/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14318615]

Does the fact that humans are unequal invalidate Marxism?
Books on this?

[Anonymous No.14318666]

Marx didn't think people were equal
>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

[Anonymous No.14318675]

No. Read a single word of marx beyond the communist manifesto.

[Anonymous No.14318684]

These shitty marx bait threads are getting real old. Is this some autistic attempt to get people to actually read marx or something?

[Anonymous No.14318791]

>>14318684
i'm trying to read marx and it makes me mad that he claims history is simply the evolution of modes of production and their relations rather than a battle of ideas

[Anonymous No.14318818]

Marx:
we need more female CEOs

also Marx:
CEOs are bad


umm, libtards?

[Anonymous No.14318831]

>triggers cuckservatives, libtards, christcucks, braindead ideologues (fashies), hacky new age spiritualists, neolibs, CSbugs, econcels, and libertardians simultaneously
How can one man be so based?

[Anonymous No.14318835]

>>14318831
Culture destroyer, nothing more nothing less.

[Anonymous No.14318838]

>>14318791
Ideas don't come out of thin air, anon.

[Anonymous No.14318840]

>Does the fact that humans are unequal invalidate Marxism?
Nope. In fact, Marx & co called for the mass genocide of subhuman fascists.

[Anonymous No.14318867]

>>14318831
don't forget niggers and jews

[Anonymous No.14318881]

>>14318615
I think the communist manifesto addresses exactly that like in the first few lines.

[Anonymous No.14318903]

>>14318840
How can you genocide "fascists"? Regardless of the inconsistency of your bait what is the real purpose of Marx beyond adding to his racial kin's culture of critique? If the end goal of Marxism is critique then doesn't this simply get stuck in a feed back loop of endless critique and then you get things like Critical Theory leads to suicide? For me, it seems like the whole structure isn't worth wasting your life on.

[Anonymous No.14318926]

For fuck's sake cant you idiots at least read one or two books by this guy before shitposting. The German Ideology is like 150 pages, the manifesto is even less. They're not complex, you could listen to an audiobook of one of them entirely in a single walk, and understand it all. Fucking lazy idiots.

[Anonymous No.14318934]

>>14318791
Well Marx was a propagandist first and foremost who's objective was to rally the European proletariat to destroy Europe and replace it with a highly material based "culture" based on the culture of critique, so it wasn't like his historical analysis is based on anything more than this outcome. Regardless, you are already too well read to be held sway by him. His works were designed for illiterate serfs to get indoctrinated under so they could later be used in the death squads we saw under the Bolsheviks. There's not much more to add regarding Marx in this regard.

[Anonymous No.14318943]

>>14318903
>How can you genocide "fascists"?
See 1917 and 1945. We killed every fascist we could find and raped their women in front of their children before slitting their throats. Best years of my life.
>If the end goal of Marxism is critique
Just replace Marx with Galileo and you are echoing the cucklick church. How dare you question our authority through verifiable materialist analysis of history and literally 1000+ pages of calculations in vol 2?

[Anonymous No.14318969]

>>14318615
why yes. Marx was a manlet so everything he wrote was literal seething cope

[Anonymous No.14318984]

>>14318969
this

[Anonymous No.14318998]

>>14318943
Well you didn't participate in any of that edge master and undoubtedly you have never actually killed anyone outside of your delusional dreaming. More than likely you have never even gotten into a fight. Your "authority", assuming this isn't pure banter which it reads like it is and I'm bringing sinking under the waves from bait, is a rather weak analysis(because material analysis is objectively too stream lined to understand the scope of human history) that was designed and marketed to illiterate serfs/peasants with a faulty "avant-garde" who thought they'd share in the spoils of destroying culture. Most of those "avant-garde" were of course taken in turn and shot following the end of the formal Revolution. Then we got the long winded death dance until about the 50's when Stalin died and the system limped on for a few more decades before falling apart and scattering to the winds. It is not, funnily enough, trying to be revived by a hyper-socialized, ultra conditioned generation of 20-30 year olds - most of whom have never participated remotely in violence and continual assure us that, indeed, they will round up all non-Reds and put bullets in us or deport us back to the gulags. The reality is: contemporary Marxists will most likely die from minority activist groups long before they engage any "fascists". (White Russians were Fascists...? Of course, I am simply assuming you aren't baitposting).

[Anonymous No.14319002]

>>14318791
>battle of ideas
Kek. Yeah those rich nobles were totally in a battle of ideas when they made their peasants pay a grain tithe. If only the peasants could write some liberal treatise then the collectors would have stood down at the foot of Logic and Reason. I'm sure the rise of liberalism was because of debates and not a class of men who were becoming more and more powerful via mercantilism. God I love how dumb you guys are. Makes it so fun to browse this board.

[Anonymous No.14319010]

>>14318998
>material analysis is objectively too stream lined to understand the scope of human history
This is a Jordan Peterson quote. I didn't read past this

[Anonymous No.14319014]

>>14319010
You don't have too because we are in agreement that we will simply kill each other moment we ever identify one another outside of an anonymous forum.

[Anonymous No.14319016]

>>14319002
based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.14319021]

>>14318615
WHERES THE BOOK PATRICK!?

[Anonymous No.14319025]

>>14319002
>rich nobles were totally in a battle of ideas
Yes. And many of the peasants were as well. The Feudal Ages, in particularly, were not as streamlined as you are writing them out to be. There were regular "peasant" rebellions for example, and the "nobility" often fought one another and/or inherited wildly different "classes". For example, in Poland they had nobles who possessed absolutely no land, fiefs, or even had servants. Materialist analysis in history is about as empty as your projecting statements.

[Anonymous No.14319030]

>>14319014
Lol why would I want to kill you? Are you an internationalist capitalist aristocrat or acting as a footsoldier for one?

[Anonymous No.14319033]

>>14318615
in practice, the establishment of 'human equality' would amount to the grounding down of all humanity into a single shapeless mass of genderless, raceless and cultureless pink haired consumer sludge. Don't be fooled, leftists don't want a more even distribution of property or a more humane system, their prime motivation is slave morality, they actively relish victimhood and can't understand or create art. Their goal is PC totalitarianism

[Anonymous No.14319037]

>>14319030
>internationalist capitalist aristocrat
I don't see a difference between this statement and Communism. My views are somewhere between Pierce's "The Turner Diaries", "Hagakure", and "Meditations" by Aurelius.

[Anonymous No.14319056]

>>14319037
>My views are somewhere between Pierce's "The Turner Diaries
cringe

[Anonymous No.14319061]

>>14319030
leftists are mere pawns of the globalist neoliberal establishment. Look at all the multinational corporations cladding themselves in the rainbow and promoting diversity and identity politics. The truth is, All out no holds barred capital F Fascism is about the only thing that is able to get those pigs squealing anymore.

[Anonymous No.14319067]

>>14319061
so true. Look at all the multinational corporations promoting the reading of Marx's Capital and talking about labor theory of value and exploitation

[Anonymous No.14319068]

>>14318969
>>14318984
Imbeciles

[Anonymous No.14319079]

>>14319037
You don't see the difference between a former Lehman Brothers executive that stole 2 trillion dollars from the working man and coal mining modern day serfs that unionize in the hopes of getting proper masks provided to them so that they don't die of black lung?

[Anonymous No.14319081]

>>14319061
if you go read leftist material they seethe more about liberals than conservatives or fascists
they are the ultimate purveyors of capitalism

[Anonymous No.14319082]

>>14319056
I meant that solely in regards to a conceptualized revolutionary soldier mentality. I suppose the Marxists have a similar canon - there was that book called some thing like "The Revolutionary Catechism" by Sergey Nechayev for example. It's the same mental process. Combining this with some metaphysics in war and disassociation. I don't understand how you find this "cringe" - either you are going to kill millions of people, which you yourself must confess will be required of you, or you're going to lose.

[Anonymous No.14319097]

>>14319025
None of things you have said are contrary at all to historical materialism, or a class based analysis of history. Go read the German Ideology, and then 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. I'm sorry but you simply don't understand Marx's work or what he means by historical materialism.

[Anonymous No.14319099]

>>14319079
It's like suggesting human conditions change simply due to the titles they will wear. For example there was that disaster in the USSR known as "Lysenkoism", just to use a more famous example of the sheer insanity of Marxist thought when translated into action. I don't see the logic in wasting time on a failed system that ultimately must be won via mass violence. Contemporary Marxists, for one, simply do not possess this same spirit and secondly the world has moved onto different ideological wars to be fought.

[Anonymous No.14319108]

>>14319097
Yes, they directly contrasted with the notion of materialist ideology as the center point piece of all human endeavors and existence. Hell, even reading the "Hagakure" is enough for me to understand that materialist based analysis is incompatible with human existence. There is a reason, for example, the Bolshevik's had to commit actions like what happened in Katyn Forest.

