Communism Thread Anonymous 4053
Post memes or theory
nothing to contribute but i like this meme
Kommunism, the K stands for Kawaii!
Well the thing is that communism can only work when all nations join in, because if they want to profit off one country they can fuck them over with trade and exploit them. That's the only reason why it hasn't worked yet, because other nations never gave it a chance.
I will never stop laughing at this. I laugh every time this thread is bumped.>>4061
Communism can't and will never work due to the fact it is contrary to human nature itself on so many levels it's funny how the idea survived until now, and it did probably because the concept of equal sharing is tempting for the sweet heart, but can't hide its claws to the sharp mind.
pls go back to you-know-where
like a true commie
What kind of garbage facts are those even? Pretending that hunger, exploitation and all those other problems are only caused by communism and that capitalism is a perfect dream? Are you fucking shitting me, at least just admit to not knowing better and just wanting to stick to the status quo like a coward. The revolution will come and the 1% will fall. Because everything in the Universe strives to entropy, and humanity will, too.
>>6307>and that capitalism is a perfect dream
I didn't say that, i said, capitalism is the opposite side of the same shekel.
Communism kills the individual, material, intellectual growth and personal ambition.
Capitalism kills the community in favor of those with great wealth and makes disparities huge.
I'd say national
socialism would be the way to go, give restrictions to private companies to make sure they are a tool to serve the citizen rather than the other way a round, while leaving great freedom towards the small companies; remove usury completely and create a national zero rate borrowing system; and for the love of god cap the amount of wealth an individual can hoard, else you'd end up having people with more capacity than whole countries like we have now.
>>6339>I didn't say that, i said
>post memes or theory
communism IS a meme
that's bs though, communism worked but gorbachev ruined it. I wish I was still living in sovie union.
The eastern block was independent from western trade, yet they relied on capitalist loans and still went bankrupt.>>9636>I wish I was still living in soviet union.
If Trump turns up the sanctions your wish will be granted.
You just quoted a bunch of different people, did you have an actual point to make?
Nta but are you new to imageboards? You can quote multiple people just to say you think that their opinions suck dick and nothing more.
>>10056>The cringe is strong with you>you
>You can quote multiple people>multiple people
Yes, somebody can quote yourself, other people, and simply say 'you' instead of 'you all'.
We're on an imageboard, not a national diction forum and if this bothers you that much then maybe you should head back over to Reddit where the tight-assery is never in short supply.
I don't use Reddit so I wouldn't know things like how tight-ass they are like you do but thanks for the advice, I'll be sure to value it in the garbage, redditor
1. Communism is cool but doesnt work
2. Natsoc may sounds cool too. But its impossible too cause pure communism/socialism cant satisfy the peoples needs
Inb4 i am fooled by the capitalists/ jews
>>People actually wanting communism
Perfect (Отлично), but please remember Stalin's system and the fact that you have to drive car similar to Zhiguli (Жигули) or Moskvich (Москвич) or if you get real lucky Volga (Волга). You don't get these instantly either, you pay for the car and then you will wait for 2 to 10 years to get one unless you are someone real important you'll get it even earlier, like scientist in DPRK since they are important to further advance their weapon systems.
Communism may or may not show itself in the distant future, socialism may work but it has its limits. Taxes tend to be high on socialist countries to get, for example, healthcare and free education going. Take the Nordic Model as an example, if you want this kind of utopia, then you should be ready to pay for it. Well, in the long run, it will pay itself but still, due to the taxes are being so high, it is a great way to scare all the companies to foreign countries and also the tax money along with them, the system is bound to fall down since there will more import than export and you'll have to start taking loan to keep the system up.
Communism may prevail itself when we have reached the peak of Capitalism, where our production lines are so efficient that we don't even need human workers anymore and massive implemation of robots to every single kind of job there is. I suppose this may happen within 100 years, probably. Who knows, I didn't come from the future after all, but we have to learn from history or we'll just end up repeating it. From the downfall of Ancient Egypt to USSR.
There is no such thing as perfect system, only system with compromises, can't have it all.
Correct my subjectively shitty opinion if I'm wrong.
Well would it really have to be all nations? Couldn't just the one that are geographically predisposed towards wealth and hegemony, i.e. Western europe, North america, East asia, etc?
