>>18517857
>The government will, like, abolish itself oder so
Are you that poster that believed that Marx wanted a vanguard party ?
Because for Marx, the abolition of the class caused the abolition of the state because his definition of the state is a bureaucratic-apparatus that ensures that the class interests of the upper class gets maintained.
He's not talking about sovereignty or a law-enforcing agency, he reduces the state to whatever ensures that the bourgeoisie's power gets maintained.

Hence, if you abolish the bourgeoisie, you abolish the institutions that protected their interests, and you consequently abolish the """state"""

Marx and Engels were literally German supremacist antisemitic nordicists that wrote at length about how they wanted Slavic people exterminated as a biologically inferior reactionary race and replaced with Germans and that Jews were parasitic bankers. They supported colonialism in Mexico and slavery of non-Europeans. Marx said that Germans and Scandinavians needed to stop fighting to prepare for a war to wipe out the Slavs.

>The Scandinavians and the Germans have thus made the experience that they must not base their respective national claims on the feudal laws of royal succession. They have made the better experience, that by quarreling amongst themselves, instead of confederation, Germans and Scandinavians, both of them belonging to the same great race, only prepare the war for their hereditary enemy, the Slav.

— Karl Marx, The Eastern Question

>>18518836
>Hence, if you abolish the bourgeoisie, you abolish the institutions that protected their interests, and you consequently abolish the """state"""
So the USSR, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola etc. all failed to abolish the state?
Or not?

File: Quote.png (84 KB, 958x423)

84 KB PNG

>>18518843
When you look at not only what Karl Marx said about Jews, but also Proudhon and Bakunin, it becomes obvious that in the last 120 years or so, someone made sure to warp left-wing socialist thought so that it would shift from being very Jew-wary to very Jew-friendly.
The modern left-voting Redditor would ask you to cut off two of his fingers before even considering the idea that Jews are untrustworthy as a group, even when it's obvious that they're allergic to manual labour, shifty-looking and very in-group-biased

File: 1714109150657974m.jpg (248 KB, 1024x576)

248 KB JPG

>>18518845
They larped as communist to become the new bourgeoise. They abolished the state for a new state where they are the ones doing the horros instead of some rich fuch doing it to them.

>>18518845
That was Leninism anon

>>18518845
Yeah. That's why they weren't communist. This is something most leninist don't even deny : they claim that they were still in the transitional state while waiting for the international revolution.
This poster >>18518945 is right, the vanguard party just constituted a new class within those countries.

>>18517857
>>18518836
Whenever Marxists talk about Marxism, they seem to always talk more about the man than the idea (which they call "teachings" lmao), and make sure to use terms like "bourgeoisie" in order to signal that they're part of a political ingroup. Apparently the idea is that if you can get enough people to use your niche terms as though they're a natural part of everyday conversation, then you can attain cultural and societal influence without any need for a relatable solution to any problem. These are all signs of cult worship and that's all the reason I need to throw Marxism away without any further consideration.

>>18519146
>they seem to always talk more about the man than the idea
Are you high ? Half of the arguments against marxism are ad-hominem lmfao

>Apparently the idea is that if you can get enough people to use your niche terms as though they're a natural part of everyday conversation
>bourgeoisie is a niche-term and not a commonly used term since the French Revolution
why are /his/torians so retarded ?

>that's all the reason I need to throw Marxism away without any further consideration
No the reality is that you don't understand it but have been told to hate it, so you rationalize this process by finding retarded arguments like the one you spewed out

>>18517857
I suppose the idea is that technology (ie, material conditions) will reach a state where the government is rendered superfluous. Like if everyone has their own Star Trek replicator no one cares about the government anymore.

>>18519157
I'm NTA, but you cultist faggots always fall back on saying "you need to read more Marx" without ever giving an explanation of its application. But you can never answer a simple question.

If you take any factory or shop and ask its employees of what they think of co-workers in different departments, they will almost always come back with a harsh criticism. Laborers hate machinists because they get to sit on a chair and code some CAD and then play on their phones while the machine runs, truck drivers hate machinists and laborers because they lollygag and take their time while they have to sleep in parking lots over night, the welders hate the machinists because they get to work in climate controlled facilities, mechanics hate the laborers and machinists because they dont have to get covered in oil, coolant, and other bullshit, the crane operators hate the truck drivers and machinists because they have to stand around until they get their shit in order, etc.

In your classless society where "the workers seize the means" of whatever, how is this natural creation of factions going to fix itself? Because in the real world thats handled by MONEY and class placement.

