Since redpilling seems to be more of a gradual process than a binary one I've found myself at a certain point that leaves me a little confused.
I am critical of modern capitalism and many philosophies coming from the left make sense to me.
But the whole second world war was very much a fight against the idea of communism brought by jews and the conflict of the Entente vs Germany.
Maybe some of you can help me.
I know communism has failed and led to millions of dead.
I can grasp the horrors of equality and social marxism.
But I fail to see why communism itself and the ideas behind are so despised. It is not like other systems didn't lead to suffering and death.
Maybe you could call this thread "redpill me on communism"
Anybody care to explain or have some links so I can get a better picture on the flaws and errors in communism and socialism?
Just to clarify: I don't say it is good. I am not doubting the effects it had. I just try to understand what lead to those effects.
thanks based mods
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): CE7429128E1DA4E778CB0D395887E750-88055.jpg (86.0 KB, 750x350, communissm.jpg)
>>26970
I'd be glad to give you the starters
first off when most people refer to "communism" or "socialism" they're referring to different stages of what is at it's base marxism, that is carl marxes vision of an egalitarian utopia.
marxism relies on the belief that one is a victim and that someone else is the oppressor, thus rather than empowering one's self everyone fights to enter that oppressed state, by being that they are impervious to criticism and the villains are now whoever isn't in that group. This creates a purity spiral in which people not dedicated enough are punished. Meanwhile the government seizes control of everything, however the government cannot maintain it's control because it doesn't bend and sway tot he forces of the market, thus people cannot make a living doing work they once did. any attempt to engage in work that isn't state approved results in detention. these are the inevitable results of marxism because those who deviate become part of the oppressive class quickly.
I'd be glad to give you the starters
first off when most people refer to "communism" or "socialism" they're referring to different stages of what is at it's base marxism, that is carl marxes vision of an egalitarian utopia.
marxism relies on the belief that one is a victim and that someone else is the oppressor, thus rather than empowering one's self everyone fights to enter that oppressed state, by being that they are impervious to criticism and the villains are now whoever isn't in that group. This creates a purity spiral in which people not dedicated enough are punished. Meanwhile the government seizes control of everything, however the government cannot maintain it's control because it doesn't bend and sway tot he forces of the market, thus people cannot make a living doing work they once did. any attempt to engage in work that isn't state approved results in detention. these are the inevitable results of marxism because those who deviate become part of the oppressive class quickly.
File (): 1CAAB695BEF5CDA11622A9E82BD8A9C4-132021.jpg (128.9 KB, 297x475, 480329.jpg)
>>26970
Gaining consistent knowledge that will help us see current politics and conspiracies for what they are is indeed gradual process.
Communism to me looks like something that would only work in ideal society. Similar to what kind of goverment would Jesus enstablish if he could.
Failures of communism happened becauses its based on what should be, and not what is.
First must come what is and then one can work towards what should be.
Thats moral I learned in Machaivelli's book "The Prince". Pic related book cover. http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/prince/
I believe nothing is impossible. But things can't manifest into reality until requirements for their manifestation is met.
You usually can't get water vapor without boiling up the water first. Or unless you exploit condensation phenomenon. Condensation in this example is that one formely unknown attribute, that once revealed, makes seemingly impossible into possible.
I am pretty new to politics but I would say that Communism to work has quite few prerequisities that need to be met to keep the state in good health. Amongst most important I would think are isolationist politics, highly moral populace, close to no corruption and founding goverment to be free of conspirators.
As I said before, Communism strikes me as idealized form of goverment. If you can't make whole country sincerely believe in those ideas, then the idea will in reality never fulfill. Citizens will offer only lukewarm support for those ideas and eventually whole country becomes hypocritical on several levels.
Gaining consistent knowledge that will help us see current politics and conspiracies for what they are is indeed gradual process.
Communism to me looks like something that would only work in ideal society. Similar to what kind of goverment would Jesus enstablish if he could.
Failures of communism happened becauses its based on what should be, and not what is.
First must come what is and then one can work towards what should be.
Thats moral I learned in Machaivelli's book "The Prince". Pic related book cover. http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/prince/
I believe nothing is impossible. But things can't manifest into reality until requirements for their manifestation is met.
