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 and the socialist 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/
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.
> be op, think eventually people will like his agenda if he spams it enough >329th thread, still getting abused >i...its ok... eventually the comrades will like me! > puts in earphones and listens to every sad song maynard has produced while sobbing to sleep
Чe тaк зaгopeлcя тo, пидopaш? He вoлнyйcя, нe пpийдyт бoльшe кoмми к влacти в paceи, нe oтбepyт y твoих любимых вpoтeнбepгoв и ceчиных яхты и ocoбняки. Cпи cпoкoйнo.
America, for starters. Why do we have food stamps, WIC, food banks (all socialist/communist in nature) if nobody is starving here? It's even worse in places like India or Indonesia.
Capitalism only gives food to those who pay. That just doesn't work if the goal is 'everyone gets to eat'.
>Strong booming capitalist economies allows the government to feed people for free until they find a job and also contribute >They actually do a better job than commies at feeding people for free >This is obviously evidence of how capitalism makes people starve. Kekommie
Oliver Green
Probably not as butthurt as all the dead commies
Michael Parker
>communism would work if everyone simultaneously turned communist >okay >people would still not be satisfied when living in a utopian society >people get greedy >capitalism returns
Zachary Lewis
Paul Cockshott proved that the economic calculation problem is not real:
questioned Murphy’s requirement that planning requires pre-knowledge of all possible prices, • argued that the domain of prices to which planning is applied is in prin- ciple finite rather than infinite and that thus Cantor’s arguments are inapplicable, or at worst prices are countable, and Cantor’s arguments are applicable but irrelevant because there is no concievable require- ment that this domain be closed under diagonalisation, • argued that planning over finite prices is tractable, • shown that diagonalisation is not applicable to prices or commodities, and • discussed how infinite structures of predominantly zero values may be given finite representations. In conclusion we have shown that Murphy’s arguments are ill founded. The computational feasibility of economic planning at a detailed level is an issue that must be investigated in its own right, and cannot be settled by appeal to Cantor. We have presented specific arguments that suggest that detailed planning is indeed feasible.