[Anonymous No.14319119]

>>14319067
Current day marxists have merely substituted 'race' and 'gender' and lgbt faggotry for a proletariat that had long outlived its usefulness. They have merely replaced christ on the cross for a pink haired faggot and a rainbow flag. same old slave morality. The queer wont forgive my sins or grant me eternal life. so why don't we get together two planks of wood and a bucketful of nails and crucify that fucker for real?

[Anonymous No.14319126]

>>14319056
Point 13, for example, in Sergey's writings I think is particularly important here:
". The revolutionary enters the world of the State, of the privileged classes, of the so-called civilization, and he lives in this world only for the purpose of bringing about its speedy and total destruction. He is not a revolutionary if he has any sympathy for this world. He should not hesitate to destroy any position, any place, or any man in this world. He must hate everyone and everything in it with an equal hatred. All the worse for him if he has any relations with parents, friends, or lovers; he is no longer a revolutionary if he is swayed by these relationships."

I don't see any of this spirit reflected at all in modern Marxists. The Bolshevik's of the past probably would have already executed the majority of you for being "academics' anyways.

[Anonymous No.14319137]

>>14318666
Yeah, he just wanted all the lower quality people to leech off of others.

[Anonymous No.14319154]

>>14319137
Social mobility becomes Party line based and this usually involves scripted dialogues, presentations, and illusion of decision making. It's what stagnated many of the crucial periods of development and its inability to adapt to any sudden shift in situations (thus the great famines that were routine in Marxist experiments). Regardless, it's a dead horse and the people still kicking it aren't worth much effort. As a course, maybe in 10 years a few of them will get bold enough to try to shoot-up some conservative get together or something, but probably they will just be devoured by minority rights activists.

[Anonymous No.14319164]

>>14319082
Do you think that the goal of the French Revolution was to kill the inbred and incompetent aristocracy or to kill the cucked military conscripts?
>>14319099
This entire post is incoherent.
>It's like suggesting human conditions change simply due to the titles they will wear
The relationship to means of production change human conditions, and these titles signify their relationship to the means of production.
>For example there was that disaster in the USSR known as "Lysenkoism", just to use a more famous example of the sheer insanity of Marxist thought when translated into action.
Huh? Lysenko's vernalization practices yielded marginally greater food production on the farms, and he was quickly accepted as the hero of Soviet agriculture.
>I don't see the logic in wasting time on a failed system that ultimately must be won via mass violence
Marxism is not communism lmao.

[Anonymous No.14319190]

>>14319137
Unlike capitalism amiright

[Anonymous No.14319194]

>>14319164
>Do you think that the goal of the French Revolution was to kill the inbred and incompetent aristocracy or to kill the cucked military conscripts?

The goal was to destroy the prior society by any means necessary which means killing lots of people. The difference between your parallel and contemporary times is the scale of things, Russia in the early 20th century will be far more accurate to any modern attempt at revolution. And this is where "The Turner Diaries" provide a more accurate picture of revolutionary life in contemporary times. The System is only getting more sophisticated every year and newer technologies mean newer ways to keep you in line. Funnily, I have seen Marxists only support many of these same efforts - but this is presumably because of the shared interest in internationalism rather than anything more concrete ideologically. Regardless, it's two heads of a hydra that need to be torn out at the root.

>The relationship to means of production change human conditions, and these titles signify their relationship to the means of production.

I mean even in the early days of Rome there was that strange "class" of "free men" who were also warriors and also government leaders. The "plebs" weren't serving in the military in any regards for a very long time. There's also a complicated mess to be found in Mesoamerican societies, or messes to be found in Central and Eastern European history (e.g. the Cossacks are another group beyond the Polish Sclachta that come to mind - even Polish Hussaria is simply a complicated issue e.g. they had that rule where one Hussar has an obligation to provide for multiple other men he must call up to serve with him).

Also,
>parroting Lysenkoism after the dust has settled.
After reading "The Culture of Critique" I find this conversation steadily drifting into familiar, pointless pilpul territory. You're just the usual talking head Leftist that doesn't know how to assemble a bomb, isn't presumably involved in any organization that is working on assassination hits of opportunity (e.g. even the "late wave" Marxists like the Italian "Red Fronts" understood these basic tenets to success) and mostly just waste everyones times with dead semantics from a dead ideology. And we're suppose to feel bad when some autistic grocery store looking employee drives his Dodge Charger into one of your mobs and some obese "revolutionary" dies of cardiac arrest.

[Anonymous No.14319204]

>>14319194
For the record, I felt bad only for the fact that the Dodge Charger should have been packed with explosives. It would be at least made a martyrdom for both sides, thus accelerating the inevitable.

[Anonymous No.14319214]

>>14319108
No, they do not. Nobles fight among each other for the sake of increasing their own personal status and power, which is a product of their material possession, the capital which they control to offer to others for their service, and the violence they can project. Peasants revolt because they conceive that the deal they are receiving is insufficient, and the threat of violence is not compelling enougb because they believe they can defeat it. All history is the story of this. The other aspects of human culture which are beyond materialist, religious or spiritual, have always been secondary, at best. Religious institutions have always had less sway over their people than the state, whose concern is economics and military.

Look at our own idiotic period of time? Spiritually, we are empty. Emotionally we are suffering. Yet, nothing changes, because materially we prosper, and our states are capable of much more efficient and effective violence to stop us from dismantling them. How can material not be the driving force of human history to the man of the 21st century? What else even is there???

[Anonymous No.14319222]

>>14319126
Modern leftists are petty bourgeoisie philistines aspiring managers and bureaucrats.They keep the Sanctimonious hypocrisy and the distrust for culture but replace petty bourgeoisie family values for shrill cultural marxism and identity politics.

[Anonymous No.14319236]

>>14319214
>Nobles fight among each other for the sake of increasing their own personal status and power
This could be true in some cases but then there are those cases in, say, Feudal Japan that seem completely contrary to any notions of retaining "personal status". In the "Hagakure", for example, the mantra is "The way of the samurai is death" which seems far more metaphysical than materialist.

>product of their material possession
But you are already simply denying the cases of landless nobility.

>All history is the story of this
I'm unconvinced.

>Spiritually, we are empty
You should talk to Post-Soviet survivors if you want to learn what spiritual emptiness really means.

>>14319222
Yes, but this was also the natural end point for Marxism after it destroyed themselves. Sensible, serious people avoid pre-determined failures out of an imperative to succeed.

[Anonymous No.14319255]

>>14319137
Actually it implies that the most advantageous people in society should get the most, "lower quality" people are the ones who do not produce and therefore have less "needs" to be fulfilled. Marx was not a redistributionist, in fact he argued against redistribution, which he called "vulgar socialism"

[Anonymous No.14319256]

>>14319214
Also stop being a whimp and read "The Turner Diaries" already. It will at least be an introduction to you to throw off this worthless leash of Marxism. If you really want to be a revolutionary that is, which I doubt.

[Anonymous No.14319264]

>>14319255
Enter: forced communalization of farms and subsequent annihilation of peasants from famine (not including the peasants already who had died during the revolution or subsequently shot by Cheka political squads). We already saw this happen. I re-interate anyway: contemporary Marxists aren't socially able to carry out the work of their Bolshevik predecessors. The ideology is dead and non-threatened, the System has already incorporated internationalism as a basic tenet thus pacifying most of you.

[Anonymous No.14319297]

>>14319264
Lenin abandoned Marx's theory of dialectical materialism (proletariat revolution) in favour of the non-dialectical, idealist notion of the vanguard party. If you take the time to read Marx you will be amazed to find virtually none of that Bolshevik praxis was advocated by Marx. Even Marx's most dubious of ideas, like the dictatorship of the proletariat, are leagues more democratic that what we find in the USSR, China, ect.

[Anonymous No.14319304]

>>14319194
>The goal was to destroy the prior society
Nice word games. The people made up the society, their goal was to eliminate the incompetent monarchy that warped society.
>Russia in the early 20th century will be far more accurate to any modern attempt at revolution
The end result of the revolution was a population boom, literacy rates that surpassed the United States, and a coherent and stable society that was not only able to deal with the destruction of 2 world wars but also overcame massive famines and sabotage by Ukrainian land barons that took off with as much grain as they could and ran to the western european powers, but not before burning down their farms and salting the earth- rather than saving the lives of their fellow man during the worst famine in eastern european history right off the back of a catastrophic war. Funny how nationalist principles are forsaken when there is profit to be made elsewhere.
>I mean even in the early days of Rome there was that strange "class" of "free men" who were also warriors and also government leaders
Are you referring to slaves that were granted land in exchange for brutally massacring foreign invasion targets on behalf of their imperial masters?
>And we're suppose to feel bad when some autistic grocery store looking employee drives his Dodge Charger into one of your mobs and some obese "revolutionary" dies of cardiac arrest
You're too stupid to feel anything. By all means, march with Spencer and LARP as a revolutionary. You keep bringing up your garbage Turner Diaries, how embarrassing it would be for you if you didn't know that there has never been a single reactionary movement in history that was not explicitly sponsored by capital? Spencer et all are feds.