Interestingly enough, a national socialism thread would be nuked within mere seconds. Hell, even the traditional femininity thread was attacked so often that it died within a week. The housekeeping thread got hate before it was even 10 minutes old.
Yet the communism and radical feminism threads are being bumped in regular intervals ever since the imageboard's inception.
Nah, there's no propaganda here, nothing to see folks. It's gotten to the point that I am starting to feel more comfortable in 4chan, and that says a lot.
This thread is just as dead as the others you mentioned. It was bumped because of a troll. If you feel better on 4chan then go?
Good, though more so for the former than the latter.
It isn't rocket science
Bump those threads then fam I also like that stuff (not national socialism but the other things you mentioned), if there's more active discussion about those topics then people who like them contribute more to those threads.
>Natsoc is an interesting topic
>discuss it in an academic manner
What do you find interesting about natsoc? What do you want to talk about?
>You can't just post a reaction image and think it's an apt "case in point" post.
this thread was mentioned in /leftypol/
y'all are talking to raiders
Nice damage control.
The initial comment was mine and I am ideologically as distant as it gets from marxism/communism/cultural marxism/maoism/lenninsm/frankfurt school et cetera.
I don't really care, you can keep grooming your future indoctrinated ANTIFA activists.
>>20684>this thread was mentioned in /leftypol/
lmao i was raised and still live in an ex-soviet country and i don't know wtf you're talking about, really. do expand on this shitty bait topic, though
>I was born and (mostly) raised in a Soviet country.
>Cultural marxism is real
Какие интересные сказки ты сочиняешь в своем манямирке, однако.
It has nothing to do with Russians. And it's not so conspiratorial. All of liberalism is bad and alienates people. Communism is just a confused form of left-liberalism, at least in the West. There are some Eastern Euro communist parties that don't buy into social liberalism.
>>20714>Communism is just a confused form of left-liberalism
All of these ideological movements are outgrowths of Enlightenment liberalism. Left-liberalism and right-liberalism describe basically all politics in America and Europe today (even Trump, Farage and people like that). The divergence between left and right liberals came about as a result of differing interpretations as to how to achieve maximum individual liberty. Left-liberals (like socialists and communists) said that liberty wasn't just a matter of negative rights, like being equal before the law, but by being able to proactively procure things like high quality education, healthcare and so on. Rawls offered a philosophical framework called the Veil of Ignorance to justify this approach of redistribution for the sake of individual liberty in the 70s I think. It's a pretty weak argument imo, but it's the most popular one. Ultimately the idea is that equality maximizes liberty.
Right-liberalism has its roots in people like Bastiat, and the idea is that maximum liberty is obtained by the Government having a hands off approach, only guaranteeing negative liberty and allowing marketplaces and other voluntary mechanisms to determine everything else. This was later fleshed out by other "center right" figures later, most prominently by Economists.
As different as these two "sides" seem to you today. They're ultimately just a difference of opinion on a shared common principle: individualism, or more properly, individual liberty as the ultimate moral good in society, and the idea that the "individual" is the historical subject, i.e. the most primary unit of any society. This in and of itself is an extremely radical idea, and generally it's not one shared by the other great civilizations of the world: Arabs and Arab-speaking peoples prioritize family, tribe, Ummah. Chinese prioritize the state as the manifestation of security. India has its caste system and so on.
So yes, Communism is ultimately just a take on left-liberalism. It is still based on the idea that the main historical subject is the individual, at least in its final, idealized form.
It's not useful to think about politics in terms of left/right spectrums anymore. Many "far right" parties in Europe for example are more economically socialist than Bernie Sanders was before his run for DNC nominee. It's more useful to try and boil any school of thought down so that only its founding axiom remains. For virtually all western politics this comes down to either "making people more individually free makes things better" or "making people more equal so they can be more free makes things better". But as explained, there are ideologies that are so radically different to anything in the western countries that they wouldn't even fit on a left/right spectrum. Confucianism in China is one of the best examples since the essence of the philosophy is the complete opposite of left-liberalism; it isn't equality that is good, or even individuality, but hierarchy. Hierarchy itself is morally righteous and good. Why? Because everyone accepts on some level that hierarchy is what gives rise to order, and order what gives rise to peace and prosperity.
