Was anyone else duped by people like JP that Marxism and Communism implies an "equality of outcome"...

if it was so good it shouldn't have collapsed

Are there any noteworthy contempory marxists other than David Harvey? What the hell do people even mean when they mention "marxists".

>bro capitalism holds itself up!
>also capitalism, prints 6 trillion in the US and 2 trillion in europe
>Keynesian economics on drugs everywhere
yeh pure capitalism holds itself up all right.

>David Harvey
barely a marxist

Richard D. Wolff, Jacobin Mag writters, Fredric Jameson, Alain Badiou, literal retards on the internet

Zizek is just a normie globalist, soc dem berniebro at best

Attached: 1555777245726.png (805x647, 891K)

wtf are you talking about?

>What the hell do people even mean when they mention "marxists".
often they just mean jews. but saying marxists makes it seem acceptable. It has to be a dog whistle because marxists dont even know who they're talking about. or the right is making up enemies to seem under attack

>comparing planned and free maket economies by thier nominal GDP
Yep, this guy is retarded. Not to mention that said planned economy's crisis caused huge socio-economic collapse that lasted from 1991 to 2001 and it's consequences last to this day.

The 1920s Soviet Union was based af.
Deal with it.

Attached: IMG_0647.jpg (356x521, 22K)

>fails to note that Mondragon was founded by catholic distributists who have a completely different conception of man than marxists do

In what way is Catholicism indivisible from their model?

You said the USSR was so good it shouldn't have collasped. So i showed how capitalism routinely gets close to collapse. How hard was that to understand? Hell even mainstream economists use the point I just made

no I'm not low IQ or non white enough to ever be duped by a self help salesman

Solid argument. Spoken like a true neet neckbeard. Oh, it's like clockwork
Look at them now

The USSR stopped existing in 1991. It switched to a free market. The free market caused the collapse.

>Oh, it's like clockwork
>says "its not real communism" mockingly
>calls others like clockwork
Why do facebook posters come here. you're probably a boomer as well. Dont worry we'll work for your shitty pension untill we die

>Still no argument
Retarded faggot spews more nonsense. Keep seething sperg

Why would I ever choose communism over national socialism?

Peterson “””vs””” zizek was hilarious
>Peterson reading the communist manifesto (his first and only source on communism) for the first time since he was a pseudo intellectual 18 year old
>completely unable to make sense of it
>concludes with neoliberal stats poached straight from Peven Stinker’s twitter feed
Ouch!

NS isn't a real economic system, they put a literal centrist Liberal in charge of the economy and rolled with normie vanilla capitalism.

The USSR literally collapsed. It went financially, socially and morally bankrupt. But of course it had nothing to do with the planned sconomy, right?

>Retarded
>sperg
>faggot
>spews
>seething
You can use words that aren't buzzwords here. we can't upvote or like your posts.

Attached: 1555736488659.png (472x628, 320K)

Because commies beat the shit out of them?

People doubting how badly Shock Therapy in post-USSR went as if the population didn't literally try vote to return to Communism in 1996, leading to Clinton and the oligarchs fixing the election for Yeltsin

marxism think people are constituted by their economical position in the materialist production societal model, catholics believe man is a fallen being and possesses an immortal soul granted by god

distributists believe the central building block of society should be the family in accordance to God's law. Marxists literally wrote The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State

what does that have to do with the USSR? the USSR wasn't capitalist

zerg rushed them

why did they execute the royal family

But how does that have any weight on the economic system in place, it's just a bunch of nonsense.

are you lowkey retarded?

Lol
This

Based Christmas Lenin.

Attached: IMG_0648.jpg (800x782, 149K)

That's just the metaphysical background, I'm asking why couldn't the practical model be transposed onto a secular company. You haven't answered the question.

btw can an atheist, protestant or a muslim be hired by Mondragon or is there discrimination in place?

Your local tranny at the community college

>fails every time
It worked wonders in USSR, China
>f-fake communism
That's what capitalists say when it comes to China

But I don't get it. In social democratic societies you already have equality of outcome.

I'm poor and live with my single mom on welfare and I'm finishing law school in a year. I don't see how the most upper class here would have a better chance? Sure they would live more comfortably but in the end we would both be lawyers in the same timeframe if we both did the same work for it.

Accessible education (doesn't even have to be free) eradicates all inequality of outcome between classes.

>Accessible education (doesn't even have to be free) eradicates all inequality of outcome between classes.
I'd say it ensures equality of opportunity. in society with unequal education, they lack this sort of equality

Communists have a million different ideas on what communism, and even capitalism mean.