[Anonymous No.14319316]

>>14319256
Revolution is not a personal choice. Reading some book will never change that. There never will be one until material conditions sufficiently deteriorate, which they will, because of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. You don't understand how fucking materialistic the masses are. They will never carry out revolution, ever, ever, EVER until they believe the deal they're getting in the current system is so rotten they would risk it all to overthrow it. No words will convince them that this is the case when they have iPhone and greasy food delivered to their door. What is the most common critique of critique of capitalism? "Well youre on a computer that capitalism made so youre a hypocrite." As long as capital provides bread and circus, the plebs will continue waking up in the morning to work.

No amount of books about the jews will change this. Any revolutionary movement which is purely spiritual will always fail. Men need material depravity to push them to spirituality.

[Anonymous No.14319322]

>>14319297
> he didn't read marx's follow up books

[Anonymous No.14319360]

>>14319297
In other words: Marx felt apart of the same culture of critique he expounded onto Europe. I shed no tears.

>>14319304
>Nice word games.
There is no word games. Wiping out the "incompetent monarchy" also meant wiping out a lot of non-royals who were simply aspects of the System. The similar process happened in Russia but on a larger scale due to the more complex nature of the problem. It has only gotten more complex from there.

You parroting dead Marxist tropes regarding "Ukrainian land barons" (many of whom had been shot by the Cheka for example) causing the famine is a wonderful interpretation of propaganda: meaning you at least are able to indoctrinate yourself to an intellectual point but categorically fail to produce the revolutionary mentality that would convince anyone of the seriousness of your vision.

>fellow man
Internationalist cloak words. Parroting the System mantra now, unsurprisingly.

>worst famine in eastern european history
This event was one of the worst epoch's in Eastern European history and something they are still contending with. It's always amusing to me that it's predominantly Western academics promoting Marxism, whereas if they attempted to go into Eastern European public today they would subsequently be beaten to a bloody pulp by a mob. And for good reason.

>You're too stupid to feel anything
Oh no you've done it now.

>march with Spencer and LARP
I don't care for Spencer, he's a play boy who tried to co-opt energy and re-direct it into a goyish System controlled mentality of legal organization, which is simply never going to happen in the real world. From last I heard, Spencer has become "black pilled" or some other nonsense and given up trying to organize Maybe he is beginning to learn the mantra of a revolutionary isn't ballot boxes after all.

>reactionary movement
I don't see what is reactionary about anything written by William Pierce, rather, the only "reactionary" types I see (if we are to use the word in the concept of "against progress") would be you, a Western academic, trying to re-birth the failure of Marxism in the pacified, over-socialized West. Someone who isn't even familiar with revolutionary literature, isn't anywhere near the mental readiness of killing, and presumably believes himself to have a really high and impressive morality. Ironically enough, Bolshevik's dispensed of your types rather early on because they served no legitimate revolutionary purpose. You remind me of the nuclear scientist in "The Turner Diaries" (whom it is suspected is simply shot for failing to fulfill his revolutionary duties).

>Spencer et all are feds
Sure, but then I probably addressed this earlier.

>sponsored by capital
If you think Third Position = Capitalism (far more in line with Marxism - but of course Marx created both nomenclatures so unsurprising) then you are grossly behind the current.

[Anonymous No.14319372]

>>14319316
tendency for rate of profit to fall isn't real though

[Anonymous No.14319375]

>>14319316
>Revolution is not a personal choice.
A Revolutionary is a conscious individual who enlists in service for an ideology. https://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/nechayev/catechism.htm
I even had to visit your ideological joke of a website to bring up your own texts which you are unfamiliar with. Yet, I actually find this to be one of the most worth while pieces ever written by a Marxist.

>There never will be one until material conditions sufficiently deteriorate
True but I also highly disagree. The System must first be provoked into repressive action. Thus, assassinations of high profile targets is always a smart decision e.g. shooting celebrities, politicians, bombing opposing ideological gatherings, etc. These are all legitimate ways to get the System to react in an oppressive fashion. Once the System has ramped up oppressive reaction against the populace, then you can start blowing up economic centers to disrupt these lines of safety. Power plants, high way intersection points, etc.

I am not in disagreement with the concept of "material depravity" but basing an order on pure materialism is simply dooming one from the start. It is important to maintain high levels of political indoctrination before, during, and after your members. This includes executions (e.g. Guevara had a keen sense regarding this) of wavering "comrades" (there is another great scene in "The Turner Diaries" where they executed a wavering comrade).

[Anonymous No.14319389]

>>14319316
>No amount of books about the jews will change this.
As for this tenet this is also true but such foundation literature will attract the "noble ones" who have that unique urge of action regardless of consequence. In this way you lay down the early stages of your revolutionary movement. Did you even study the Bolshevik's or just waste your time reading Marx?

[Anonymous No.14319402]

>>14319360
>In other words: Marx felt apart of the same culture of critique he expounded onto Europe
what did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.14319412]

>>14319316
I have to go now but on a final thought: I am just one faceless anon shitposting here but I have noticed over the course of the last decade that while the Left (including Marxists) prances around the System and often times even supports their action - the New "Right" (which isn't very accurate because we have simply rejected "right" line theory) has gotten not only more seriousness and organized, but also are the only ones seriously experimenting with forming revolutionary action from theory?

As a word of note: if you are really serious about your idea's then you need to radically alter your lifestyle. If you think you're going to piggy back on the System while they wage war on the Third Position, gun us all down into bloody corpses, and then somehow subvert them aftewards you're, dare I say it, delusional.

[Anonymous No.14319455]

>>14319372
Great depression
2008 housing crisis
Any market based in debt products is super volatile in even the slightest material downturns

[Anonymous No.14319459]

>>14319360
>Wiping out the "incompetent monarchy" also meant wiping out a lot of non-royals who were simply aspects of the System
Yeah retard, no one sheds a tear for the French militarymen that massacred demonstrators in the streets in defense of their obscene maters, and no one sheds a tear for the white cloak Ukrainian mercenaries that were paid by the Tsar to kill revolutionaries.
>You parroting dead Marxist tropes regarding "Ukrainian land barons"
Cope. No one cares for your /pol/-tier holodomor conspiracies. The USSR halted exports to provide for Ukrainian famine relief.
>Internationalist cloak words. Parroting the System mantra now, unsurprisingly.
Interesting how being an atomized autoworshipping bugman flies in the face of reactionary ideology but you will happily attribute love for your fellow man to "the System". What a joke.
>I don't care for Spencer
No one does.
>I don't see what is reactionary about anything written by William Pierce
LOL.
>Someone who isn't even familiar with revolutionary literature, isn't anywhere near the mental readiness of killing, and presumably believes himself to have a really high and impressive morality
Every right-wing revolution was sponsored by capital. Cope harder, you seem to be unwilling to address this.
>Third Position = Capitalism
Yes it is. The burden of proof is on you. Can you give me even a single example of a reactionary insurrection that was not wholly bankrolled by capitalist interests? I thought not.

[Anonymous No.14319462]

>>14319455
the existence of crises don't prove TRPF is behind them

[Anonymous No.14319482]

>>14318831
Him and his followers are the definition of a braindead idealogues though. They literally treat his books like holy scripture.

[Anonymous No.14319486]

>>14319482
They don't but ok keep coping

[Anonymous No.14319488]

>>14319482
>nearly every prediction of his came true
The same cannot be said of saint Keynes

[Anonymous No.14319509]

>>14319360
>but marxists aren't doing anything
the "new right" thinks they are in the middle of an active literal genocide is doing jack shit about it

[Anonymous No.14319531]

Why did foolchan have to die. it was the only containment board for libtards of /lit/. We had like two years where it wasn't a full retard tranny board.

[Anonymous No.14319616]

>>14319137
like landlords and financiers?

[Anonymous No.14319620]

>>14318615
t. only secondary or primary marx he has ever read comes from boomer memes

[Anonymous No.14319623]

>>14319264
peasants are by definition not members of the proletariat

[Anonymous No.14319641]

>>14319372
the world economy was only kept going starting in 2008 by massive infusions of taxpayer money, i.e. forced charity for a system that claims not to need it

[Anonymous No.14319658]

>>14318835
Yes yes...errr marxism is what deatroys culture yes. Exactly dumb-i mean cultured-goy now go view the emoji movie in theatres everywhere tomorrow

[Anonymous No.14319659]

>>14318666
So Bugatti's engineers would still be making abhorrent examples of excess because they are at the top of their trade and are capable of producing hyperluxury goods?

