Communism is stupid!

This belongs on the /pol/

Wrong board.

Karl Marx is clearly a black man

If communism was tried once and failed, it would be a good argument
If communism was tried twice and failed, it would be a good argument
But when it’s been tried 50 times and each time it fails in the exact same way and people have been having these little revolutions for over a hundred years now that always end in violence and bloodshed against innocent people always always always, it is no longer a good argument. It’s basically saying “I define my system as something that’s always perfect and always works, so if it fails it’s not my system.”
“That wasn’t real communism” is the equivalent of the emperor saying to the child in the crowd “oh, these aren’t REALLY my new clothes, my new clothes are perfectly beautiful clothes that are invisible to those unfit for their jobs. I’m just not wearing them right now”
It’s a lame attempt to save face for the horrors of the 20th century

Attached: E0FB637C-9007-4D59-B50E-8B207690531F.jpg (490x640, 109K)

I think the biggest argument against Marxist ideals is that your biggest contemporary Marxists, like Butterfly, have not even read him.

They simply associate with neoMarxism because they have chosen to be gay or are poor and black.

Although the latter is not a choice, if you really think anyone intelligent is choosing class warfare over existing peacefully within society then you have got some growing up to do. Many poor blacks support neo Marxism in their brainwashed liberal haze because of this very principle

:3

Communism won’t work without full agi and advanced automation

Wtf if a neo Marxist lol, didn’t Peterson get btfo for saying that.

Someone has been watching too much Better Call Saul season 4 hahaha

What's neoMarxism?

...

my trip was banned for racism, but i never posted anything racist lmao
Mods are fags

This argument fails millions of times and still you think it is worth using, what gives?

fags like you think that when there's a socialist or communist revolution it doesn't count as one of the times capitalism failed

HI BOOMER. I'M TYPING IN CAPS SO YOU CAN HEAR ME.

Dutch is close enough to German to easily grasp his Begriffe

That wasn’t real christianity, real christianity has never been tried

The economic system doesn't matter as much as the people in charge of overseeing and directing it.
Communism seems to attract very godless, scrupulous, immoral and selfish people for some reason, so even if it were a viable system it has never historically worked (and for this reason it will never work in the future).

Capitalism is more of a mixed-bag, you get some good, some bad, and it's more ideologically open than communism, so you get more variety of overlords. Also it allows people some space for economic manipulation and movement so they can modify their position without state/gov interference.

Communism makes everyone dependent on the state and if the state is controlled by godless immoralists then you're in tough shit.

>inb4 but stateless utopia mode
>inb4 but the proles will control
>inb4 ideal communism has never been tried!

>That wasn’t real christianity, real christianity has never been tried
Orthodox Christianity has been alive and well for 2000+ years and continues to be stable. It even survived marxist subversion in many eastern europe countries and russia.
Mount Athos is very pure.

Communism has nothing like this, all it's expressions implode and decay within 50 years or so.

Attached: oh my.jpg (540x720, 25K)

>the Orthodox Church goes back 2000 years
????

Orthodox and Catholics had the same origin with St. Paul. The Church split around 1045AD into Roman West and Orthodox East.

St Peter*

Your posts are an insult against the human race; that might be why.

I heard Marx personally killed a trillion people’s because communismsm

lol

No, read him in german. His theory sounds great on paper, but it will never work in the real world.

No I live on a country plagued by the afthermath of communism.

Do people really take this argument seriously? Its arbitrary the same way arguing that capitalism also killed millions. Statistical analysis of the number of deaths that perceived to be caused my some system is really intellectually lazy. Where do you draw the line where something is statistically good or bad?

Yes, people take the deaths of a hundred million people in the name of an ideology still pushed today seriously.

It was more like a billion, no? Communism can’t change as times progress? Have fun in your capitalist hellscape getting cucked by the rich that actually make your life worse

Should I support Marx if my employer is skimming money off the top of my pay? I'm tempted to.

Based
>B-but muh capitalism!!
Not an argument

>Lots of people die from communism
>Lots of people die from capitalism
>But capitalism is better and is still around
Are you dense? Or are you a conserv-a-cuck white boi?
>inb4 left snowflake
Actually i think the left is disgusting as well.