You usually can't get water vapor without boiling up the water first. Or unless you exploit condensation phenomenon. Condensation in this example is that one formely unknown attribute, that once revealed, makes seemingly impossible into possible.
I am pretty new to politics but I would say that Communism to work has quite few prerequisities that need to be met to keep the state in good health. Amongst most important I would think are isolationist politics, highly moral populace, close to no corruption and founding goverment to be free of conspirators.
As I said before, Communism strikes me as idealized form of goverment. If you can't make whole country sincerely believe in those ideas, then the idea will in reality never fulfill. Citizens will offer only lukewarm support for those ideas and eventually whole country becomes hypocritical on several levels.
File (): ECE7B19D9C238732806FB460EE14D6FE-38246.jpg (37.3 KB, 250x364, jo98.mrt.pinochet.jpg)
>>26970
I despise leftist thinking because the ideas are so unworkable, but the promises are so enticing that it just keeps happening over and over again, and society must keep a constant vigil so that our own home nations do not fall prey to the red scourge.
Capitalism's not perfect, but I'll be damned if anything Marxist is going to take its place while I'm alive. I'll go full Otoya Yamaguchi before I let that happen. Seven lives for my country.
Also, posting without captcha feels *gooooodddd*
I despise leftist thinking because the ideas are so unworkable, but the promises are so enticing that it just keeps happening over and over again, and society must keep a constant vigil so that our own home nations do not fall prey to the red scourge.
Capitalism's not perfect, but I'll be damned if anything Marxist is going to take its place while I'm alive. I'll go full Otoya Yamaguchi before I let that happen. Seven lives for my country.
Also, posting without captcha feels *gooooodddd*
File (): 41FC19D8E148B0A98175F870025D6CE6-224142.jpg (218.9 KB, 479x690, c1_2.jpg)
File (): A89EDA833E9D5F1286F3F993F9F0DFAC-52109.jpg (50.9 KB, 800x533, s1.reutersmedia.net.jpg)
>>26978
the vision of an egalitarian society sounds good to me as an idea
While I see certain logic in the dualism of victims and opressors this is indeed a very simplified way to see the world
>thus rather than empowering one's self everyone fights to enter that oppressed state, by being that they are impervious to criticism and the villains are now whoever isn't in that group. This creates a purity spiral in which people not dedicated enough are punished
This is a good explaination. Thank you!
>Meanwhile the government seizes control of everything, however the government cannot maintain it's control because it doesn't bend and sway tot he forces of the market, thus people cannot make a living doing work they once did. any attempt to engage in work that isn't state approved results in detention. these are the inevitable results of marxism because those who deviate become part of the oppressive class quickly.
This is interesting. The centralized economy combined with the ideological biases makes a lot of sense seeing that downfall of the soviets and on the flipside explains their massive war industry at the time.
But in many cases there are more than just these factors like hard physical limitations as for example being cut of from certain ressources. This is worth looking into.
>>26984
>Communism to me looks like something that would only work in ideal society.
The struggle of Idealism, realism and Weltschmerz seem to be reappearing phenomenon in situations that lead to disasters.
>I believe nothing is impossible. But things can't manifest into reality until requirements for their manifestation is met.
Wise words.
>As I said before, Communism strikes me as idealized form of goverment. If you can't make whole country sincerely believe in those ideas, then the idea will in reality never fulfill. Citizens will offer only lukewarm support for those ideas and eventually whole country becomes hypocritical on several levels.
It seems to me that all the major conflict are not induced by politics but the ideologies that result in them. But could be the opposite to be honest.
>>26990
>I despise leftist thinking because the ideas are so unworkable, but the promises are so enticing that it just keeps happening over and over again
I would love to here more about this.
But I have to say that the enticing promises are not limited leftist thinking. I tried to find pictures of capitalistic propaganda but this will have to suffice.
the vision of an egalitarian society sounds good to me as an idea
While I see certain logic in the dualism of victims and opressors this is indeed a very simplified way to see the world
>thus rather than empowering one's self everyone fights to enter that oppressed state, by being that they are impervious to criticism and the villains are now whoever isn't in that group. This creates a purity spiral in which people not dedicated enough are punished
This is a good explaination. Thank you!