[Anonymous No.14319667]

>>14318666
If this ment what it's suppose to then how come commie fags are in PEAK COPE over race realism?

[Anonymous No.14319670]

>>14319658
Day of the rope SOON faggot

[Anonymous No.14319673]

>>14319616
They are not leeches, they are human cattle-farmers.

[Anonymous No.14319675]

>>14318615
Marx was a filthy epicurean

[Anonymous No.14319680]

>>14318615
dialectical materialism would argue that the difference in abilities of people is as much created by relationships of production as relationships of production are produced by the difference in people. an industrial worker is no less able or productive than a peasant but his relationship to economy (as a "free" laborer with no capital) already defines his potential choices in life. similarly, the so-called innate superiority of the aristocracy didn't stop them from losing control of their societies to the bourgeoisie via debt and financialization (and outright armed revolt for the lingering stalwarts). the aristocracy's only choices were to vanish or self-liquidate by joining the bourgeoisie

[Anonymous No.14319695]

>>14319375
Holy fuck you're more delusional than the commie

[Anonymous No.14319722]

>>14319670
damn, being a rightoid must really suck, imagine being everything you claim to hate.
No wonder they're so full of impotent rage

[Anonymous No.14319787]

>>14319659
I don't think Marx would have imagined a private company called Bugatti under communism so it seems like a moot point. Marx wanted to see value placed on social utility, not luxury
>>14319667
Marx was a massive racist anon

[Anonymous No.14319840]

>>14318615
>Does the fact that humans are unequal invalidate Marxism?
Nope. The regularly observable fact that after three generations so-called ruling classes are generally incompetent ninnies invalidated the whole caste system that choked all creativity for centuries. Marx was so right that history was changed by the actions robber barons took to alleviate or avert the things he predicted. We are still living in the consequences of those actions, as a tiny elite use their control to keep all of humanity doing donuts on the bridge of Capitalism, calling it Democracy, when Capitalism was always meant to be a tool for escaping Feudalism and getting to Socialism.
Deriding if not destroying the idea of fairness, abolishing civility and mocking ethics as childish nonsense are all the last creaking strains of a system on artificial life-support and a century past it's time-of-death.

TLDR hanging on to the tree will kill you as the waters rise, learn to swim.

[Anonymous No.14319862]

>>14319375
>Once the System has ramped up oppressive reaction against the populace, then you can start blowing up economic centers to disrupt these lines of safety. Power plants, high way intersection points, etc.
This barbarous nonsense can be done to destabilize any system or society with the same results: start shit, step into power vacuum, go nuts.

It has no relation to anything to do with right or wrong, it's a value-free plan for weakening and taking over anything.

[Anonymous No.14319869]

>>14319722
nailed it

[Anonymous No.14319883]

Only brainlets hate Marx.

Cultured intellectuals of all sides of the political spectrum know his analysis was 100%, regardless of their interest in communism.

[Anonymous No.14319890]

>>14319883
And then he makes suggestions of what communism would look like and theyre complete teenage-tier dogshit that cast all his analysis in doubt

[Anonymous No.14319910]

>>14319890
Marx actually made few references to what communism would actually look like, only what features that are inherent to capitalism that a communism society must then lack if it is to not be capitalist.

This is part of the reason why there's so much confusion about what a communist society should look like.

[Anonymous No.14319925]

>>14319910
communists today will largely tell you it's illicit to speculate about it because reasons

[Anonymous No.14319930]

>>14319910
Yeah i know he made few references, but the ones he made are completely unfeasible given current diversification and technological development. Even back in his time it would have been unrealistic And honestly, the whole "dont make predictions because that's idealism and communism is the REAL movement that abolishes things (whatever that means)" smells like a weak excuse for "i have no idea what to do, but i do know how to criticize others"

[Anonymous No.14319945]

>>14319925
only the proletariat can decide the shape of a classless society, a class society is fated to reproduce its own contradictions in speculative models of the future, hence the reason why we find the death of all life on the planet a more likely scenario than the disappearance of capitalism

[Anonymous No.14319955]

>>14319910
>brainlets needing a to-do list and a clear plan
>when nothing has worked that way beyond tasks ordered by owners
no bigger obstacle to the future than generations of average joes trained from birth to be employees!

[Anonymous No.14319959]

>>14319930
Diversification and technological development are key to his analysis of capitalism tho.

>smells like a weak excuse for "i have no idea what to do, but i do know how to criticize others"
That's the most honest stance an academic could possibly have. Academics are not soothsayers (contrary to what they'd have you believe), all they have is a level of expertise in some areas. Marx could analyse the economics and sociology of the world we live in, it would have been pure folly to try and analyse the distant future and what new structures it will have that we don't even know about yet.

[Anonymous No.14319964]

>>14319930
not necessarily, the great standardization of tech and consolidation of ownership means that it's technically easier to seize control of the means of production. all it would take is the nationalization of just 5 companies the entire media creation and delivery system, for instance. biotech, military tech, agribusiness, all the same

[Anonymous No.14319971]

>>14319930
and that real movement quote directly contradicts marx elsewhere where he describes communism as a state of affairs. commies are incoherent.
>>14319945
if living under class society has totally corrupted your mind with ideology and that's why you can't do it, why didn't any of the marxist states do it then?
>inb4 they were only pretending to be marxist, whereas i'm a real marxist unlike the real revolutionaries who actually got off their holes and did something

[Anonymous No.14319982]

>>14319959
>Diversification and technological development are key to his analysis of capitalism tho.
And then he backtracks and says that communism will be a society wherein one can be a "philosopher one day, a fisher the other day, and a hunter the day after that", when that's obviously not going to happen. If you want to be a nuclear engineer, you gotta study 5 years for it and after that you can only become a nuclear engineer, because you're highly specialized. And so the lamented obligation of being forced to do one thing will never go away, because of the large amount of training and specialization that is now required.

Also,Marx does never imply how people would figure out who does what and when without causing a total breakdown of the system because of improper allocation of resources and manpower, especially on a global scale.

>>14319964
Yeah, and then it'll all quickly grind to a halt and crash down, as has happened every fucking time. Proles arent going to seize the means of production, anon. They generally dont give a shit about communism, and are far more reactionary than most communists, who come from the upper classes.

[Anonymous No.14319992]

>>14319982
it's happened before and it will happen again

[Anonymous No.14319999]

>>14319982
>how people would figure out who does what and when without causing a total breakdown of the system because of improper allocation of resources and manpower, especially on a global scale.
you mean like in 2008?

[Anonymous No.14320008]

>>14319982
>proles will never seize means of production
70% of amerimutt millennials will vote for a socialist
50% are anticapitalist
43% say that the communist manifesto is a better guarantor of freedom and equality than the declaration of independence

that despite all the cold war capitalist propaganda

[Anonymous No.14320012]

>>14319982
You seem to be assuming a communist society would uphold or even further the kind of infrastructure and epic-scale mass-mobilisation that we have now. I don't think that's true.

I think for the perspective of a capitalist society a communist one would look like a Dark Age of primitivism and ignorance, just like how the medieval era would have looked to Romans - even if the medieval era was actually a lot more advanced and liberated than the Romans were in many ways.

[Anonymous No.14320014]

so do leftists basically just blame everything on the economic order of society at the fundamental level? let's say for example i think faggots and feminists are degenerate and hate that they have annual parades celebrating their degeneracy in public. how is it capitalism's fault that they do that? it seems more believable that the subversive cultural marxist propaganda they consume via the MSM and "education" is telling them to do it. how can you blame degeneracy on the billionaires? they're trying to stop it

[Anonymous No.14320037]

>>14320014
gee I don't know anon.
capital consumed them so that they cam become marketable. pretty simple. corporations virtue signal to drag in more consoomers.
also there is nothing wrong with those things in themselves desu.

[Anonymous No.14320057]

>>14320014
> how is it capitalism's fault that they do that?
Follow the money and see.

[Anonymous No.14320061]

>>14320014
>how is it capitalism's fault that they do that?
Service/entertainment industry creates culture that caters more and more to the needs of urbanite middle class, which are their main consumers. Also fags have their demands and there are enterpreanors willing to fulfil those demands. There's profit in faggotry and breaking down of social norms and where there's an opportunity for profit, capital will move towards that opportunity.

>it seems more believable that the subversive cultural marxist propaganda they consume via the MSM and "education" is telling them to do it.
Maybe if you are severely braindamaged. Countries that actually had mandatory hardcore cultural marxist propaganda in all sectors of society turned out to be more homophobic that those who didn't.

