Why are zoomers so pro-communism? Is Animal Farm not required reading in schools anymore?
Animal farm isn't a story about "gommunism bad" but how revolutions can be subverted and betray their original goals, how rulers consolidate power, and how people are complicit in this process. It's about totalitarianism.
>>24679913Can you give me one example of a communist revolution that didn't turn out that way?
Animal farm is literally "socialism is almost as bad as capitalism".It's still portrayed as an improvement.
I think required reading in schools being as obtusely redscareish as AF is serves as one of the major contributing factors. It's like forcing kids to read Handmaid's Tale and then acting surprised when like half of them (especially girls) end up concluding that oppressive theocracy sounds kinda badass and hot. If a state wants to kill an ideology among it's youth, it should drown the education with alternative ideologies, so that the undesirable one is left completely forgotten. Deliberately antagonizing it only makes it more transgressive and attractive.
>>24679916Vietnam?
>>24679922It's been required reading for like 70 years and no previous generation had any problem accepting its message. What makes zoomers so unique?
>>24679916This happened in every country. Look at the world you live in. You're a wagie while some people live in gold plated mega yachts, own private jets to fly between their mansions, and regularly "influence" politicians and change laws, if they aren't politicians themselves. They may pay lip service to equality, or representation, but you clearly aren't as equal as they are. What's worse is, you actually drank the kool aid.
>>24679933>It's been required reading for like 70 years and no previous generation had any problem accepting its message. Anon hippies happened precisely 60 years ago.
>>24679942>you clearly aren't as equal as they areWell no shit, people aren't equal. Why are leftists incapable of accepting such an obvious truth? Some retarded 80 iq nog who lives in the ghetto deserves to be poor, while a high iq black man like Thomas Sowell who worked hard all his life deserves the fame and wealth he has. Communism attempts to go against the natural order of the universe and that's why it falls apart every single time.
>>24679955>Why are leftists incapable of accepting such an obvious truth?>Communism attempts to go against the natural order of the universe and that's why it falls apart every single time.Neither Marx, not Lenin, nor Mao, nor Trotsky never said shit about inequality being something inherently bad. People in USSR, China, Cuba and Vietnam received different salaries based on their job's expertise and responsibility, with a a difference of up to three orders of magnitude, and all had state-enforced systems for drastically increasing or reducing people's social status depending on their actions, like socialist labor competitions, public awards, and collective ostracism practices. "Communism is when everyone is made absolutely equal" is a Cold War psyop.
>>24679916East Germany had a faster growing economy than West Germany for its entire existence. It had a worse start and cards stacked against it but if it kept existing it would have surpassed west Germany sometime in the 2010s.You also see communist systems become more democratic over time. China in 2025 is more democratic than China under Deng xiaoping let alone undet Mao. Soviet union also became more democratic over time to the point where the union dissolved in the end over democratic choice.This isn't me trying to vouch for communism just to show that all systems usually gravitate towards a stable middle point. Same reason why liberal democracies are starting to become less liberal now. Regression to the mean.Capitalism is an inherently unstable system it has to collapse into another form. Be it oligarchy, feudalism or communism. The system in and of itself is not designed to be stable. Read the wealth of nations if you want to find out how modern "capitalism" differs from real capitalism as originally conceived. Hint: real capitalism has never been tried. Closest to the original vision are the Scandinavian countries, certainly not the states.
>>24679955This is /lit/. At least pretend like you've ever read a book at some point.
>>24679966>the union dissolved in the end over democratic choiceThere was nothing democratic about USSR's dissolution though.
>>24679965>all had state-enforced systems for drastically increasing or reducing people's social status depending on their actions, like socialist labor competitions, public awards, and collective ostracism practicesThat still goes against the natural order. At its core, all life on earth is based on the survival of the fittest. Capitalism works because it pits competitors against each other, which is how humans operate most efficiently. Forced cooperation will never be able to achieve what natural competitive behavior can.
>>24679906Because they are brown and have been educated by woke gay race communists and spend their time in internet echo chambers with similar retards.
>>24679966>Soviet union also became more democratic over time to the point where the union dissolved in the end over democratic choice.So you're saying that when given the choice, people living under communism will always vote to abolish it?
