Why does Veeky Forums defend communism?

Lying

you're retarded

In what manner?

We can conclude that materialism on its own is rather useless. Capitalism and communism are hardly opposites, on the contrary they are two conflicting types of egalitarian materialism.

...

this, but unironically...

>I believe in a liberal ideology
>I vote for a party that is at best conservative and at worst so corrupted by capitalism that it does nothing but suppress mass education so they can continue to maintain proles

In that manner.

Why does a board full of mature intellectuals defend the aboliton of the horrid and vapid materialism that is capitalism? Simple, because cucktalism has turned labor into a necessity when it really shouldn't be. It's not natural that this state of unfairness must persist and the only solution to this is communism. If capitalism was abolished maybe then you would not have to work your ass off to some greedy pig in a suit and could instead pursue your own intellectual interests, which is what this board stands for. Maybe then you wouldn't need to buy in this culture of materialism, where intellectuals like me are often are often ostracized for being such skeptics. Maybe then we could for one set aside our differences this whole unnecessary meritocracy has created and instead work together for a better future to all.

Communism is no less vapid materialism, mister mature intellectual. If only there was some sort of third option...

Why wouldn't Veeky Forums defend communism?

There are many materialists who properly criticize capitalism, for it warrants criticism, plenty of it, even from its supposed defenders, yet people use communism as a scapegoat instead. And this can be done without necessarily advocating for communism. Perhaps you are conflating criticism of Capital with manifesting a will to establish communism. The two go hand in hand with Marx but not at all with most other authors, including the new wave of economists such as Piketty.

With that said, communism is easy to defend isn't it? You can ad-hoc implant literally any solution to any problem because Marx is a bastard child of Hegelian synthesis and we all know (if you don't read some Popper) how pseudo-scientific models of history have turned out up to this point.

...

Marxism isn't liberal, you fucking idiot.

It's not natural for a human being to have to work for food, shelter, and safety?

Please cite your source on that for me.

Because people who tend towards literature and other exercises of the mind tend to assign merit to ideas without the criterion that the idea work.

Socialism is okay.

Communism is inherently atheistic, thus flawed.

/thread

>intellectuals like me
this has to be bait.
The saying "work will set you free" isn't some capitalist propaganda, a man without a purpose ceases to be a man.

>/threading your own post

Hey, thread's over. No need to reply anymore. Get outta here

wtf

>work will set you free
Doesn't Marx say something similar? "Work gives dignity to man" iirc

>I’m 14 the post

it's a board of brainlets and pseuds; that is why

You've changed my mind! Incredible! I now completely lay down all that I believe in because of a Veeky Forums post! Absolutely amazing. Wow.

This is truly incredible. Hold on, I'm on the phone with the authorities. Yeah. I'm telling them I've actually changed my mind because of you! OH MY GOD. THEY ARE SENDING ONE MILLION DOLLARS TO YOUR HOUSE BECAUSE YOU'VE DONE IT.

YOU'VE CHANGED SOMEONES MIND ON Veeky Forums USING THE POWER OF RHETORIC. I KNEW YOU COULD DO IT. ABSOLUTELY AMAZING. NO SARCASM AT ALL.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SARCASM AT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Marx postulated what he believed would be the natural end result of humanity which was ultimately a positive one, Uutopian even.

People approved of this end result and tried to rush it along.

The ruling global elite didn't like this end result, a world where they were not in control, and fought every way they could - through bombs and lies - to prevent it from happening.

A combination of rushing too fast and from constant attacks, this end result - communsim - was crushed.

Other people

Antifa is mainly filled with Anarkiddies

t. Christfag

Most part of the Karl Marx's work is about economic analysis of the capitalism structure, trying to explain how it is and works. It's not even about communism or critics to capitalism.

Of course his work is very important and his observations very interesting. He just made a mistake when started to struggle against his study object, the capitalism, supporting revolutionary ideas and acts. The Communist Manifesto was what burned his image forever in history.

But this part (fight againts capitalism) is of course the smallest part of his work. Perhaps if he had not begun to fight explicitly against capitalism and had finished his career only with his works of analysis of capitalism, like "Das Kapital", he was even accepted by liberals and conservatives as a political scientist who helped to understand the system in which we live.

No, I'm not communist. I'm assumed as a conservative.