Wanting to protect people's income is fascist though, which is why the USSR lost all its revolutionary potential.

>I'm a STEMcel
Then you have nothing to worry about. Marx and communist theories are for NEETs who refuse to better themselves

How do i delete these threads about Peterson and Zizek? Is there an app?

1914* you probably read the thread in which i was arguing this with like 5 other people

>Richard "co-ops are socialism" Wolff
>Jacobin
>marxist

>In social democratic societies you already have equality of outcome.

Attached: smooth brain.jpg (588x823, 39K)

nice argument

>in society with unequal education, they lack this sort of equality
right, but I'm saying that you don't need to go full Marxist to achieve equality of opportunity, so what is the point of trying to go all the way to the left when slightly left of center gives lefties the same preferred results.

I don't entirely hate the idea of turning Notre-Dame in to a Protoss temple but I can't help but feel that this suggestion is made only cause no one can be fucked to do the stonework required to restore it.

Simply report them for being offtopic, and then kill yourself for being a whiny tattletale

>asserted without evidence
>nice argument

Attached: 1554826928442.png (798x490, 78K)

Marxist theory (Communism through a centralized phase of Socialism) aside,
note that Communism doesn't even have money anymore.
Any discussion on what Communism would mean (e.g. with regards to "equality of outcome") should reflect on that first.

Dude I'm living in one now and personally experiencing equality of opportunity. The only people left behind here and the extreme cases of very low IQ or extreme laziness/bad choices. And even then they could just live off welfare until they die.

I'm not saying a social democracy is utopia, I'm just saying you don't need to aim far-left if equality of opportunity is what you wanted.

Social democracy/equality of 'outcome' doesn't solve the problem of cyclical crises, imperialist competiton, and the law of the tendency of the rage of profit to fall. Also, class isn't determined by income but your relation to the production process. You might seem equal to the ruling class but they stiill exist, and still wield much power in the state apparatus, which they will use to slowly undo social democracy, an ingoing process in my country.

If you have access to the internet and free time to shitpost wojaks you only have to blame yourself for not achieving anything.
The internet is the greatest equalizer, you have access to more information than the wealthiest person on earth 50 years ago. If you get to the point where you complain about life in a 1st world country, its entirely your fault. you are either extremely dumb or lazy

Because a secular model is only able to recognize material benefits. A religious model can supplement a lack of material growth with spiritual growth and other vague things that the people in a secular model have been brainwashed into seeing as a con. The secular model by definition has to continually grow it's material wealth to be seen as successful (feeding into the capitalist machine), while the religious one doesn't.

>asserted without evidence
>durr search engines exist bro just look it up
ok this is getting good now

Attached: DURRR.jpg (645x729, 57K)

eventually you will realize some people just cant be helped
keep posting wojaks until then

This is impossible to achieve post-industrial revolution. The cultural shift towards wage-labour and being a cog as long as you get paid enough to survive (an easy way out of hardship, also a trap who would have thought) has already happened and became a core part of society.

To reverse that cultural revolution you need a massive catastrophe to end that system because any natural step away from it will seem like a net-negative.

post-CME global communism when?

>GDP
>prints own money
>sets all wages
>sets all prices
>wow look at this volume of nominal cash transfers, these guys must be rich

what's up with idiots online making false claims and then, when someone asks for evidence, they call you retarded and tell you to look it up?
people can't evidence for something that literally doesn't exist.

>complain about life in a 1st world country
who was doing that? what are you talking about?
>you are either extremely dumb or lazy
literally look in a mirror

>durrr i refuse to find evidence for my claims i refuse it exists i know it exists but i refuse
every Yea Forums argument of all time

Attached: 1551790863158.gif (511x512, 139K)

I don't advocate Communism.

(I advocate a money-less civic-virture based stratified confederation alla Star Trek, but based on that story it needs a WW3 and a replicator.)

Attached: feehigh.jpg (1080x1080, 118K)

>Also, class isn't determined by income but your relation to the production process.

That is a good point. I never thought of it like that. Even if I made 150k a year my employer and my government wields massive power over me which they will use if I step out of line (in their opinion).

Good points, do you have some Yea Forums to recommend (besides the Manifesto)?

>who was doing that? what are you talking about?
People in this thread screeching autistically about inequalities

If people like you spent just 10% the time you take to screech online to learn a skill and better yourself you would have less problems in life

Based and obscurepilled

Ok then what does abolishing classes distinctions mean and how do you achieve it?

