This man's philosophy and government structure killed 10's of millions of people and set back a large portion of the world technologically. He was a lazy bitch who never held a real job and mooched off his friend. The only thing more delusional than him is his supporters. Prove me wrong.
>protip: you can't
excuse me but withhout this SAINT we would not be able to admire this work of art
>Lenin: I'm gonna use Marx with my own ideology
>Stalin: I'm gonna use Lenin with my own ideology
>Mao: I'm gonna use Stalin with my own ideology
>Hoe: I'm gonna use Mao, Lenin and Stalin with my own ideology
It's like blaming Adam Smith for Capitalism.
lenin and hoe were good revolutionaries
also the idea that stalin killed 60 gorrilion is debatable at best
Marx was a philosopher, not a political leader. You should be blaming Lenin or Stalin for that shit. Marx and Engels were idealists, and their ideas have been poorly applied by corrupt individuals throughout history.
I'm not a communist BTW, I think it's generally wrong to try to achieve Marx's ideals through the state.
attack the argument not the man,
Friedman never worked in a sweatshop in his life yet his studies about 3rd world economy and the benefits of sweatshop are excellent.
and if you are going to attack friedman you would attack his theory and his observations and his method not whether or not he worked in a hong kong textileshop or not.
secondly marx talked very very little about the solutions, He analyzed 19th century capitalism, simple as that. The solution / future part is very vague "oh then there will be communism" . etc. Your mistake is that you act like das capital was communism 101 manifesto, it really wasn't. For revolutionary ttheory and how to communism you need to read other people, lenin esspecially, who wrote tremendously.
am libertarian, but unliek you I read stuff, I suggest you do the same. I seriosuyl doubt you read the people from your own ideology though let alone someone from the opposite side
>anyone who disagrees with communism is from /pol/
>sources are soviets working for the soviet government
Friedman held many jobs and had a degree in Economics Marx was literally a NEET who never worked a day in his life. Friedman can have an opinion because he understands how economics work while marx was butthurt that some people had more than him.
To be fair to Marx, Marxist-Leninists did not really listen to him on the matter of Communism. He said that capitalism needed to go through its full transformation before Socialism could arise from it.
This board is doomed to become a reverse /pol/, with leftist circlejerking about Marx and how Stalin's 60 Million killed is "arguable".
Pleas don't let this happen, you commies.
i wasnt going to say vietnam because i dont know too much about their political situation but cuba is definitely sucsessful even if you disregard that its been under imbargo for more then half a century
friedman did not had any blue collar prole job.
even if friedman did not worked a day in his life and marx was a blue collar factor worker would that make his argument more valid and friedmans less so?
you are literally just ad hom and starwman marx, putting words in his mouth.
Again read, read adam smith (protip the invisible hand he wrote about differs from the invisible hand concept we have today) read friedman read hegel read marx
stop with these bullshit childish arguments.
>marx never worked amirite guise
>gommunism is evul :DDD
fucking hell, I give up I don't even care whether you read or not, just shut the fuck up, you are ruining the reputation of libertarians and classical liberals.
pic related, you.
Imagine if we a XIXth century conservative scholar, let's say Leopold von Ranke, decides to write a series of works about how society is evolving and how, according to this evolution, future society should be organized.
Imagine if conservative parties around the world decide to follow his tenets and meet disaster after disaster, with millions of people dying in the wake of such projects.
What would the modern world, and specially the left-wing intelligentsia, think of Ranke?
No, communism killed more people than religion. 20 million Stalin. 50 million Mao. That alone trumps all crusades/Israel wars and beyond that there's the Vietnam and Korean War, socialist failures in Africa and South America, famine in the Russian Civil War and Red Terror, etc. etc.
>mfw my sociology professor sucks Karl's dick every other class
>mfw I wish I had the stones to raise my hand and red pill her fucking retarded southern ass
Literally every class period includes some type of hate towards white males.
Lenin believed that the NEP was to learn how to not starve to death from capitalists and then when they knew how to emulate capitalist trade go back to socialism. Kek. Not to mention that the Red Terror was horrible and Lenin sanctioned. He was a shit person and just as evil as every other Marxist ever.
Communism is stateless.
Leninists wanted to achieve communism through a temporary state ruled by the vanguardist party.
Anarchists (anarcho-communists/anarcho-syndicalists) wanted to achieve communism through other means that didn't need an state.
Both groups wanted the same end (communism), they just disagreed on the means (through the state vs without the state).