>Meanwhile the government seizes control of everything, however the government cannot maintain it's control because it doesn't bend and sway tot he forces of the market, thus people cannot make a living doing work they once did. any attempt to engage in work that isn't state approved results in detention. these are the inevitable results of marxism because those who deviate become part of the oppressive class quickly.
This is interesting. The centralized economy combined with the ideological biases makes a lot of sense seeing that downfall of the soviets and on the flipside explains their massive war industry at the time.
But in many cases there are more than just these factors like hard physical limitations as for example being cut of from certain ressources. This is worth looking into.
>>26984
>Communism to me looks like something that would only work in ideal society.
The struggle of Idealism, realism and Weltschmerz seem to be reappearing phenomenon in situations that lead to disasters.
>I believe nothing is impossible. But things can't manifest into reality until requirements for their manifestation is met.
Wise words.
>As I said before, Communism strikes me as idealized form of goverment. If you can't make whole country sincerely believe in those ideas, then the idea will in reality never fulfill. Citizens will offer only lukewarm support for those ideas and eventually whole country becomes hypocritical on several levels.
It seems to me that all the major conflict are not induced by politics but the ideologies that result in them. But could be the opposite to be honest.
>>26990
>I despise leftist thinking because the ideas are so unworkable, but the promises are so enticing that it just keeps happening over and over again
I would love to here more about this.
But I have to say that the enticing promises are not limited leftist thinking. I tried to find pictures of capitalistic propaganda but this will have to suffice.
>>26970
The essential problems with Marxism (yes I know you said "Communism"), I think, are as follows.
Marxism is based around freeing an oppressed lower proletariat class from an oppressive bourgeoisie class. This means first, that Marxism doesn't actually have much of an idea of what its ideal society will look like, what the good of an individual is, or what a good society is. It only knows what is evil - the oppressive bourgeoisie class and its oppressive oppression. And it has no other evils to its puritanical morality, meaning that the basic functions of morality are ignored by it. I think this is why communist youth are petulant children - they have no moral concerns for decency, self-control, politesse, or respect for others, because their ideology allows for only one evil and no good.
Second, Marxism is never really satisfied that the Bourgeois class has been removed. It constantly looks for the oppressive class everywhere, and tends to tends to think it's found it. As such, it's constantly crusading. See the eternal revolution concept in Maoism or look at any of the "white privilege" nonsense in modern Neo-Marxism.
Third, it is so extremely collectivistic and deterministic that it does not provide any dignity to the individual human being. Every human is only the product of economic or social forces and is either a product of the oppressive class - which must be destroyed in its entirety - or a part of the oppressed, who may be sacrificed for the greater good of the whole. I think this is why Communism and Marxism tend towards extreme democide. The ideology demands it, and there is no reason not to.
Finally, and because of the fact that it sees everything as bourgeois oppression, it must be tyrannical in how it handles dissent. Every tiny bit of dissent again the communist "plan" is perceived as the oppressive class trying to reassert itself. And so all dissent must be silenced to end the oppression. See how modern feminists (Neo-Marxists) so quickly call out other feminists for being part of the oppressive patriarchy. That, I think, is another reason why Marxist Communism invariably becomes totalitarianism.
In short, it's a puritanical morality based solely on killing off an "oppressive" bogeyman. Though other ideologies frequently become oppressive genocidal totalitarian regimes, Communism invariably does. And that is why.
The essential problems with Marxism (yes I know you said "Communism"), I think, are as follows.
Marxism is based around freeing an oppressed lower proletariat class from an oppressive bourgeoisie class. This means first, that Marxism doesn't actually have much of an idea of what its ideal society will look like, what the good of an individual is, or what a good society is. It only knows what is evil - the oppressive bourgeoisie class and its oppressive oppression. And it has no other evils to its puritanical morality, meaning that the basic functions of morality are ignored by it. I think this is why communist youth are petulant children - they have no moral concerns for decency, self-control, politesse, or respect for others, because their ideology allows for only one evil and no good.