>>18519171
>I suppose the idea is that technology (ie, material conditions) will reach a state where the government is rendered superfluous. Like if everyone has their own Star Trek replicator no one cares about the government anymore.
Okay, but I don't need some German ideologue to tell me this, I'll figure it out on my own

>>18519171
Kek, I literally cannot comprehend how so many fat star trek neckbeards unironically think supporting communism will make their space utopia happen

>>18519187
>"you need to read more Marx" without ever giving an explanation of its application
The fundamental issue is that Marx is an ecclectic writer whose theory has to be mostly deduced from his writings. He never properly formalizes a philosophy for instance. More over, the political nature of his texts gives rise to claims that require a lot of contexts and interpretations to understand and "fit" within the broader theory. Engels spent most of his life writing letters on correcting people, and Marx himself claimed to not be a marxist based on what people had incorrectly understood from him.

>how is this natural creation of factions going to fix itself?
You already asked this in /lit/ the other day and the answer doesn't change. Petty infighting between people is different from one class' potential being systematically hindered by another's imposed organization of the workplace/labor. It doesn't matter what Billy thinks of Joe in the HR department, what matter and what produces class conflict is Billy and Joe not being able to afford rent because the shareholders decided upon themselves to impose higher standards for bonuses this year.

>Because in the real world thats handled by MONEY and class placement.
No ? Do you think that employees in an enterprise can just pool their money to fire HR?

>>18519214
>doesn't matter what Billy thinks of Joe in the HR department, what matter and what produces class conflict is Billy and Joe not being able to afford rent because the shareholders decided upon themselves to impose higher standards for bonuses this year

NTA but what if Billy and Joe keep on hating each other more than they do the bosses? In other words why is it a given that the proletariat will engage in class conflict rather than continuing to fight amongst themselves on racial/religious/personal grounds?

>>18519223
>In other words why is it a given that the proletariat will engage in class conflict rather than continuing to fight amongst themselves on racial/religious/personal grounds?
Because it won't produce major change in the way we produce things. Class conflict is about one class realizing that it can satisfy its needs/ambitions etc more efficiently with a different organization of labor and the productive process.
On the other hand, if Billy and Joe hate each other more than the boss, it will at most produce personal strife but it won't qualitatively change the way we produce things

>>18518945
This is on its face an absurd thing to think if you know basic facts about what happened.

In every state where the communists succeeded in taking over, it was not an easy, good bet to become a communist and aim at that. It was always for the foreseeable future far more likely that you would be killed than succeed. Here a common anti-communist complaint works against the position, that the people who were raised high in communist regimes were very often people who were pretty well off before the revolution. They were generally at least comfortably "middle class" in an era where middle class meant rich. If someone was ambitious and wanted to accrue power for themselves in any of these countries, the vast majority of those who became highly positioned in the communist state would have had way better odds with by comparison like zero risk playing by the rules in the old regime.

Yes they rose higher than they were likely to otherwise in many cases, but that was because they got so lucky making a much worse bet. Looking at Lenin or Mao and thinking they must have just been trying to get power from day one is like seeing someone win more money from the lottery than a Doctor makes in a year, and concluding that the natural thing for an ambitious person to do is quit school and play the lottery. Multiple close family members of Mao were shot by the KMT. They were down to a few thousand starving guys in the Long March. This was not the ambitious ladder climbers bet. Its like thinking that if someone wanted to gain power in America now they shouldn't like, study finance, or try to start a company, or try to get in good with already powerful people, they should become Chris Dorner and plan on winning against the whole country dying almost instantly

>>18519262
Except most of the original revolutionaries didn't live that long after the revolution. Most of the original bolsheviks were killed in the early period of the USSR. And it's only afterward that the bureaucratic class crept up

>>18519223
Because economic interests are the broad driver of politics. The proletariat has material reasons to work together.

>>18519187
The real question I have towards all this: do the machinists hate everyone else?

>>18519214
>You already asked this in /lit/ the other day and the answer doesn't change
Oh I probably missed the response then.
>what matter and what produces class conflict is Billy and Joe not being able to afford rent because the shareholders decided upon themselves to impose higher standards for bonuses this year.
>No ? Do you think that employees in an enterprise can just pool their money to fire HR?

What the fuck are you talking about? The reason why machinists are machinists is because they learned how to code CAD on order to NOT HAVE TO get covered in coolant and, oil, grit, and other bullshit. They dont want to debur parts and get shavings metal shavings in their skin and eyes. It is true that the factory couldnt run without these people but they get paid the lowest for a reason. Dumbass

>>18519357
From my experience all of the hate is pretty much equal. Every single individual has their own schedule and deadlines that they have to meet, and telling them "but we're all workers in the system calm down!" will be met with "go fuck yourself faggot I have shit to do."