>However, an economist and University of Wisconsin-Madison sociology PhD student Matías Cociña outlines that this ranking is reached by collecting national averages, which oftentimes can conceal significant economic inequalities within a country. When Chile is analyzed using the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI), “Chile loses almost 20% of the value of its indicator, decreasing by 11 points in the overall ranking (of countries where there is an indicator set), and falls to third place in the region, behind the Bahamas and Uruguay,” Cociña explains. Clearly, behind GDP and other average indicators lies a reality that shows that the majority of Chileans live far from the “almost developed” lives that politicians and the media have been ascribing to them in recent years.
>Communism is stateless.
This is what they wanted YOU to believe.
But once they get in touch with presidential power and state structures and hierarchy, they end up getting corrupt.
Take North Corea for example.
They achieved a revolution, but never got rid of the state.
Communism sounds great on paper and Anarchism requires a very high level of conscience and detach of material things.
Literally can not
Literally will not
There will never be the revolution of the proletariat
There will never be a stateless utopia where the means of production are owned by the proletariat
Never, ever, ever. It's less believable than the immaculate conception. A century ago you might have had a point but history proved you wrong.
This anon gets it. Countries like Laos and Vietnam are the juggernaut of the global economic scene. I fucking love working in the rice paddies 12 hours a day just to feed my family.
HDI is worthless, it was invented by Amartya Sen to promote the state of Kerala in India, which was governed by the communist party in the time. That's why communist countries like Cuba score so well in it.
Again, you're criticizing Marxism-Leninism, not communism. Anarchists would completely agree with you, that's what they disagreed with Marx on, but they would also tell you they're communists because they want to achieve a communist economy.
North Korea isn't communist. They even removed all references to socialism on communism from their constitution..
You have it backwards. Marx was a reaction to the failures of 19th century capitalism. His and others critiques of it were pretty spot on.
There were revolutions in Russia and elsewhere because the nations couldn't adapt fast enough to the changing demographics and demands of the people.
>Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. - John F. Kennedy
Marxists were jerks, but they wouldn't have gotten anywhere with mass support if the system was able to meet their demands.
I see this thing every day on my way to work.
>There will never be a stateless utopia where the means of production are owned by the proletariat
it was done before
>history proved you wrong.
history proved only that when a revolution settles, it's always ruined by an external force.
OR the fact that they never got rid of the state.
Since racism is not allowed in this board, why communism is?
Communism killed more people than racism, it's objectively worse. Just compare North Korea (communist) with South Korea (racist). Heck, even Rhodesia, an extremely racist state, was better than modern-day Zimbabwe, a socialist regime under Robert Mugabe.
Considering the mild damage of racism, and the extreme damage of communism, it's ridiculous how one is completely socially unacceptable while the other is given a pass, even on 4chan.
>In Chile “está mal repartida la torta” (the pie is poorly distributed), says Gonzalo Durán, an economist and researcher at Fundación Sol, a non-profit organization that focuses on labor issues. Regarding Chile’s 8.4 percent growth in the first half of 2011, Durán explains, “75% of that went to the richest 10%. That growth is much lower for the average Chilean.” When the media and politicians report on Chile’s growth they tend to omit where that growth is taking place and who reaps its benefits; the statistics are without a doubt positive, but the majority of Chileans are not represented by that growth.
it's already happening. people have lost faith in big corporations and are starting to learn their own means of production. we are becoming a much more self-sufficient society. people are starting to learn the value of building a society built on mutual respect and cooperation. these are all the things Marx was writing about.
Communism doesn't offend you personally in the same way that racism does. If we were to look at ideologies which have caused death and suffering in the same way as racism, than we wouldn't be able to discuss anything. Capatilism, socialism, communism, feudalism and fascism have all caused immense loss of life, yet we still discuss them.
>it was done before
Has it been done on a scale that matters? Or are we talking about villages?
>history proved only that when a revolution settles, it's always ruined by an external force.
You absolutely sure lad? It can't be that liberation parties are always a guise for power hungry despots to climb the ladder?
we need to start from scratch bro
in the woods, stateless tribes growing their own food and starting a working system all over again.
it can be done, with all the knowledge and learnings from this era, in the future.
Because our political elites still favor communism today
They see it still as an ideal endgoal
Ever heard the phrase "communism is good in theory, but.."
The person saying that is clearly implying that it's merely the application of it, thats the problem.