Sorry for the wall of text, I'm a philosophy hobbyist.
Also the whole Chapo Trap House idea that they (as a group, i.e. woke mild socialist types who know a little about dialectical materials) are seperable from liberalism is nonsense. They are textbook left-liberals. They're on record as scorning the old Central and Eastern Euro communist parties (like in the Czech Republic) since they tend towards anti-immigration and socially conservative policies.
>>20720>The divergence between left and right liberals came about as a result of differing interpretations as to how to achieve maximum individual liberty
>Many "far right" parties in Europe for example are more economically socialist than Bernie Sanders was before his run for DNC nominee.
>They're ultimately just a difference of opinion on a shared common principle: individualism, or more properly, individual liberty as the ultimate moral good in society, and the idea that the "individual" is the historical subject, i.e. the most primary unit of any society.
>The divergence between left and right liberals came about as a result of differing interpretations as to how to achieve maximum individual liberty
>I'm a philosophy hobbyist
CAn't even tell if baiting or really that historically and politically illiterate
>>20722>The divergence between left and right liberals came about as a result of differing interpretations as to how to achieve maximum individual liberty
This is correct. What's the final stage in historical materialism according to Marx? It's a post-scarcity society where everyone is completely free and equal. Trotsky gave some insight of his own on this during the Civil War when he wrote a vigorous defense on the necessity of state violence (i.e. the red terror), the idea was that after the revolution, everyone would be so free and so equal that there would be a "Mozart on every street corner".
I know communists like to think communism is this completely unique political philosophy that isn't related to liberalism at all, but it literally would never have existed without Locke or Mill. Deal with it.
>>20723>Using the outdated theories of random names in political thought to completely define your worldview.
This has to be bait.
You should know by now that you cannot argue with communists. Their entire MO is to be pedantic and dissect semantics while skirting around the argument just so they can exhaust you.
Reductio ad absurdum and post hoc ergo propter hoc are their bread and butter. As soon as you notice the tell-tale signs you know it's an exercise in futility.
>>20722>Many "far right" parties in Europe for example are more economically socialist than Bernie Sanders was before his run for DNC nominee.
This is absolutely, 100% correct. Marine le Pen/FN in France supports tarriff barriers, state ownership of any upstream industry, price controls, a huge state owned construction company to engage in civil engineering projects etc etc. Likewise with the Czech SPD. Likewise (to a lesser extent) with PiS in Poland. I mean damn, a lot of Golden Dawn in Greece are Strasserists. Salvini and Lega in Italy are also an anti-immigration party that have very left-wing views economically.
If you're not aware of how economically left many nationalist parties in Europe are then you're more clueless than I thought. As for Bernie, he's a mild social democrat. He even walked back his commitment to tariffs when he looked like he had a shot at the DNC nomination. There's nothing "socialist" about the guy. He's a generic left-liberal.>>20724>outdated names
Who are you referring to here? Marx is the founder of Communism and Locke and Mill are (arguably) the founders of liberalism. Neither are outdated or random. And all contemporary political thought is based on something antecedent, so its important to understand what came before as a result.
You can potentially separate communism and early liberalism because Marx had a unique take on Hegelian historical materialism. That being said, liberalism is also a historicist movement which imagines history as something linear (hence the retarded term "progressive").
I think the confusion comes about from the fact that a lot of self-described "communists" are basically just liberals. If you offered these people state ownership of the MoP and no gay marriage vs. private capital owning the MoP with gay marriage, they'd pick the gay marriage every time.
Why would you want to live in a society where the state owns the means of production? Why would you want your favorite mom and pop taco truck and cute little local cafe to be owned by the government? Socialism means more than "free" health care.
>>20723>>20726>communism is when the government does stuff
Bait it is, then
No, crude communism is when the state owns the means of production, communism after that point is the whole unreachable "post scarcity" bit that means any criticism of it can be handled with "well, that wasn't REAL communism as we hadn't invented replicators".
This isn't 4chan. The post volume here isn't large enough to cover your fail with greentexting and appeals to bait. You're embarrassing yourself.
No such thing as crude communism.
>communism after that point is the whole unreachable "post scarcity"
Wrong. Communism is not about post-scarcity, although it wouldn't hurt. Communism is a stateless, classless and moneyless society, nothing to do with post-scarcity as such and is perfectly achievable without it. Humans lived 99% of our existnece as a species in primitive communism and no scarcity was required. Besides, we now produce more than enough food to provide for all living people.