>>24679983>That still goes against the natural orderAnd economic accumulation of capital doesn't? >Capitalism works because it pits competitors against each otherIf we don't count Marxist writings about how social democracy is betrayal and worse than death, like 90% of the remaining Marxist writings agree that the competitive element of capitalism was FRIGGING AWESOME and AMAZING and ONE OF THE BEST THINGS TO EVER HAPPEN. But it was also completely unsustainable and the concentrated capital growth it caused ended up producing a system that actively eliminates competition and eventually destroy any possible economic growth and development in order to preserve it's own static unchanging hegemony through plutocratic fusion with the state and exploitation of it's non-market instruments to eliminate the potential disruptions and contenders to the dominant capital. You know, that whole part where the ancaps say that we didn't have any True Capitalism since mid 1800s.
>>24679993>eventually destroy any possible economic growth and development in order to preserve it's own static unchanging hegemony through plutocratic fusion with the state and exploitation of it's non-market instruments to eliminate the potential disruptions and contenders to the dominant capitalSo it sounds like the state is always the problem.
>>24679987No what you see is you need a vanguard party to saveguard against people voting against their own self interest.
WHY ZOOMER DO THING???ME NO UNDERSTANDME MAD
>>24679995>So it sounds like the state is always the problem.Kinda, though state is much older than the problem, and it's kinda peculiar to see how combined structure of capital and state destroys society and declare state to be the sole cause. And the point is not declaring one or another thing to be the problem. It's just a simple LE NATURAL ORDER of industrial society to adapt it's social formation to it's industrial mode of production, developing capitalist forms of relations, which provides economic development and growth of society until it doesn't, at which point those form of relations end up consuming themselves, by actively destabilizing society until it catches commie-baguette-nigger-striker-muslim-bolshie pox that abscesses into a revolution. Revolution with it's violence, totalitarianism and planned economies is not le based forced cooperation that is le better and cooler than le problematic capitalist exploitation. It's just the natural, healthy way of how a burned-out capitalist society suck-starts a shotgun.
>>24679983>>24679995State and capital are inseparable, retard. Power is power. Money, social support, bullets, they're all the same thing. They come from the same place and can be used to do the same things.If you really truly believed in "survival of the fittest" taken to its extreme (which isn't natural by the way, humans are not solitary predators), you would be an anarchist. An actual anarchist, not some retarded ancap that selectively chooses to have some magical entity enforce private property and nothing else.
>>24679983“The natural order is the economic system that came into being within the last 250 years”What’re you retarded or something? I like how libertarians still think history started in England in 1750 or whatever. 2012 called, are you still voting for Ron Paul and jerking off to jailbait on Reddit?
>>24680046Based.
>>24679906Probably because since the complete and total victory that capitalism won in 1991 is continually getting worse and worse every year? Bigger and bigger wars, whole populations reduced to either retardation through either political propaganda or technology dependence, or superfluity leading to mass slumification and starvation, less and less opportunity to even be able to get “bribed” by the system like their parents did, uhhh people justifying the obliteration of a city with a population pyramid primarily composed of very young children by relentless carpet bombing, economic and political leaders becoming almost incapable of expressing rational thought or basic human emotion, explosion in nihilistic ideologies that lead to mass shootings and/or suicide, 500 year freak natural disasters wiping towns off the map on an annual basis, idk are you living under a bridge you retard?
>>24680127None of those things are real. You just listed off a bunch of propaganda narratives you've been fed through social media by foreign states working to destabilize your country.
>>24679913> isn't a story about "gommunism bad"It is quite explicitly about communism down to having personified communist leaders in the pigs. I’m astounded people can say something that stupid frankly. It’s even worse with the halfwit redditors who claim it’s about fascism ackchully. These are the fags posting about media literacy too.
>>24679983>At its core, all life on earth is based on the survival of the fittest.Kek it's so funny when you people try to act like intellectuals
>>24679983>Forced cooperation will never be able to achieve what natural competitive behavior can.
>>24679906Why are zoomers pro-capitalist and nazi rule?Don't they know the difference between state socialists and the revolutionary goal of no rulers, no capitalism? Don't they know China is doing fascism? Isn't 1984 required reading?