>racism is a scientific theory that study the difference between races
Holy shit is this what /pol/ actually believes?
>Has it been done on a scale that matters?
yes, take a look at china.
it can be as tyranical as you want, but they got properly industrialization, a bit late, but relatively successful.
And of course, the free city of Barcelona, didn't last much because of external factors. many others i'm lazy to name.
>Or are we talking about villages?
Villages are the basis of every society, not cities as we know it today. (food doesn't grow on super markets)
> It can't be that liberation parties are always a guise for power hungry despots to climb the ladder?
Welp, i aint no marxist so i cannot defend em this time..
>yes, take a look at china.
The ONLY reason China hasn't burned to the ground is because of Hong Kong, which is a free-market capitalist's wonderland. The mainland is being held together by duct tape and rusted nails
>Pinochet and the Shah did nothing wrong, they killed subversives and communist guerrillas.
you are either a dumb american or a shitposter
i know bro.
but Barcelona was the true Uthopy of humanity.
>The ONLY reason China hasn't burned to the ground is because of Hong Kong
this is completely nuts. and by the time the chinese revolution begun, it saved more lifes than killed.
China can sustain itself without even having to import shit if they wanted. they even supply the rest of the world with cheap products that might not be the best but they're all about quantity.
And chinese products are getting better with time desu.
>"Holy shit they're having a peasant revolution, we have to stop this!"
>sabotage and/or kill them all
>"Did you see that? Communism doesn't work!"
So now that you made an ass out of yourself by letting everyone know you're criticizing communism without even knowing its most basic definition, you resort to "W-Well it's impossible because I say so!"?
The difference is that capitalism doesn't demand a ruthless transitional state that ethically sanctions genocide to result in the desired economic system
It also helps that capitalism actually works when tested, baka kek
It's like when Muslims cry "muh extremists! Most Muslims don't support that!" and pretend that Muhammad wasn't a warrior and that the religion has ever only spread through conquering, kek again
>Communism works but it only works when humans as a collective stop being violent and greedy
Barcelona was a city under military dictatorship where the warlord called itself anarchist. Callim that functioning anarchism is like calling the territory controlled by that crazy baron during the Russian Civil War the "Mongol Empire" because the baron called himself the heir to Genghis Khan.
By the way, these "peaceful" anarchists regularly killed Catholics in Spain, so yes, I'm glad Franco crushed them.
It depends on what you mean by legitimate communism. They were the stage prior to real communism, so actual communism still didn't exist in practice (with the possible exception of the short-lived anarchist Catalonia).
Communism requires the country to be totally self-sufficient or for the rest of the world to be communist too.
>So now that you made an ass out of yourself by letting everyone know you're criticizing communism without even knowing its most basic definition
>you resort to "W-Well it's impossible because I say so!"?
It's not possible because people are generally shit at ruling themselves, pic related
arguably the revolution reached its full extent in the agricultural areas of aragón. there money was abolished completely and the farms were managed democratically by its workers. here's a quote from an anarchist peasant at the time:
>Here in Fraga [a small town in Aragon], you can throw banknotes into the street,' ran an article in a Libertarian paper, 'and no one will take any notice. Rockefeller, if you were to come to Fraga with your entire bank account you would not be able buy a cup of coffee. Money, your God and your servant, has been abolished here, and the people are happy.
So that image is bullshit then. It's total circular logic.
>communism can never reach its final, sustainable state
>communists try as hard as they can to reach it
>they failed, see! It's never been really tried
Horrible. Try again.
Picking arms against the government with the intention of overthrowing it and install a communist dictatorship is no mere "thought crime". It's subversion, and subversion is punished.
Notice how no one who complains about the crimes of communism mentions the anti-communist guerrillas who were killed in the aftermath of World War II, like the cursed soldiers of Poland, the forest brothers of the Baltic or the OUN in Ukraine? Because they were fair game, they were fighting and they lost, just like we do not count the members of the White Army who died in the civil war as victims of communism, most times (Rummel probably does, but he is a idiot).
>Barcelona was a city under military dictatorship where the warlord called itself anarchist
crazy stuff desu. doesn't deserve an answer.
how many have been killed by the holy catholic church?
and tell me why didn't the orthodox of the east kill as many people as catholics?
Do you not see the true evil that is the catholic church?.
I'm glad they were efficient, otherwise Spain would just become another Soviet Union.