Second, Marxism is never really satisfied that the Bourgeois class has been removed. It constantly looks for the oppressive class everywhere, and tends to tends to think it's found it. As such, it's constantly crusading. See the eternal revolution concept in Maoism or look at any of the "white privilege" nonsense in modern Neo-Marxism.
Third, it is so extremely collectivistic and deterministic that it does not provide any dignity to the individual human being. Every human is only the product of economic or social forces and is either a product of the oppressive class - which must be destroyed in its entirety - or a part of the oppressed, who may be sacrificed for the greater good of the whole. I think this is why Communism and Marxism tend towards extreme democide. The ideology demands it, and there is no reason not to.
Finally, and because of the fact that it sees everything as bourgeois oppression, it must be tyrannical in how it handles dissent. Every tiny bit of dissent again the communist "plan" is perceived as the oppressive class trying to reassert itself. And so all dissent must be silenced to end the oppression. See how modern feminists (Neo-Marxists) so quickly call out other feminists for being part of the oppressive patriarchy. That, I think, is another reason why Marxist Communism invariably becomes totalitarianism.
In short, it's a puritanical morality based solely on killing off an "oppressive" bogeyman. Though other ideologies frequently become oppressive genocidal totalitarian regimes, Communism invariably does. And that is why.
File (): 6DB4C910850FF2C0BFE102EC456BC7F1-46321.png (45.2 KB, 599x336, 1b89248558121b5a3d1af495784adb2c.png)
File (): DBE593149633DEB1FA8635DEE6E886D6-127780.png (124.8 KB, 1083x263, e0da2a0a69a1641fbc2d05a045579eda.png)
Communism can only exist if people agree on every aspect of what the government does and where the money goes. That of course is impossible.
People for the most part like their personal property that they worked for all their life, and government seizure of it will cause them to lash out.
You have to shut down protests that ignite violence and destruction of property because property is owned by the state which is what they're protesting against, and you have to stop people who are angry at the seizure of their property so, military police state action.
Then of course you have a bunch of people who no longer give a fuck about the quality of their work, because there's no change in income between skilled and unskilled labour. Farmers (normally a high paying job) say fuck it. So you gotta beat people in fields to get them to work hard enough to feed your shitty country. Why get skilled to pay for a high life when that can't happen no matter what.
But of course you're a just doing communism wrong.
BTW Cubans make $25 a month, Castro died with 900 Million. Any Politician spreading communism is just trying to become hyper wealthy through destroying the people of the nation through their leadership.
People for the most part like their personal property that they worked for all their life, and government seizure of it will cause them to lash out.
You have to shut down protests that ignite violence and destruction of property because property is owned by the state which is what they're protesting against, and you have to stop people who are angry at the seizure of their property so, military police state action.
Then of course you have a bunch of people who no longer give a fuck about the quality of their work, because there's no change in income between skilled and unskilled labour. Farmers (normally a high paying job) say fuck it. So you gotta beat people in fields to get them to work hard enough to feed your shitty country. Why get skilled to pay for a high life when that can't happen no matter what.
But of course you're a just doing communism wrong.
BTW Cubans make $25 a month, Castro died with 900 Million. Any Politician spreading communism is just trying to become hyper wealthy through destroying the people of the nation through their leadership.
>>26970
Former Marxist gone Nat Soc here.
The main problems with Marxism are as fallows: the steps to implement it are bad, the way it works is unrealistic, and it is evil in its theoretical ending.
The communist idea to secure end Marxism is bad. This is the "communism" in which Marxists will disavow because it wasn't real socialism. This is actually because it isn't real socialism. Its socialism in its revolutionary stage still. It sounds weird but this is where Marx talked about the dictatorship of the proletariat to liberate the rest of the workers of the world. But still in order to liberate the rest of the workers you have to continuously have a revolution to continuously liberate more and more workers. During Marx's time this would be possible but now it just isn't without states moving in to secure this entirely through military. Even back them nationalism kept such events from transpiring. It is impossible and blood as all hell since you would have to execute all class enemies, in a similar way to Stalin's purges or Mao's cultural revolution. It isn't pretty.