>"well, that wasn't REAL communism
It wasn't real communism cause real communism has never been tried yet. What has been tried is socialism and it worked very well.
>>20733>No such thing as crude communism
Why are you so repeatedly wrong yet so pig-headed? You're like a stupid person who isn't aware of their stupidity.
Crude communism is a stage in Marxian dialectical materialism.
>The first positive annulment of private property – crude communism – is thus merely a manifestation of the vileness of private property, which wants to set itself up as the positive community system.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
>>20733>Humans lived 99% of our existnece as a species in primitive communism and no scarcity was required.
This is also bullshit. Marxist views on prehistory have been repeatedly rubbished. Pre-agricultural societies were just as tribal and more conflict-ridden than those that came about after agriculture/civilization. I mean, I suppose if you want to call intensely violent hunter-gatherer societies communist because they were able to subsist on the basis of hunting and foraging, that's your prerogative, but they were certainly not "classless", "borderless" or "stateless". The earliest form of statecraft was tribal confederations between these groups.
You are painfully ignorant.
>>20733>Communism is a stateless, classless and moneyless society
Why would I want that?
If you make more than the $30,000 a year you're almost in the top 1% of the world in income. I'm in the top 0.1% of the world. Why should you or I support communism if it means that you're gonna take away my comfy life and force me into a plebian one?
how do i into politics? i find conversations about various theories or whatever interesting but rarely do i understand what's being said
You can start out by reading philosophy.
Plato, Socrates, Diogenes, Aristotle, Cicero, Xenophon, Locke, Hobbes, Schopenhauer, Sorel(lol), Engels(LOL), Marx(LOLOL), Rand, Sartre, Heidegger and MAYBE Augustine depending on your ideological leanings.
This sounds autistic af, but I just read the news and think in my head about how I feel about certain issues and argue in my head playing devils advocate. It doesn't make me right, but I think it allows me to better express why I feel the way I do about certain things. I also like reading a lot of opinion articles, I think it's interesting how everyone sees the world.
And then when I don't understand certain things I just look at wikipedia. IDK, my answer is way more pleb than philosophy anon above me.
==WERE A MISTAKE==
==T. STALIN GANG==
Cultural marxism is an american conspiracy theory. The frankfurt school wasn't considered marxist by anyone except themselves, and the values that are supposedly oh-so-marxist in nature (like gender equality) have their roots in 1700s liberalism, a century before Marx.
>>10169>Perfect (Отлично), but please remember Stalin's system and the fact that you have to drive car similar to Zhiguli (Жигули) or Moskvich (Москвич) or if you get real lucky Volga (Волга)
What makes you assume a first world capitalist economy transitioning to a socialist model would be as poor as the USSR in such respects, which began as agrarian and devastated by multiple civil and world wars?
I agree there were problems with the USSR, but before WW2, most socialist movements were not typically Marxist-Leninist. In fact the Chinese statement about markets not necessarily being capitalist and planning not necessarily being Marxist is basically correct.
>Communism may prevail itself when we have reached the peak of Capitalism, where our production lines are so efficient that we don't even need human workers anymore and massive implemation of robots to every single kind of job there is
I agree to some extent, because capitalism requires competition and mechanized units that surpass humans have the potential to erase such competitiveness, but we can't just sit on our hands and wait for automation. I think a gradual expansion of collective ownership for things that become redundant is a better idea - intellectual property is already heading in this direction with the internet, being basically a state-granted monopoly given to creators that survives almost entirely by charity alone against piracy.
Communism has failed every single time it has been attempted but it doesn't keep brainwashed card carrying polsci majors from being smug asswaffles and parroting whatever their marxist professors tell them to think.
The only successful communes have been mostly religious in nature. Sometimes they work ok when there is a strong level of social capital among a small group. In all of these instances, it has succeeded when trust precedes ideals. As to why the USSR and China exerted so much effort on expelling and destroying successful communes and replacing it with their state religion garbage is beyond me.
Cultural marxism is very real. The long march through the institutions was a stunning success.