[Anonymous No.14320079]

>>14320008
>70% of amerimutt millennials will vote for a socialist
>50% are anticapitalist
For real? I can't imagine better sign of capitalism's downfall than muttlings turning red.

[Anonymous No.14320082]

>>14320079
yep. source: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/467684-70-percent-of-millennials-say-theyd-vote-for-a-socialist-poll

[Anonymous No.14320085]

>>14320014
ever noticed how there faggots and feminists weren't a thing at one point and then they suddenly became an issue? a marxist would be able to explain to appearance of new perverse subjectivities while a reactionary recourse to nature would have to assume that they'd always existed, despite that being observably false. the irony is that your contemporary globohomo foot soldier uses the reactionary position to justify perverse subjects created by late capitalism. and actual communist regimes were notoriously opposed to faggotry as bourgeois decadence (which is one of the points for which contemporary liberal discourse condemns communism for)

[Anonymous No.14320092]

>>14320079
To be fair muttlets don't even know what the fuck socialism or capitalism are, their brains are still completely melted by cold war propaganda. They've been told that state-funded healthcare, college and housing is socialism for so long that now they're wondering what's wrong with "socialism" anyway. It's progress but to them "socialism" means Sweden.

[Anonymous No.14320103]

>>14320092
but nearly half of young adults say they prefer commie manifesto to declaration of independence
that's a pretty bold statement beyond just typical social democratic demands

[Anonymous No.14320109]

>>14320079
this has more to do with millenials growing up watching the allegedly left and right wings kowtow to international finance. democrats signed NAFTA, the republicans volunteered the taxpayer to take on private investment risk

[Anonymous No.14320117]

>>14319982
>Proles arent going to seize the means of production, anon. They generally dont give a shit about communism, and are far more reactionary than most communists, who come from the upper classes.
This right here. Sometimes I think most communists have never talked to a worker, despite idolizing them.

[Anonymous No.14320119]

>>14320103
disillusionment with the reduction of founding documents to bromides to help swallow the neoliberal superstate. and you're forgetting a full decade of support the troops rah rah bullshit after september 11

[Anonymous No.14320126]

>>14320117
unlike anon, who's salt of the earth and posting between shifts down in the seam

[Anonymous No.14320131]

>>14320082
What the actual fuck? Old Soviet joke is turning into reality.

[Anonymous No.14320137]

>>14320126
I never ssid I am a worker, nor that I like them

[Anonymous No.14320138]

This seems as good a thread as any: How do Marxists explain the race and IQ question and the JQ? I can buy that blacks have been enslaved and discriminated for hundreds of years so they have systematically depressed IQs on average, but how do Marxists COPE with the JQ? Asking for a friend.

[Anonymous No.14320145]

>>14320103
The commie manifesto is bullshit propaganda and even Marx knew this when he was writing it. It's literally communism for 19th century proles that learned to read at age 28. His other works are where the real goods are.

And who's even read the Declaration of Independence? It just sounds like classic youths going for the most inflammatory answer to own the boomers.

[Anonymous No.14320153]

>>14320138
By angry seething and forcing Jews to assimilate.

[Anonymous No.14320161]

>>14320137
holy shit, a real live communist!

[Anonymous No.14320173]

>>14320138
>Race and IQ
Evolution, obviously.
>JQ
Jews being at the ground floor of capitalism's development as a system. The Jews always lived in the cities of Europe and made their living off finance, trading and being a rabbi - when capitalism started to develop in cities around the Rhine River valley and in North Italy they were at the vanguard of it. As such they're one of the most entrenched and empowered demographics in the international bourgeoisie.

[Anonymous No.14320196]

>>14320061
>Countries that actually had mandatory hardcore cultural marxist propaganda in all sectors of society turned out to be more homophobic that those who didn't.
example?

[Anonymous No.14320207]

>>14320061
Gayness was banned in the USSR and women got medals for having kids

Degeneracy is 100% made in America my friend

[Anonymous No.14320224]

>>14320119
imagine the freakout this would cause in the days of mccarthy. now it barely makes the news, Fox news isn't having a constant meltdown, people are shrugging it off and trying to spin it as normal.
>>14320145
>they're all just feckless, edgy ironists who haven't even skimmed the damn thing
well if that;s the case society is in trouble anyway

[Anonymous No.14320246]

Are there any modern books about how a new socialist society should look like, based on what was learned from earlier socialist experiments?

[Anonymous No.14320285]

>>14320246
Yes, many. With many different conclusions.

Towards a New Socialism
The Ecology of Freedom
PostCapitalism
The Fourth Political Theory

[Anonymous No.14320296]

>>14319999
lol'd and checked

[Anonymous No.14320311]

>>14320014
That degeneracy has been neutralized, co-opted and commodified, so it doesn't threaten the status quo at all and makes the system look like it's complex, open and permissive when really it's closed, simple and authoritarian.

Queers write about this a lot, they like to subvert expectations and shock the middle classes, but drag queens are ho-hum who cares now. Their power to shake people up is gone.

[Anonymous No.14320325]

>>14318615
Unequal how and in what way? If they are unequal because the class system that is the very presumption communism seeks to overthrow. In terms of undeniable biological inequalities that's another story. Marx believed the species-essence (Gattungswesen) was a primitive and simple collection of drives and instincts which set a general tendency that was then granulated and refined by social relations. It was social relations that were the ultimate determinants.

But we now know that genetics has sweeping implications for one's capabilities and life outcomes. From color blindness to sensing the taste of oregano to be like soap, to being able to smell potassium cyanide to be like bitter almonds, to more profound and consequential traits such as intelligence and physical ability, biology is destiny.

For Marx it is social relations, which are biased by the class structure in relation to the mode of production and the disparity in ownership of private property, which determines the true inequalities between people. According to communist theory, social darwinism is a supestructural ideological construct presented by the ruling class to justify its rule as hereditary, immutable by natural law. The labor relations of slavery, as an extension of capitalist efficiencies, was bolstered by such an ideological cloak, as with similar explanations that blame the poor for their predicament. The concept of immutable unequalness is itself an ideological mechanism for the promotion of unequalness.

[Anonymous No.14320328]

>>14320207
This. You can still be bashed for being gay in Russia and the cops you report it to will call you faggot and slap your head as they kick you out the station door.

[Anonymous No.14320337]

>degeneracy
Imagine rationalizing social interaction away as degeneracy because you had gyno in college and girls wouldn’t talk to you

[Anonymous No.14320339]

>>14319982
>Also,Marx does never imply how people would figure out who does what and when without causing a total breakdown of the system because of improper allocation of resources and manpower, especially on a global scale.
what kind of break down would there be in a post capitalist economy anyway? the business cycle depressions are necessary for capitalism but they're not otherwise? we have all the technology and resources needed to feed and house every person on the planet already but capitalism stops us from doing it

[Anonymous No.14320345]

>>14320014
Leftists these days completely disregard economics. At least if by leftist you mean Twitter, college professors and students, and the like.

[Anonymous No.14320367]

>>14320345
Name a modern leftist that disregards economics.

[Anonymous No.14320382]

>Imagine rationalizing social interaction away as degeneracy because you had gyno in college and girls wouldn’t talk to you

[Anonymous No.14320394]

>>14320367
zizek

[Anonymous No.14320403]

>>14319999
People just pretend like 2008 never happened

[Anonymous No.14320404]

>>14320367
Identity politics is the trendy and mainstream thrust of leftism in recent times. This is acknowledged widely.

[Anonymous No.14320409]

>>14320394
>There is a moment of truth in both perspectives. One cannot miss the superego dimension in the way the imf treats its client states—while scolding and punishing them for unpaid debts, it simultaneously offers them new loans, which everyone knows they will not be able to return, thus drawing them deeper into the vicious cycle of debt generating more debt. On the other hand, the reason this superego strategy works is that the borrowing state, fully aware that it will never really have to repay the full amount of the debt, hopes to profit from it in the last instance.
>Yet while each story contains a grain of truth, both are fundamentally false. The European establishment’s story obfuscates the fact that the huge deficits have been run up as a result of massive financial sector bail-outs, as well as by falling government revenues during the recession; the big loan to Athens will be used to repay Greek debt to the great French and German banks. The true aim of the eu guarantees is to help private banks since, if any of the Eurozone states goes bankrupt, they will be heavily hit. On the other hand, the protesters’ story bears witness yet again to the misery of today’s left: there is no positive programmatic content to its demands, just a generalized refusal to compromise the existing welfare state. The utopia here is not a radical change of the system, but the idea that one can maintain a welfare state within the system. Here, again, one should not miss the grain of truth in the countervailing argument: if we remain within the confines of the global capitalist system, then measures to wring further sums from workers, students and pensioners are, effectively, necessary.
t. Zizek

[Anonymous No.14320491]

>>14318615
Marxists advocate meritocracy.
>>14319061
>Communism is when corporations are gay. The gayer they are, the communister they are.
>>14319119
Marxists don't necessarily have to be socially liberal, it's irrelevant. Your issue in this case is with "progressives", not Marxists.