Plenty have understood it perfectly well and Marx himself names a few political economists who 'got it' in the preface to the fourth edition. People usually misunderstand it because they start off with some major misconceptions on the nature of Marx' project. It's not a work from which to draw economic theory or base an academic field on(like sociology or some such) or whatever else people got in their heads about Marx. Marx' only intention with the book was to lay bare the inhuman social relations that capitalism creates and show how humanity can set themselves free from this self-forged cage we find ourselves locked in.

>
>>nukes. a lot of them.
> Muh spooks

All of my ideas concern how to manage things hundreds of years from now.

Capitalism is only egalitarian in the vulgar sense that an idiot's dollar is worth as much as an intelligent person's, or a scoundrel's dollar is worth as much as a prophets. It's actually worse than egalitarian in the sense that there are more idiots and scoundrels in the world. Capitalism is subject to Gresham's law but in terms of character; the bad drives out the good.

Because Marx was straightforwardly correct about most of what he claimed.

Marxists hate the libs, you giant dork.

>because it's never been tried
Even better, it has not failed

>>Doesn't Marx say something similar? "Work gives dignity to man" iirc

ascetic ideology
>t.horkheimer

don't criticize the anime

if you haven't read the manga

if you've actually read the manifesto it would all be clear

>(if you don't read some Popper)
you were doing so well until this part...

if your system can't protect itself against "constant attacks" without starting murdering your own population you might as well give up now

>implying half those retards have a consistent ideology
not trying to imply that anarchism is a consistent ideology, but at least it pretends to be

>It's not natural for a human being to have to work for food, shelter, and safety?
There is a precedence which was broken when we fucking industrialized production, you chud. Also, the idea of "natural" human behavior, especially in reference to economics, is nonsense.

>The saying "work will set you free" isn't some capitalist propaganda
First off, it is completely an ideological maxim. Second: communism is a mode of production, not an abolition of labor. People will always work; I would simply prefer access to the fruits of that work. Thanks anyway for the aphorsim, Mike Rowe.

The same reason anyone defends communism: they don't understand economics.

Anyone who is still a gommunist after reading pic related is either severely mentally retarded or perhaps a jew or a nihilist that wants to further human suffering.

pseudo-intellectuals who think their perfect, infalibale brand of communism has never been tried

It's easy to criticize materialism when you define it as "everything that makes me feel bad"

Which are you saying is not materialism? Capitalism or communism?
The point is that materialism is a perfectly legit angle to criticize social reality but you cannot build a functioning society around it, you need strong values and spiritual critique to give it some sort of direction.

He said *a* liberal ideology, you dumb cunts. And it is: progressivism, egalitarianism, natural rights, a focus on people, etc.

>you need strong values and spiritual critique to give it some sort of direction.
Explain why you can't get them from materialism, I don't see why not.

Capitalism is the only way

People didn't give up with the First French Republic and Republicanism is everywhere now

"Wahhh wahhh FUCKING materialism :(" you guys are just broke, get some money then you'll see how good the capital life is

I'm a day trader and I make pretty good money. Doesn't mean that capitalism doesn't have staggering issues, and it doesn't obfuscate the fact I genuinely pity the poor, simply because any moron can do what I do (I've trained morons to do it too) but they can't, they require disposable income to even get a start, and relatively large amounts of capital to make any sort of living.

>guys our system is good because lambos

Not sure if this is bait, but all of Marx works was advocating communism

Reading Sowell won't help you understand economics, bud.

Not him, but Sowell is a quite accomplished economics ph.d and was mentored by Friedman. If you're going to dismiss him, do it less flippantly.

>I'm a day trader and I make pretty good money.
>any moron can do what I do
>they require disposable income to even get a start

I have $30k sat in a savings account. Is that enough to do anything substantial to supplement my income, or are you talking more $300k to see anything worthwhile?

Don't get into day trading unless you want it to become a full time job. Invest for the long term instead.

Marxism is not a liberal philosophy. It supports some ideologies liberal politics espouses, in the same way humans have feet but are not cows.

>when you say you are a communist
>antifa
Antifa aren't really commies though, I haven't heard any redistribution plans from them, just molotofs and fighting with cops

You're wrong. Try reading the complete Marx's work. What is saying is true.

Because they appreciate the critiques of Marx and think it has value outside of the ways it has been used so far.