>B-but muh capitalism
>Not an argument

Not an argument

Well yea when it comes in power with a enforcement form another country. Then in the fist few weeks it kills 25k of it's own people without even a sham trail, just because they where rich or educated. Then in the following years it kills extra 150k people and puts even more in camps to be tourchered.
This in a country of 7-8mil. Where there was never a porblem of class inequality.
Yea fuck communist niggers who don't understand what happens when that take power.

Okay, can you stop making things so complicated so you can posture your own ideological leanings up? Literally look at the world today and ask yourself if this is ideal. But Im gonna take a shot in the dark and say that your either going to say the world is so much bettet now than if it would be with communism, or how tge world today is spectular and that those commie faggots are getting in the way of progess.

The failure to implement "true communism" despite the many attempts with different degrees of power should in itself be a sign that the system in itself may be unfeasible to begin with.

Fuck your quads. That wasn't real capitalism anyway.

well the GDP of my country 10x in 30years after communism(even tho it was plagued by rampart corruption), do i like the coportocray that america enforces, No i dont, but communism is not the solution its cancer.

Jesus Christ, the NA timeslot threads on Marxism read like /r/JordanPeterson.

>talking in terms of GDP
Lol this is exactly whats wrong. Do you really thinking increasing GDP is a good indicator that things are going in the right direction? Oh youre country can produce more televisions, cars, and air conditioning units? That sure is solving the problem. Infinite production and expansion! Amirite?

Also, i never said communism is the solution. All I did was point out how stupid your argument is. What I will say is that the materialist dogma is cancerous.

It's a indicator to show that the industry has improved.
There are even commi(secret at the time of course) stats that say 60%of my country men where leaving under the poverty line during communism.
But you just don't take any arguments against it, told you it's a mindless killing regime, you ingnor it and tell me yea whatever. Now I tell you that the economy better, you don't like it as well.
Tell me what you like about it so I can tell you the reality.

Catalonia 1936-1937 was a pretty good success.
Also, Israeli Kibboutz did pretty well.

In reality you cannot switch to full communism everywhere until Capitalism has become the everything of the world. It's due to the fact that Capitalism is by far the mode of production which enhance productivity the most.
Having high levels of productivity always attract people. Having nice stuff, material comfort. Even if they are wageslaves.
Until a point were people will likely trade a little material comfort with more time and less stress.

Today what's the point of having material comfort if you are slaving your life away?

Productivity already increase to a point were the average westerner don't even have to work in order to live (welfare). 150 years ago it was impossible, except if you were a beggar. This is not due to the fact that countries today, are "nicer" than before, but it's due to the fact that productivity is so high that even for people on welfare, food is so cheap that they can live on it (due to productivity increase).

>Marx wrote that communism by definition only arises after the collapse of the state. even the USSR called itself a socialist state
>uhhh sweaty I've watched the news enough to know what communism means and it means dictators that don't sell us stuff

No, I'm German.

Communism in the 21st century is a totally inexcusable ideology. It simply can't be done without a totalitarian regime. Any communists in this day and age are either fools or desire to be tyrants themselves.

Attached: Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn_1974crop.jpg (250x313, 16K)

I used to hate communism, but then I saw the Communism vs. Capitalism debate and was amazed at how weak the arguments against Commuism are. "Marx said the proletariat were good and the bourgeoisie were evil!" Really?

I can only imagine the tabs you had open while you typed that, I’m guessing Ben Shapiro, some blacked raw, maybe a little Jordan Peterson

Paul
m.youtube.com/channel/UCVBfIU1_zO-P_R9keEGdDHQ
Richard
m.youtube.com/user/democracyatwrk

They’re about as close to Marxist as I get. i am not a Marxist. Stop being such a bubba and calling anyone left of Tucker Carlson a commie. Please.

>Lots of people die from capitalism
Citation needed.

I'll be entirely honest in saying I've never read any communist literature, but from what I understand they generally want to deconcentrate wealth from the higher levels of society and distribute it evenly among everyone, in addition to the state control production and distribution of material goods.
Now, they seem to be fond of the "proletariat" which to me seems to be "poor" people. At the same time, they (at least Lenin and his ilk) installed themselves as overseers to these people, in effect removing the old ruling class and putting themselves in charge. That's fine and all, pretty typical, but why are they so concerned with the lowest and dumbest classes of society? These people (among which I am) do not deserve anything and should not be in any positions of power. It doesn't make sense to me to give power (much like democracy) to people who are too retarded to leave their low class. Now, the immediate charge might be that a proletariat revolution *would* be a way of leaving their class. But in fact all it does is removes the upper echelons while the lower ones remain retarded. What am I missing

how about you go and read some then you colossal fucking retard

Not interested in Jewish drivel, just trying to understand since its so pervasive among people my age

Marxism is about abolition of: money, the State, exchange value, delegation of power.