[Anonymous No.14320503]

why do people think nazis are cool when they got defeated by some commie russian peasants?

[Anonymous No.14320540]

>>14318791
Dumbass idealist. You don't understand Materialism.

[Anonymous No.14320548]

>>14319137
Capitalism is literally a system where the wealthy parasite off of the labor of the working class anon.

[Anonymous No.14320555]

>>14320503
Both are cool

[Anonymous No.14320583]

>>14320339
GODDAMMIT MAN, THAT'S CLASSIFIED INFORMATION!

[Anonymous No.14320596]

>>14320404
Nah, id-pol is utterly right-wing labels used to shut people down, then shut them out, then eventually, to round them up.
The willingness to be categorized is the willingness to be pornographically reduced to a cipher, young people fall for it because it's presented as devoting yourself to something of value as well as realizing yourself.

>Are you an SJW?
>oh that means you're flawed and invalid because...

[Anonymous No.14320654]

>>14320196
Russia? You know, the most famous country that put Marxism to praxis.

[Anonymous No.14320729]

Marx's problem was grounding his ideals on Feuerbach's humanism. But Marx's framing of labor remains powerful, IMO.

[Anonymous No.14320774]

>>14318818
>Marx: "We need to abolish private property."
>Some blue-haired kid in sociology 201 who has never read a word of Marx: "Marx said more women need to own private property."
>Crossposting /pol/ack: "I cannot distinguish between these two."

[Anonymous No.14321025]

What's a good audiobook for Marx? I've listened to so many ecelebs rail against it for years but I don't really know what it is

[Anonymous No.14321071]

>>14318615
it's the point.

[Anonymous No.14321084]

[Anonymous No.14321116]

There is a lot brainlet tier straw-manning of Marxism here do to all the /pol/fags seeping in, but I would like to read literature going after Marxist theory directly.
Is pic related a good place to start?

[Anonymous No.14321134]

>>14319883
Nah a lot of his analysis is extremely autistic nonsense, the guy was out of touch with base reality

[Anonymous No.14321207]

>>14318818
i think leftists want to genocide CEOs. it's liberals who want more women CEOs

[Anonymous No.14321212]

>>14321134
This nigger hasn't read any of it.

[Anonymous No.14321291]

>>14321212
Read the commie manifesto, the takes in there were so ice cold I really didn't feel like bothering with das kapital

[Anonymous No.14321299]

>>14321291
>Read the commie manifesto,

[Anonymous No.14321301]

Yessir, cover to cover.

[Anonymous No.14321566]

>>14320596
I don't understand the schizophrenic garble you spewed out here but I do think that identity politics is counterintuitively, reactionary. The orthodox marxist line is that identity politics is meant to segregate and divide the working class into identity based tribes along the lines of race, gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity and so on. The Democrats and establishment liberals promote these divisions and diversions because they are quite comfortable with the economic status quo and would be disenfranchised by any attempts at meaningful economic reform.

Identity politics is mostly upper middle class college educated bourgeois navel gazing that patronizes population which care more about their tenuous financial standing than whether black actors are more represented at the Oscars.

And this is the norm among liberals and leftists. Very few have any ardent desire to see the scattered and disorganized status of labor repaired and and elevated.

[Anonymous No.14321584]

>>14321566
>segregate and divide the working class into identity based tribes along the lines of race, gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity
That happens automatically

[Anonymous No.14321587]

>>14320774
Accurate.

[Anonymous No.14321588]

>>14318675
Like what? Do you have any recommendations for socialist/communist works?

[Anonymous No.14321617]

>>14318666
>>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

My theory is that Jews are so inbred and narcissistically psychopathic that they honestly have lost all self-awareness and awareness of human nature. They only seem to understand how to "win".

So according to Marx the highest ability man would get no help from the State because he wouldn't NEED anything. While the lowest high functioning retard would get the former man's output. Additionally, the former man would realistically have self-control and choose to have a manageable family, maybe 1-3 kids. The functional retard would realistically not have these skills or abilities and would most likely sire more kids that he could handle, maybe 4-5 kids, but the state would help him out, sounds like an idea a woman would like.

This is already what happens in the West only in a less exaggerated way. This will ultimately destroy a civilization in the long run, as is happening in the West. The Diseugenic Welfare State is the most DISHUMAN of human creations. This already is happening and we are already seeing the effects of "demographic replacement". In Marx's hellscape this effect would be magnified until an accelerated collapse.

Why is this not more obvious to the left? Or is it just that as women and basedbois they have very little courage and a pathological need for comfort and safety above all else?

[Anonymous No.14321623]

>>14321584
>race
Didn't exist until the 18th century Europeans decided it did. The Europeans didn't colonize Africa because they were "black", they did it because it was highly profitable and made sense economically. The justificiations for colonial brutality were formed a posteriori.
>gender
Conceptions of gender have been fluid across different cultures and time periods
>sexuality
Didn't even exist as a concept until the 19th century. Before then, homosexual relations were seen as either 1) naturally occuring, or 2) merely a perversion of heterosexuality.
>religion
Religion is fucking retarded and has not always existed in its conventional Western Abrahamic form.
>ethnicity
Ethnicity is fleeting, changes rapidly over time in response to social and material conditions. You don't see anyone today calling themselves "Romans" or "Visigoths"

[Anonymous No.14321649]

>>14321623
>NOOOOO YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT COMMUNISM, JUST IGNORE THAT I WANT TO OUTLAW ALL RELIGION AND KILL ALL PRIESTS AND DESTROY ALL THE CHURCHES IM A GOOD MORAL PERSON

>inb4 dude no communists think that anymore

[Anonymous No.14321652]

>>14321588
Critique of the Gotha Program is a great theoretical work that clarifies many of the vulgar misconceptions about the socialist movement. It actually contains a rebuttal to OP's question:
> One man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different
individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so
forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

[Anonymous No.14321658]

>>14321566
if its reactionary, why did the communists in the 20th century support it?
they supported harry hay (gay rights) and the panthers (black nationalism) for instance
they were doing this a lot earlier than the cia and liberalism were as well
from the outside it looks less like liberal/capitalist d&c and more like typical vanguardist crisis-creation d&c of the form that was prevalent in commie doctrine in the early 20th century

[Anonymous No.14321662]

>>14321623
amazing how the mask comes off commies when you start mentioning race, gender, etc and they end up sounding like garden-variety academic sjws

[Anonymous No.14321666]

>>14321649
The Russian Orthodox Church absolutely had to be suppressed, and it's a shame it wasn't destroyed. They collaborated with the Tsar to carry out endless massacres against Jews. Organized religion did much of the same thing in Cuba, Catalonia, Albania, and Poland.

[Anonymous No.14321675]

>>14321649
Stop spouting your ignorance like a child please. Religions can be marxist. It's only the capitalist/imperialist religions that have to be eliminated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

[Anonymous No.14321681]

>>14321662
The problem with you anti-materialists is that you take everything in bourgeois society for granted (nuclear family, patriarchal gender roles, race relations, the modern state, capitalism in general) and assume that no societal arrangements existed before modern-day capitalism. This is obviously false, considering that Europe lasted 1000 years under Church feudalism before moving into the liberal age of the Enlightenment. Marxists, on the other hand, look at present-day bourgeois society and deduce how it evolved from the class struggles of the past, and how material conditions affect the fabric of social relations and ideology.
You attempted to argue that the modern-day division of society into separate classes, races, religions, etc. is simply inevitable and happens automatically. However, looking at history proves that this is clearly not the case.

[Anonymous No.14321682]

>>14321617
>So according to Marx the highest ability man would get no help from the State because he wouldn't NEED anything
no, the highest ability man probably needs plenty to help him produce, duh. the point is to bolster productive tendency not stifle it.
>While the lowest high functioning retard would get the former man's output
high functioning retards need much less resources than a nuclear physicist you high functioning retard. I refuse to read the rest because you have no idea what you are talking about

[Anonymous No.14321699]

>>14321681
>Marxists, on the other hand, look at present-day bourgeois society and deduce
>commies are so retarded they are still using deductive-nomological explanations

[Anonymous No.14321706]

>>14321682
Penis lover's salad

[Anonymous No.14322032]

>>14320339
Do you think it's a coincidence that nationalizing a significant amount of the economy always leads to inefficiency, corruption, and a dramatic decrease in production efficiency, as was the case with every fucking planned economy?

