>>25269578
Has any other philosopher inspired so much worship and seethe at the same time?

File: IMG_0086.jpg (283 KB, 1500x1500)

283 KB JPG

inb4
>Marxism is for lazy people who just don’t want to work!
>Every Marxist society has failed!
>Marx thought the price of a good depended on the time it took to make it!
It’s all just so tiresome.

File: 1768881297897954.jpg (49 KB, 700x674)

49 KB JPG

>>25269578
Oh but I have

>>25269603
>Marx thought the price of a good depended on the time it took to make it!
That's a bit oversimplified but still catches the gist of the argument, doesn't it. Not that I disagree.

Btw the faggot you are quoting never makes criticisms as substantial as this one (even though it's still redundant). He is content with calling Marxists jobless and lazy

>>25269578
>>25269579
>>25269588
>>25269603
You will never own the means of production, sorry!

>>25269588
Jesus

>>25269621
Yeah I was almost going to type that if Marx was born a preacher 1000 years ago he would've become some Jesus like figure

>>25269616
Socially necessary labor time is a theoretical abstraction. So no Marx does not think the price of something depends on how much time it took to make, no ltv economist was retarded enough to claim or suggest this. A physician for instance is working dozens or hundreds of socially necessary labor hours a day, based on how much more valiable his labor is than the least valuable. And someone whose product falls in value is working ‘fewer’ socially necessary labor hours.

>>25269578
You can tell Marxists don't work by the amount threads they keep making

>>25269641 (samefag)
So you hear morons talk about a ‘calculation problem’ in Capital but there really is none. You can easily figure the labor hours in any given society by comparing prices, this is the ‘coefficient’ he mentions.

>>25269641
Why do you keep talking about socially necessary labor time when it's meaningless in the real world
No economist uses it, no business owner uses it
It's just some bullshit catechism you've brainwashed yourself into believing
You're basically just doing what trannies do

>>25269648
There clearly is a calculation problem when Soviet Union could not use LTV not stop famines and chronic shortages of consumer good

>>25269578
How do you explain the fact that every attempt at it has failed?

>>25269654
That's the neat part, you don't.

>>25269641
>A physician for instance is working dozens or hundreds of socially necessary labor hours a day, based on how much more valiable his labor is than the least valuable. And someone whose product falls in value is working ‘fewer’ socially necessary labor hours.

Is this something Marx actually believed or are you making it up.

File: Communism.jpg (98 KB, 636x483)

98 KB JPG

>>25269654
Birds won

>>25269641
You’re correct about Capital but the calculation problem has to do with the distribution of goods in a command economy and it is fatal to your position.

>>25269654
Didn't Marx say that communism will come naturally once productive forces cannot be contained by capitalism just as capitalism came to naturally replace feudalism?

File: IMG_0073.jpg (78 KB, 744x607)

78 KB JPG

>>25269651
It is meaningless insofar as you can swap it out with money, and Marx says this too. But it is meaningful because it makes explicit the fact that capitalism is a way of organizing labor power in a society and money is not some spooky ‘thing’ but is itself labor.
>>25269654
I can criticize capitalism without being a socialist and there’s nothing you can do about it.
>>25269672
Yes he addresses this in the first part, when he talks about the coefficient of skilled labor. He just runs through it too quickly for most.
>>25269675
See above faggot.

>>25269677
No, he actually wrote he thought communism was possible in Russia at the time of writing the Manifesto. He thought that co-operative labor would be productive than capitalist labor, which was completely false and refuted by history

>more marx spam
Every time a zoomer discord discovers /lit/ this board becomes worse.

>>25269689
>Yes he addresses this in the first part, when he talks about the coefficient of skilled labor.

Tbh I haven't read capital. But this argument seems to suggest that some kind of labours can be more valuable than others, right? But doesn't that just bring us back to subjective theory of value and classical economics?

>>25269689
>I can criticize capitalism without being a socialist and there’s nothing you can do about it.
What are you gonna do about it though? Just criticize it without believing change is possible?

>>25269578
Jews are evil, I want nothing from them.

>>25269689
Capitalism isn't a way of organizing labor power or society dude
Capital is just any asset that generates income or revenue
>I can criticize capitalism without being a socialist a
Your criticisms don't make any sense or have any real value. Economists typically criticize specific economic policy and weight opportunity costs do . They do case studies, they run statistical models and write papers
You just spew memes and dogma

Why should “creation” imply ownership? Especially after the laborer signs a contract forfeiting his product?

I want to agree with him but it won't happen. We're stuck like this forever.

>>25269702
Marx basically is a classical economist and he does accept subjective utility which he calls use-value. The ltv is not a theory of how prices are determined but of what prices ultimately ‘are’, what is being exchanged in an economy as such.

Marx's beliefs get really delusional once you realize what he calls for - the end of commodity production, wage labor and price signals
You can just see how that leads to disaster and why it did

>>25269709
>Why should “creation” imply ownership?
The correct question to ask is why does it not imply ownership. Independent self employed workers do own what they create. What is the fundamental difference between them and a wagie?

>Especially after the laborer signs a contract forfeiting his product?
The labourer signs a contract for selling his labour as a commodity. In this very act as he alienates his labour from himself so there is nothing left to forfeit.

>>25269710
Nothing lasts forever. But we won't be escaping the earn money/spend money cycle in our lifetimes that's quite certain.

>>25269707
I’m not getting into a side argument about the definition of a word but Marx actually excoriates economists who thought of capital in such a simplistic way. You think the little girl with a lemonade stand is a capitalist and this has the effect of making the true relations in our econony invisible. What dogma? This is theory, Marx argues the shit out of this, with loads of statistics and case studies for that matter.

How would he view the ongoing AI revolution?

>>25269731
Marx thinks that lemonade stand owner is a capitalist though? Do you even read your own theory, bro? Why do think communism abolishes exchange value.

>>25269740
No, unless she had employees and her business was large enough that she did not have to work herself the little girl is not a capitalist. Reas it again.

>>25269717
>Marx basically is a classical economist and he does accept subjective utility which he calls use-value

Oh. I always thought that socially necessary labour value is a homogenous function quite independent from use value. And exchange value is just an accumulation of the same in a commodity.
But then how do you analytically bridge the gap between use value and exchange value? Now that you suggest that different labours can have different values.

>The ltv is not a theory of how prices are determined but of what prices ultimately ‘are’, what is being exchanged in an economy as such.
I am not interested in prices at all desu. We know for a fact that qualitatively a Car is more (socially) valuable than a Cake because it takes more human effort to make a car.

>>25269744

This. One is truly not a capitalist unless one profits off of someone else's labour that is not his own labour.

File: australian murderer.jpg (151 KB, 688x561)

151 KB JPG

>>25269578
>tells the world jews are evil, a conclusion every non-jew has reached
>modern day tankies have to ignore that because the bolsheviks they idolize had like 95% jewish leadership

>>25269744
You clearly didn't read Marx. In the first chapter, he defines capitalism as a society where the majority of wealth stems from commodities. A lemonade stand is selling a commodity, which is lemonade. When Marx is talking about capitalism, he's talking about a society where wealth is generated by people who own capital and sell commodities.

>>25269753
Communists have to ignore that their ideology inevitably ends with labeling any dirt farmer with a donkey and plow "kulak", taking away his shit, consolidating it into a bureaucratic bloat that never actually uses it, driving the farmer to starvation and eventually causing a famine.

>>25269750
>I always thought that socially necessary labour value is a homogenous function quite independent from use value. And exchange value is just an accumulation of the same in a commodity.
No you’re right about that. Marx did not understand the exact process by which utility becomes price and he doesn’t pretend to, for him these are independent. But my point is a correct neoclassical theory of marginal utility doesn’t hurt Marx at all, if anything it just makes his system more coherent.

>>25269750
>We know for a fact that qualitatively a Car is more (socially) valuable than a Cake because it takes more human effort to make a car.
This is a circular argument. You could argue a cake is more valuable than a car if you're starving, but you don't consider consumer preferences. Some people don't even have the ability to drive, so why would a car be more valuable to them. This is a stupid thing to say.
>We're not talking about prices
But you have to, without prices, you're never going to know how many cars or cakes people need. Debates on value are pointless if you can't figure out a way to efficiently give people the things they want. Communism abolishes price. Which makes it impossible to make these decisions, and the history of communist countries pretty much prove it with their chronic shortages of basic necessities.

>>25269756
And you clearly haven’t read past the first chapter because he talks about the difference between capitalism and small proprietorship, homesteading, etc, at length later on.

>>25269765
Look at this fresh retard confusing the classical labor theory of value with the calculation problem. And this retard he’s talking to who thinks Marx thought value came from ‘how much effort’ it took to make something rather than by a ‘socially necessary process’ which occurs ‘behind our backs.’ It’s this process which determines how ‘much’ work you are doing, you’re doing more if it is more ‘skilled’. It is depressing how illiterate this board is.

>>25269765
>You could argue a cake is more valuable than a car if you're starving, but you don't consider consumer preferences. Some people don't even have the ability to drive, so why would a car be more valuable to them

The word that I added "socially" was not for no reason. A person may be starving and a person may not need a car. But that will have zero consequence on how the society values those things. (A market itself is a social setting) . And that directly comes from labour. In every step of the process of making a car from scratch way more work is needed compared to the cake , i.e. more people need to be fed and clothed. That all adds up. (This is a simplication though but it works for people who have never engaged with Marx)

>Debates on value are pointless if you can't figure out a way to efficiently give people the things they want. Communism abolishes price. Which makes it impossible to make these decisions, and the history of communist countries pretty much prove it with their chronic shortages of basic necessities.

Capitalism is plagued with both over production and under production. In fact everytime the market "corrects" itself, it does so with waste, job losses, plummeting shareholder value, leading to boom and bust cycles. Marx covers this inefficiency

>>25269788
>socially necessary
No such thing

>>25269788
>And this retard he’s talking to who thinks Marx thought value came from ‘how much effort’ it took to make something rather than by a ‘socially necessary process

Hey no need for name calling. Correct me if you know better.

>>25269792
Boom and bust cycles are universal, no commiefag system ever solved scarcity and neither has nature in billions of years of evolution. The closest we've gotten to doing so is technocapitalism, although it does require infinite growth (less absurd than it used to be). Your problem is with entropy and finitude, not capitalism.

>>25269621
Muhammad inspires way more seethe and while Muslims don't technically worship him, they at least come as close as communists with Marx

>>25269800
>actually admits that capitalism depends on infinite growth
Oops!

>>25269800
Capitalism cannot solve scarcity because it thrives on it. Capitalism is a system that if it was provided with the last glass of milk on earth. It would sooner hand it over to a rich man's cat than a poor man's starving child. Capitalism is the system where US wastes millions of tons of agriculture produce to artificially control prices while starvation and malnutrition is still a thing in the world.

