Communist General - Scientific Marxism Edition

Comrade Kek here to answer any question you have about communism and dispel the myths that the capitalist class propagates on the internet


>b-but Communism killed 6 gorrillion peopl!!!!
Communism hasn't happened yet. There are many ways countries have implemented socialist policies, but deaths (if any and assuming we're talking about real sources) were not result of socialist policies. That would be like me arguing that deaths during the dust bowl, indian famine, south african famine, irish famine, and so many others were the result of capitalism.

>b-but communism has beeen tried 6 gorrilion times and failed
Again. Communism hasn't happened yet. Communism is essentially governmentless. How would you measure success anyway? The majority of the U.S is in poverty, with millions of children homeless and an income inequality gap that's huge.

>"you're not taking my guns commie!!!"
Communists have never advocated for gun control. Marx even wrote how owning guns is essential for carrying out revolution.

>"CULTURAL MARXISM HAS DESTROYED WESTERN CIVILIATIONS!!!!"

>"KEK! SHILL! FAGGOT! COMMIE! KEK! LE HELIOCPTER! MARX WAS A KIKE!!!"
These are non arguments and I wont respond.

This meme needs to die. Not only does it have nothing to do with the economic policies of socialist countries, Marx never wrote about it.


Ask any questions you have, comrades!

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/index.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Fuck off, /leftypol/

(you)

This fucking faggot.

...

>communist general

you can just say dumb faggot general

You've already given your hackneyed defense of gommunism op so what's the point of the thread?

No communism allowed on Sup Forums

The idea that mankind is capable of living in a truly mutualistic society in which no man desires to exploit or control another is a dangerously niave belief that flies in the face of thousands of years of recorded history.

real communism hasn't been tried

Answering any questions you may have about Socialism/Communism.

You only have these greedy desires because you live in a capitalist society, mate. Take away the superstructure of society, and your values change.

Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.

communism is a jewish plot you stupid fuck

if you want the grassroots version of that that can and has worked read uncle adophs book

You have slandered the name of kek, bad things will happen to you

go back to neogaf cocksucker

So Marx said himself that there is no form of hierarchy without corruption. Including communism.
He was in favor of small government if I read correctly. But that small government would still come banging on your door and still monopolize everything we need.
Wouldn't free market capitalism with little to no ties to a government be the form with the least corruption?
Are you saying you're an Anarcho-communist?

...

Let's dispel with this fiction that communism is some jewish plot.

Karl Marx even wrote publically how Jews should renounce their faith in order to free themselves from the hatred people give them. And how countries should never harbor any religion as their state religion. Marx was very much anti religion.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/index.htm

"The political emancipation of the Jew, the Christian, and, in general, of religious man, is the emancipation of the state from Judaism, from Christianity, from religion in general. In its own form, in the manner characteristic of its nature, the state as a state emancipates itself from religion by emancipating itself from the state religion – that is to say, by the state as a state not professing any religion, but, on the contrary, asserting itself as a state. The political emancipation from religion is not a religious emancipation that has been carried through to completion and is free from contradiction, because political emancipation is not a form of human emancipation which has been carried through to completion and is free from contradiction."

Marx wrote about how societies are ridden with contradictions. These contradictions cause strife for the people. Communism has no government. If you want to argue Socialism has corruption, that is fair, because it can be argued. There is a contradiction between the state and the proletariate. That's why Marx wrote about moving away from a state socialist society to a stateless one.

Anthropology indicates that war and slavery predate the agricultural revolution. Capitalism is a reflection of human nature. Utopian fantasies are just fantasies.

>Communism is essentially governmentless

Who controls the distribution of goods and organizes labor?

>Marxism
>Scientific
>Literally not falsifiable, which is a requirement for something to be considered scientific.

Historical materialism being disproved was a death blow for Marxism. I wish you guys would stop being so cringey.

Also, another tripfag filtered.

truly the best bait for a while
you on vacation aussie?

Slavery didn't exist before agriculture.

The workers.

get fucked nigger

still the state

That is literally in the Communist manifesto, that central governance is needed for distribution and international communication

further proof that the average commie has not even read marx

Okay but the LTV is absolute horseshit.

Ok. Thanks for the response.
Now, I'm not trying to make the whole "MUH HUMAN NATURE" argument, but, do you think people are capable of that kind of society?
Wouldn't it have to be made up completely or mostly of competent, responsible, willingly participating people? Do you think we can take a society like USA and go in that direction?

humanity also didn't break away from hunter-gatherer bs before agriculture

Fuck off back under your dung heap, you confused faggot.

You don't get a (you) faggot.

slavery existed the moment one man freely performed another mans labor. you might say taxation and welfare is a form of modern slavery.

So the "workers" would spend time doing societal maintenance (for lack of a better term) after their daily shift?