[Anonymous No.14322039]

>>14319999
No i mean Venezuela level poverty and famine. An economic crisis like 2008 didnt force people to kill their pets for food.

[Anonymous No.14322085]

>>14319616
Exactly. They have contributed nothing positive to the society, and all they deserve is a bullet in the back of the head.

[Anonymous No.14322088]

>>14322085
t. college dropout NEET

[Anonymous No.14322098]

>>14319488
How many more millions of years are we goimg to be in '"late stage capitalism"?

[Anonymous No.14322135]

>>14322098
>millions of years
>capitalism existed before modern Man, perhaps even before the first stone tools and bipedalism

[Anonymous No.14322138]

>>14322032
>nationalization
>"gubmint do more, das more sosialism"
I bet you think the war economies of the US and UK were inefficient and socialist, too, since it's apparently some kind of law-of-nature.

[Anonymous No.14322142]

>>14322138
The guy i was responding to wanted nationalization, so that's what im going to criticize. We cant even speculate about a truly socialist economy because the concept is so absurd that it cant even be conceived of.

[Anonymous No.14322171]

>>14318615
>Nooooooooooooooooooooo that isn't what marx said read marx you uneducated person!!!
Stay in your corner, theorycels. Your delusions of intellectual grandeur might be shattered if you interact with reality in any way

[Anonymous No.14322186]

>oft-quoted reason for reading literature is to get insight or empathy into human nature across cultures
>commies constantly deny human nature as a meme
>so they deny a reason to read literature
>commies also killed shitloads of authors during their revolutions
>want to put literature under the control of ideology

Why are commies on this board? They are bigger enemies of literature than /pol/.

[Anonymous No.14322222]

>>14322186
Because socialism is ebic intelectual :DD

[Anonymous No.14322232]

>>14318615
>Does the fact that humans are unequal invalidate Marxism?
No, in Critique of the Gotha Program Marx categorically rejects the idea that humans are 'equal'. The maxim 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his means' actually stems from the fact we are each unequal, and is to be found in said work.
>Books on this?
Critique of the Gotha Program, so you can see why Marxism actually sides with what you take to invalidate Marxism.

[Anonymous No.14322241]

>>14322186
Because despite being barely literate, they like thinking they're "well read". They like the idea of being well-read, but hate actually reading.

[Anonymous No.14322277]

>>14321617
> a pathological need for comfort and safety above all else

That’s just it.

[Anonymous No.14322417]

>>14319667
Only for an unread like you or twitter commies. You are both unread.

[Anonymous No.14322434]

>>14320012
We are in an ignorant time. Only profit count. There are massive chunk of knowledge ignored because they don't make profit. Profit is often generated by the spectacular, which go away from truth.

[Anonymous No.14322435]

>>14319659
They would become artists

[Anonymous No.14322461]

>>14319667
Because race realism is an easy tool to use in order to divide the working class, the average alabama neckbeard has more in common with the baltimore nigger than he does with the white CEO, and if you think the latter will bend over his self interest to preserve the white race you're completely delusional.

[Anonymous No.14322477]

>>14318615
white Marxists are just future National Socialists, so from my perspective this is okay with me. The important thing now is to collectively destroy the Global order, create civil chaos, and then build a new society from the ashes. Marxists are good at this because they have been forced to side with absolute degenerates and can mostly only recruit from brain dead low IQ mutts, niggers, and "migrants". They'll be slaughtered once any real action starts. It was like this in Germany. Most of the KPD went NatSoc after they got redpilled on the Jews who controlled the KPD and then booted them out and fought for their race and nation. Only true "dictatorship of the proles" is a racial one based on mutualism, hierarchy, and techno-domination of the planet.

[Anonymous No.14322481]

>>14322461
Working class was most united in NSDAP Germany. Multiculturalism did not exist in Marxist USSR they had to eradicated many cultures (e.g. lemkos, cossacks) and systematically massacre and genocide others. They also had to massacre intellectuals and academics of various cultures (like in Poland at Katyn) in order to wipe their roots out to replace them with the concept of the "New Soviet Man". But they learned that a multiracial empire just devolves into globalhomoism.

[Anonymous No.14322485]

>>14322461
>and if you think the latter will bend over his self interest to preserve the white race you're completely delusional.
Riling them up to cause chaos to the global order is the only thing that matters. Thus, as a National Socialist I support Marxists in getting all the other races worked up. The more the merrier. We need things to get a whole lot hotter if we're going to start hanging global capitalists and liberals in the streets.

[Anonymous No.14322486]

>>14322461
>have job
>"WOW EVERYONE ELSE WHO HAS A JOB IS JUST LIKE ME"
Why is it that the only people with "class consciousness" dumb trannies who have never worked a day in their lives and hate everything about the "working class" that they claim to represent? It's been that way since that faggot Marx himself.

[Anonymous No.14322488]

>>14318615
have you even read Marx you fucking retard?

[Anonymous No.14322489]

>>14322486
Because Marxism only appeals to trendy academics who usually get the bullet once the Proles take power. Bolshevik Proles shot manyRussian academics for example, it was the same in Maoist, China as well. Yo ucan't forget the Khmer Rouge either in that regard. The intellectual Marxist avant-garde are a temporary group of expendable people used only to rile up the masses. Once that is used up, they get hung or shot up and replaced.

[Anonymous No.14322495]

>>14321675
>Religions can be marxist.
no they can't. magical thinking like that has no place in marxism.

[Anonymous No.14322499]

>>14322495
That just ain't true. Correct political indoctrination makes turning the new apparatus into the religion. Christ you are so unprepared for a revolution, lay off the books for awhile and get into a couple of fist fights or something. You need to experience the adrenaline of trying to kill somebody before you talk politics.

[Anonymous No.14322615]

>>14320548
>the labor of the working class
The gall of this cattle right here. You are the means of reproduction, the owners are the working class.

[Anonymous No.14322839]

>>14322486
What demographic of working class are you referring to? The working class in America isn't white or conservative. The Republican voting base is pretty well off actually.

[Anonymous No.14322860]

>>14322032
causation=\=correlation
He has a good question. If we reshaped the economy so it serves the most basic needs of everybody rather than concentrating wealth to the fewest people possible, why would the economy crash at all? Nobody would have a need or want to fuck the poor or go to war anymore.

[Anonymous No.14322872]

fuck this thread makes me realise how retarded Capitalists, Communists, Liberals and Fascists all really are.

Evola/Dugin's Dasein 4th Positionism is the only correct political view

[Anonymous No.14322903]

>>14322860
>causation=\=correlation
Just some pet peeve sperging here, but causation literally is correlation, always and necessarily so. Correlation simply doesn't always justify a causal interpretation.

[Anonymous No.14322905]

>>14320555
As a Nazbol I cant decide weather Nazism and Stalinism are both really good or both really bad. I reckon they both have good ideas at their base and combining the ideas would make them both even better

[Anonymous No.14322907]

>>14322872
That some Heinigger shit?

[Anonymous No.14322910]

>>14322907
yepepo. he was a precursor to it

[Anonymous No.14322911]

>>14322839
The working class is incredibly white in America. The lower class is a bunch of spics and nigs, but neither of those work.

[Anonymous No.14322921]

>>14322911
>NOOOO YOU CANT JUST SAY THERE IS A CLASS UNDERNEATH THE WORKING CLASS! THE SUPPOSED TO BE THE PROLETARIAT VS THE BOURGEOISIE

[Anonymous No.14322933]

>>14322911
What? Every worker I see on the streets is either Hispanic or Asian, even Negros.

[Anonymous No.14322959]

>>14322860
>it went wrong literally every time it happened, but it'll work this time, trust me.
Yeah bro, sure. You know there's a reason why economists dont really care about commie platitudes like "the most basic needs of everybody rather than concentrating wealth to the fewest people possible" because that usually amounts to the needs of the many being barely met, while a very wealthy few (party apparatchiks) get to enjoy immense privileges?
>Nobody would have a need or want to fuck the poor or go to war anymore.
You seriously need to read up on basic economics

[Anonymous No.14322994]

>>14318615
Is there a nationalist kind of marxism? Communism sounds sweet and like it could work if it's only white men, and women are relegated to a submissive position, niggers are kicked out and the mentally ill gassed

[Anonymous No.14323005]

>>14322994
No. Marx hated reactionaries. Nationalism is only used as a tool by the bougeois class anyways. Get unspooked anon.

[Anonymous No.14323013]

>>14323005
Ethnonationalism has been the norm for millenia. Non-nationalists are the reactionaries.

[Anonymous No.14323017]

>>14323013
It hasn't. And yes it is reactionary.