This wouldn't happen if society (i.e. people) themselves took charge of production and distribution instead of letting the markets serve some Oligarchal elites. Boom and bust cycles are pretty much a direct consequence of how the capitalist markets correct themselves.

marxism won't survive this century because marxists don't breed

>>25269800
> Boom and bust cycles are universal
This is false. There have been crises, including economic ones, but the business cycle starts with industrialization.

>>25269654
It didn't though? Your only example of it "failing" is the USSR where it turned an agricultural country into an industrial superpower that put the first man in space.

>>25269766
There is no "small proprietorship" under communism, retard. You have no real understanding of his ideas or what he actually wanted. You pretend you do. You would still have a capitalist economy even if you did not employ wage labor. A self-employed person can be a capitalist. Who do you think the NEPmen were, dumbass?
>>25269792
>The word that I added "socially" was not for no reason. A person may be starving and a person may not need a car. But that will have zero consequence on how the society values those things
What an incredibly stupid thing to say. You think society doesn't see the value in ending hunger? Oh wait, you're a communist. Never mind.
>In every step of the process of making a car from scratch way more work is needed compared to the cake
Which is irrelevant if a person actually needs a cake instead of a car. Nobody cares about the labor put into a car if they don't need it. Plenty of cars never get sold despite the labor invested in them.

>>25269884
Holy shit you are retarded.

File: 920x920-456620609.jpg (70 KB, 920x574)

70 KB JPG

>>25269847
The Soviet Union was not an "industrial superpower." Its entire existence was subsidized by American capitalism. Siemens, Koch, Ford, etcetera, spent millions investing into the USSR in the 1930s, and without Lend-Lease, there would be no Soviet Union. Even the Soviet space program was heavily reliant on kidnapped Nazi scientists. You don't even know what you're talking about.
>>25269812
>Capitalism cannot solve scarcity because it thrives on it.
Pretty sure Yeltsin disagreed with you when he went to that supermarket. Even Cubans living in Cuba don't even agree with such bullshit.

>>25269887
You should get a job. Shilling communism just isn't working out for you. You're not very intelligent.

File: IMG_20260511_043158.jpg (640 KB, 1080x1104)

640 KB JPG

>You think society doesn't see the value in ending hunger?
>You should get a job. Shilling communism just isn't working out for you. You're not very intelligent.

>>25269578
Didn't his theory failed in practice?

If so, then it has only theoretical value.

>Pretty sure Yeltsin disagreed with you when he went to that supermarket. Even Cubans living in Cuba don't even agree with such bullshit

How can anyone be this brain dead. It defies all reason. No way these things are human.

>>25269896
Why is it when communists borrow money and turn it into industrialization they are called losers, but when capitalists do they are called innovators?

>>25269917
>Why is it when communists borrow money and turn it into industrialization they are called losers,
Where is the USSR today, for one

>How can anyone be this brain dead. It defies all reason. No way these things are human.
Communists aren't people. You don't have much of a right to define human beings to begin with.

>>25269884
> There is no "small proprietorship" under communism, retard.
Of course not. My point is that Marx draws a clear distinction between markets and private property and capitalism itself. They had markets and private property and even (if you like) a sort of free enterprise in the middle ages but no capitalism.

>>25269912
>How can you judge communism by its real world results. Communism is the thing that exists in my head and in endless semantic, talmudic arguments.

>>25269933
>They had markets and private property and even (if you like) a sort of free enterprise in the middle ages but no capitalism.
This is wrong. Economic modes of production are emergent. Capitalism didn't just magically poof into existence. The seeds of capitalism was always there, with individual capitalists selling goods and services. You can even employ people, not even pay them a wage, and still operate your firm as capitalist. Even the Soviets understood this, which is why tried so hard to eliminate the kulak farmer.

>>25269922
It's gone and Russia is a lot worse off for it, so is all of eastern Europe. Standard of living immediately drop, crime skyrocketed, and wars sprung up

>>25269943
> emergent. Capitalism didn't just magically poof into existence. The seeds of capitalism was always there, with individual capitalists selling goods and services
You’re just arbitrarily defining capitalism in a certain way and ignoring the point Marx is making. A Roman senator might get rich selling corn his slaves grew, a guild master might also become wealthy, or a usurer, but Marx thought something major changed when private individuals started owning manufacturing outfits with free, waged employees. The entire book is about how this happened and why it’s different from what went before. You’re being so aggressive that you’re just making a fool out of yourself.

>>25269946
>The USSR was only Russia
>Nobody wanted to leave the USSR or wanted the Soviets to leave their country
So, you're telling me Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Germany joined NATO because they want the USSR back? And Ukraine totally wants it back too, right?
And Putin, who trashes Stalin and communism all the time, totally wants it back too, right?

>>25269959
>You’re just arbitrarily defining capitalism
No, it's not arbitrary. You want us to believe Marx called for the abolition of commodity production because he thought individuals couldn't be capitalists. You're not a serious person.

>>25269968
>So, you're telling me Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Germany joined NATO because they want the USSR back? And Ukraine totally wants it back too, right?

Mostly countries with CIA-supported regime changes which remain crummy. Putting aside even membership in the USSR, a decent amount of Germans wish the Berlin wall was restored. Not even talking about wishing Germany was still in the USSR which would be a higher figure

Putin's legitimacy comes originally from Yeltsin who gave all the state assets to privatized friends. Of course he wouldn't say he wants it back

Pre-capitalist modes are rank swindles; they don’t increase wealth with any efficiency they just distribute it unfairly. But the capitalist mode is like a cheat code for infinite wealth and infinite growth and it turns out that it sucks and is not sustainable. That’s the book in a nutshell.

>>25269917
Because it doesn't contradict the capitalist's ideology while it makes the communist into a hypocrite.

And on the sate level capitalist countries don't immediately start collapsing the second the cash stops flowing. Countries like South Korea, (west) Germany and others took out loans and/or foreign aid and went from poor, war ravaged shitholes into economical powerhouses. Their communist twins did the same and after initial growth stalled into either partial or complete collapse.

>>25269975
>Mostly countries with CIA-supported regime changes which remain crummy.
Yeah, it was the CIA that made people hate the fact they were poor, starving and hunger because of communism. It wasn't the result of centralized planning, corruption, mass murder... CIA just had a mind control switch that makes people hate stuff one day.

>>25269982
If you ever read Capital you will be pleasantly surprised to find that Marx was aware of how much capitalism could increase the wealth of a society and even the well-being of workers (in the long run). That’s what makes it so powerful - he grants all your premises.

>>25269975
>unironic CIA o algo posting

>>25269996
Dropping this little factoids about Marx is weird when he spent most of his life being a deadbeat degenerate who leeched off his wife, cheated on here, and did drugs most of the time. You're not really selling me why I should care about anything he had to say.

>>25269996
I'm well aware of that. I was answering the anon asking why we laugh at commie countries for taking on debt/aid.

This is one of the failure points of Marxism. Marx claimed that the revolution would come about in developed industrialized countries while in reality those countries are barren ground for revolution, every revolt failing (I.E Luxembourg's Spartacus uprising in 1919) even when the countries were at their weakest. It can only take root in developing, partially industrialized countries like Russia and friends. But this goes against Marx himself and is doomed to fail on it's own.

The only way to salvage this are partial free-market reforms but I believe that they resemble Fascism more than anything Marx ever proposed. Or the north Korean way of devolving into feudalism.

>>25269578
I haven't read any of his stuff, is it worth starting?

but one question I have for "marxists" and "communists" is this: If communism/marxism/whatever is about the proletariat/workers owning the means of production, what is your idea for bringing production back to *deindustrialized Western nation of your choice*? And if deindustrialized is a term you don't like then bringing back working jobs the working class would work by marxist definitions.

>>25270045
Go to a local communist organization and ask them questions.
You'll quickly see why it's a waste of time.

>>25270036
I agree with you. Hegel said philosophy is its own time comprehended in thought. Marx can understand our present situation well but he can’t see into the future. Capitalism does generate wealth and most of it is rained down on your head in the form of shit. This is affecting every moment of your life.

>>25270045
>bringing back working jobs the working class would work by marxist definitions.
Why would anyone want that. De-industrialisation means there aren't any working class left to do working class jobs (at least for the jobs that were shipped away) . Just enjoy your first world lifestyle and collect your government checks as your clothes and plastic and tech is produced elsewhere (most likely china) . And watch as Mexicans risk death to get what you have.

>>25270064
>Go to a local communist organization
I'm sure that's what you did instead of jerking off to porn all day on 4chan while clipping your IQ on /pol/ and truthsocial until only a semblance of a "human" is left

>>25270070
I feel like shit is raining down on my head when I read your posts.

>>25270091
>I feel like shit is raining down on my head
NTA but nothing is raining down. Your are just experiencing the shit that is your head.

>>25270045
contra to what 99% of Marxists seem to think, Marx is an economist first and foremost and you won't grasp him without a decent understanding of economics
like that other guy said, go actually meet a communist and you'll realise how dysfunctional they are

>>25269578
How do Marxists feel about technocapital becoming autonomous and eventually subsuming/dissolving the human element?

>>25270090
>I'm sure that's what you did instead of jerking off to porn all day on 4chan while clipping your IQ on /pol/ and truthsocial until only a semblance of a "human" is left
The overwhelmingly majority of communists, where you live, defend prostitution and porn. And are furryfags and trannies. You don't work, but if you did, we could bet money on this and I'd make quite a sum on this prediction.

>>25270090
>Why would anyone want that. De-industrialisation means there aren't any working class left to do working class jobs
How are the workers supposed to control the means of production when nothing is being produced/production has been relocated?

>Just enjoy your first world lifestyle and collect your government checks as your clothes and plastic and tech is produced elsewhere (most likely china)
but I don't want to be a leech and service jobs are fucking gay and plastic is bad. Weren't ~44 million Americans facing food insecurity during the government shutdown because of food stamps being stopped or whatever? I'm sure it'll never happen again with proposed UBI's.

>>25269588
All of the innovators have.

>>25270126
These posts are so stereotyped and stupid that you think they’re glowies. Sadly, they are not glowies, they’re just exploited workers with severe mental retardation.

>>25270126
>>25270149
I suspect it actually is a glowie. Notice how it's trying to figure out where I live.

>>25269819
Really? You don't have a better response than circular reasoning?

>>25269811
All life does, it all dies when the sun goes out. Stasis just means we stop running away from death. Communism is extinctionism.

>>25269812
The entire point of my post is that NOTHING can solve scarcity. It's physically impossible barring significant upsets in our understanding of physics. Learn to read.

>>25269603
Marx actually thought the price of a good was determined by some immaterial, imbued factor, which is much more retarded.

>>25269922
Bourgeoisie & Proletariat states are not the same. When a communist command economy falters and collapses, its nation certainly deserves criticism, but when businesses (capitalists) collapse the capitalist state intervenes to save them, NOT their national populace. Why must the masses subsidize investiture to the elite and not in service to their own rule, both during EVERYDAY bankruptcy & corporation subsidization by capitalist states feeding the interest groups that fund their reelection, and when the nomenklatura class seize the people's wealth and become oligarchs

>>25270179
why didn't the communists just bail at their own countries retard

>>25270142
>How are the workers supposed to control the means of production when nothing is being produced/production has been relocated?