>>18519310
I'd rather be poor than see people I hate have more.

>>18519369
>From my experience all of the hate is pretty much equal. Every single individual has their own schedule and deadlines that they have to meet, and telling them "but we're all workers in the system calm down!" will be met with "go fuck yourself faggot I have shit to do."

To expand on this, most commies will say "well they should unionize! When the workers "seize the means" or whatever bullshit I read that means that the workers can work accordingly to however they want to work when they want to work blah blah blah"

Okay I don't want to wait 6 and a half months for one component to run my shit maybe?Which is common even in places like Canada were the worker is REAL """protected"""

>>18519310
>The proletariat has material reasons to work together.
Not if it means someone having a much easier, leisurely job while still repeating the exact same rewards as I do. Which is why commies basically had to resort to pointing fuckin guns at people to do shit

>>18519372
Your individual preferences are irrelevant at the level of group politics.
>>18519374
See above. You being stubborn and resentful doesn't change the fact that you're working class and your lot is thrown in with the rest of the proletariat. You are affected by labor laws. You are affected by increased competition due to mass migration. Whether or not you hate your coworker doesn't change this reality.

>>18519385
>human nature is irrelevant
This is why you fail.

>>18518843
Many commie boomers in my slavic country like to say "Well all that state terror wasn't real marxism, it's not a part of the ideology, people just corrupted it"
It's really sad how mindbroken by propaganda these people are.
It's even more bizarre when religious people are ardent defenders of socialism. I truly don't get it.

>>18519387
Your individual inclinations aren't 'human nature' and they aren't a demonstrable force at the level of group politics. Collective working class action has achieved goals short of socialism without collapsing into petty feuds between individual members which constitutes a direct counterargument.

Just take a step back and actually fucking think about what you're saying. How could nations ever cooperate if it's "human nature" for this peasant here to be bitterly resentful of his fellow peasant? Anti-Marxists are so obsessed with human nature arguments that they completely shut their brains off.

Not to even begin with the philosophic problem of actually determining what human nature is and whether or not thi thing you call human nature might actually be a consequent of a particular economic environment.

>>18519385
If a large enough chunk of the proletariat chooses to fight for their own ideology as opposed to for class interests, that’s enough to stall any movement towards socialism. Look at the Muslim world, the Muslim proletariat sees the expansion of their religion as being more important than their own material conditions. There’s no way socialism can make it there.

>>18517857
>a classless society
Is denial of biology.

>>18519385
Lmao this such a pussy ass non-answer.

>How to you expect people to accept that someone who does barely anything will reap the exact same award as someone who has to work harder?
>Umm..... DUDE LOOK OVER THERE A RICH PERSON!
Okay in communist history you go and shoot the rich person in the head. Still hasnt solved fuckin anything you asshole.

>>18519412
True but the proletarian motivation for such an ideology is itself usually founded in economic conditions. The opposition to mass migration being more to do with increased competition and a scarcity of housing than some abstract notion of racial purity, for one modern example.
>the Muslim proletariat sees the expansion of their religion as being more important
In no small part because impoverished Muslims historically relied upon hospitals and schools ran by Islamist outfits for their wellbeing, like the Muslim Brotherhood. So they came to see the strength of their religion and their economic benefits as one and the same.
>There’s no way socialism can make it there
Although non-Marxist, Ba'athism is socialist.

>>18519424
>>will reap the exact same award
They won't though.
There's nothing intrinsically anti-communist about a hard worker receiving more food or greater time off on account of their effort.

The issue is that under capitalism "greater reward" translates into money which translates into the ability to eventually own the means of production without working them. So long as the reward itself doesn't allow for the accumulation of capital then it's not a problem.

>>18519431
There is a simpler way, just make a big bonfire and throw all the jews into it along with anyone else that is perceived to be living beyond the modesty called for according to the teachings of Jesus.

That has historically curbed the tendency to excess that capitalism bends towards.

>>18519427
>Although non-Marxist, Ba'athism is socialist.
Yeah and the last Baathist state was extinguished last year because the people sided with a Salafi jihadist instead. I think you have it backwards. Muslims side with Islamist factions not because of any economic benefit but because it is what their religion teaches. The thousands of Muslims from all economic classes and backgrounds who left their countries to fight for ISIS for example did not do so out of economic need but as an expression of their ideology, pure idealist ideology.