Utterly based.

Communism is stupid because even if you get worker's controls of the means of production, that won't mean the disappearance of social stratification, because as Robert Michels convincingly demonstrated, the development of oligarchy is inevitable even in the most democratic institutions.

And even if by some miracle you end social stratification and defeat the iron law of oligarchy, it won't mean the disappearance of conflict either, Marx believed so because he read too much Rousseau and Lewis Morgan and believed in idyllic primitive communism, which was supposedly destroyed by the development of class society during the Neolithic. Now we know that stuff Marx associated with the alienation brought by class society, such as violence and religion, actually anticipated the development of agriculture and social stratification, so there is no reason to believe it wouldn't survive the abolition of class society too.

And without these foundations that give communism its veneer of soteriological teleology, why do we have? A descentralizing sociopolitical system where power is scattered across multiple instances of sovereignty, the basic ingredient for a bloody civil war that would extend until a single worker's council manages to establish its domination over all the others (which is exactly what happened in Russia with the Petrograd Soviet).

>13 million slaves sold to new world
>10 million dead in the congo under king leopold
>35 million dead in india under british rule
>half a million dead due to war on terror
We could also get more specific on capitalist influence on other wars such as WW2, but they may be more of a reach. It should be clear that both systems have led to the death of millions of people; but this in and of itself is not an argument against the system, as many deaths on both sides were due to famine, economic restructuring, and war.

>just trying to understand
>but i wont read it because it's jewish
You understand that ever major economic system in the modern age has been contributed to by jewish people? Why are you so scared of reading theory? Are your beliefs that easily shaken?

Communism killed more in less time, so while one can't argue about capitalism being the best system or even a very good one for that, you have to agree that communism does work even less.

*at that
At least in its current form

It's difficult to calculate the exact numbers; I don't think your claim is necessarily correct. Why even mention the deaths as a form of argument? There are plenty other ways communism failed that stand up to further scrutiny. I don't think the "communism has killed millions" argument really holds up.

>Non-whites
Who cares, lol.

Communism actually genocided white people...

You forgot to mention the Paris commune

This is the only real argument in this whole thread. Good job Sir

Attached: cooper.jpg (500x375, 41K)

>yea brothers communism will save us all for poverty and sickness
>proceeds to kill millions of said brother for no reason
yea not a great argument, sure

this.
People should read pic related

Attached: miroir_de_la_production.jpg (410x640, 24K)

yes

Attached: ideology.jpg (2198x1342, 872K)

Why does everyone talk about the 'failures of communism' (and ignore the more successful, less intense socialism of western europe, but I digress), but never about the failures of capitalism? Massive inequality, general injustice, human rights and environmentalism set aside for profits

additionally, why do poor/midclass people vigorously defend rich people/corporations from being taxed like crazy. make no sense

Attached: based_and_redpilled.jpg (360x360, 7K)

No country so far has been communist by definition you absolute buffoon.
As for Vuvuzela: it's social democratic, and the reason for its downfall was tarrifs, embargos, other forms of foreign attacks and overreliance on oil.
As for Cuba: Cuba is actually doing pretty fucking amazing, even more so when taking into account the foreign attacks it has faced since basically when Castro came into power.

But you probably think a terrible effect is Cuba not having those things which need itself is manufactered by capitalism (like the lack of fancy cars you libs tends to wank over).

I still don't get the Zizek to Peterson meme, is it a play on the first as tragedy then as farce thing applied to meme thinkers?

>He believes the black book of communism is correct despite even the writers calling it statistical fuckery.
>What is historical analysis? What is geopolitical analysis?
You would've defended feudalism before the bourgeoisie became the dominant class, you ingrate.

everyone desires to be a tyrant
if you don't, you're likely a christbrained cuck

I want something that isnt inundated with materialist dogma, but I already know thats impossoble. Im a pessimist in that regard. We are in a downhill spiral and there's no going back.

