once the child is born then infanticide is not an option, but the ability to choose - to weed out undesirable genetic problems - is hardly evil.

what a moron

SORRY EVERYBODY I MEANT INHERITANCE; NOT HIERARCHY. MY ENGLISH IS NOT VERY GOOD.

That quote isn't retarded, you're just projecting and probably feel like its an attack on you. That's Bernards views and the view of a lot of Western Marxists at the time. They had gone through the ideas of encouragement etc and the British and European Marxists at the time settled on this kind of thinking. You may be different though.

oh ok i get it you must be a jew. But i dont hate all jews anyways, just bankers, media owners, politicians and bussinessmen (99% jew).
And how do you say friedman is a meme and use marx as an example? kek
Also can you answer my question? Was he against meritfully earned money or only inheritance money?

Hierarchy is the more interesting question, though. Because capitalism is monkey hierarchy expressed in money, and can that sort of thing be denied.

The quote is retarded, though. It conflates eugenics with a lack of compassion. It's not a contradiction to keep defectives from poisoning the gene pool and to still look after their needs. in fact eugenics is a kind of compassion, a longing for a future where people don't suffer from their defects.

Remember kids; communists do not love the poor, they just hate the rich

i meant it in the "or" exclusive way
>Was communism against merit or was it against inheritance?

It doesn't conflate anything, it's a simple prescription by a Marxist about problems they will face after reaching their communist system. You can disagree with him and advocate a different view or use for eugenics but you don't have to get but hurt about this little old Marxist Mr Bernard Shaw, unless you're a commie yourself and not a Fasci?

Don't write a book without reading primary sources. That's intellectually lazy. At least read the Communist Manifesto, it's only ~50 pages.

Spanish:
marxists.org/espanol/m-e/1840s/48-manif.htm

English:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

To answer your question though, he wasn't against "people making money and keeping it for themselves", in fact he was for it in his own way. One of Marx's big ideas is the "Labor Theory of Value", which is basically just that things are more valuable the more work it takes to created them. So a laborer creates a total amount of value X, and then is paid Y by his employer. Y is always less than X, and the difference between them is "surplus value", or the wealth/labor taken from a worker by his employer.

What a boss may earn/deserve with organizational labor is different than surplus value, it's the difference between a wage and capital.

I was about to read it, so i think i will have to read this jew. Although, now i make memory, i remeber the quote
>"Poor people have to exist so rich people can exist"
that i think was pronounced by marx, so pretty much he was against ALL rich people.
Also, i know the labor theory of value and the explotation/surplus theory, allways hearing about them being RECKT.
(marginal utility value law, bhöm bawerk about surplus theory)

>Was communism against merit or heirarchy?
Communism is against the existence and survival of the White race.

It does conflate. You can practice eugenics without killing anyone. The quote implies you can't. I state this as a matter of fact and not a matter of value.

Why do you think he said "a part of eugenics policies" not "all eugenics policies".

Out of curiosity though, what Eugenics are you into exactly?