Imagine if Kolchak was efficient like Franco, he would have crushed the Bolsheviks at the cradle, and what would we be hearing now? How Soviet democracy was amazing, how Lenin was that super democratic leader and how the destruction of Bolshevism before it could bloom witheld from the world the chance of seeing true, peaceful and unadultered communism.
>how many have been killed by the holy catholic church?
Less people in 300 years that the Jacobins killed in a few months in France.
>And the end state of communism is a stateless society aka anarchism you dumbass
>lists "communist" states and holds communism accountable for all the people who died
i think the retard is you
Leninism is a valid interpretation of Marxism. As I said, if conservative parties killed millions in the XXth century trying to apply the theories of some XIXth century conservative scholar like Ranke or Burckhardt, we wouldn't hear the end of the left scratching it's ass telling how evil these ideas were.
Rather than go through the list, why don't you just tell me Chavez or his successor, Nicholas 'the mustache' Maduro, have been hampered by anti-government protesters in accomplishing what they wanted to do with government. Because Both have been able to do completely whatever they have wanted no Venezuela faces shortages of basic staples and inflation rates as high as 600%.
no one said progress has to be an objective linear movement. society is constantly changing, and so are it's goals. Marxism isn't the only possible ideal for society, but it's a direction you can move in. it doesn't require violent revolution.
This is really difficult to discuss, so I'm just going to summarize communism to the best of my knowledge as a layman.
- the bourgeois (ruling class, guys who are best off in current society) must be removed from power
- this usually means stripping them of their money, titles, political positions, etc.
- a new regime is established which then either spreads to enough countries that they can trade resources or works toward self-sufficiency
- when either of those are actionable they transition into legitimate communism
All the "communism is bad" shit is really just "(ideological) communist societies were bad" not "(the practice of) communism is bad. All the established (ideological) communist societies were created around the same time, so they all used a very similar strategy.
A good strategy that expects the actual communist state to be years or centuries away would have to create a good, functioning society in the meantime.
In short, yeah communism has never REALLY had a shot, just a lot of bad attempts at creating sustainable pre-communist societies.
I am gonna help support you
here's a "Swedish" commie and open supporter of Antifa and YPG
I added a bonus to the convo at the end
> i'm against state, so i won't defend communism.
Communism doesn't require a state. There's an anarchist variant that argues against establishing a government during the pre-communist period
if it comes down to whether I want want this board to be a /pol/ circlejerk or a /leftypol/ circlejerk I would pick /pol/ to be honest
devil you know right family?
It's both, there's state communism (which requires acquiring political control over the state) and anarcho-communism which argues that maintaining the state is a terrible idea and it should be abolished/phased out as quickly as possible
the thing with these guys is that they are not really informed on the left. i bet they just skipped all the leftist literature because "it waz sum commie shit i tell ya"
there are so many variants of it that discussing about stalin over and over gets tiresome.
these right wing retards should just read more. and not the fucking communist manifesto only.
>He hasn't read Lord of the Flies
All civilizations throughout human history form their governments out of the most capable people they can find because they realize how incapable most people are at taking care of themselves. Your shitty attempt at making human nature to seem like a circular argument makes you look like a teenager from /b/
>Go to /hist/ expecting discussion
>See the same shitty memes as on /pol/
Well, I guess there's a tad bit more discussion going on here than on /pol/ usually, but nothing really changed, I see.
yeah seeing all the people here arguing about weirdly specific stuff like "stalin was evil" and "communism doesn't work" and shit is so bizarre because things just really aren't that simple
Oh but *you* can take care of yourself and so can all of your close friends, but the idiot masses are incapable of functioning without a government to protect them. They all go into starbucks and don't get into fist fights and loud arguments because they fear retribution rather than because they're generally sane people who can fight the impulse to get physical when they have a disagreement
What was Marx's government structure, OP? Vanguard parties establishing murderous dictatorships wasn't his idea, it was Lenin's.
The social democrats stuck as close to Marxist thought as the Bolsheviks did if not closer.
if i say that i live communism you start acting like kikes and feminists here
>Implying transitioning from an agrarian feudal economy to a communist one via bloody revolution was what marx intended.
The guy saw the value in capitalism, and saw communism as the next logical step. It's less a battle between two opposing forces, and more the natural course of history.
Not that anon, but half of the thread is just shitposting. You can dislike communism for all I care, but a good chunk of the thread is just
and stupid meme pictures that I've seen years back on /pol/.
If you don't want to be associated with /pol/ then don't fucking act like /pol/.