Stop talking through terms of economics. Sure your countrys economy has probably grown a lot, and your standard of living is better. But that's not the point. Capitalism is a system that exists out of the delusion it feeds you: that you lack something and need to consume something. Have you ever walked into a Walmart and looked at all the useless junk? You ever think about how much of this junk is mass produced everyday? And how much of this useless junk is thrown away? Capitalism inherently alienates people from experiencing the richness of life. And its funny how you speak of reality, kinda reminds of 'FACTS and LOGIC'.

Can you tell me that increasing the standard of living at the expense of soneone else or the enviornment is wel worth it?

But, its hopeless. You believe capitalism is good merely because your economy went up or sumtin. cause i guess thats what life is all about. Money. Lets say youre a drug addict looking for the your next fix, and i come along and tell you that I can give you the cleanest stuff and will help you administer in the safest manner. All you have to do is suck my dick everyday. Thats essentially what capitalism is doing.

Good.

Cuba is doing well despite the US doing its utmost to destroy it. Vietnam too.

>Cuba
>Wage labor, a State, delegation of power, money, exchange value.
>Communist.
If it you get a dopamine rush from this, keep at it.

Well the thread is fine but the problem is that people are talking about communism vs capitalism (with most of them not referencing texts but just offering opinions). The thread should be about the writings of Marx compared to their translations.

No one has read Marx, and you want to discuss with people who have read Marx both in translation and in german?

How is that attributed to the right of private ownership of the means of production?

It's not, that's the entire point of the argument. That's the conception of capitalism, not what has been done in practice. A communist could just as easily say "how is that attributed to the public ownership of the means of production"

>the most corrupt church on the face of the planet is stable and prosperous
gee, I wonder why
Guess you've never talked to an eastern european orthodox christian in your life. Go ahead and larp some more.

Since when is public ownership of the means of production Marxist?
Get your fact straight please.

I guess I wasn't clear: I am not interested in the economic theory in itself. Economics is pretty boring and I'm of the belief that no system is perfect and that anything can work well enough. That being said, I am interested its political and social prominence, especially among middle-class urbanites.
And yeah, I know. Jews have a hand in most econ theory.

What the fuck are you talking about? Lol

>Communism is stupid!

>Let me guess, you're a cuck, an American, or both?

Fixed it for you, OP.

>complaining about 30% payroll/sales taxes
>meanwhile rent, mortgage, food, water, insurance, utilities, and healthcare expenses are getting pocketed by for profit corporations

this is kind of like how right wingers are so convinced they're the most oppressed and attacked demographic of all huh. propaganda is one hell of a drug. how do we resurrect mao and lenin??

>Let me guess, you read this guy in american?
fixed it for you

I'm talking about Karl Marx critique of political economy.
What are you talking about, the society of the spectacle?

>Since when is public ownership of the means of production Marxist?
I'm beginning to think you've never read Marx. Even his most entry level text advocates the abolition of private property in favor of public ownership. "The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." Besides, this conversation is about communism, not just marxist thought.

No, I just paid attention in Econ 101.

>Catalonia 1936-1937 was a pretty good success.
haha

Attached: orwellhc.jpg (164x266, 9K)

Abolition of private property doesn't mean the State should own the property of the means of production.
Marx, in the Critique of the Gotha program (1875), is anti-Statist. How then can he be in favor of public ownership, since public ownership means there is a State?
The workers should own the means of production; Not the fucking State. That's a hell of a difference.
In USSR, did the workers owned the means of production where they worked? Not at all. It was the Bolshevik State who owned the means of production.

You're autistic.
public: "of or concerning the people as a whole."
If I had wanted to say "state owned" I would have said "state owned."
>In USSR, did the workers owned the means of production where they worked? Not at all. It was the Bolshevik State who owned the means of production.
How does this contradict anything I've said so far? That's literally the argument I was making earlier- that just because you say capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production, does not mean that any system which claims to be capitalistic follows those principles, the same for communism.

>thinking an intro Econ course that blatantly caters to capitalist dogma utilizes you with knowledge to dismiss communism.
Wew.

Yeah well that's just like your opinion, man.

Your argument is self defeating. What's real Capitalism then?

I strictly argue against communism not for capitalism per say, just use it to show that even thing you hate right now are better that the communist system.
O to adhere materialism and ideology focused no it.

Fuck phone posting, I mean quite the opposite of adhear

Literally both have done so much better. Boomers are fucking idiots

Reminder to pay attention in micro AND macro.
You don't get communism but you definitely don't get conservatism