Or would there be specific "workers" whose job is the control the flow of goods? Meaning bureaucrats. Meaning the state.

...

do you guys prefer humanist marxism or the marxism of Althusser?

For me, the conclusions althusser leave us with are depressing, and lack the hopefulness of gramsci or lenin, or even other critical theorists, but I think they are correct.

hmmmm....

Hunter gatherer societies routinely partook in raids against one another. Taking women and children as chattel in the process.

>there are people that actually believe this

The dust bowl happend during FDR who is without a doubt communist and implemented many socialist policies. Educate yourself first before you start arguing anything faggot.

My god you're retarded. If you base Marx's entire work on a 40 page pamphlet you are severely moronic.
Not only is that not in the manifesto, the manifesto was meant to be read by industrial workers in an easy to read fashion. Congrats on outing yourself as a retard.

In today's modern society, automation and robots can complete our transition towards a distribution of goods.
also thisBecause....?

It would take every single country moving towards socialism first. I don't forsee that happening for another century. Granted, automation and robots will rapidly accelerate this process. Eventually, society is going to have to look these machines in the eye and say "Why do we continue to sell our labor when robots can do it all for the benefit of mankind?"

I think you underestimate how easy workers are able to manage themselves when you get rid of the profit motive and the idea of starving if you don't work well. Workers cooperatives are excellent examples of how a mangerless corporation functions. Sorta.

Who /Bakunin/ here?

Are homosexuality, transgenderism, and other sexual deviations bourgeois?

People are inherently greedy. Letting workers manage themselves is a terrible idea, someone will always want to come out on top.

that is why early humanist marx, comes across a lot like hegel and the bible before hegel. where he talks about this time before society, before the fall, where there was utopia. Marx was probably stuck thinking form his time and place and couldn't see beyond the cultural logic at the time, that of Hegel.

A house full of hippies (i.e "workers co-op") is not the same as a population of thousands or millions (or billions) of people self-governing in a totally free and equal manner.

Who would decide who does what job? It's all a fairy tale.

Quite often, yes. Certainly, capitalism has marketised sexuality. It also is a part of identity politics used to divide the working class. E.g. screeching about evil cis men.

...

the dominant culture is that of the dominant class. capitalism turns nearly every aspect of the lives of its subjects into capitalist objects in various ways.

There is an entire section in the communist manifesto (or possible das kapital) where marx states that a centralized government is necessary to the success of a communist government

so, you're shilling a system of governance when you haven't even read everything by the man who created it?

I agree with you for the most part. The older I get though I see, mostly from my generation, an entitlement the likes I have never even imagined. I think where you're working to would have everyone maintain their individual agency. Which I want. However, I don't think people even want individual agency. Agency comes with responsibility. Yeah we could work to a point where would we all take care each other. But would there be a point at which you dictate morality? Is morality subjective or objective? Can I still do whatever I want with my body? At what point will by personal abuse create consequences for society?

with late-capitalism you don't even have a good simulation of agency - all relations and identities become objective.

You are framing your questions in a capitalist superstructure. Of course people are greedy in a capitalist society. That's the whole point of capitalism. Profit above people.

Change the superstructure of society and people will change.

This is very true. Identity has truly hampered socialist thinking circles.

Hey look, you stole my meme.

If you've read it you'd obviously point me to where Marx said that.
Go ahead. Find me where he says that in the communist manifesto.
If you're talkin about centralised government, that's socialism.

Doesn't capitalism have to end in a healthy manner to segway into a socialist or communist society that works?

Is Marx religion for you you stupid cuck fag?
All you say is Marx this Marx that, don't you know that Marxism is non-falsifiable pseudo-science, and furthermore actually existing socialist societies should tell you everything you need to know about the fraud 'the march to communism' is.

kill yourself.

>If you're talkin about centralized government, that's socialism.

No its also in communism

How do you think wealth redistribution would work without government oversight?

and yes, it is in das kapital about restructuring a society to communism and considering you're the expert you really should already know this

as someone who actually read all of marx you are quite the pathetic fag

Actually read his works instead of just browsing cripchan Sup Forums for 15 minutes before coming here

Why not go back to Plebbit where identity and delusional ideologies are more welcome you disgusting tripfaggot?

if by healthy manner, you mean not losing all the great progress, wealth, material success, then yes I would think we should keep all that.

Some conflict is inevitable. The transition from feudalism to capitalism was bumpy. A socialist society emerging from capitalism, in Marx's own words, would be stamped with its birthmarks. Capitalism produces the productive forces which are harnessed under socialism. Problem was the countries which had socialist states were backwaters when the revolutions happened. So they always lagged behind. A socialist America would have no such problems.

You haven't read it at all.

I have read Das Kapital. That's why I'm telling you you're a moron. Cant even point to where marx has said that. You are an idiot and not worth my time.