In communism the point is to remove the owner/worker distinction al together by making everyone a stake holder in the collective society. So it's not just "workers" who own the means of production but "people". Because there is no such thing as a pure worker (in the wageslave way) in communism. That of course doesn't mean that people don't work.

Having said that, there are still working people in the west despite the de-industrialisation. And the means of production still remain in the hands of few, even though some of their proletariat now exists in China.

That's why communism must eventually be global. Because capitalism itself is global.
>but I don't want to be a leech
I don't know what that even means anymore. You could get paid 10x more compared to a shitholer for doing the same job for same number of hours. Would anyone call that "leeching" , even though the person is employed.
>Weren't ~44 million Americans facing food insecurity during the government shutdown because of food stamps being stopped or whatever?
My next point is, Capitalism will ensure that eventually the 10x earning western worker I mentioned above reaches the same state as the third worlder. That's how you get cheap immigration lowering wages. Without socialism re-distributing western wealth to it's citizens, the west would become another third world with a rich elite at the top and everyone surviving at the bottom.

>>25270186
>In communism the point is to remove the owner/worker distinction al together by making everyone a stake holder in the collective society.
it's called a 401k which you would know if u had a job.

>>25270191
Sorry buddy. Nobody is telling you their jobs, no matter how much of a retard you act. Nice try though.
>>>25270179
>when the nomenklatura class seize the people's wealth and become oligarchs
This is precisely what happened to the USSR. The people overwhelmingly voted to keep the state but the corrupt elites dissolved it to establish oligarchy and look where they are today.
>>25270173
>The entire point of my post is that NOTHING can solve scarcity
Why do you even bring up scarcity. What has that got to do with my original post. Unless you are alluding to Capitalism's failure to ensure that the surplus food produced reaches the needy. Which is a fact.

Capitalism does not just not solve scarcity. But it even creates artificial scarcity where none needs to exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxrkC-pMH_s

>>25270186
>In communism, the objective is to entirely eliminate the distinction between owner and worker by making everyone a stakeholder in the collective society.
That's retarded. Why would one ever desire a society like that? Certain groups, such as children (like yourself), the mentally ill, trannies, the unemployed, and the uneducated, and niggers, certainly should not be classified as stakeholders in society. We already know what that would lead to.
>This is precisely why communism must eventually become global.
Lenin held the same view, yet he proved to be very wrong. It is evident that people prioritize their families, race, religion, and even their own nation-state over your mythical, ephemeral proletariat. Give up with these retarded platitudes, and get your head out of your ass.

>>25270179
When the state intervenes in a capitalist economy, they give people healthcare
When the state intervenes in a communist economy, people tend to die from hunger
It's not really the same

>>25269578
It's insane to me that people would willingly subject themselves to collectivism. It's the ultimate cuckolding, relinquishing your life to some abstract economic ideal. You need enough good, courageous individuals to have a decent society, and any solution imposed from on high won't matter. Unless you just want a perpetual state of misery for some, to hopefully shift the balance in your favor temporarily, making you no better from the horrible people you hate

>>25270218
Oh look it's Max Stirner
Where have you been

>>25270213
>That's retarded. Why would one ever desire a society like that? Certain groups, such as children (like yourself), the mentally ill, trannies, the unemployed, and the uneducated, and niggers, certainly should not be classified as stakeholders in society. We already know what that would lead to.
As opposed to having to deal with annoying ladies at HR bossing you around and having no way to deal back with them instead of being on equal footing? Having to deal with police not taking your reports of being robbed by niggers seriously because the legal system is ran by bourgeoisie legislators who don't face such issues in their lives? Incompetent people are way more likely to fuck you over under capitalism than communism because they are explicitly above you
Besides being trans is a bourgeoisie illness, most of queer culture is inherently rooted in it. It's a capitalist and american creation of the late 20th century and one that only serves to alienate people off their true issues and to abuse a poor prole's children. Che Guevara has some pretty good words about the roots of queer culture
Racial distinction wouldnt exist under marxism although I do personally believe some genocides would have to be done and some cultures would have to be erased to achieve global revolution, China is already doing that with merely their national revolution. Everyone would be equally dedicated and mental illness is bourgeois idealism
>Lenin held the same view, yet he proved to be very wrong. It is evident that people prioritize their families, race, religion, and even their own nation-state over your mythical, ephemeral proletariat. Give up with these retarded platitudes, and get your head out of your ass
All those things are platitudes capitalists made that over time communism would inevitably root out, Marx speaks precisely about this in length and you would know if ya read him
Im not a big communist for other reasons, it has plenty of issues in how it's applied but even than there's a ton of value to be granted from reading Marx regardless of your ideology

>>25270229
>As opposed to having to deal with annoying ladies at HR bossing you around and having no way to deal back with them instead of being on equal footing?
under communism hr ladies run your whole life! damn dude how stupid can u be lmao. personally, hr ladies never bothered me tho , they paid for my masters, but it's just maybe it's cuz i'm not a political extremist jagoff.

File: billions.png (44 KB, 271x296)

44 KB PNG

>>25270229
>I do personally believe some genocides would have to be done
Horseshoe theory

>>25270213
>That's retarded
Not an argument
>Why would one ever desire a society like that?
Not an argument
>Children , mentally ill
These will be treated just like they are treated in democracies. Not fit to have an opinion (which in democracy means vote)
>trannies
Absolutely no reason why these can't be workers.
>the unemployed
A paradigm that only exists under capitalism. Capitalism requires a reserve labour force and permanently unemployed people looking for work (such as yourself) to suppress wages.
>niggers
Contributing more to economy than your pathetic racist ass ever will.
>It is evident that people prioritize their families, race, religion, and even their own nation-state over your mythical, ephemeral proletariat.
That's only because old economic relations that create these equally mythical constructs (race,family , religion) still persists. Once people form new economic relations of productivity, these will transform or vanish.

For example- The Capitalist mode of production is already killing the institution of marriage and family via feminism

>>25269578
I did study a bit of him, it wasn't really a pill, it was in book-form. I took it as it was. I did the Manifesto. Kinda opened my view on 'working' a bit.

>>25270229
>As opposed to having to deal with annoying ladies at HR bossing you
I rather deal with an HR boss than a communist commissar that will shoot me for missing the weekly grain quote, yeah
Most people in Easter Europe said the same thing in 1989 bud
>Besides being trans is a bourgeoisie illness, most of queer culture is inherently rooted in it.
East Germany and Cuba allow/allow trannies to get sex change surgeries.
>All those things are platitudes capitalists made t
No, capitalists didn't create families, race, and religion, and none of those are platitudes. They're the bedrocks of civilization we created to make life enjoyable and worth living. You're insane.

>>25270224
Heh, may have to check that bloke out

>>25270242
>These will be treated just like they are treated in democracies. Not fit to have an opinion (which in democracy means vote)
You said communism would "make everyone a stakeholder in society." You're now contradicting yourself. You're retarded.

>The Capitalist mode of production is already killing the institution of marriage and family via feminism
The gulf states are very capitalist, and yet, they don't have feminism. That doesn't seem to be very true at all.

>>25270250
He's one the few guys who made Marx seethe because he refuted everything he said.

>>25270245
>No, capitalists didn't create families, race, and religion, and none of those are platitudes. They're the bedrocks of civilization we created to make life enjoyable and worth living. You're insane.
Read Marx, those structures exist and arent kept specifically to attempt to make you happy until they inevitably collapse on themselves. The concept of families is far older than capitalism but the idea of a family unit is specifically one kept by the bourgeoisie
>East Germany and Cuba allow/allow trannies to get sex change surgeries.
America did it first and they already had CIA operatives in both places
>Most people in Easter Europe said the same thing in 1989 bud
Im an eastern european and everyone has been bitter and miserable since, every last boomer here looks back at the good days with absolute solitude. We used to have a national project instead of the raging mess we are at today
>>25270237
brvtal trvke
>>25270235
Under communism your life is controlled by a noisy skinnyfat short bureocrat actually. Super tiny bug like people, almost jewish in nature but far too relaxed and missing the neuroticisim typically attributed to jews. Just piling up papers on top of each other over and over plip plop. Must meet those 5 year plans!
I dont have to pay for my bachelors though the french state basically does it for me

>>25270265
other notable marx alternatives being weber, schumpeter, and keynes tho they appeared on the scene after marx croaked so didn't get any of that sweet seethe.

>>25270271
poland just broke into the top 20 global economies by gdp, they're doing great, not sure where u came from

>>25270271
>>25270229
this HAS to be a trollpost no fucking way

>>25270271
>Let Marx brainwash you into believing race, religion and your family is worthless and meaningless
How about no. I can think for myself. I don't need some stupid jew to tell me what I need to think and feel about my life and what I desire and love, unlike you.

>>25270271
every boomer everywhere thinks things were better when they were young, duh, just like everyone thinks music peaked the years they were in high school. get a grip dude.

>>25270265
>How can you be súch a negativist as a man
always gets me, being a man.
I thought we were supposed to act in the spirit of brotherhood, it's somewhere in the UN core texts

>>25270274
They really hate Weber, Menger and Bawerk
Pretty much anyone who did actual economics, as their job, instead of trying about it in shitty communist newspapers nobody read

>>25270271
>idea of a family unit is specifically one kept by the bourgeoisie
If you're talking about the nuclear family it's been something characteristic of western europeans because of monogamy + individualism + diminishment of clans + encouraging couples to be able to form independent households in order to marry.

Marxism is a ridiculous, pseudo religious, teleological and unfalsifiable set of ideas that no person operating in reality would ever have the luxury of being able to entertain. Ironically, sincere belief in Marxism is the express privilege of the bourgeoisie.

>>25270295
the idea of the nuclear family in the west came from catholicism banning cousin marriages

>>25270298
That guys just a fucking idiot. In the Roman Republic and later Empire, the ideal for any roman family was to own one dwelling for one set of parents and children. Many couldn't afford this, but whenever anyone could, it's what they went for. Extended families existed even when units were wealthy enough to afford a single insula room or rustic farm for themselves. Wow. Sounds a lot like right now and every other period in history where private or rentable property existed. I guess the classical world was just "capitalism, the prologue" and then feudalism is where Marx situates the origins of mankind's constructed concepts.
But what do you expect when you listen to a guy who let his kids go hungry while he played checkers in London libraries, stinking like rancid shit? Sad!

>>25270297
TR\/KE

>>25270283
If you can think for yourself you can sure read a book and come to your own conclusions on some topics. That's what I did, I dont think religion is worthless and I really disagree with his points on it specially with how different both the catholic and orthodox churches became after his death, they were always the biggest and most honest aid the poor ever had at any moment in history no matter who tries to say otherwise. It just pisses me off that people are so quick to jump on Marx without reading his work first, it's like hating on christianity because of some weird american pastors instead of the Bible
>>25270278
Serbia, we did have a short uptick when communism first ended but ever since it's been downhill because they dont need to invest in us to make the population think communism was super bad anymore
GPT is not an inherent metric as to the quality of life of a country however, every single place that gets sucked off on these metrics like Sweden and Denmark have horrific suicide rates and people under constant depression. Quality of life is heavily influenced by culture and overall enviroment in ways that can't be shown by numbers.
>>25270286
Fair enough, I will give ya that one

>>25270255
>You said communism would "make everyone a stakeholder in society." You're now contradicting yourself.