There's a lot of reasons for why the USSR ended up failing. Socialism is only one of them, and I wouldn't call it the dominant one. While it's probably not going to outperform capitalism, and I'm not a huge friend of the ideology - I consider it too utopian, not suitable for humanity as it stands - it could have somewhat worked out and provided reasonable results for the people, in another scenario.
But Russia tried to use it
a) Without going through capitalism first. This means, it didn't have the production base to catch the instabilities of the shift, and the loss of production meant people ended up starving.
b) As a matter of ideology to be pushed on everyone else, resulting in the cold war. It's not a smart idea to fight an economic and scientific competition against an opponent that not only has a better starting poing (the west was far less destroyed after ww2), but also a larger production base due to population.
c) During an oppressive dictatorship, which always means inefficiencies and corruption costing you a lot of potential.
d) While wasting huge amounts of resources on prestige project, a general problem of dictatorships.
And yes, I'm saying socialism, because what Russia tried to implement was the economic part of communism, while staying far away from its social implications, regarding equality (it definitly had a ruling class in its party) or the removal of the state (definitly not). Consequently, it wasn't called the USCR, but the USSR.
Your whole argument is based on the idea that societies don't need government to function. Since every government in the world is created by the people they rule, there should be at least 1 society without government that actually functions. I sure don't see any, and it probably won't exist for a very long time
a new society has to be born far away from cities.
starting from scratch with high human value and rethinking another system with the knowledge we already have and our learnings..
this wont happen though, because everyone is just too comfy being wage slaves to start a project like that.
and this is why, ladies and gentlemen. i dont fit anywhere i go.
except with my rum of course. my rum never betrays me..
Just check this out then https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-may-surprise-you.pdf
The typical argument is that the state was once necessary and isn't anymore, but I'm not like hard and fast convinced anarchy is a plausible outcome. I think anarchist ideals (ethical basis for creating a society, govt/power is pretty dangerous and you can't trust anyone with it long-term, the lowest class in a society should still be pretty well off) are good whether abolishing government ever becomes a practical choice or not
You should read the above link too.
Yooo what the fuck, they're called wage slaves because they don't have an alternative if they want to survive/thrive. Of course they don't go off and start a new society, where the fuck would they even get the resources?
A project like that necessarily must be started by someone of the bourgeois. Your misanthropy is depressing but luckily it's also misguided. You should study more about why people make the decisions they do, they are usually very human reasons
>While it's probably not going to outperform capitalism
compare Russia's performance under communism and capitalism
expecting some agrarian shithole to outperform bigger industrial country is the same as expecting little shop kill the nearby walmart
>they're called wage slaves because they don't have an alternative if they want to survive/thrive.
they do have an alternative and this is what is sad about 1st world countries, their comfyness (even leftists comfyness inside the capitalistic system)
the alternative is to leave everything behind. start over as several agricultural communes. united under federations.
i can go on about this subject but it's really long. basically just starting over.
i did it for a while, but had to go back to the city sadly. it is of course not easy. and requires lots of physical work too.
>compare Russia's performance under communism and capitalism
Under its current rather capitalistic system, it's doing comparably well. The bread lines are gone, as far as I know. It had, again, changing pains after 1990, but those went away by now. It's not exactly the pinnacle of the world, but it's a developed country where people can reasonably live a good life.
Comparing it to how it was before socialism makes no sense because it wasn't capitalist, it was feudalist.
>This man's philosophy and government structure killed 10's of millions of people and set back a large portion of the world technologically.
Identifying Marx as the efficient cause of 20th political movements is ridiculous. You might just as well hold early physicists responsible for the shelling of Sarajevo.
>He was a lazy bitch...
Based on the amount of work he accomplished in his lifetime, laziness is the last thing he could be accused of. He devoted himself completely to his passion and contributed a new system of historical and sociological analysis.
>...who never held a real job...
I can't imagine what constitutes a 'real' job, but your definition must not include research, writing, publishing, or secretarial work if Marx never had one. You condemnation includes nearly the whole intelligentsia.
>...and mooched off his friend.
Poor Socrates suffers equally under the weight of such an accusation.
>The only thing more delusional than him is his supporters. Prove me wrong.
You inveighed, but you did not criticize. Unproven personal attacks don't require counter-proof.
>this is what capitalists actually believe
That's why they started drinking themselves to death en masse, stopped having the money for kids, and billionaire oligarchs captured the economy, right?