Communists are brilliant at organizing and even better at lying through their teeth to get their way. They mock and ridicule all that which does not conform to their fatal world view despite the fact they have never been able to build their platform up to this point in time. They are the ones who deserved to be mocked. Truly no level of arrogance will be able to cloak their failures.
>>24335>Unironically equating Soviet Marxism-Leninism with queer gender studies with Marxian influence at American universities
Read more, think more, and say less.
>>27334>>Unironically equating Soviet Marxism-Leninism with queer gender studies with Marxian influence at American universities
Gender studies are basically class warfare.
The liberation of women has been rendered down to a sexual equivalent of wage slavery.
Men at-large have been made into a convenient opponent while the rich white guys who are actually in charge benefit. Terribly reminiscent of Stalin terminating "revisionists" tbh
Look at the top of your head.
Only good thing about communism is all the funny infighting amongst leftists themselves for ideology stuff. Shoutout to the tankies for killing more leftcoms than the capitalists ever did lol
i'm russian and my parents are ex soviets so I don't like communism unlike american hipster teens
Before communism most Russians were uneducated peasants, my great-grandparents couldn't even read. Communism brought a lot of atrocities we should never forget and I'm glad a lot of ex-soviet countries have their independence now, but I'm also glad it brought modernization and education to my family.
other places got that without communism
By rich White guys do you mean (((White)))?
Simple and accurate. Sounds like my PoliSci 385 lecture.
>genuine, unironic communists ITT
Socalist and Communist policies benefit women the most, why wouldn't we?
Modern socialists whould be the first guys, who gets gulaged in USSR realies.
And some socialist policies are nice only in capitalist societies.
Would redneck / blue collar types be accepted or purged?
If by saying "Redneck" you mean people w/o job, then they whould be fined or gulaged till they got job.
Blue collar won't be purged, but since it's communism in USSR they whould get less monies than full-time factory workers.
And wages ain't main problem of communist soiceties. The main problem is that you don't have anything to buy for your wage. Living space is given by country, so a flat after working for some time or after marriage will be gifted for free. Groceries, at least in USSR wasn't a huge problem, and since your wage and food cost calculated by state, you definelly won't be starving even on lowest job you might have. So, every month you whould have some extra monies and have nothing to do with them. But to buy luxury goods, starting at private car, ending with atari 2600 copy you need to either know people, who whould sell it for your respect (if you're high in soicety ladder) or for bribe. If you just casually walk into store you whould and asks to buy something luxury, cashier whould say that they ran out of it. And when the goods were delivered to store it whould be sold in an hour if not in tens of minuts. For example, my dad, rided once a month at weekend 700km at railway to slaughterhouse just to buy some pork-contained salami.
>>29912>some socialist policies are nice only in capitalist societies.
God I hate the 'government doing things is socialism' meme. Its perpetuated by both the left and the right. By this standard Otto von Bismarck and Louis XIV were left-wing. Welfare programs and social services are not inherently socialist.
I don't understand how starving to death through incompetence or feigned incompetence benefits women.
You mistake economical left and right with polithical left and right.
Nazi germany for example was polithically right, but almost copy of ussr economically.
Nazi Germany was center-left on economics, they still had many private businesses. They were essentially social democrats without the democracy. They were nowhere close to the USSR.
What good is equality if everyone (with the exception of party higher ups, naturally) is equally as oppressed, poor and starving?
I'd rather take my chances in a first world country with pay inequality and glass ceilings than in Venezuela.
So while I appreciate the offer, kindly fuck off.
Also, this smells an awful lot of a raid from somewhere like /leftypol/ trying to plant it's seeds in different communities, old habits die hard, right tavarich?
>>20720>the idea that the "individual" is the historical subject, i.e. the most primary unit of any society.
But that idea isn't shared by American leftists at all, for whom the primary unit of analysis is race, followed by other groups such as gender identity and sexual identity. The very idea of racial discrimination (affirmative action) requires a kind of thinking that ignores the individual in favour of constructed groups (contrary to classic European socialism which seeks to directly reduce wealth inequalities and thus applies to the individual, which is why the American rightist insistence on referring to identity politics as Marxism seems so wrong). Many European countries do this too nowadays, but only for gender.
I looooove listening to my Commie classmates daydreaming about Communism
“I’d have a cabin in the mountains and I would write books of poetry, what would you do, Becky?”