>>24680437>he didn't read the book>he didn't read what Orwell explicitly said about the meaning of the book>he doesn't know what Orwell's political leanings wereretard alert
>>24679965>Neither Marx, not Lenin, nor Mao, nor Trotsky never said shit about inequality being something inherently bad ... all had state-enforced systems for drastically increasing or reducing people's social status depending on their actions ... "Communism is when everyone is made absolutely equal" is a Cold War psyop.I find this debate tragically amusing because the conservatives say "communism is a utopian fantasy" and then others who defend these regimes will respond to them by saying, "well, actually, the reality is that it was a state-enforced class society (basically)" and really has nothing to do with the stuff about human brotherhood or anything. The fact that some people aren't just paid more or less but have higher or lower social *status* does imply the existence of social classes in a hierarchy. But that was Orwell's problem with it, it called itself socialist but it wasn't really.In Nineteen Eighty-Four he referred to the system as "oligarchical collectivism" because property was collectively owned, but the party (which comprised around 1.5% of the population) owned practically everything in the country. Orwell was also influenced by his experiences with middle-class communists and Soviet sympathizers in England who were often middling people who felt cramped by the English social system. They sought to overthrow the system to improve society, but once achieving that, would dispense with equality and become explicitly tyrannical although at least initially justifying it with socialism. He also believed the more tyrannical the USSR became, and the more removed it had become from its initial socialist premises, the more it attracted these people who found it admirable as an exercise in power, ruthlessness, and domination. It's intellectuals who are more fascinated by totalitarianism than the common people, who mainly want more freedom in their daily lives.In England, you're just some middling intellectual, professor, artist or broadcaster (i.e. professional propagandist), but in a totalitarian system, you can imagine yourself as finally being in charge. These people don't really love the working class, they despise the bourgeoisie and dream over overthrowing them so their own group can finally rule. You can be the planner, the manager, or the propaganda center in a highly organized system, and not only will everyone listen to you, they have to listen to you. The new ruling class becomes masters of the orthodoxy, so they also monopolize ideas in addition to monopolizing their control over the economy.
>>24679906Why are zoomers so pro-fascist? Is Animal Farm not required reading in schools anymore?
>>24681099>But that was Orwell's problem with it, it called itself socialist but it wasn't really.Like every other anglo pinko, Orwell got filtered by the concept of dictatorship of proletariat.>the common people, who mainly want more freedom in their daily livesThe common people always were the most ruthless supporters and practitioners of violent tyranny in countries that had communist revolutions since their lived experiences wholly justified infinite class violence, which is how revolutions happen in the first place.>These people don't really love the working class, they despise the bourgeoisie and dream over overthrowing them so their own group can finally rule.That's actually unironically based proletarian class consciousness. Proles don't revolt due to their all-encompassing solidarity in desire to unfold a human utopia, they revolt to fulfill their own, personal, entirely human pragmatic interests at the cost of a dire risk to their safety and lives. It coalesces into class interest when all proles can agree that fucking the bourgie to death does a lot to fulfill the personal interests for all of them. It's as shrimple as that.Marxism gets a ton of flak for it's perceived moral grandstanding, and social democay has spent the entire history of the movement just radiating it while suckling on a ton of Marxist theory, but it was always the whole point of dialectic materialism that there is no such thing as a "more moral society" - every society invents it's own moral copium for why fucking people to death isok, until people getting fucked to death agree to fuck back and invent their own justifications for why it is ok. Marx and Lenin both spent more pages shitting on European utopian socialists and their idealist shittery (that ultimately always justifies sucking bourgie dick) than they did describing their own theory of how fucking to death can finally move outside the plane of mere economy.