Creating small pockets where it's safe and comfortable to live in the cracks of the existing systems is plausible, but scaling those into actually viable countries just isn't doable. Wage slaves would have to join existing pockets that were already started by the bourgeois, and I don't personally know of any so that's likely an issue too.
If you're talking about doing this on a small scale, chances are it is happening already and you just don't know about it
>but scaling those into actually viable countries just isn't doable.
i'd call those communes, not countries.
this system i'm talking about doesn't have physical borders, just administrative ones, meaning you can travel and move freely between communes without passport of any kind.
>Wage slaves would have to join existing pockets that were already started by the bourgeois
nah bro, the communes are started by wage slaves themselves!, the bourgueois will never do this i'm proposing.
>chances are it is happening already and you just don't know about it
it is happening, i was in one, i had to go back.
it is just hard to achieve. almost impossible.
only with the right committed people
>only with the right committed people
So... what's everyone else going to do?
I mean, aside from using industrial capitalism to outperform you by a factor of a thousand, isolate you and underbid you at every turn, making sure that you never gain any sort of power or significant prosperity, of course.
>So... what's everyone else going to do?
>aside from using industrial capitalism to outperform you by a factor of a thousand, isolate you and underbid you at every turn, making sure that you never gain any sort of power or significant prosperity, of course
it's all a clusterfuck suicide plan my comrade. i'm not even kidding.
there's no way out of this, we're doomed. Capitalism will truly end the world in misery and the elites are going to another planet possibly.
Every revolution started will be killed off, every instaurated revolutionary process will stagnate in corruption sooner or later.
i hate to be so pessimistic about it. but that's my vision.
90% still would've died from disease.
The West could've been saints to the Indians, and they still would've dropped like flies because nobody understood germ theory yet.
As soon as you get the Colombian exchange, Native American's fates are sealed. Whether Europeans peacefully trade with them or conquer them, the result is the same, disease wipes them out.
>is right, the commitment is asking too much imo
i wish you guys came to venezuela some day.
and live in flesh and bone the drastic change in society being proposed by the younger revolutionaries, not SJW, but real guys and girls who literally abandoned cities to start remote communes in the wilderness.
A lot of them are effectively producing their own food and clothing, and soon they'll start creating clean energy for their small settlements.
it is so beautiful and unbelievable, all thanks to chavez in the end..
Human nature is pretty bunk. Economic and social factors have a major impact on behavior, so alternative economic and social circumstances would dramatically alter what we think of as human nature
i was able to live 3 months without any kind of money, eating 3 times a day and working on fields. reading books and making music. ranting about society and creating a new system just talking it with your friends. it required a strict will power and self management to do it.
i get the urges of going back and leaving this shit city, my shit jobs.. i guess all i have is this rum with me now.
i hope this boards turns into a great place for history discussion.
Human nature is competitiveness (unless you are a shitskin, in that case, is gibsmedat), when you make it so everyone is forced to be equal, there's no incentive to progress and get ahead of anyone else. This creates stagnation, frustration among society and all the power goes to the ones who decide what equality means.
Capitalism is competitive, competitive behavior in humans is a byproduct of the economic system. Communism isn't about forcing people to be equal or robbing the most capable to feed the least capable, either. You should do a bit more reading; it turns out communism isn't evil after all
Nature is an economic system. If we're hunter-gatherers, do we try to kill animals on our own or do we join together and share the kill? Probably the latter, yeah? But you say we're still competing with other tribes. This is an economic system.
If we have no need to compete with foreign entities and we aren't competing with each other for resources, "human nature" changes form altogether
If you're gonna be an asshole, at least be a correct asshole
>hurr durr if I play the "everything is subjective" card, there's no need to have an actual argument
Ok, so nature is an economic system, it's also embedded in our fucking conscious. We are hard wired to be competitve, hence why Communism won't work, ever.
Stop spouting the senseless and quite moronic things your social studies professor tells you and get some thoughts of your own, will ya?
- Sure competition is embedded in our consciousness to some degree but there's little reason that should apply to complex abstractions over hunting and gathering
- There's no such thing as being "hard wired", psychologists actively reject the concept
- Even if we were "hard wired" to be competitive, it wouldn't drive our decisions if we had no need to be competitive in order to survive
- It isn't competitive to buy shit at the grocery store
- competition actually makes us worse at some tasks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y
I haven't had a social studies class since elementary school. I do my own research. And I didn't say everything is subjective, I was clarifying that my comment about economic systems applied to nature
>It isn't competitive to buy shit at the grocery store
Have you seen Black Friday videos? You are so ignorant in this subject that even your cherry picked examples don't work.