Ok brainlet I will dumb it down for you. You know what a democracy is, right? You probably live in one. The point is that the political fate of the state belongs to the "people". Which is realised via elections and universal suffrage Remember how those who are too young or feeble minded to be rational are excluded from this process? Yeah it's the same shit. Next time make a real argument instead of another one of your low iq "gotchas".

>The gulf states are very capitalist, and yet, they don't have feminism.
The gulf states barely have any proletariat to begin with. But where they do need to work, they do have women do it. Which means those women are getting into education and employment instead of giving their time to family and children. That's feminism, not the blue haired amerimutt feminism you are familiar with but then again your feminism is a consequence of how Capitalism is practiced in America. Which is of course different from the middle east.

Also stop samefagging /pol/nigger. It's very obvious and embarrassing

>>25270298
True... no one wakes up day, and decides they want to start a family with someone other than their cousin. That's just not possible.

>>25270320
I just tuned into the thread now but you seem like a real reddit shithead. Is this how you are responding to everything? Why would anyone keep talking to you?

>>25270320
>no one wakes up day, and decides they want to start a family with someone other than their cousin.
since ur such a family expert and must have read engel's shit on the origins of the family, the idea of a "love" marriage is a relatively new idea. people married to control property rights a practice that continues in many places outside of the west. as a hardcore marxist u must know this?

>>25270298
Yeah that diminished clan ties but it's just one part of it. You don't get a nuclear family without monogamy + encouraging couples to form independent households.

>>25270314
>In communism the point is to remove the owner/worker distinction al together by making everyone a stake holder in the collective society.
>These will be treated just like they are treated in democracies. Not fit to have an opinion (which in democracy means vote)
The fact you're making shit up on the fly, which so many contradictions, means you're talking out of your ass
And there's no way communism could be democratic, considering you consider anyone opposed to it "CIA", and just because something is "democratic" does not make it desirable. South Africa is now "democratic" but no serious person would argue that it's better than the old days. In fact, it's quite common for tyrannies to use democracy as a creed. Lenin made the same arguments, even as he banned elections and political parties to establish a single party dictatorship. It's meaningless when you use it.

>>25270325
Yep, reddit is when you think fucking your cousin is something people naturally wanna do, and evil Catholics and capitalists stopped them from doing it
Marx said so btw

>>25270333
true, i'm just saying it isn't some new thing some moustache twiddling capitalists dreamed up in a smoke filled back room in the 18th century...

>>25270337
thinking people had a choice in who they married isn't necessarily reddit but it is pretty naive

>>25270333
>>25270338
Its crazy how bourgeoisie and counter-revolutionary the city of Ur was in 2100 BC

>>25270339
I'd think that too if I lacked the reading comprehension skills to not grasp the difference between forced marriages and the idea that people typically want to fuck their cousin. But come on, I'm not expecting intelligence from a commie.

>>25270342
if marx says it's true, it's true, who are we to question authority?

>>25270338
It kind of disproves marx since it's a unique cultural trait of western europeans, not something that's inevitable from material conditions. Rather, it was because of these cultural traits that we got the modern world basically. You could argue too that it changed western europeans on a more fundamental level and everywhere they go they build another western europe, seems to debunk marx.

>>25270337
Cousin marriage was normal, you stupid idiot, and it was Christianity that ended it.
Is this how you respond to every statement of fact? Like a moronic teenager without a single clue about anything?

>>25270348
Its not a unique trait of western Europeans though. There. Marx is defeated.
Marxists should read history

>>25270348
marx is mostly known for being a shitty economist, but he's also a shitty anthropologist, but hey don't question the scientific socialism!

>>25270348
Oh wait I just reread and realized you're saying that nuclear families are a unique trait of western Europeans and that this disproves Marxist theories...this board is very silly

>>25270338
oh yeah not disagreeing with you btw, it wasn't capitalism but the unique cultural traits of western europeans which lead to capitalism, marxists have cause and effect reversed.

>>25270314
>The gulf states barely have any proletariat to begin with
Lmao, dude, this is not even true. Most of them are wage laborers. You don't even know where the gulf is located. Places like Qatar are super fucking rich and capitalist buddy. We can talk about Eastern European/Asian countries too like Russia or even Malaysia where sharia law still governs women.

>>25270355
It kind of is though? Most people are polygnous and kin-based, they are otherwise because of western influence.

>>25270335
>consider anyone opposed to it "CIA"
CIA is an organisation meant to gather intelligence for America. And America belongs to it's Oligarchal Capitalist ruling class. Therefore, yes, anyone who opposes people's control of nation's resources is an enemy. But besides that, as long as People's control of resources (i.e. communism) is not challenged different opinions can exist. Even the USSR had a left wing and a right wing and the mainstream central wing within the party.

This is just like how no western nation would allow a democratically elected party to suspend democracy.
>Lenin made the same arguments, even as he banned elections and political parties to establish a single party dictatorship
Lenin fought a brutal war to save the revolution. It was not the time for outside forces to use democracy to subvert the takeover. Not that USSR didn't have issues.

Just look at how democracy was used to launch euromaiden in Ukraine. Or look at America, where democracy means choosing between two parties with almost adjacent policies. Democracy can never be fully realise under capitalism anyway because those who have more wealth will always have more say.

>>25270349
>People always fucked their cousins until those evil Christians and capitalists said it was bad
Why are you so weird
You probably think the same about pedophilia too

>>25270361
btw this isn't me saying that these cultural traits couldn't arise from another people, or that other people can't adopt a similar culture, just saying that it's something peculiar to the west. We could theoretically ban cousin marriages for arabs, encourage them to form independent households, enforce monogamy, and after centuries you would see a permanent change.

>>25270363
>The CIA controls the world and stops people from being communists, even the people who lived and protested under it
>Up until capitalism and catholicism, everyone fucked their cousins
Its not surprise people think you're weird and avoid you

>>25270363
>Or look at America, where democracy means choosing between two parties with almost adjacent policies.
americans could have voted for bernie if they wanted what he was selling. plus if elections in america have no consequences explain the world wide melty over trump getting elected?

>>25270359
>Most of them are wage laborers.
And women don't work those wage jobs?
>Places like Qatar are super fucking rich and capitalist buddy.
And women get educated and work in Qatar.
>We can talk about Eastern European/Asian countries too like Russia or even Malaysia where sharia law still governs women.
Sharia has barely any hold over them. Iran is one generation away from removing the compulsory hijab. The juggernaut of Capitalism spares no one.

>>25270361
Says who? Societies aren't static and recorded history goes back to about 4000 BC. A lot of shit has happened, many empires and civilizations have risen and fallen. In Ur, small dwellings existed that were rented out or sold specifically to small families. They had washrooms, kitchens, etc, for the time.
Marxists like to overthink things and treat people like they haven't always been people, everywhere. The reality is, once a civilization gets to the point where it can produce private or rentable properties at scale, people begin to realize that sleeping in a bed with 9 of their sweaty ass cousins, actually sucks really bad. And if they get the coin, they buy more space and privacy for their immediate kin. This doesnt end kinship networks, but it does divide them into smaller divisions of household, and its been happening for thousands of years all across the planet. The reason is simple, people have always been people, doing people things; they wanted to live in a less crowded area, and care about their immediate kin more than anybody else. Marxists are the people who are like "actually humans were just drooling retards who got manipulated by capitalists into wanting private bathrooms"

>>25269578
as someone who live in one of these "communist" countries, you don't really understand how inefficient socialist economy is.
If you think capitalist economy is inefficient, socialist economy is 10x worse.
People don't care because there's no personal incentive to care, it's an absolute mess.
With AI and automation maybe that can be improved since inefficiency doesn't matter much if we can automate everything. Funny that western leftists are so against AI even though it's their only saving grace

>>25270372
>marxist has never met someone from a culture with arranged and/or cousin marriages before
look up a map of consanguinity by country dude it's still common to this day.

>>25270381
>With AI and automation maybe that can be improved since inefficiency doesn't matter much if we can automate everything. Funny that western leftists are so against AI even though it's their only saving grace
Shouldn't be surprising when the Soviet Union banned cybernetics. Commies have very little understanding of communist history. Notice how none of these threads are them even discussing it or responding to criticisms of it

>>25270372
>The CIA stops people from being communists,
Unironically true
>even the people who lived and protested under it
Also true. The most blue haired dykes can achieve is liberal reforms and they are allowed to persist. There is no revolutionary worker movement in USA because they were crushed early.

>Up until capitalism and catholicism, everyone fucked their cousins
Not my post
>plus if elections in america have no consequences explain the world wide melty over trump getting elected?
They have bare minimum consequences that reflect the bare minimum difference between the democrat and Republican party. If elected, Kamala Harris would still have allowed Israel to run a kill spree on gaza

>>25270365
Why are you so ignorant? Cousin marriage is still normal in much of the shit world, and was normal in all of it until recently. It's the basis for the 'clan' system of society.
What is with absolutely clueless fools spouting off like this?

>>25270386
Pretty sure electing Harris would have made a difference
More funding to Ukraine, healthcare subsidies would have not been cut or food stamps, and a lot of science grants would still exist. Also, blue states and red states have totally different life expectancy, healthcare systems, tax burdens and rights from guns, weed and abortion
What are you on about retard

>>25270386
What the hell would a "revolutionary workers movement" do? Destroy the carefully arranged hierarchy of command that allows a complex civilization to function, and then have a dance hall party, and it'll all just shake out?

>>25270386
>There is no revolutionary worker movement in USA because
there is no "revolutionary workers movement" in america because everyone is rich as hell. if some people live "paycheck to paycheck" it's only because they blow it all on ubereats delivered by autonomous robot or cruises around the caribbean. stop taking ppl's sob stories at face value.

>>25270388
Yep, nobody had sex outside their family into Catholicism. Marxism btw.
Is that why you guys also called for the abolition of age of consent laws?

>>25270385
>Notice how none of these threads are them even discussing it or responding to criticisms of it

McCarthy era slogans and bullshit that your amerimutt ass got brainwashed by is not criticism. You don't even have anything to criticise because you do not understand the arguments being made to begin with. You are a leech who is lucky enough to born in a place that allows you to feed on the work of the Chinese proletariat. So of course you love the leech ideology

>>25270390
Yeah also haha BRI would probably still be going full steam ahead in south america and Brazil would still be trying to big dick the most powerful military on earth as if it has any leverage instead of shitting itself as it's currently doing for ever pulling that shit in the first place
VZ would still be a narco funnel building ports from Heaven's Mandate
But omg the state level politics omg
Plebs are a mess

>>25270397
so uh why does the ccp allow americans to "feed on their proletariat"?