Islam is just the most obvious example, but other religions work just as well. My point is that some things are just too strong for common material interests to overcome, and these things will continue to crush any socialist efforts. It’s not a coincidence that socialism today exists mostly in countries which were never majority Christian/Muslim, while socialism died out in the Middle East, Africa and Europe.

>>18519369
>What the fuck are you talking about?
You're literally not adressing anything that I said. Read what I've said here >>18519234

>>18518945
>They larped as communist to become the new bourgeoise.

That's all of you. You can even see microcosms of it in your own leftist infighting constantly.

>>18519431
>There's nothing intrinsically anti-communist about a hard worker receiving more food or greater time off on account of their effort.
So whos going to be the arbiter of this? Elected administrators? Non elected administrators? The workers are going to be the ones deciding when they deserve less money?

You stupid fuck

File: 1780846354859824.jpg (647 KB, 850x1447)

647 KB JPG

>>18519402
Not that anon but he is right, human nature is selfish, he is white and hates Browns and Blacks being equal to him. Most whites share that sentiment (that's why the right wing is rising worldwide). I am Black and think whites deserve to pay and suffer as justice for the crimes they have committed to the entire world, and I know most minorities share that sentiment. Friendship and Communism is never human nature. Joe and Billy would rather be poor and slaves as long as the other dire than both reach a decent quality of life through Communism. You have to understand that.

>>18519427
>the proletarian motivation for such an ideology is itself usually founded in economic conditions. The opposition to mass migration being more to do with increased competition and a scarcity of housing than some abstract notion of racial purity
You say that workers get distracted with racial bullshit because the economy is bad, and that's true. But if the scarcity of housing wasn't there, why would they flirt with Communism anyway? If the economy is good and they have good bread and good circuses then Communism can never arise because they would support the current capitalism regime even more. By trying to stop the proletariat from falling into racial idiocy, at the same time you are erasing their desire for Communism because once the scarcity of homes ends why would they continue supporting Communism?

>>18519558
I too would like to see the answer to this. (Mostly so I can laugh)

>>18518836
The state is literally an extractive regime in of itself. It is a special body of armed men that extract value form the rest of society.

>>18519598
You aren't equal to me jungle bunny

File: lenin log.jpg (58 KB, 640x425)

58 KB JPG

>>18519558
>>18519670
You can do it in a number of ways but elected administrators is probably best. Most workers aren't as selfish as you seem to think. It's fair enough that the guy who volunteers to do the job that nobody wants to do gets a long weekend or a medal. Money is generally not part of a communist system.
>>18519441
My point is that the existence of Ba'athism even as a concept points towards predominantly Muslim states still being reconcilable with socialism. The socialists have an uphill battle because there's an international Islamist network that's well funded but no such network for socialists.
>The thousands of Muslims from all economic classes and backgrounds who left their countries to fight for ISIS for example did not do so out of economic need
Sure, there will always be small populations of avowed extremists, but it's still worth remembering that they exist within the ecosystem I described. That being one where Islamic organizations expanded their power base through poverty relief. That's easily verifiable in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood.
>>18519598
If human nature were especially selfish then collective identities would be impossible yet you've just described the existence of collective racial identities. You can't say "humans are selfish thus no class solidarity" on the one hand while also arguing "humans are selfish thus racial identity" on the other. They're both collective forms of identification yet one pertains explicitly to material interests which I've argued is a stronger impulse for organization.
>>18519608
Because the bourgeoisie accumulates wealth and power at a greater speed than the proletariat. You are disenfranchised today such that your opposition to mass migration is ignored but tomorrow it could be your opposition to workplace safety regulations or child labor laws. The pattern is the same.

File: 1712447982658112.jpg (571 KB, 1024x1084)

571 KB JPG

>>18519523
Communism is meant to be a cosmos. Not a micro one. Looking at the microcosm is looking if all the sperging about anti-capitalism is made with a long-lasting plan for the proletarian and yourself or just a poorfag malding over giving money to a rich fuck.
>Proletarian: Human striped off his and her identity to be just another working force for the bourgeoise. Such as Rasheet who works from india for Silicon Valley which is not on India.
>Poorfag: Bourgeoise with less money than the others but still rely on the proletarians like the bourgeoises with money. Such as any latinx /v/ermin who cries over vidya prices while living off the granny's incomes from her bodega.

>>18519157
Hush, fag.