Animal farm is a criticism of stalinism and totalitarianism, Orwell was a democratic socialist As to why more zoomers are socialists, I would say it's because since the 70s productivity has risen but the living conditions of people have worsened, less people will be able to buy a home or retire
>>24679906The politics of the pigs are specifically rather Stalinist, although not quite a perfect representation of this. Although the Bolsheviks were always democratically centralist, figures like Trotsky felt that the route the party took after the revolution created a bureaucratic elite within the working class that ruled over its peers rather than a true liberation of the proletariat.If we look at the doctrine of Marx, there are two major aberrations to the Russian Revolution against the Marxist ideal: first, Marx predicted that successful revolution would first occur in the most industrialized nations, where productive forces under capitalism would bring forth the proletariat as an urban working class and a majority--Russia, at the time, was still a country of majority rural peasantry. Second was Lenin's approach to the "vanguard party" of educated radicals as opposed to Marx and Engels' prediction of natural precipitation of a revolution.Lenin's theory was this: capitalism, though internationalist in its aims at forever incorporating more and more resources as commodities, is fundamentally led by individuals who seek to usurp each other for control and who would use the state as a tool to express domination over their fellow capitalists in other nations. He described this as imperialism, a later form of capitalism. Where the capitalists of the "first world" could dominate another nation, they could placate a portion of the working class as higher-wage professionals. This might be recognized as the middle class in The United States of America, for example. So he thought that it would be nations that were dominated that would be first to revolt--this is largely what we saw happen in the independence movements of former colonial Africa, Asia and Central/South America as well as the afformentioned Russia. Lenin himself believed that more developed nations such as Germany would join the Russian revolution and band together, but those revolutions failed. Trotsky would extend this theory in his notion of a decentralized international "permanent revolution". Stalin would instead seek to bolster the USSR's strength at whatever cost and by growing its influence as a sole nation export communism. I am sympathetic to the former idea but of course it all remains theory at present.In any case, I feel that Animal Farm doesn't necessarily reflect the integral foreign policy aspect to Stalinism, but it certainly depicts the centralization of authority under Stalinism and the establishment of a bureaucratic elite within the proletariat.
>>24679922Why would girls think that the oppressive theocracy of The Handmaid's Tale is "hot"? Do they really not want control over their bodies?
>>24681198>Like every other anglo pinko, Orwell got filtered by the concept of dictatorship of proletariat.It was a dictatorship that claimed to act on behalf of the proletariat, but it was really a dictatorship of communists, and you had to be a member of the party to have any significant career (like the director of a state-owned factory). This is actually not the same thing although they believed it was. In a plot twist, Orwell might have survived Spain because he passed himself off as a rather bourgeois Englishman to avoid drawing suspicion from the Stalinists when they were purging the POUM.>The common people always were the most ruthless supporters and practitioners of violent tyranny in countries that had communist revolutions Perhaps during the revolutionary period but the Soviet Union ended up being run by a relatively small number of people who functioned much like an oligarchy even though they pretended not to be one. They could also certainly be ruthless and would put down striking workers by sending out the army to kill, and that really happened. I'm not talking about the civil war either when it was complicated but the 1960s/70s:https://youtu.be/w-2E1ZXMYgwhttps://youtu.be/_078AZcqBLc>it was always the whole point of dialectic materialism that there is no such thing as a "more moral society" - every society invents it's own moral copium for why fucking people to death isokOkay, sure, but now take the next (dialectical) step and apply this same critique back around to actually-existing socialism and the role of "socialism" as an ideology, and a dogma. It works just as well to install portraits of Lenin and hammers and sickles as ornamentation on buildings and posters in the service of the economic exploitation and political domination of some people over other people.
>>24679906Post-1968 communism is just liberalism with spicier aesthetics and rhetoric.
>>24681198>That's actually unironically based proletarian class consciousness ... Proles don't revolt due to their all-encompassing solidarityBTW I wasn't talking about the proles but intellectuals. The major error of the communist system is not Vuvuzela no iphone or whatever it is that conservatives usually say to rail against it. It's that communists arrive at the oversimplified conclusion that their alleged knowledge gives them the exclusive right to change society and control its activities. Orwell had figured this out but he wasn't a Marxist and his intuitions were more emotional and literary. I think you can say Marx also figured out certain ways in which early industrial capitalism operated (and the assertion, which seems true to me, that society is gonna change simply because it has to), but that doesn't justify in itself attempts by communists to model society after those ideas like you'd breed livestock based on the discoveries of Charles Darwin. So, what communists tend to do is (a) come to think very highly of themselves and (b) imagine they have a unique, universal and infallible science-ideology based on dialectical materialism which they believe gives them the authority to furnish themselves with (theoretically) unlimited power and kill anybody who disagrees with them or even thinks differently from them (for real). And I really emphasize the "thought" element of this because communists are actually more ruthless towards people with different ideas than they are to different classes. This sounds strange but it's true. Communists do practice class discrimination against the bourgeoisie, but members of the bourgeoisie have also proven useful for communist regimes in reality, and their continued existence in socialism (and even the toughtest command economy had thriving shadow entrepreneuers) is not as much of a problem as you'd assume because the communists didn't believe the merchants had much of a chance of returning to power. What attacking private ownership does do is create the illusion that the working class is "in the saddle" rather than the communists establishing their own ownership over production. If this was not the case, then class discrimination would actually be harsher than ideological discrimination, but it isn't. What really gets you into some shit is thoughtcrime and Orwell was early on figuring that out as being central to the functioning of this type of system.