>>25270397
The KGB funded the Black Panthers and communist parties in the US and Western Europe...
McCarthy was right, actually.
You're just one of those idiots would have sipped the kool-aid at Jonestown.

>>25270397
RT, Russia Today, regularly calls Stalin a dictator and the USSR a totalitarian society. So does Putin. I guess they are too CIA

>>25270395
What are you even trying to say. Slow down and breathe for two seconds.

>>25270409
Why don't you have a job bro

>>25270406
what if it's not a giant global conspiracy, maybe communism just isn't that good? idk crazy idea, just throwing it out there

>>25270390
Yeah. Trump is something else. Barbaric even by Republican standards.
>Also, blue states and red states have totally different life expectancy, healthcare systems, tax burdens and rights from guns, weed and abortion

But the fundamental paradigm of operation is still the same. You are simply too retarded to see beyond that paradigm. The assumptions that both parties operate under.

>Destroy the carefully arranged hierarchy of command that allows a complex civilization to function, and then have a dance hall party, and it'll all just shake out?
Did the nobility/aristocracy say something similar when Capitalists turned their heirarchy of command to dust?
>>25270394
>there is no "revolutionary workers movement" in america because everyone is rich as hell.
I know that. That's why communism is such a joke here. CIA doesn't have much to work with in that regard.

>>25270411
No, everyone who hates communism was brainwashed by the CIA.
Even you, for thinking people have the agency and free will to think about stuff without the US government being involved.

>>25270410
I just got home from it. Why don't you? Because you're 16? I've only posted to you a few times in here. You seem like unbalanced teenager.

>>25270378
Marxists are moreso thinking along the lines that those empires and civilizations were the result of material conditions, but I'm saying that they're cultural expressions of a people's more fundamental nature. People express this culture wherever they go, Chinese bring China with them, Indians bring India with them, etc. This is just a general rule though. People have always been people but they are also different, and it's possible to have similar cultural expressions or for someone to assimilate into another culture. I'm not saying that the cultural expressions I mentioned are only possible with western europeans, and couldn't arise in other people, they are relatively unique though and lead to the modern day.

>>25270414
>But the fundamental paradigm of operation is still the same
Not really when there are clear consequences to who you elect and what their policies do. Someone living in Alabama is going have lower life expectancy, worse public education, more likely to be shot, and less likely to have access to healthcare than someone living in New York where they expanded Medicaid/Medicare using the ACA.

>>25270416
You don't work. In the Soviet Union, they shot parasites like you.

>>25270422
Nigger I'm union. I use a wrench and shit. What do you do? I'm guessing nothing

>>25270424
Yep, you're definitely union. Because unions are known to be filled with people who don't work.

>>25270427
I just got on here an hour ago. You're imagining someone else. I literally said 'I just tuned it and you're arguing like a retard.'
Also I notice you didn't say what you do for work

>>25270419
Unironically I think what lead to the modern day was europe achieving the diceroll for global 10000x mogg following the victories of the crusades. And the unification of christendom through them.
That's still structural more than cultural though

>>25270401
Many complex reasons. For one Americans with their military industrial complex and petro dollar control middle eastern oil. Not that China doesn't push back in it's own way.
>McCarthy was right, actually.
He was just another representative of the elite class who did nothing else but protect their interests. His name only appears because America had something of a proletarian movement during his time. Which may or may not have been helped by the socialist state in Russia. That of course is a red flag for an American because they are heavily propagandized to see Russia as an enemy. Something that barely exists on the other side.

>>25270406
>RT, Russia Today, regularly calls Stalin a dictator and the USSR a totalitarian society. So does Putin. I guess they are too CIA
>The oligarchs who replaced USSR, hate USSR.
Color me suprised
Of course CIA is not the only instrument of the Capitalist class. It's a specific instrument of the American capitalist class. Capitalists elsehwere have their own ways to suppress worker movement.

>>25270420
I am not disagreeing with you. I am only saying that these differences you point out do correspond to the differences between the two parties. But the parties and their policies are still similar enough, when more divergent alternatice positions exist. Democrats can go further left but they won't.

>Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
Communism in a nutshell

>>25270435
>He was just another representative of the elite class who did nothing else but protect their interests. His name only appears because America had something of a proletarian movement during his time. Which may or may not have been helped by the socialist state in Russia. That of course is a red flag for an American because they are heavily propagandized to see Russia as an enemy. Something that barely exists on the other side.
Of course it had nothing to do with all the politicians, hollywood people, academics who were literal card carrying communists. It was because le peasant workers movement or something

>>25270402
>>25270435

>>25270444
There is no communist movement ever that has not propped out of worker/people's agigation. Communism as an ideology and a system wouldn't even exist if workers were fine with whatever capitalists do to them. Even the intelligentsia that supports communism would not have thought it up if the base for it's existence was not there.

>>25270439
They can't be similar enough if electing them lead to drastically different policies. Harris would have not launched a global trade war or bombed Iran.
>Democrats can go further left but they won't.
And this is the problem with the "left." You care more about ideological purity than results and getting shit done. That's why every communist party in the US a little cult with no electoral traction or domestic influence.

>>25270453
>There is no communist movement ever that has propped out of worker/people's agigation
I deleted the "not" to make your statement accurate
What you meant to say is that "every communist movement ever has been a movement of one group of elite against the other, supposedly on behalf of the worker, who they ended up mass murdering and enslaving shortly later"

>>25269709
Ownership is not a tangible thing, is a fiction humans created to organize society and it can mean whatever you want it to mean if you have enough people to agree with you, or you have just enough people with a monopoly on force.

>>25270443
>Justifying rober barons.
Hilarious. Even in their most critical strike against people's movements, all Capitalists can do is go
>B-b-but they are as evil as we are. No less I tell you

>" It is logical that the Red Terror and a rapid slide into Stalin’s dictatorship, the domination of the communist ideology and the Communist Party’s monopoly on power, nationalization and the planned economy -- all this transformed the formally declared but ineffective principles of government into a mere declaration. In reality, the union republics did not have any sovereign rights, none at all. The practical result was the creation of a tightly centralized and absolutely unitary state."
>" In fact, what Stalin fully implemented was not Lenin’s but his own principles of government. But he did not make the relevant amendments to the cornerstone documents, to the Constitution, and he did not formally revise Lenin’s principles underlying the Soviet Union. From the look of it, there seemed to be no need for that, because everything seemed to be working well in conditions of the totalitarian regime, and outwardly it looked wonderful, attractive and even super-democratic."
Wait a sec? Putin is saying a planned economy, communism doesn't work and the USSR was totalitarian? Did the CIA pay him to say this?

>>25270460
the robber barons were incredibly wealthy because they directed the industrialization of america be it railroads, oil, steel, finance, etc. which created massive wealth for everyone.

>>25270460
Point to the most evil "robber baron." Give me the single best example of this supposed class of men. Someone who did nothing to earn his wealth and only stole.

>>25270455
>Harris would have not launched a global trade war or bombed Iran.
Do you remember Obama's presidency? Even republicans criticise it for it's open hand foreign policy.
>And this is the problem with the "left." You care more about ideological purity than results and getting shit done
Nobody is denying the results. But further material improvement cannot be achieved until newer positions are explored

>>25270456
History and facts disagree with you. But then again, facts were never the strong suite for your kind.
>The elites just conjured up communism, an ideology that explicitly and openly hurts them

Retard

>>25270466
>>The elites just conjured up communism, an ideology that explicitly and openly hurts them
Yes, the elites out of power, your Trotsky's and Marx's and so on, conjured up communism (Marx, you moron) as a tool to attack the elites in power. And it was very effective.
You don't even know the most basic history of your own ideology beyond propaganda poster tier slogans.

>>25270466
>Do you remember Obama's presidency? Even republicans criticise it for it's open hand foreign policy.
Neither Harris or Obama bombed Iran. Republicans criticized Obama and Harris for being too soft on Iran because of the deal.
>Nobody is denying the results.
But you are, despite communists never doing anything policy wise.

>>25270462
>which created massive wealth for everyone.
Yeah maybe that's why workers were fighting left and right until they were able to force the 8 hour work day.
>>25270464

>earn his wealth
Off the back of workers.

>>25270460
Morality is made up. I wouldnt go as far as
>>25270462
But they're more right than not right. Where you're getting tripped up is that corruption exists. Which is true. Always has and a good system is either built to withstand it, or corrects it, or a mix of both. Its arguable whether or not it's succeeded in various states around the world, but, it definitely isn't the same as the "evil" you're talking about.
Robber Barons may have been careless people toward others, but where they were an issue in their actual behavior was in corrupt practices that harmed the integrity of the system over time. On net all of these people produced more wealth for everyone over time, but its true that in some cases their greed and corrupt action upon it held this up for most people.

>>25270473
>Off the back of workers.
So you're afraid to name even one. Meaning there is no such thing as a 'robber baron', it is a made up thing, a spook.
Why did workers travel across the country to get these horrible exploitive jobs? Maybe because they paid better than anything else available? Because the evil industrialists were creating incredible amounts of wealth and advancement?

>>25270473
The contract mechanism of capitalism is that everyone accepts the free ability of people to engage in risk, and if it pays off they get to manage their affairs as they like. At first we tried that and it didn't work right. So then government became more involved, regulated things, including wages, etc. Some of this was good and necessary, economists have spent about a century or two arguing about how much of it is too much.
Labor vs capital ideologies are dumb bc both poles miss the fact that the State is the Iron Hand of any civilization whom both classes need to survive and must also kiss the ring of. The reason being is that it's main purpose is to prevent stupid ideologues from killing one another and destroying the civilization that keeps them alive, thriving, and able to produce things despite their severe human idiocy.

>>25270471
>Neither Harris or Obama bombed Iran.
He was busy bombing Libya at the time. Forgive him.
>But you are, despite communists never doing anything policy wise.
I'm simply pointing out how similar the two parties and the results of their policies. That doesn't mean that the differences you point out do not exist. I know you have it hard to imagine something beyond this because you too believe subconsciously that the current reality is the only possible one.
>tool to attack the elites in power
With the help of the public. Without whom nothing would be possible. Who supported it because they wanted change. Which is why they invited Marx to write their manifesto and became a nuisance for the government on Trotsky's command.

>>25270460
Omnipotent moral busybodies are the "robber barons" who drink their own kool aid, that's why they're more dangerous. I don't think you actually got the quote if you're thinking that omnipotent moral busybodies aren't themselves too robber barons.

>>25270473
The lowering of the working day has always been technology, dude. Electrification and pasteurization allowed people not work shitty subsistence jobs because they leave farms and move to cities.

https://fee.org/articles/how-the-myth-of-the-robber-barons-began-and-why-it-persists/

File: 1767137364579219.jpg (73 KB, 680x680)

73 KB JPG

>>25269578
I just don't care man. I don't care what system I live under. I am going to get fucked over by the powerful anyway. Why should I give a fuck? We've been having this debate for over a century at this point. Aren't we tired? Isn't there something new on the tv?