Next classical Marxism is just unrealistic. It relies on a state of anarchy where left side economics take place. The problem is that left economics are antithetical to anarchy. Anarchy in itself is an impossible state to hold even in a vacuum. In a state of anarchy you have to be perfectly free, but if your free then you must be free to sell yourself, but as soon as you sell yourself your no longer free. But if you can't sell yourself then there must be something making you not free. Anarchy of any form let alone Marx's is impossible to maintain and just wouldn't work in its end goal.
But even the end goal itself is terrible. It calls for complete equality. Doesn't sound bad at first but it is. Equality of outcome is distopian as all hell since it means those who are born better will be punished for being a superior class to those born worse. This coupled with the culture in which Marxism needs in order to operate is just degenerate. A world where everything is shared. Your wife your children. Marx made his agreements because he believed that nothing mattered anymore but in this world no one would matter all the same in a capitalist society. We would all be cogs in a machine tools for our own pleasure being brainwashed by some (((collective))) in which instate the entire system. Its not a utopia its a living nightmare where everyone is in a state of victimization and conformity with no way of expressing themselves without someone else getting them purged by the collective anarchy group for straying away from their group. Nothing about it is appealing to me anymore after reading a lot about it and talking to other communists.
Former Marxist gone Nat Soc here.
The main problems with Marxism are as fallows: the steps to implement it are bad, the way it works is unrealistic, and it is evil in its theoretical ending.
The communist idea to secure end Marxism is bad. This is the "communism" in which Marxists will disavow because it wasn't real socialism. This is actually because it isn't real socialism. Its socialism in its revolutionary stage still. It sounds weird but this is where Marx talked about the dictatorship of the proletariat to liberate the rest of the workers of the world. But still in order to liberate the rest of the workers you have to continuously have a revolution to continuously liberate more and more workers. During Marx's time this would be possible but now it just isn't without states moving in to secure this entirely through military. Even back them nationalism kept such events from transpiring. It is impossible and blood as all hell since you would have to execute all class enemies, in a similar way to Stalin's purges or Mao's cultural revolution. It isn't pretty.
Next classical Marxism is just unrealistic. It relies on a state of anarchy where left side economics take place. The problem is that left economics are antithetical to anarchy. Anarchy in itself is an impossible state to hold even in a vacuum. In a state of anarchy you have to be perfectly free, but if your free then you must be free to sell yourself, but as soon as you sell yourself your no longer free. But if you can't sell yourself then there must be something making you not free. Anarchy of any form let alone Marx's is impossible to maintain and just wouldn't work in its end goal.
But even the end goal itself is terrible. It calls for complete equality. Doesn't sound bad at first but it is. Equality of outcome is distopian as all hell since it means those who are born better will be punished for being a superior class to those born worse. This coupled with the culture in which Marxism needs in order to operate is just degenerate. A world where everything is shared. Your wife your children. Marx made his agreements because he believed that nothing mattered anymore but in this world no one would matter all the same in a capitalist society. We would all be cogs in a machine tools for our own pleasure being brainwashed by some (((collective))) in which instate the entire system. Its not a utopia its a living nightmare where everyone is in a state of victimization and conformity with no way of expressing themselves without someone else getting them purged by the collective anarchy group for straying away from their group. Nothing about it is appealing to me anymore after reading a lot about it and talking to other communists.
File (): 926F731BBCD4625715444758D56E594B-30554.png (29.8 KB, 900x600, Black_Front_flag.svg.png)
>>26970
Want to talk about Strasserism OP? It's a more workers liberation focused form of NatSoc. It is actual National Socialism, critical of Hitler's curtailing of socialism to win the favor of the capitalist elite. It is also critical of the concept of fuhrerprinzip, as Strasserists believe that the ideology is what is being served, and a fuhrer merely exists to serve an ideology.
It is critical of materialist philosophies such as that of Marx as they believe that a purely materialistic solution to any problem is no conducive to a happy, strong nation. Meanwhile, capitalism is also considered an evil thing, especially finance capitalism (aka unproductive capitalism, or Jewish capitalism).