“Stacy, I’d travel alllll over the world. How about you, Erin?”
“I’d have an artisanal cupcake shop! Joe?”
“I would be an oil painter and do sculpture. Frank?”
“I’d just live by the ocean and surf all day.”
Frank would end up mining coal, Joe working in a logging camp, Erin would be on a collective farm feeding and cleaning hogs, Becky would be in a battery factory, and Stacy would be in a sweatshop making uniforms for the People’s Army.
And if they complain too much, try to shirk, call in sick too often, etc. Commissar Tyrone (from South Central) and Commissar Beauregard (from the bayou) will gladly send their upper-middle-class asses to a re-education camp where they can do the sort of physical labor that cripples you by age 35 but with short rations, armed guards, and routine beatings.
Question for any leftists on this god forsaken board, are you reading any relevant books right now? I am currently listening to audiobook of Parentis Blackshirts and Reds. Talks about how fascists came to power with support of rich financiers, and then moves to achievements and criticisms of socialist countries, how they collapsed and subsequent privatizations of their economies. Overally really insightful book if you are interested in relationship between fascism and liberalism, and explanation why the fate of socialist countries was the way it was.
Sounds like something you have in common with your "definitely real" commie classmates is being a fantasist.
Please dont resurrect a year old flamewar. Lets keep this thread clean, just theory and memes, no shit flinging.
I hate communists. My grand-grandmother and grandmother both got sent to Siberia, likely raped too, our family house was taken away, my neighbor got sent to Siberia for not participating in elections, my friend's grandfather got shot in front of his family for trying to prevent communists from taking away the only cow the family had, my countries economy got ruined, culture partly destroyed, many people got tortured in KGB basements and executed. Stupidity is the root of evil and communists are stupid as hell.
It wasn't real communism, this time it will be different :)
My brother constantly memed about communists, joked about failed communist nations ect. but after going to fight in Syria/Iraq and having to rely on the PKK, he came home seeing it more as a natural response to certain hardships and generally corrupted by the very people it lifts out of poverty.
I'm in my thirties.
When communist Russia invaded they took anyone deemed wealthy or educated, put them in train cars meant for cattle and sent them to gulags or work camps in Siberia, because of the cold some people didn't make the trip, some women gave birth during the long train ride, guards took the babies and threw them out of a moving train. Women worked as lumberjacks in Siberia, in Soviet Union there were no women or men, only comrades, love or romance didn't exist, only materialism, not working wasn't an option, women had to do same jobs as men, to survive not because they were allowed to. Stealing became normalized, because everything belonged to everyone anyway. Shop-keeps became a higher caste because they had dibs on produced goods, they were special shops only for people close to the party. No one trusted their thoughts to anyone out of fear they might get snitched to KGB. Food deficit never ended throughout the existence of Soviet Union, Sausages from my country (Latvia) got sent to Moscow, people went to the neighboring country Lithuania to buy sausages, because they were better at protecting their food, they practiced welding train cars containing sausages to the tracks. Life in Soviet Union was unimaginable absurdity, but there were also those who benefited from it, like the invaders who moved in properties that got confiscated. As soldiers from communist army invaded, they witnessed prosperity never seen before, they defecated in closets and washed hands in toilets because they didn't knew what they are meant for.
Cmon, you didnt even try with this one.
Not sure why you call me a troll, guess you come from a parallel universe where communism works and isn't blatantly retarded by some magic.
Because I live in a post socialist country. I have no desire to deny or minimise Stalinist atrocities. But the only people that would try to convince someone that "romance didnt exist", or that Russians did know know a difference between a wardrobe and a toilet, are sheltered Americans who get their knowledge of other countries from watching Borat and then completely missing the point of the movie.
My grandmother had to give up her ancestral land to the government which then distributed it among farmers and she says it's a great thing that it happened.
You're right, romance can exist anywhere, without stuff like dresses, flowers, while hungry and weary about the future. But some russian soldiers did washed their hands in toilets, many of them came from regions without any modern sanitation and prisons, but that's not important, as long as we can agree that communism caused deaths of millions of communists.
>communist countries have been at the forefront of social progress
Had he lived to see the rise of tranny bullshit, Engels would have recognized their sex denialism as the oppressive, woman-hating ideology that it is.