>>25270475
>Morality is made up. I wouldnt go as far as
Their argument. Not mine. In their upside down world people fighting for worker movement's are villians. And those who get rich off of other people's work are heroes.
>>25270479
>Meaning there is no such thing as a 'robber baron',
I didn't bring them up to begin with.
>Why did workers travel across the country to get these horrible exploitive jobs? Maybe because they paid better than anything else available?
Yes. Capitalism requires workers not having access to means of production.
>Because the evil industrialists were creating incredible amounts of wealth and advancement?
Both the wealth and the advancement was created by workers themselves. The industrialists only made sure that the wealth you speak of didn't reach them. The industrialist only serves tow fucntions.
1. Holder of the means of production (i.e. a leech)
2. Organiser of labour and resources. Which the workers can do for themselves. And especially keeping their own interests in mind instead of capitalist interests.

>>25270492
oh man i kind of miss tv like turning it on and just watching whatever's playing not having to pick from a menu of 10,000 things. the only problem is i hate hate hate ads now, i don't think i could watch it. like i bet if old school 90s type tv was still a thing i'd be more into weed. just smoke weed and turn on the tube. now u smoke weed and u have to pick from the entire cultural output of humanity.

>>25270488
Robber barons certainly existed in the sense that laisseiz Faire capitalism enabled the formation of conglomerates that were borderline or actually monopolistic across connected industries, combined with a lack of much regulation on the way firms did business (safety practices, human welfare/dignity regulations, wage regulations). This meant that to a large extent the people and even the State at times were subject to increasingly plurocratic titans of industry who had inordinate power to undermine the organic flow of enterprise and risk, ie competition and independent capital formation, that purecap was meant to enable.
Roosevelt fixed a lot of this in America with the New Deal, which was allegedly opposed to the degree that some of these same Robber barons considered implementing a fascist coup in the United States to prevent the reforms.

>>25270498
dude get a clue man

>>25269578
Name them like Karl did then we'll talk.

>>25270485
I advocate for any system where power fundamentally belongs to the people. A communist system that allows pseudo-capitalist structures to exist is just as bad, true. But that of course doesn't make capitalism better because that is the thing that is supposed to be avoided to begin with.

>>25270487
I am talking about a specific period in the late 19 century when , given the technology of the time, it was entirely possible and profitable to force workers to work 10-12 hours. But they fought to get the 8 hour day.

>>25270502
>various reforms
true, also creation of the federal reserve reduced the power of private banks like jp morgan who had been acting as private government financier previously.

>>25270512
ford showed it's more profitable to do 8 hour shifts

>>25270498
Imagine for a second a world where everyone is fair, honest, non-coercive, etc. Do you really think there would be people who would not want to be wage laborers? And why is that? Because the capitalist does offer something, people in this hypothetical COULD form co-ops, share the means of production, and organize labor and resources themselves, but what if they don't want to? What if they don't want the burden of having to plan long term, of possibly failing at something that is high risk? What if they don't want to study the market, invest, etc. What if they just want to be a part of a structure someone else built, follow someone else's instructions, and get a regular paycheck?

>>25270512
>I advocate for any system where power fundamentally belongs to the people
You want nuclear bombs and bioweapons to be subject to direct democracy?

>>25270498
>Organiser of labour and resources. Which the workers can do for themselves. And especially keeping their own interests in mind instead of capitalist interests.
All structures require an executive force

>>25270498
Fucking retard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACELC_design_principle

>>25270525
yeah people underrate the value of at-will employment. you show up and get paid even if the company is losing money, for example, every ai company right now, and you can just leave and go work for someone else who pays more whenever you want.

File: 1749903928473957.jpg (67 KB, 666x960)

67 KB JPG

Marxists always take the blue pill.

>>25270531
tho it's funny the way companies stop employees from leaving for competitors is by giving them stock options which is to say partial ownership if they stay with the company through the vesting period. marxists are always arguing against some strawman economy that existed for like 20 years in the 19th century. makes u wonder are they deliberately being dishonest or are they really that clueless?

File: spooks.jpg (128 KB, 550x550)

128 KB JPG

>>25270512
Who is this nebulous "people", and how does the system you advocate for help me, the individual (who unlike "the people" is a real tangible entity).

>>25270541
The individual is an emergent phenomenon. You qua you would not exist without language. The capitalist class stays in power because they realize they are a common class with common interests, and they keep the working class atomized and thinking of themselves are pure individuals withour common interests

>>25270544
do u actually believe this stupid shit? i mean it's cool if u like arguing on the internet or whatever, but man...

>>25270544
>themselves are pure individuals withour common interests
In other words, that it is in my (the individual's) interest to co-operate. So how exactly is marxism in my interest? Will I be better off in communism? Could you perhaps provide me some reasoning or empirical proof that would prove I would be better off?

>>25270518
Ford came much later to those events. Anyway, the purpose of the agitations was obviously not to maximise profits lol.
>>25270525
>What if they don't want the burden of having to plan long term,
Not every worker needs to engage in long term planning. The point is intellectual labour is stil labour
>of possibly failing at something that is high risk?
workers usually bear that risk in our current world anyway. That too without having any control over the outcome.
>What if they don't want to study the market, invest, etc.
Sounds like more intellectual labour that not every worker has to engage in if they don't want to.
>What if they just want to be a part of a structure someone else built, follow someone else's instructions, and get a regular paycheck?
So....
>What if workers want capitalism?
Might as well ask...
>What if workers are ok with constantly detereoiating wages, don't wanna uniomise and are basically ok with capitalists starving everyone to death and causing civilisational collapse.
Yeah , I mean sure, if we lived in that world, this discussion wouldn't exist. The entire point is that Capitalism by it's very nature creates a pressure cooker that keeps class struggle alive at all times. Because without it capitalism itself would collapse under it's contradictions.
>>25270528
>You want nuclear bombs and bioweapons to be subject to direct democracy?
I believe whatever little democracy we have is the only reason those weapons are not used with abandon. Now imagine a bunch of antagonistic fascist states having those weapons. The elites would have no issue eviscerating entire populations (and of course MAD is a thing).
Under communism proper the need to dominate another man is overcome (ideal I know but still something to strive towards)
>>25270529
>All structures require an executive force
For the sake of simplicity I won't challenge this assumption. But modern professional managerial class has shown that executive and Capitalist are two different concepts. Sometimes the CEO himself is a salaried employee.
Of course this is not said to undermine the fact that C-suites do come from the dominant classes.

The question is, who do the executives serve? Owners?(as in what we have) or the people? (I.e. communism)

>>25270541
Read The German Ideology by Marx. The biggest spook of them all is the individual egoistic man who exists in a vaccum isolated from the world. Stirner was wrong about religion.

>>25270539
>clueless
This is what I would call the anon who thinks the average person in the global economy is offered stocks in any company whatsoever.
>>25270531
You do realise that money does not appear from thin air right? If people are getting paid and company is bearing losses then someone is footing the bill, right?

>>25270648
Ok so what I'm getting is the the capitalist is inherently exploitative, that the discrepancy between the capitalist and worker is fundamentally bad even if it's consensual. The argument would be fair enough because people can have consensual arrangements that aren't necessarily doing them good, they could for example consensually sign themselves into slavery, but is that what's happening? Without the capitalist you still have to do the capitalist's job, which means that now the capitalist's job is shared equally. If this were truly an unequivacally better arrangement then there would only be pros instead of cons, yet I can think of cons. They will have to take on greater responsibility, higher risk, and not expect a regular paycheck. If there are cons then that means it isn't a one-sided relationship where the capitalist is just a leech. So I really don't see what exactly is exploitative about this relationship, doubly so if it's consensual. I think if you're intruding on this consensual mutually beneficial relationship then you can expect an authoritarian outcome, which seems to track with what happened with socialist revolutions. If you have people who think violent, coercive revolution is justified in the name of the people, that they need to socially engineer society, then these architects of the revolution become the new "capitalists". It's these people who owns the means of production, who organize labor and resources, not the workers. The difference is they're operating under a delusion like mentioned here>>25270443, they have no external incentive to do any good, and there are no price signals, so it ends in a disaster. You could instead have a voluntary arrangement that people could join or leave but then it'd mean acknowledging the individual and private property.
>individual egoistic man who exists in a vaccum isolated from the world
The individual doesn't mean someone who exists in isolation from the world. It means their experience is personal. Do I feel the physical pain of others? No, only as a reaction out of sympathy maybe, but I'm not directly feeling their bodily pain. Am I seeing the world through my eyes, or someone else's eyes? They have their own experience and I have mine. They have their desires and wishes and I have mine, sometimes these desires and wishes align, sometimes we depend on each other, sometimes our fates our linked. Nonetheless, the collective exists as an abstraction OF individuals, that makes individuals the base unit.

>>25269641
his labor isnt more valuable.
death and taxes are able to bully exorbitant prices.

>>25270716
>Ok so what I'm getting is the the capitalist is inherently exploitative
are you guys really arguing about the basic and foundational content of the manifesto?

damn, some people shouldnt even bother with capital if they cant handle the manifesto

>>25270721
I already know marxists think the capitalist is inherently exploitative, the point of the hypothetical was to work through the logic of a marxist. That even in the perfect world the capitalist is still bad, despite offering something that the worker would have to do if the capitalist was gone. The marxist then argues that if workers want capitalism, it's essentially same as deteriorating wages, not wanting to unionise, everyone starving to death, and causing civilization collapse, as if that follows. This is despite the fact capitalism has produced the greatest wealth and highest wages, as well as the fact the modern civilization is basically the result of capitalism and it's socialism that collapsed, which basically debunks marx's predictions. If marx's predictions were based on his dialectical materialism, class analysis, ltv, then it means he went wrong somewhere.

>>25270732
i think you are missing many many points, and im not likely to read any very long posts on social media, but for example above your "architects become the new capitalists" is incorrect. because capitalism has an extractive exploitative agenda, the 'architects' presuming any good faith in their cause, do not. do you understand? property isnt bad, exploitative property is bad. the capitalist doesn offer anything. and the workers dont ask for capitalism. and yeah sure, slavery in the south created a great economy, i hear it even builds pyramids. still, id prefer not to buy into it. thanks tho.

>>25270716
>They will have to take on greater responsibility
That is true. Not sure if it's a con. Any worker today would choose the Capitalist's life if given the option.
>higher risk,
Workers are always at higher risk than the Capitalist. You might say that capitalists risks more money but then that's only because he is in a position to own that money to begin with.
>and not expect a regular paycheck
Worker paychecks are seldom regular to begin with in many cases. Plus the system assumes constant profits. Losses are an anomaly rather than the rule. And when losses do happen, workers too suffer. It's not like they just keep on taking their salary and enjoy life while the business falls apart, as some people seem to suggest.