Don't be some vague sophist faggot, go into actual specifics

>If you get to the point where you complain about life in a 1st world country, its entirely your fault.
>People in this thread screeching autistically about inequalities
Oh so you admit it's a strawman nice. Predictable you just ignored the rest

Attached: ciswvapa58s21.png (640x360, 344K)

>WAHH LEARN SOME SKILLS BRO I WONT WIPE UR ASS FOR YOU PROVIDING EVIDENCE FOR A CLAIM I MADE

Attached: 1554863405044.png (757x615, 184K)

If you wanna start extremely basic, Introduction to Marxism by Emile Burns is a decent intro to the main bits of Marxism - dialectical materalist philosophy and Marxian political economy, while also making a few points both for and against the USSR its quite old now lol

If you wanna go staright to Marx, try Wage Labour and Capital and Value, Price, and Profit are short and good for economic stuff

If you want a short but in depth intro to socialist history/praxis, try The Civil War in France, where Marx talks about the Paris Commune, though a lil bit of background knowledge would help

Oh and also State and Revolution by Lenin for Marxist theory of the state, gl user

Thanks, I'll check them out

>serious post imploring me to read critically
What no bring back the larping marxists this isnt fun

Attached: maxresdefault (1).jpg (1280x720, 92K)

I'll link this short essay by Lenin where he explicitly rejects 'equality of outcome' for anyone in the thread who's unaware of it, might come in handy.

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

Fun screeching time is over Tovarisch, get reading

Attached: joey steelman.png (624x624, 511K)

> A religious model can supplement a lack of material growth with spiritual growth
In what ways does the company do that?

>The secular model by definition has to continually grow it's material wealth to be seen as successful (feeding into the capitalist machine), while the religious one doesn't.
Even the religious model has to, otherwise it will get steamrolled by competition.

Not even the idea that they should get different wages (to each according to their needs) is theoretically substantiated by most capitalist kids attacking Marxism. That's pretty much why I will larp that idea when somebody argues with me to see if they can actually substantiate it.

Based Stalinposter

Attached: xm3ymhq5wpq21.jpg (590x590, 47K)

>b-but you see it does work, look at China
I love how you creatures now latch on to a hyper capitalist economy with literally the worst working conditions imaginable and use it to prove how well communism works. Really gets the sparrows flocking.

Friendly reminder /leftypol/tards are diaperfags, furries, and trannies, and would be the first to go to the uranium mines in USSR.

>Fastest rise in living standards in human history
>responsible for 71% of global poverty reduction since the 80s
>huge swaths of the industrial core of the economy nationalized/planned, including energy, banking, airlines, telecommunications, oil, television, tech, media, agriculture
>mandatory board representation for CCP officials in 'private' companies and heavy regulation
>unaffected by the global financial crisis

but they allowed markets in a necessary compromise with the neoliberal global order to develop their country out of poverty, thus instantly transforming into a capitalist economy so neolibs can take credit for everything they do except when it suits bourgeois economists to call them socialist when people point out bad things at which point they magically transform back into the USSR

meh

>Chinese socialism is now hyper capitalism
Epic bro
We aren’t talking about present day China nigger

Go to bed Nick

wtf I hate communism now

>I love how you creatures now latch on to a hyper capitalist economy
Confirmed for not knowing shit about China's economy + being ultraleft.

Attached: deng.jpg (460x438, 59K)

I've read Marx, and while he never specifically says "Everyone will earn the same income", he does implicate that those who have more are bad, and that those who have less should over thrown and kill those with more, and then the previous lowest class will become the only class and that from there (and this is where he is extremely vague) things will become great, essentially implying everyone will be equal.

It's just not possible. There have been multiple studies that show first born children are wildly more successful than than their younger siblings. This is probably because they benefit from the undivided attention of their parents. If children of the same parents growing up in the same house aren't equal, why the hell should we expect to see it in greater society?

Retarded college professors and prole children who get into schools on diversity quotas are to blame for this; they repeat century-old agitprop as fact, and who are you to tell them any different? you're just a white male.

That is only if "more" of what they have is the means of production.

> The USSR stopped existing in 1991
For YOU and everyone outside of former ussr republics, it's no more a threat and not in the headlines of news paper articles, but it still exists in people's brains, and obsolete soviet infrastructure is still halfass working. Collapse of USSR is long playing event, same with any other big event, like WW2 was caused by WW1.

so you're saying nazis, in all their military aryan genius, got beat by the most braindead military operation of all time?

>I've read Marx
No, you've only read the communist manifesto obviously, because dialectical materialism does not bother itself with morality, good or bad, AT ALL.