During the Reich, Otto Strasser and George Strasser were high ranking members of the Nazi party, and were the hardline socialist element, believing that the ideology of National Socialism should have the intent of borrowing from the left socialism, without internationalism, and from the right, nationalism, without capitalism, marrying them into a third position. Both were excommunicated from the party due to their rigid adherence to the National Socialist ideology. Otto Strasser fled the country, and went on to write a significant amount of that is today considered Strasserist literature. George Strasser was betrayed by Hitler in the Night of Long Knives, being executed summarily and without trial.
I believe that with some tweaking, Strasserism could be the revolutionary path forward, being an ideology not as spurned as National Socialism, and also being from what I can tell, a system that is compatible with post scarcity.
Want to talk about Strasserism OP? It's a more workers liberation focused form of NatSoc. It is actual National Socialism, critical of Hitler's curtailing of socialism to win the favor of the capitalist elite. It is also critical of the concept of fuhrerprinzip, as Strasserists believe that the ideology is what is being served, and a fuhrer merely exists to serve an ideology.
It is critical of materialist philosophies such as that of Marx as they believe that a purely materialistic solution to any problem is no conducive to a happy, strong nation. Meanwhile, capitalism is also considered an evil thing, especially finance capitalism (aka unproductive capitalism, or Jewish capitalism).
During the Reich, Otto Strasser and George Strasser were high ranking members of the Nazi party, and were the hardline socialist element, believing that the ideology of National Socialism should have the intent of borrowing from the left socialism, without internationalism, and from the right, nationalism, without capitalism, marrying them into a third position. Both were excommunicated from the party due to their rigid adherence to the National Socialist ideology. Otto Strasser fled the country, and went on to write a significant amount of that is today considered Strasserist literature. George Strasser was betrayed by Hitler in the Night of Long Knives, being executed summarily and without trial.
I believe that with some tweaking, Strasserism could be the revolutionary path forward, being an ideology not as spurned as National Socialism, and also being from what I can tell, a system that is compatible with post scarcity.
>>27073
The end goal of communism is the dissolution of the state. As Trotsky, and probably Stalin realized, this would not be something that could stand alone on a national level. Hence, a never ending vanguard party that was SUPPOSED to set up communism.
At this point, it is either revolution or defeat, and we must know our enemy inside and out in order to win.
>>27016
Marxists and communists DO have an idea for what a good society be and how someone could exist happily in it.
Once communism is installed, and the state withers away (Marxist Leninism, not Maoism) there cannot be a Bourgeois class, or bourgeois oppression.
Communism is really bleak in terms of how revolution turns out, but the idea is that this thankless cycle dies out once developed communism is introduced.
The fourth point is a pretty good one, I suppose. Most tankies and anarchists admit that dissenters should be lined up against a wall and shit.I find it odd that an ideology that promotes dialectic (Hegel) materialism wants to basically stop the self propulsion of Hegelian Dialectic.
But alas, I'm not a commie.
The end goal of communism is the dissolution of the state. As Trotsky, and probably Stalin realized, this would not be something that could stand alone on a national level. Hence, a never ending vanguard party that was SUPPOSED to set up communism.
At this point, it is either revolution or defeat, and we must know our enemy inside and out in order to win.
>>27016
Marxists and communists DO have an idea for what a good society be and how someone could exist happily in it.
Once communism is installed, and the state withers away (Marxist Leninism, not Maoism) there cannot be a Bourgeois class, or bourgeois oppression.
Communism is really bleak in terms of how revolution turns out, but the idea is that this thankless cycle dies out once developed communism is introduced.
The fourth point is a pretty good one, I suppose. Most tankies and anarchists admit that dissenters should be lined up against a wall and shit.I find it odd that an ideology that promotes dialectic (Hegel) materialism wants to basically stop the self propulsion of Hegelian Dialectic.
But alas, I'm not a commie.
>>27200
See, I don't buy the idea that Marxists and communist know what a good society is. I mean they may have good INTENTIONS, but that is not the same as having an in depth understanding of what is good for everyone.
See, I don't buy the idea that Marxists and communist know what a good society is. I mean they may have good INTENTIONS, but that is not the same as having an in depth understanding of what is good for everyone.
