communism started with karl marx and friedrich engels who predicted in the mid 1800s that the workers would inevitably rise up and overthrow capitalsim, establishing utopia eventually. according to them it was inevitable that capitalsim would lead to the workers having it worse and worse. reform was futile. history moves through progressive stages which has to be completed before the next one can begin.communism in the old style reached its peak about 1890-1914. at this point it was not possible to make a clear cut distinction between communism and social democracy, and while there were a variety of leftist currents making themselves influential on the political movements of this period, and while the actual workers themselves rarely bothered with the intricacies of competing philosophies, it is clear that communism has never been more influential within the broader politically serious left in a western country since. however already at this time it was clear that the philosophy was failing. the predicted immissuration of the workers failed to instantiate and reformism proved to win real victories. several of the former orthodox communists started to waver in this period like karl kautsky or eduard bernstein. this ideological struggle was especially prominent in the most powerful by far labour party in europe at the time the SPD. for along time the SPD remained committed to violent revolution on paper according to the proclamations of communist theory, all the while it was acting in an increasingly parliamentary, reform oriented direction.
>>18716391>would inevitably rise up and overthrow capitalsimfalse, they didn't believe it was "inevitable". "History does nothing, it 'possesses no immense wealth', it 'wages no battles'. It is man, real, living man who does all that, who possesses and fights." - 18th brumaire>reform was futile. history moves through progressive stagesThis is misleading. They rejected reform because of their view on the State (remember the levels of democratic achievements in the 19th century), not because of their view on history. >history moves through progressive stages which has to be completed before the next one can beginThis is misleading too. Being "completed" doesn't really mean anything here.>at this point it was not possible to make a clear cut distinction between communism and social democracyThat's because social-democracy in the modern sense didn't exist yet. You have to wait the SPD's switch to Bernstein's ideas for that.>it is clear that communism has never been more influential within the broader politically serious left in a western country since.Wrong. The immediate post-war and the 50s-60s had western communist parties with >20% of votes in France and Italy. >the predicted immissuration of the workers failed to instantiateMarx was talking about relative immiseration, aka inequality. "A quick growth of capital is most favourable for wage-labour. If capital grows rapidly, wages may rise; but the material well-being of the worker rises at the cost of his social well-being. The social well-being parts company with the material well-being."(1/?)
>>18716905second quote for "relative" immiseration : "... Does an upscale house keep off the sun? A small house can be as good as a house can be, so long as the surrounding houses are equally small. But let a palace arise alongside the small house, and the small house shrinks to a hut... and however much the model, the comfortable, the health-inspiring house may rise in population, if the neighboring palace arises at the same time or even in a greater ratio, the occupant of the relatively small house will feel more and more uncomfortable, discontented, cramped within his four walls.">and reformism proved to win real victoriesWhich was largely inspired by the fear of total soviet victory, which preceded any substantive win by social-democrats.2/2
I am too adhd to read all that but i will bump ur thread so u get some attention for all your hardwork writing whatever u wrote about idk i didnt read it lol.
>>18716905>>18716906Regarding the doctrine all this is incorrect and lies made up to try to save the ideology from its failures in confromting reality. This is immediately apparent from the communist manifesto where the inevitability for instance and the immissuration of a total nature is covered outright. It's standard fare for leftypol trannies who come to 4chan to brigade (they imagine this as revolutionary action lol) to be willing to deny or affirm the presence of any point whatsoever in the writings of marx depending on what they think will make it sound BASED and eternally correct and flawless to chuds. Worshipping the name and image of Karl marx is the main point for leftypol trannies. This can also be seen historically most starkly with mao and chairman gonzalo who developed ideologies in many ways completely unrelated to the theories of marx, yet his picture was still plastered everywhere.>The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.Regarding the history this is also false.
>>18717645>This is immediately apparent from the communist manifestothe manifesto is probably not the best introductory work to communist thought, it was a propaganda document written in response to the (then-ongoing) revolutions of 1848 and it shows.Read the German Ideology, Wage Labour and Capital, and Critique of the Gotha program, those are the usual /leftypol/ recommendations.
>>18717645>all this is incorrect and lies made up to try to save the ideologyI'm not even a communist or a marxist, you're just a retard that doesn't know what you're talking about. I'd defend fascists or liberals too if you gave such bad interpretation of their ideology>where the inevitability for instance and the immissuration of a total nature is covered outright.Nope, Marx mentions pauper but makes no mention of absolute terms. He's talking about relative poverty. Otherwise, why would he even criticize the iron law of wages by Lasalle (which claims that wages go down to bare subsistence levels) ? How do you take this with the idea that he's NOT talking about relative terms? As for historical inevitability, I'll directly quote the text :>"[...] in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."Notice how the last part accepts the idea of failure ? Remember, it's a political pamphlet, not a systematic exposition of his own ideas.>It's standard fare for leftypol trannies who come to 4chanWhat's funny is that this meme started to really take on a few months ago. Some retard on /lit/ got trigerred after seeing some Marx posts and started going on a run calling everyone which posted in those threads a covert leftypol agent. It's always funny to see how you guys become delusional lolcows in real time.>Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.How do you reconcile this with the aforementionned quote ? Or with the quote in 18th brumaire ? What do you make of Engels' criticism of intellectuals who believed that they just had to wait for History to happen ? Seems like a little philology would clear up a lot of confusion about a political manifesto written before both Marx and Engels had developed their ideas.
>>18717670>>18717704>it doesn't count This is just like when muslims claim the earlier verses were abrogated lol. Your quotes are cherry picked and don't show what you want them to show.Leftypol trannies have been doing regular brigading campaigns on 4chan at least since 2016-2017 and I've been calling them out on it since then.It's hilarious how dishonest you are. There's literally not a single core belief or principle of communism or marxism that you're not willing to deny as a part of communism and cherry pick some weak quotefrom marx to prove that nuh UH commies don't actually believe this thing even though it's obvious that your choice quote is about something completely different.
>>18717704>in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classesHe's talking about history. Leftypol trannies are so insanely dishonest that they'll take this as the ultimate proof that UH actually marx didn't predict the inevitable rising up of the proletariat and the overthrow of the bourgeoise. That has NOTHING to do with communism at all and therefore this prediction was never made in the first place and communism remains 100% perfect, correct and pristine in its proclamations regarding reality (whatever those may be). Meanwhile he states outright further down in the same chapter >therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitableCLEARLY he isn't saying this is inevitable here. That isn't at all what he's saying. And uhm anyway the communist manifesto is completely irrelevant anyway, had no influence whatsoever, possesses zero relevance to the rest of marxist thought and tradition, has nothing to do with the beliefs of communists. What do communists actually believe then? Well the main thing is that what they believe is epic, perfect and correct. To learn about what they believe you're just going to have to read das kapital in the original german (even though the vast majority of communists never did this including mao and elite parisian academic communists of the 60s and 70s) and if you think das kapital says something and you think it's wrong that just shows that you didn't read it correctly and so you have to reread it.
>>18717767>o learn about what they believe you're just going to have to read das kapitalI literally recommended you three works from Marx, none of them significantly longer than the manifesto (probably two shorter, one a little longer, I don't have exact word counts on me) which I feel introduce Marxism much better?I've never read Kapital, you don't need it