>>18519817
>You can do it in a number of ways but elected administrators is probably best.
So you mean.... Like a government? You stupid fuck
>It's fair enough that the guy who volunteers to do the job that nobody wants to do gets a long weekend or a medal.
You children are straight up MOTHER FUCKING delusional lmfao. A fucking MEDAL????

>>18519842
>Communism is meant to be a cosmos.

Okay. Let's look at the macrocosm. North Korea, USSR, PRC. Same shit. Bigger consequences.

File: IMG_1041.jpg (271 KB, 1125x968)

271 KB JPG

>>18518836
Marx and Engels called for the state to own the means of production. Not the workers or the proles or the peasants or the poor.

Marxism is NOT about immediately abolishing the state. You simply dont understand what communism is. People like Lenin, Mao, Stalin, or Castro understood it fully and much better than you or any other pseudo intellectual leldditor who gets his takes from breadtubers and who’s research consist of reading Wikipedia

>>18521007
>Marx and Engels called for the state to own the means of production
>Not the workers or the proles or the peasants or the poor.
No, Marx is making reference here to the state during the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the state is directly managed by the proletariat to socialize property of the means of production

>Marxism is NOT about immediately abolishing the state.
This doesn't mean anything because marxism is a method of analysis for socio-economic change and a diagnostic of capitalism.
Communism on the other hand is about abolishing the state as a tool for the bourgeoisie by proxy of abolishing class division. The state as class-tool is only meant to persist under the dictatorship of the proletariat, where it is turned against the bourgeoisie

>pseudo intellectual leldditor
Frankly it would be much easier to discuss with you guys if you stopped getting your info from youtube lolbert slop "debunking" said-commies. These people aren't taken seriously outside of Xitter and the web.

>>18521035
>Marx is making reference here to the state during the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the state is directly managed by the proletariat to socialize property of the means of production
So in other words I was right because none of this invalidates my statement that Marx called for the STATE to own the means of production. You bloviating jackass.
>no u!
Good one. Once again, people like Lenin, Mao, Stalin and Castro understood what Marxism actually is better than you or any other smelly NEET troon. You’re just a faggot who wants more gibsmedats like 90% of all modern day e-commies. This ideology is authoritarian by nature.

>>18517857
>High IQ Aryan Chad working in the background paired with lazy resentful Jew as the mouthpiece

I truly never realized the phrenological implications until viewing this portrait.

>>18521063
>doesn't understand the difference between the dictatorship of the proletariat and communism
>no argument
>immediatly ressorts to ad-homs
low iq bait, why did you start this ?

>>18521086
Once again, the point stands that communism is about state control of the means of production and is NOT about the immediate removal of the state.

You’re dancing around this with buzzwords, gish galloping and “no u” statements because you have no counter argument. Nothing you’ve posted invalidates this.

>muh ad hom
I’m insulting you because you deserve to be humiliated and ridiculed for repeating retarded lelddit defenses for a horrible ideology you clearly know nothing about.

>>18521160
It doesn't, state-ownership in the passage you quoted is a tool to overcome the class division. You have reading skills issue, which made hallucinate that I used the word "immediate". This isn't the case, so reread more carefully next time

>Nothing you’ve posted invalidates this
You haven't replied to my arguments, you're just dancing around on something that I haven't said

>>18519214
>The fundamental issue is that Marx is an ecclectic writer whose theory has to be mostly deduced from his writings. He never properly formalizes a philosophy for instance ... Marx himself claimed to not be a marxist based on what people had incorrectly understood from him.
That's true. Marxism doesn't really exist. It's a made-up thing by other people.

>>18519598
Every communist state had a lower quality of life than its equivalent capitalist rivals.

>>18519817
>if you work hard you'll get a reward of a longer weekend or a shiny medal
Wow thanks for the non-reward but I prefer money.

>>18519262
Yeah, this is a good point and makes analyzing OG communist revolutionaries interesting. For example, otherwise it would be easy to dismiss Stalin as someone who only cared about his personal power over the ideology, but when you look at the state of communist movements in Russia when he joined them, it sure as hell couldn’t be just some personal power/wealth minmaxing decision but more of an almost certain losing bet.

>>18519262
>Looking at Lenin or Mao and thinking they must have just been trying to get power from day one is like seeing someone win more money from the lottery than a Doctor makes in a year, and concluding that the natural thing for an ambitious person to do is quit school and play the lottery.
Retarded take. """Revolutionaries""" want the power to shove their contrarian opinions down everyone's throat and there's only one way to get that kind of power.

File: 1662324696080448.png (753 KB, 812x540)

753 KB PNG

>>18519842
Behold the current vanguard party of 4chan: anime ass posters