Are they? I know that Muslim feller is gonna be the mayor of NYC but thats just bc New Yorkers are retarded right?
>>24679906It's very simple. If you can't succeed in the current system you will be in favor of another. Every other answer is wrong
>>24681611>It was a dictatorship that claimed to act on behalf of the proletariat, but it was really a dictatorship of communists>Perhaps during the revolutionary period but the Soviet Union ended up being run by a relatively small number of people who functioned much like an oligarchy even though they pretended not to be one. They could also certainly be ruthless and would put down striking workers by sending out the army to kill, and that really happened. I'm not talking about the civil war either when it was complicated but the 1960s/70sUm, yeah. But like, what's your point here? >It works just as well to install portraits of Lenin and hammers and sickles as ornamentation on buildings and posters in the service of the economic exploitation and political domination of some people over other people.Duh, that's how practice is. So what? It's just the way bourgeoisie dies. New commonalities emerge in it's place, new forms of exploitation, but they explicitly fail to coalesce into a new class system. There are thousands of Sovietologiests and Sinologists proposing ten thousand theories of how USSR ran and how PRC runs right now, but none of them really have any idea, because the hierarchies of both don't really form any coherent systems. Wealth does not automatically elevate your class, popular support doesn't either, even party membership and positions have only very rough correlation with power and status. The actual hierarchies are more incidental than anything else. Which, again, is not some deliberate achievement of Communist genius, it's how things are when an established class system decoheres. >>24681684>It's that communists arrive at the oversimplified conclusion that their alleged knowledge gives them the exclusive right to change society and control its activitiesBruh? Every community has the right to change the way this community works. They don't even need knowledge, they only need lack of consent to obey the status quo. That's how human affairs simply are. >but that doesn't justify in itself attempts by communists to model society after those ideasAgain, filtered by historical materialism. All historical practice justifies itself, and it's all copium. There is no "true" excuse for killing another man, or doing anything else really. All copium. >So, what communists tend to do is That's what every single possible political organization"tends" to do, or rather, explicitly does, because that's how political practice is realized period. You don't rally people by yelling >"Hey guys you know what, we're wrong and should shut the fuck up!" Like, feel free to name one such organization that is not built on the principles you describe. > If this was not the case, then class discrimination would actually be harsher than ideological discriminationDon't see the logic ere. >What really gets you into some shit is thoughtcrimeNot really. What gets you into shit is political action, and that's true for any regime.
>>24679966>Capitalism is an inherently unstable system it has to collapse into another form. Be it oligarchy, feudalism or communism. The system in and of itself is not designed to be stable.wut? Communist countries are all gone, (no China isn't communist) while capitalist countries are still around so capitalism is way more stable than communism
>>24682359>capitalist countries are still aroundNo, USA and EU countries aren't capitalist
>>24680437It's about a revolution being subverted and the new order becoming indistinguishable from what preceded it. This is not controversial.
>>24680751I don’t know why people are so unaware of Orwell’s disgust with communism from his personal experience in the war. Dem Soc isn’t communism to anyone but retarded americans so presumably you are one. Apropos his leanings did you read the essay where he defends the free speech of Mosley? Or the ones where he rants against Gollancz for trying to silence him over Animal Farm? Which they did because they were commie sympatico and his book attacked… hmm… what do you think anon? Why did the commies, including the literal spy in the government go after him over this book?
I don't mind communism. I actually like Stalin. We need more people like him, and less gay ass tranny communists, trots, and leftcoms.
>>24679906>whylack of exposurelack of complete informationleads to incorrect assumptions