Competitiveness created empires, improves science, took us to the moon. Hell, space travel stagnated because the US had no one to compete with. Now things are changing because hey, Elon Musk is competing with NASA.
Again, you come of as quite naive in this subject, as every communist sympathizer
You're literally refusing to do even rudimentary research while insisting that I'm a no-nothing idiot. If it WERE true that we're innately competitive, it wouldn't mean we should design the economic system on that basis. You can have competition under communism
>You're literally refusing to do even rudimentary research
I don't need to, history has showed pretty damn fine that communism doesn't work
>If it WERE true that we're innately competitive, it wouldn't mean we should design the economic system on that basis
>You can have competition under communism
Is this really your argumentation process? Spouting nonsense while not even providing examples of such? (Which is probably because you can't find any)
If this is really the level of argument we're going with well...
>Sustained inflows of foreign direct investment into manufacturing have propelled Viet Nam’s exports in recent years. Private consumption is growing robustly, supported by low inflation, higher off-farm employment, and improved consumer confidence.
>Inflation subsided to 0.8% year on year in the first 8 months, continuing a steep decline since 2011, and the forecast for 2015 is revised down from March.
>In contrast with most other subregional economies, Viet Nam recorded solid growth in merchandise exports in the first half. Still, imports rose at a much faster pace than exports, reflecting strong domestic demand for capital and consumer goods.
>6.5% expected GDP growth for the year.
>millions of starving and angry Russians all sat around thinking, until one of them read Marx and said, "Hey, let's try this!"
Marx, or even Marxists, didn't kill anyone. The conditions of the period did.
The difference is that capitalism doesn't demand a ruthless transitional state that ethically sanctions genocide to result in the desired economic system
Actually, that's EXACTLY how Capitalism developed in Britain.
> I don't need to
This is incredibly stupid, history does not include nuance
> Why not?
Capitalism doesn't select for human values such as "I don't want other people to starve to death when there's food in the trash they could have been given", it selects for efficient competition. It isn't ideal for human values. Mixed capitalism/socialism alleviate this issue somewhat but social programs are a bandaid and the average capitalist believes that their possessions are rightfully theirs, that taxes are just a fancy term for robbing the wealthy to feed the looters at the bottom. This idea depends on the axiom that private property is a right and a valuable concept. Communists, on the other hand, believe that private property is taken by force from the general populace. The only reason we think of private property as a given, as something correct, is that it's been this way for so long. This is why you can't just take history and your assumptions and roll with them. Questioning the bases of your thought is important. It's not sacrilege to actually study the systems you're trying to oppose
Like "I want to invent a new kind of library before anyone else" or "I want to colonize Mars" or "I can build a better chair than that guy". I don't need profit as a motive for competition, and even if I did, using the economic system to coerce me into competition would be unethical unless you believe that my using available resources is theft in some way, which I think you do, but you should really research the philosophy that goes into this stuff man
>This is incredibly stupid, history does not include nuance
Again, why not?
>Point number too
Oh yeah, all those human rights which only the west follows and has fallen behind to the (surprise!) formerly communist nations because of it.
>Point number three
>I want to invent a new kind of library before anyone else
Like Wikipedia relying on donators and having their highest "filantropes" dictating what articles should be put up (aka censoring) or the space race that capitalists won vs the communists?
Your whole points are bogus and your "philosophy" comes up as naive feel good bullshit bro.
Marx never proposed a government structure. And certainly none of the governments that espoused his values in any way resembled his utopian vision. He said within his life that those who called themselves marxists were following a belief unrecognizable as his own.
>set back a large portion of the world technologically
I won't get into everything else here but considering the Soviet Union was leading the Space Race for most of it and the USA is still crippled and recovering from trying to outspend them, this seems like a pretty weak argument.
>coworker is a communist
>slackjawed male feminist
>hangs out with lots of girls but complains how he never gets laid
>constantly browses reddit on his phone at work
>drops random TIL facts and thinks he's wordly
>loves john oliver
>thinks all memes originate from reddit
>loves bernie sanders
>constantly yapping about le rethuglicans
>bitches about evil big business corporations
>loves microsoft and google
>thinks obamacare is anything other than the health insurance lobby's wet dream
>literally ran the "communism has never been tried" trope at work
>genuinely believes that communism is the solution to the world's problems
>works for minimum wage at 26
i've been so tempted to blow him the fuck out so many times at work. i hide my power level because i'm his coke dealer and he's a good customer. capitalism wins again.