The cons of living a Capitalist's life almost never outweigh the cons of being a worker.
>doubly so if it's consensual. I think if you're intruding on this consensual mutually beneficial relationship then you can expect an authoritarian outcome,
This is just liberal cope. It's like saying, "you have the choice to work for pittance to make someone else rich or starve to death". This illusion of choice, (or more precisely, the limitations of political freedom) are covered by Marx. Not that Marxism is anti-freedom. But the freedom of liberalism leaves more to be desired.
>that they need to socially engineer society.
Utopian socialism. Explicitly rejected by Marx.
>then these architects of the revolution become the new "capitalists". It's these people who owns the means of production, who organize labor and resources, not the workers.
I will repeat my reply to that post. Even at it's worst most corrupted state, where power has been taken away from the workers and they have been subjected to some outside class, the greatest criticism you can throw at this system is that it resembles Capitalism.

But what does that say about pure Capitalism itself. If it is the gold standard to which all corruption and exploitation is compared to in a socialist society.
>they have no external incentive to do any good, and there are no price signals, so it ends in a disaster.
I'm sure you are not suggesting that Capitalists operate under some incentive to ",do good". They are just here to make money. Your second statement makes no sense whatsoever.

>>25270716
>Nonetheless, the collective exists as an abstraction OF individuals, that makes individuals the base unit.
Some anon pointed out in another thread that in Hegelian philosophy the individual and the collective are both abstractions. The individual certainly is one because no man is free from the community he is a part of. Even if he lives under alienation in capitalism. The community forms the individual as much as the individual forms the community. But since human being is artificially alienated under capitalism, a contradiction between self interest and public interest persists. That can only be reconciled by overcoming alienation. So that individual and public interest become one and the same. That would require abolition of alienating institutions like private property

>>25270737
>capitalism has an extractive exploitative agenda
"Capitalism" doesn't have any will or intentions since it's not a person. It's people who have extractive, exploitative agendas and these people can be influenced by certain ideas. How is the idea that the individual has the right to life, liberty, and property an exploitative one?
>the 'architects' presuming any good faith in their cause, do not.
The architects of the revolution own the means of production and organize labor and resources. Is this fine simply because their intentions are "good"? And what is "good" according to them? What kind of conceptions of exploitation, coercion, and property could possibly lead to mass killings, restricted liberty, famines, shortages, authoritarianism?
>the capitalist doesn offer anything
Only the highest standards of living in recorded history

>>25270771
>"Capitalism" doesn't have any will or intention
for real dude?
we call it capitalism when the people have exploitative and extractive agendas.
if they dont, we call it something else. are you fucking for real?

>Only the highest standards of living in recorded history
you havent read the fucking manifesto.

and again, slavery builds pyramids. but where's mine?

>>25270771
>. How is the idea that the individual has the right to life, liberty, and property an exploitative one?

It's not this idea that is exploitative but it's consequences. What is happening here is that the American liberal "rights of man" atomise the society into individuals by envisioning them to be so. Then each individual is assigned a private property , starting with his own body i.e. his labour.

Economy then becomes a matter of these atomised individuals entering free associations with each other and exchanging their private property via the market. This is how labour gets executed and consequently human material life is created.

Now this system does offer liberty/freedom to the atomised individual over his property. But his material freedom is limited by the extent of his individualised private property. The more property he has, the more free he is. This is opposed to the constitutional "abstract freedom" that all individuals equally possess under a liberal democratic state.

Everyone has the abstract/legal freedom of their private property. But their material freedom becomes subject to it. And thus we enter the adage, "All people are free, but some people are more free than others"

>>25270771
>>25270789
Cont...

This situation has the inadvertent effect of giving everyone the liberty to do as they wish and yet watch as society devolves into wage-slavery.

File: 1763913032680194.jpg (70 KB, 736x919)

70 KB JPG

>>25269578
I would support communism only if all the self-proclaimed communists weren't such a big wimpy faggots
I have yet to meet a communist that isn't
>physically and mentally weak
>unsuccessful in life
>unsuccessful in his social and academic life
>extremely annoying and smug
>willing to justify crimes against humanity

most self proclaimed communists are unsuccessful dorks, angry at their own lives and that is why they turn to these extremist ideologies (same thing with far right)

also on a side note - why do most self proclaimed communists that make videos online have this weird insanity in their eyes? or am I the only one that noticed this?

File: 1601675349638.jpg (173 KB, 1200x1200)

173 KB JPG

>dude let me come up with a system to categorize all of human history without actually treating humans like humans
seriously, every single major aspect of communism that fails to make sense is about how there was no human element; everybody is just a fungible economic unit with no agency or feeling or anything

>>25270831
>everybody is just a fungible economic unit with no agency or feeling or anything
But enough about Capitalism......

>>25270363
>As long as the communist one party state maintains itself and political pluralism cannot happen, then and only then we can have true democracy

>>25270860
>and political pluralism cannot happen,
Do liberal democratic states allow the "let's establish absolute monarchy" party to come to power? Democracy in Germany is designed to permanently keep far left or far right from forming government after what happened with Nazis.

Some constitutionals fundamentals are above political prularism. Like universal suffrage, or public ownership of nation's resources. Elections can always be held so public may choose they want to handle the socialist structure. Just like in current system they choose who will preside over the capitalist one . (With of course fewer powers because capitalism dilutes democracy)

>>25270860
lol one party gerrymandering fake supreme court anti-voting rights ruling pretending to support democracy

The irony of many communist theories is they believe in strong states so theyve got about half the formula correct. At the societal level they understand the concept of executive force perfectly well. Once it occurs inside a firm, they start pissing and shitting themselves and crying about how some people are making moar money than others are

>>25269847
People had to steal meat in this industrial superpower.
If you worked in Soviet retail, you were treated better than doctors and engineers because you had access to food. And as a retail worker, you could take the freshly arrived meat, sell it outside the shop or give to friends, then falsify the numbers in the books and say to the honest shoppers, "No meat today. Sorry."
In this industrial super power, people living on coastal cities had no fish in their markets, because the majority of fish was sent to Moscow while the remaining part, the one that should have fed the locals, was distributed through black market channels among friends. If you were a decent person, you were genuinely swindled out of food.
Does this sounds to you like a post-capitalist enlightened society?
>>25269946
That was the result of the Soviet system. Making everything - from banks to restaurants and furniture shops - state owned and dependent on the state and then keeping all the money in one single bank in Moscow which was the only one allowed to house money and to send it to the peripheries in form of paychecks is the stupidest idea in all the history of mankind. I think the people who suspected that making everything dependent and owned by a state - a group of people, essentially - is a bad idea because state is a transient category and one single blow to the state and everything goes tits up were called American provocateurs and jailed in asylums.
Furthermore, the Soviet standard of living was lagging far behind the West. It was cheap housing, basic school, basic healthcare, basic recreational activities, and that's all, all done cheaper and shoddier than Chinese sweatshop works. The USSR was like: you have the basic necessities taken care of, so now work, own nothing, and be happy; everything else, like art and religion and culture and individual creativity, are Western bourgeoisie schizophrenic creations made to muddle your mind.
All the trannies defending USSR have no fucking idea what a fucking nightmare it was. If you don't believe me, take a trip to any Eastern European state and explore the City outside of the tourist traps.
I lived up until ten years in Italy, then the rest of my life in Estonia. It was like stepping from a sunny happy country into a living cold totalitarian hell. Judging by the after effects still dominating Estonia, it was the biggest psychological disaster in human history. An experiment in turning people into genuine emotionless automatons with no other function in life but being obedient worker drones. Everyone who wants that back should fucking hang himself.
The heaviest thing to realize is how the post-Soviet countries are still actually perpetuating the Soviet reality tunnel, although with a nationalist, right wing slant, because it's the only fucking thing they knew for 70 years. You can't expect a normal democracy out of former Soviet people, just like you can't expect the ability to shit in the loo out of Jeets.

whats up with the weird ass thread purge /lit/?

>>25270984
>When bad under communism, it's communism's fault
>When bad under capitalism, it's also communism's fault

The absolute state

>>25270186
>the point is to remove the owner/worker distinction al together by making everyone a stake holder in the collective society. So it's not just "workers" who own the means of production but "people". Because there is no such thing as a pure worker (in the wageslave way) in communism. That of course doesn't mean that people don't work.
Ah ok this makes sense, but wouldn't a communist society want people to be "productive" towards a common goal for the collective society (whatever form that might take)? I can't imagine a communist society would be ok with certain "jobs" like influencer, content creator, self-help gurus, etc.

Re: the leech thing, I guess I misunderstood you and assumed you were talking about UBI when you said "collect your government checks" and not paycheck for actually working, my fault.

>Capitalism will ensure that eventually the 10x earning western worker I mentioned above reaches the same state as the third worlder.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone make this claim before but it's spooky and seems credible.

>>25271061
>I can't imagine a communist society would be ok with certain "jobs" like influencer, content creator, self-help gurus, etc

This is speculation territory. I can't imagine the job of an influencer to be relevant under communism when all their teachings either revolve around making money or self improvement (as opposed to more communist sounding values like helping others, being a good memeber of the community)
Content creators are simply entertainers and if the society needs entertainment then the work is "productive". They will be provided what they need to live and make content and in turn society will get their content.

>I don't think I've ever seen anyone make this claim before but it's spooky and seems credible
We already have chuds on this website getting spooked about Jeet immigrants raising housing prices and lowering wages. They blame leftists for it even though it's pure capitalism at play. And then there are entire industries outsourced to the third world because it's cheaper.

I don't get leftists simping for China.
Do you understand that the CCP doesn't give a shit about worker right?
See how Chinese people actually live.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_ping

Is this the paradise that you keep talking about?
The Chinese are a very practical people, they don't care that much about ideology, like Deng said, black cat white cat doesn't matter as long as it can catch mice.

>>25271154
If so then why is China the only country thus far that made it illegal to replace workers with AI to preserve the status and societal value of workers in the future?

>>25271154
One just has to look at tent cities in America

Marx wasn't even aware of Mendelian inheritance, which significantly undercut many communist arguments about human nature and behavior. Humans are not a blank slate, and are influenced by their genes. These genes can determine their mental and physical abilities, which predict their economic outcomes in life. The Soviet Union famously rejected Mendel genetics, and that ultimately resulted in disaster. Shit, Marx wasn't even alive when mass electrification or even pasteurization became possible. Marxoids are fundamentally retarded because they think a book, and a philosopher, from the 19th century applies today.

>>25271211 #
>These genes can determine their mental and physical abilities, which predict their economic outcomes in life.
This argument is rooted in materialism and Marx was a materialist, so there's no contradiction here. Though you'd know that if you had any idea what you are talking about.

>Marxoids are fundamentally retarded because they think a book, and a philosopher, from the 19th century applies today.
I would hope you are not one of those /lit/chuds who reads Aristotle. But most likely you are a tourist or a glowie who doesn't even read and doesn't belong here.

>>25271233
Marx being a materialist doesn't mean he understood genetics or accepted them. Stalin was a materialist, and rejected genetics for Lysenkoism.