>>27201
Oh, but of course, YOU know what a good society is, right? Surely you'd know better than all of those communists! They're just communists after all!
Nah, but in all seriousness, try cutting the bullshit and talking to some communists.
Oh, but of course, YOU know what a good society is, right? Surely you'd know better than all of those communists! They're just communists after all!
Nah, but in all seriousness, try cutting the bullshit and talking to some communists.
>>27200
What is the idea of the good state and society? I've seen nothing more than "the absence of the oppressors." That's not a meaningless description, but it is still only a negative description. What exactly is this new society supposed to look like?
Yes, when all has been accomplished, the oppressors are gone and there is no state. The thing is, communists never believe they have eliminated the oppressors. They think they are always lurking somewhere. That's why Maoism was so horrifying - they felt the need to continually destroy because they were not satisfied the old order was gone. And the Soviets essentially gave up on the goal of communism.
How exactly do you introduce developed communism? What even is developed communism besides the absence of the oppressive order?
What is the idea of the good state and society? I've seen nothing more than "the absence of the oppressors." That's not a meaningless description, but it is still only a negative description. What exactly is this new society supposed to look like?
Yes, when all has been accomplished, the oppressors are gone and there is no state. The thing is, communists never believe they have eliminated the oppressors. They think they are always lurking somewhere. That's why Maoism was so horrifying - they felt the need to continually destroy because they were not satisfied the old order was gone. And the Soviets essentially gave up on the goal of communism.
How exactly do you introduce developed communism? What even is developed communism besides the absence of the oppressive order?
hmm this thread really changes the patterns of electrical activity in highly specialized cells
Thanks for all this information so far.
>>27199
I would like to hear more about that.
also checked
>>27160
what made you switch?
>>27245
do you know or believe that? dont want to be a dick but capitalism or free market economy?
Thanks for all this information so far.
>>27199
I would like to hear more about that.
also checked
>>27160
what made you switch?
>>27245
do you know or believe that? dont want to be a dick but capitalism or free market economy?
>>27284
I know that any country that adopts communism fails economically. Its like the Islam of economic systems.
I know that any country that adopts communism fails economically. Its like the Islam of economic systems.
>>27284
A lot of things. My friend from my CPUSA chapter got jailed after he turned himself in for building a bomb. Thats when I started re-think everything and asking if I was lying to myself. I found that a lot of things I was saying were just party mantra and that all of my biases were repeated in the cooperate media that I hated so much. I couldn't make heads or tails anymore and after the government tried to take away my little brother from my parents I became a lolbertrain because I hated the government. Thats when I started browsing 4/pol/. Afterwords the classic redpill hit.
A lot of things. My friend from my CPUSA chapter got jailed after he turned himself in for building a bomb. Thats when I started re-think everything and asking if I was lying to myself. I found that a lot of things I was saying were just party mantra and that all of my biases were repeated in the cooperate media that I hated so much. I couldn't make heads or tails anymore and after the government tried to take away my little brother from my parents I became a lolbertrain because I hated the government. Thats when I started browsing 4/pol/. Afterwords the classic redpill hit.
File (): 5304BD7C3F094A5F2351CDC1988607CA-1631565.png (1.6 MB, 2800x1575, capital-commun-social-ism.png)
This thread has lots of vagueities about the nature of people and attacks on marxism, while communism and socialism itself aren't addressed much.
I feel like you can't just dismiss communism by pointing to marxism. There have got to be better arguments.
The general point of >>27160 and >>27200 seems to make it halfway to an argument.
Is it possible to drop the marxism from communism? Just not care about the other country's workers, and let them liberate themselves with you as the example to be followed?
Is the dictator really necessary in the revolutionary stage? Can't the factory or the town decide things on their own?
I feel like you can't just dismiss communism by pointing to marxism. There have got to be better arguments.
The general point of >>27160 and >>27200 seems to make it halfway to an argument.
Is it possible to drop the marxism from communism? Just not care about the other country's workers, and let them liberate themselves with you as the example to be followed?
Is the dictator really necessary in the revolutionary stage? Can't the factory or the town decide things on their own?
17 replies | 9 files | 11 UUIDs | Archived