>the USA is still crippled and recovering from trying to outspend them
what alternate universe are you living in?
in case you have been asleep for 25 years, the soviet union collapsed, and NATO expansionism is causing russia to chimp the fuck out and their economy is worse than it has been in 100 years.
> I still refuse to do any thinking and researching of my own after accusing my opponent of parroting opinions
yeah I've spent this discussion acting on the assumption that you aren't a total moron despite your repeated assertions that *I* am a moron. I'm done here
are you retarded m8? anyone who thinks the federal debt is any one administration, or one party's fault is an idiot. anyone who doesn't think the debt is a problem at all is obviously a liberal, and retarded.
it's not, it's the result of their shit getting pushed in by OPEC's overproduction of petroleum. russia won't back down from syria and ukraine so their superiors (the west) rekt them.
pay attention to current events please.
>mfw Russia and other former communists states are becoming more Nationalistic
>mfw America and other "capitalist" countries becoming more Marxist
Daily reminder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Lskc38Ai8
>went from literally-who tier to picking fights with the US
>planned all this shit out, the corruption and pollution of developing capitalism firmly under the party's thumb so they work at undoing it instead of ending up fucked like India is
>do the best military parades
>steal everyone's shit
>buy everyone's shit
>BFFs with Africa
>teaches genuine Marxism at university level, their leader has a PHD in it
>can weather literally any economic crisis because the economy is still mostly nationalised
>introducing a welfare state to look after its citizens while everyone else is too poor and stupid to remember that's a good thing
>as above, all of this comes from following the work of Karl Marx
SUCCESS BREEDS JEALOUSY
I agree with you; this dude was just lazy. But I will say that I don't think he was ever given a decent job. I remember ages ago I was a angst little prick that hated capitalism and despised consumerism. I was working a $9/hr security job that allowed me to read and pontificate about the world while I sat in my little air conditioned shack.
Then I got into history and that kindled my ambition. I got a union-esque job. The word union was never used ,but it functioned like one. You had to get caught stealing shit to get fired. Other than that, it was impossible to get canned and they always encouraged you to take your time.
Anyways, this was a factory job. Distribution. They hired me as a temp for $12/hr driving a forklift. After a few months of steady overtime I got hired on through the company at $16/hr. I was a given a 50 cent to a dollar raise for the next few years every year. What really made this job different was that if you worked 6 days straight, the 7th day you got paid double time. Every November we worked straight into December, sometimes 10 and 12 hour shifts. You had guys in there that could barely write making more than cops, nurses, and teachers lol. But that double time is what allowed me to start my own business and work for myself.
Anyways, I'm rambling but I always think that if Marx had job that offered him double time like mine, maybe he wouldn't have been so bitter and lazy.
How do people not understand that capitalism isn't just the market? It's a mode of exchange and production that includes state activity (which is subordinated to the drive for infinite accumulation and expansion that characterises the capitalist system). This right now is "actual capitalism", comrade.
Many people for many years were killed for demanding 8 hour work day, abolishing of children labor, raising wages...
When in some country marxists killed all the capitalists it was a great incentive for capitalists in other countries to review their wage policy.
It would be nice if we had some threads about some of Marx more interesting and unorthodox followers like Anarcho Communists. Especially how Ana-Com endorse Gift Economy like Piracy, Gift Stores,etc as the vision of what a moneyless economy would look like. Then you got those Autonomist marxism, which believes that finding autonomous zone in society will lead to Marxist paradise.
Nobody seems ever talk about how Anarchist Catalonia and Free Territory of the Ukraine are both examples of anarchist and theory communist state in history.
It's almost as if it's still a developing country or something. Also what does "vying desperately to become a capitalist society" mean? Because Chinese people want to be materially well-off they want to be capitalist specifically?
That's actually true.
Laissais faire -> unions -> welfare state
Just look at scandinavia, the most developed region on the planet, and also the most socialist.
He's not talking about soviet style communism.
>tfw it's never brought up Marx was at least a stooge of British Intelligence, if not an outright agent, due to his relationship with Urquhart
>russia is better off after 1991
What percentage of population is better off?
Less than 20% of them have passport required to travel abroad, it means that at least 80% of them are dirt poor that can't allow a week on the beach in Turkey or Bulgaria.