>>25271250
>Marx being a materialist doesn't mean he understood genetics or accepted them.
He understood darwinianism because Darwin was alive during his time and Marx was a fan. Though I do not expect you to posit a single Marxist theory that was "undercut" by the law of biological inheritance.

>>25269975
Eastern bloc boomer or brain damaged, sheltered teenager post.

>>25269653
it was the cia o algo

>>25269717
metaphysics woo woo

>>25271233
>>25271276
>He understood darwinianism because Darwin was alive during his time and Marx was a fan
holy fucking retarded non-reading tranny

>>25271328
>Still no contradiction between Marxism and heredity
I accept your concession, but you still don't get to suck my cock so don't get your hopes up.
>>25271289
>brain damaged, sheltered teenager.
Basically every brainwashed anti-communist Slav who never lived a single day in USSR.
>>25271316
>I am retarded
Point noted

>>25271074
>They blame leftists for it even though it's pure capitalism at play.
Isn't it both? If I oppose endless millions of 3rd worlders coming into the country for any reason, people on the "left" call me a racist, etc. These same people (regardless of their views on capitalism) will also justify it that without endless millions of 3rd worlders the economy/country will collapse without hotel housekeepers, lawn mowers, and delivery drivers.

>>25271342
>If I oppose endless millions of 3rd worlders coming into the country for any reason, people on the "left" call me a racist, etc.
The leftist position simply recognises that worker rights should be respected irrespective of their country of origin, race or citizenship status. Right wingers get anxiety over millions of immigrants lowering wages and hence living standards in their country. What they don't conclude is that the solution is not to stop immigration but to enforce livable wages, healthcare, food and housing security etc. That is putting a leash on the free hand of the market.

Such a move would make excessive immigration redundant anyway because the entire point for the Capitalist class was to lower wages and raise rents. If they are stopped from doing that by law then why even bring in immigrants if they have to be provided the same wage and standards as the average westerner? There is no profit. Leftists simply recognise that either all human beings will be treated with dignity or none of them will be.

>>25271342
>>25271383
So the problem is not immigrants themselves but the Capitalists who are allowed to play immigrants lower wages and by extension reduce everyone else's wages as well.
>will also justify it that without endless millions of 3rd worlders the economy/country will collapse without hotel housekeepers, lawn mowers, and delivery drivers.

Well that depends on whether your country has enough labour to keep those services running. Remember capitalism feeds off of labour. Without labour (and consequently consumer) there is no economy at all.

>>25271387
No the problem is the immigrants. They're mostly living on handouts and scams. Not the fault of capitalism.

>>25271395
>They're mostly living on handouts and scams.
Why do you keep forgetting the way to /pol/ and end up here. You don't even want to discuss books. You are just mad that people have different opinions outside your echo chamber and your retarded worldview is not validated

>>25271383
>What they don't conclude is that the solution is not to stop immigration but to enforce livable wages, healthcare, food and housing security etc.
>Such a move would make excessive immigration redundant anyway

Wouldn't it make more sense to try and do this without allowing millions of immigrants in? People have been talking about how the infrastructure, healthcare, housing, education, transportation, etc systems are already overburdened, the pressure of extra millions isn't going to alleviate any of that pressure.

>>25271387
>So the problem is not immigrants themselves but the Capitalists who are allowed to play immigrants lower wages and by extension reduce everyone else's wages as well.
idk where you live but it's more than increasing demand on goods+services without increasing supply. I don't like immigrants leaving garbage everywhere and treating my country like they treated their shithole.

>>25271387
>So the problem is not immigrants themselves but the Capitalists who are allowed to play immigrants lower wages
The inability of immigrants to integrate into their host society is due to their culture, not the wage they receive. A person who can't speak English, promotes Islamic values (such as treating women like property and forcing them to wear hijabs), and adopts a criminal lifestyle instead of working has to do with their upbringing, their culture, and even their genetics that predispose them to certain behaviors and abilities.

>>25271383
>The leftist position simply recognises that worker rights should be respected irrespective of their country of origin, race or citizenship status
Leftists claim this is their position, but in reality, they defend socialist countries that shoot and enslave their workers. You are merely virtue signaling for internet points. Misery brokers, like yourself, clearly don't really care about human suffering.

>>25271398
nta but do you really think only pol
>Right wingers get anxiety over millions of immigrants lowering wages and hence living standards in their country. What they don't conclude is that the solution is not to stop immigration but to enforce livable wages, healthcare, food and housing security etc.
Would disagree with this? Do you really think people would be with millions of immigrants just because they're workers? How myopic are you? Not everyone has the same beliefs as marxists do, not everyone identifies with the proletariat. Not only that it's loaded with marxist presuppositions, that people are interchangeable and are the result of material conditions, so if we just import them, give them the same material conditions and rights, that it'll all be fine.

File: Spurdo_sommerjob.jpg (33 KB, 680x352)

33 KB JPG

>>25271154
Because once USSR folded, and neither Russia nor Ukraine decided it want gobbunism...
China was now the largest and most powerful Communist state.

And because the USSR has spent its entire lifetime managing a large number of sock puppets and trying very hard to legitimize itself, that energy has to go somewhere.
Its a lot like we now live in the globalism age of Epstein, where there is a very large effort to legitimize international NGOs, and a very very hard effort to make politician laurel resting factories seem like legitimate democratic entities.

The idea of a universal proletariat has always been silly. Marx couldn't even keep his International together. The Soviets couldn't. And even the Soviet-Sino spilt (they even came close to nuking each other) proved it too.

>>25271383
Slum dwelling beasts from africa and the islamic world don't work retarded non-reading tranny. They materially benefit leftists, because leftists get hired by the government to provide them with therapy and counselling when they engage in all sorts of crime and dysfunctional behavior, leftists in academia get paid to do studies on how it's really racism and capitalism that causes the savages to rape and chimp out

>>25271154


It is no different when leftists simp for the USSR, even though Stalin murdered people in show trials, or when they support Pol Pot, as Malcolm Caldwell did. They delusionally believe anything that lets them cope, while ignoring the realities of their beliefs in practice. To them, communism can do no wrong.

>>25271404
>Wouldn't it make more sense to try and do this without allowing millions of immigrants in?
Sure. As long as it's understood that the pressure for immigration comes first and foremost from Capitalism in the first ace. So the two things, "reigning in capitalism" and "preventing immigration" are not mutually independent.
>People have been talking about how the infrastructure, healthcare, housing, education, transportation, etc systems are already overburdened, the pressure of extra millions isn't going to alleviate any of that pressure.
We that depends on a lot of things. It is also true that without an adequate labour force (native or otherwise) these services would collapse. So it's upto the policy makers who work with the data to see how many immigrants do they actually need. Of course those policy makers work for a capitalist system, so the average guy will to some extent be fucked over by immigration.
>but it's more than increasing demand on goods+services without increasing supply
That too helps the Capitalist. The immigrants are paying for goods from somewhere. Generational wealth? Menial work? Uber delivery? Heck government handouts. It all helps the Capitalist economy which thrives on keeping the working people as poor as possible while extracting labour from them and then using increased demands to sell at a higher and accumulate Capital.
> I don't like immigrants leaving garbage everywhere and treating my country like they treated their shithole.
An important concern for you no doubt but irrelevant to the economic forces

>>25271398
>total non answer
This is what happens whenever you attempt to engage these trannycommies in any debate outside their CNN worldview frame.
They are the exact same as CNN liberals, have all the same basic assumptions about the world, but slightly different conclusions. They think we need even more taxes and government overreach.

File: Decline.png (35 KB, 832x319)

35 KB PNG

>>25271448
>That too helps the Capitalist.
It's strange how you portray the capitalist as some Dick Dastardly villain when he's merely a guy selling shirts or running a pizza shop. You are foolish for trying to make him sound evil, especially since you yourself don't contribute anything to society.
>So the two things, "reigning in capitalism" and "preventing immigration" are not mutually independent.
Also false, we've seen real declines in immigration under Trump.

>>25271448
You sound like an underaged tranny who watches hasan piker and who has never read a book ever in your life

Everything Marx wrote was bait, just like this thread.

>>25271409
>The inability of immigrants to integrate into their host society is due to their culture, not the wage they receive.

Shifting goalposts. I was talking about the economic issues of immigration. Thale fact that you find their culture icky is a seperate topic altogether. Why would you even mix it up with wages is beyond me.
>>25271426
>Do you really think people would be with millions of immigrants just because they're workers?
Not what I said. Try to read.
>Not everyone has the same beliefs as marxists do
Yes. Humanity is not know for being purely rational.
>that people are interchangeable and are the result of material conditions, so if we just import them, give them the same material conditions and rights, that it'll all be fine.
The right wing position rooted in "essentialism" is even more retarded. It puts the cart before the horse in the matter of what groups of people are like and the conditions they live in. Which is fundamentally unscientific.
>>25271439
>They materially benefit leftists, because leftists get hired by the government to provide them with therapy and counselling when they engage in all sorts of crime and dysfunctional behavior,

The 85IQ Trump voter is no longer an abstraction. I mean we know you'd have to be stupid. But the exact nature and extent of that stupidity reveals itself in these instances.

>>25271451
>Says total non answer
>Starts blabbering about cnn

Every accusation is a confession.
>>25271456

>when he's merely a guy selling shirts or running a pizza shop.
He is the guy lobbying your government to open borders to get those mexican staff in. And you've been thoroughly brainwashed to become his dickrider.

>>25271464
>Shifting goalposts. I was talking about the economic issues of immigration.
No. You said the problem isn't the immigrants themselves when it is. Leftists want amnesty. Marx believed in a society without borders. You're not being a consistent communist, and I'm pointing this out. You make these arguments out of convenience. You're okay with unlimited immigrants because they are potential recruits for your political agenda. Its not a surprise every communist group in the US is attacking ICE and calling for it to be abolished.

File: evidence.png (37 KB, 979x228)

37 KB PNG

>>25271468
>He is the guy lobbying your government to open borders to get those mexican staff in.
This is not supported by the evidence, which shows that Trump decreased immigrants in the labor force.

>>25271472
>US NEWS
w
Where's the data?

>>25271464
You have never read a book in your life tranny

>>25271448
The incentives which are conducive to immigration are fractional reserve banking, currency debasement, social programs, and voting, these aren't particularly capitalist because you could have capitalism without any of those things. You can add propserity to that list, although that's not particularly a "con"; if no one wants to go to socialist countries, and everyone wants to leave but can't, then that reflects poorly on socialism.
>puts the cart before the horse in the matter of what groups of people are like and the conditions they live in
All materialist ideologies put the cart before the horse in terms of causality, it's the material that's a reflection of the immaterial, not the other way around. People's innate dispositions lead to different cultural expressions, and by innate I don't mean genetic (which is also materialistic). And by innate I don't mean absolute, I mean habitual/unconscious.
>Which is fundamentally unscientific.
What do you call ignoring every attempt of socialism failing and marx's predictions being wrong yet ignoring this empirical evidence? That's scientific?