Couldn't understand that incomprehensible garbage you just spewed. Try again with proper grammar.

except that it is in the book and you are losing more credibility by the second

How do you think Communism will fare in the autonomous working class of robots?

>Communism is essentially governmentless.

I don't understand. Without a government, what forces people to be of equal status and to share everything?

> Again. Communism hasn't happened yet. Communism is essentially governmentless.

I KNOW!
THATS WHY GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO BE KEPT IN CHECK AS WE MOVE INTO A SITUATION OF COMPLETE ABUNDANCE AND EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS ARE RAISED ACROSS THE BOARD!

WHEN WILL YOU COMMUNIST ADVOCATES GET IT INTO YOUR HEADS THAT MARX WAS PROPOSING A WAITING GAME!

BUILT ON MAINTAINING CONSCIOUSNESS OF FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE FROM OUTSIDE INFLUENCE (OPPRESSION)!

> How would you measure success anyway? The majority of the U.S is in poverty, with millions of children homeless and an income inequality gap that's huge.

WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD! ALL YOU ARE DOING IS HELPING TO MAINTAIN HEGEMONIC POWER AT THE TOP BY TAXING THE MIDDLE!

ALL YOU ARE DOING IS ADVOCATING A BOURGEOIS BOHEMIANISM IRREVOCABLY DEPENDENT ON CAPITALISM AND A COSMOPOLITANISM WHERE CITIES FUNCTION AS THE CENTERS OF A CORPORATIST EMPIRE!

> Communists have never advocated for gun control. Marx even wrote how owning guns is essential for carrying out revolution.

GO TALK ABOUT GUN CONTROL TO THE FUCKING LEFTISTS THEN!

t. "ex"-socialist

>Muh "communism totally works in theory" thread

Socialism and communism and pure capitalism are all not good enough.

We should strive for the most efficient system, Fascist corporatism in an American style.

Minimal regulations and standards, created masterfully by Guilds/corporate syndicates.

These corporations are unions of the business owner and the worker, you communists must admit people have different value. Is not class collaboration a far more honorable thing to seek completed to class struggle?

Why fight nature when we can use nature to our advantage? Why is the options between collectivism and capitalism, when we can have collectivist capitalism?

Raise tariffs to protect our industries and workers, have a central bank to help commerce and the corporate syndicates to allow our collectivist capitalism to have both the sustainable perpetual growth of capitalism and the efficiency of central planning when singular goals are in mind.

Subsidize agriculture, roads, all internal and public works greatly. Fund education but make sure the best of the best get the best education.

Why should we find anything less suitable?

If communism was scientific, they would have tested it on dogs first.

The concept is that eventually the state dissolves and people naturally only take what they need and freely give what is needed.

The idea Marx had was basically that socialism would breed a new class of empathic people, who would be similar to the characteristics of tribesman in ancient times. Sharing everything and asking for nothing in return.

However Marx's argument was that it would happen naturally, that capitalism would reach full efficiency and would have no where else to go. That once it reaches full strength it would naturally and slowly become more socialized. And eventually become full on socialism. Then slowly the state would phase out and anarcho-communism would be born.

The problem with this model is that the only way a full socialist and full communist model works, is in a post-scarcity society. Which can't happen until we can travel faster than light and take and move many tons throughout space.

Only space would be enough to permanently offset the inefficiency of socialism/communism forever.

Dogs aren't dumb enough to fall for communism

Trueche

>Marx even wrote how owning guns is essential for carrying out revolution.

Once the revolution is over, though -- that's when the communists generally seize the guns. You wouldn't want the resentment that builds over the next few decades of crippling poverty to lead to a capitalist revolution, as it always does.

Also the guns need to be in the right hands so that their 'Reign of Terror' can be effective.

>Communism hasn't happened yet
>yet
>yet
>yet
>yet
ITT: delusion

>Asian economy is outside History

Why take Marx seriously?

Marx himself admitted he didn't understand the Asians.

QUESTION!
>are human rights and property rights a false dichotomy?


don't give a lazy answer faggot

...

Every time until I'm answered.

How do you feel about the argument that Marxism is dysgenic and that socialist policies ultimately reward failure and practice tall poppy syndrome?

Secondly, do you deny that bank/business bailouts and hiring in control of sociology majors are ultimately both arguably corporate socialism? Or rather, socialism implemented through corporations instead of through an electable authority.

Basically, how does socialism incentivise self betterment in any way? When the potentially successful are never rewarded, which is the result of pathologically altruism and soft bigotry in hiring, what incentive is there for the weak to better themselves when they're rewarded for weakness?

BTW, dismissing me as repeating "meme arguments" is not an argument.

Or are you only for your specific branch of extremely specific socialism and have no real opinions on the current state of socialism but instead of dropping the ideological lenses of Marxism you're going to be a cuck apologist for the basis of this very system of oppression.