[Anonymous No.14323035]

>>14322994
>>14323013
Literal brainlet

[Anonymous No.14323094]

>>14318666
>>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
this is a bombastic procapitalist sentence but marxists say it anyway. . how can you count the abilty of someone?. what this suppose to mean?. if you gonna give more money to the the one with the best ability we would have the same outcome of a ultracompetitive pervasive life like with capitalism.
imagine if an anarcocapitalist say this and how is totally coherent with his views.
>if you dont have x is because you dont have x ability. so you have to accept you gonna have a shitty life. from each according to his ability, remember pal?.

according to his needs?... if we dont presuppose we all have the same needs the entire communist construction is nothing and mean nothing.
"well, im good with this shit salary, i dont think i deserve more". or "i need an hyperhigh salary for cleaning your toilet". who say what is the needs of somebody?. what is the limits of a "need". what is not a need?. its a totally stupid sentence.
marxists should be embarrased but they say it like it was some kind of undeniable slogan of his own wisdom.
maybe in a desperate propagandist marx would have sense to write it, but this is the opposite of what all the left believe and proclaim. and its a trojan horse of the communist movement and they dont even know it.
i totally cope with this stupid shit.
also obvious satanic trips.

[Anonymous No.14323158]

>>14318615
Yes

[Anonymous No.14323275]

>>14323094
>you gonna give more money to the the one with the best ability
It doesn't mean that at all. That's just a bad reading of the meaning of it mixed with a strawman. It means that you are both giving what people deserve for their ability in something and what they need for their lack of ability in something else. It doesn't mean you are giving "more" money in a way that will procure capitalization, it's more like you are distributing the resources and abolishing inequity.

>if you dont have x is because you dont have x ability. so you have to accept you gonna have a shitty life. from each according to his ability, remember pal?.
If you don't have X, that means you need X. That's what the "to each according to his needs" part refers to. You are deliberately omitting the importance of the second statement. The idea is an absolute system of reciprocal dependence and solidarity.

I somewhat agree with what you say, but I think stuff like
>this is a bombastic procapitalist sentence but marxists say it anyway
>this is the opposite of what all the left believe and proclaim
>its a trojan horse of the communist movement and they dont even know it
is arguable at best.

[Anonymous No.14323500]

>>14322921
>what is the lumpenproletariat

[Anonymous No.14323509]

>>14322481
the katyn massacre was army officers, not academics ya dingus

[Anonymous No.14323517]

>>14323500
Anyone that refuses to believe in class consciousness apparently.

[Anonymous No.14323567]

>>14322032
Pretty sure planned economies work or else why is the US shitting itself over China?

[Anonymous No.14323579]

>>14320061
>mandatory hardcore cultural marxist propaganda
1) "cultural marxism" isn't a real thing since marxism itself is by default a critique of culture
2)the frankfurt school had zero influence in warsaw pact nations, not the least bit because they lived in the united states during the war but especially because their brand of critique was devoted to figuring out why workers in the west weren't revolting. adorno's writing in particular would have been incomprehensible to a real live communist party member in the eastern bloc

[Anonymous No.14323601]

>>14323567
>china
>planned economy

[Anonymous No.14323610]

>>14323601
now you're just making shit up

[Anonymous No.14323616]

>>14323610
They havent been anywhere close to a planned economy since the reforms. Maoism was a planned economy, and it was horrendous. They were forced to liberalize the economy after that.

[Anonymous No.14323664]

>>14319030
Presumably because you’d consider him a fascist and he’d consider you a communist. Reminder that “capitalist footsoldier” will become anyone who resists the seizure of proletariat power WHICH FYI many people will. I am poor, my parents are poor, and my grandparents were poor. Yet my grandparents were executed and thrown in a ditch for resisting communism. Maybe I will be a coward but hopefully I will have the strength to resist will that day ever come.

[Anonymous No.14323684]

>>14323616
china is currently nearing the end of the thirteenth five year plan

[Anonymous No.14323778]

>>14323275
>It means that you are both giving what people deserve for their ability in something and what they need for their lack of ability in something else
i dont know who are right, maybe neither you or me. but i think "needs" is not "lack of ability" like you interpret it.
you make a reciprocity in the sentence i think is not there. in part, that is the point of my post.
people deserving something for their ability is a big propagandistic capitalist thing. that is what i refer as the trojan horse. the notion that your ability in something make you deserving of something is the trojan horse (capitalism) behind an egalitarian vision of the world. i only said is a contradiction. you never listen to the hipercapitalist "if i have the ability to make a idea that sell then i deserve the money of it".
ability is a shitty word, its not my fault his faulty choose of words.

like i said in the post, the "each according to his needs" part makes no sense at all. you cant make a subjectivist claim like that and at the same time want a egalitarian society. the "needs" have to be something universal or makes no sense. if the "needs" its a subjectivist thing there is no union behind it except little subjectivist "needs".

[Anonymous No.14323819]

>>14323616
China is literal state run capitalism

[Anonymous No.14323826]

>>14323819
That makes it closer to fascism than anything like a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Which is fine by me, fascism is a worthwile endeavor.

[Anonymous No.14323832]

I need a big tiddy big assed gf, will communisn provide my need?

[Anonymous No.14323836]

>>14322994
>how can you count the abilty of someone?. what this suppose to mean?
It means that in a higher stage of socialism consumption is free for all independent of contribution.
>if you gonna give more money
There's no money in socialism.
>imagine if an anarcocapitalist say this and how is totally coherent with his views.
Your entire post so far is based on confusing "from each according to his ability" with "to each according to his ability".
>who say what is the needs of somebody?
Somebody.
>what is not a need?.
Something nobody needs.

>>14323517
What does "to believe in class consciousness" mean?

[Anonymous No.14323844]

>>14323832
No need, just wait till artificial wombs come along and you can clone your oneitis

[Anonymous No.14323845]

>>14323509
That's factually incorrect. Both members of the army and academics (and other civilian occupation e.g. factory owners) were killed.

[Anonymous No.14323868]

>>14323836
>"from each according to his ability" with "to each according to his ability".
what is the difference between one and another?. i say it in good faith. i never understand the difference.

[Anonymous No.14323881]

>>14318615
I love this pissant dipshits thinking Jordan Peterson is a leading authority on Marxism.

Marx was not an egalitarian. At all.

[Anonymous No.14323889]

>>14323868
The first describes what contribution people make and the second describes on what basis their share in the social product is determined.

[Anonymous No.14323907]

>>14323889
Contribution = social product share? I can see how this already is a disaster.

[Anonymous No.14323909]

>>14323889
you think is saying "from one that contribute to each one that need it".

[Anonymous No.14323952]

>>14323907
>Contribution = social product share
That would pretty much "to each according to his ability".

[Anonymous No.14323964]

>>14323952
That would pretty much be*

[Anonymous No.14323968]

>>14323889
>The first describes what contribution people make
no, only say is according to his ability. its saying in what basis make the contribution. you are fooling yourself.

[Anonymous No.14324025]

>>14323968
It says that each makes a contribution according to their ability.

[Anonymous No.14324105]

>>14324025
ok, now i understand it better. i think is an old slogan more than a good articulate phrase. but its ok.
i misinterpret that part.

[Anonymous No.14324109]

"'The elimination of all social and political inequality,' rather than 'the abolition of all class distinctions,' is similarly a most dubious expression. As between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm

Actually read Marxists before you try to dunk on them.

[Anonymous No.14324119]

>>14324025
i think the phrase pressupose an already stablished society-community. that confuse me.

[Anonymous No.14324199]

>>14324109
>may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated."
this is the same with class distinctions, but they dont stop because of that.

[Anonymous No.14324442]

>>14319025
>There were regular "peasant" rebellions for example
Rebellions? You mean with weapons and men and logistics? Why didn't they take to the battlefield of ideas, the debating hall?

[Anonymous No.14325750]

>>14323778
>you make a reciprocity in the sentence i think is not there. in part, that is the point of my post
Yeah, that's what I meant that you were deliberately omitting the second part and falling in a strawman fallacy. The reciprocity is there, you are just ignoring it for the purpose of your argument.

>people deserving something for their ability is a big propagandistic capitalist thing
I do agree with this.

>the "needs" have to be something universal or makes no sense. if the "needs" its a subjectivist thing there is no union behind it except little subjectivist "needs"
This, however, is arguable. Why doesn't it make sense to you? There is no argumentation behind that claim. There is no contradiction between "subjective" and "universal". What do you mean by "subjective"? Consider this
>be living in marxist society
>everyone works according to their own ability
>person A produces product X because that's the ability they have
>thus, person A has no need for product X
>person B produces product Y
>person A needs product Y, but it doesn't have the ability to produce it -- same for person B
>person A gives person B according to his need and vice versa
>both persons produce "from each according to his ability"
>both persons receive "to each according to their needs"