Pretty sure they're anti-fascist, not communist. Hence the name.

none of the things you cited are part of marxism

Not even egalitarianism?

main criticism of marx is that his ideas are impossible but that did not stop plato so why not marx? + technology makes his ideas possible and average laborer has been elevated. with transit time most of us still work 10+ hours a day

i know that feel too well

>Communism is good because it works on a local human scale(think town)
>Therefore it works on inhuman scale
>Btw, check out these largely homogeneous countries were people are broadly on the same page

not in the sense you use the word, commies do believe in a meritocracy, their criticism of capitalism is that it isn't one

I'm not the one who said it's a liberal ideology. Still, I fail to see the difference, as I'm quite clueless when it comes to marxism.

>Pretty sure they're anti-fascist
lolololololololololololololololol

This is very good bait. I'm still mad tho.

court is in session

Churchill was a fucking liar

Marx is interesting. His critiques of capitalism, especially around alienation and the destruction of culture resonate with me. But a lot of his other ideas tend to be either naive or outright wrong. For example, no historian still views history from a purely materialistic point of view as Marx did, nor does anyone who's studied economics consider Marxist economics to be worthwhile except for studying purely for interest.
His critiques are why a lot of people like him and will blindly follow anything else he writes. At least that's the only explanation I can come up with.

Even Smith recognized that capitalism would concentrate wealth in a parasitic ownership class. The only difference between his solution and Marx's is that Smith would still have workers submit to capital.

Woah, didn't realize this thread would become a /pol/ thread.

Instead of so easily labeling yourself to a cause or political group which may hold opposing beliefs to your own (unless you're an actual sheep), why don't you at least try to think independently?

Nah who am I kidding, that's crazy, right?

You're half right. The whole 'anti-fascist' shtick is a a public front to make themselves look like freedom fighters, but their true ideology is made clear on their flag. Red symbolizes Communism while black symbolizes Anarchy. Anybody who hangs around long enough with an Antifascist will know they are a bunch of Anarcho-Communists.

Communism is interesting as a historical error, nothing more.

Literary types love Communism for some reason. I've never really understood why.

Because abolishing the mediation of commodities through a market, and producing goods for use according to a social plan is the obvious choice if you've spent any time on economic theory. Defenders of market ideology are uniformly terrible, and their ideas persist only with the purposeful ignorance of Marx's critique, which singlehandedly destroyed economics as we understand it. Today, economics is a field that operates on a model of an economy that doesn't actually exist in reality, based on a model of human rationality which also doesn't exist in reality. It manages to avoid criticism simply by disregarding any social context of contemporary capitalism, and anything that actually takes place in the global market. Its concept of capitalism is a platonic form, not a specific mode of production.

According to a standard economist, there are scarce goods and there is supply and demand, and the "science" of economics is just the study of how these goods are best allocated to meet demands through the market. Just with these basic concepts, we have already deeply fallen into ideology and abandoned any historically and socially grounded reality of how production actually takes place. The whole project of Marx is to understand this and pull the rug from the feet of classical economics, just by following its concepts to their logical conclusion. Unfortunately there is no easy path to this with without reading the whole argument.

but then i just get called a centrist and get bullied

This is an incredibly ill informed post.

>Its concept of capitalism is a platonic form, not a specific mode of production
More specifically, how does it contrast with the current state of affairs?

>Because abolishing the mediation of commodities through a market, and producing goods for use according to a social plan is the obvious choice if you've spent any time on economic theory
I love how marxists keep repeating this despite the fact that it's literally the opposite, that is, the most you've studied economics, the less likely you are to be a marxist. It's not a coincidence that marxists are far more likely to be found in sociology and liberal arts than in economics.

The stupidity here takes me back.

>no alternative between communism and capitalism

Capitalism isn't a wholistic political philosophy in the way that communism or fascism would be.

Capitalism is an economic philosophy that can take many forms - you have the mixed markets and neoliberalism of Hayek and Friedman, that influenced Reagan, Thatcher, and Pinochet, you have the arguably purer form of capitalism and classical liberalism as espoused by Von Mises and Rothbard, often adopted by AnCaps and Libertarians. But it doesn't answer questions about how society should be structured, how the state should function, what the duty of citizens are, etc.

>communism is liberal

In case you degenerates didn't realize, capitalism is a liberal philosophy. Kikepedia defines liberalism as, "apolitical philosophyorworldviewfounded on ideas oflibertyandequality.Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes SUCH ASfreedom of speech,freedom of the press,freedom of religion,free markets,civil rights,democraticsocieties,seculargovernments,gender equalityandinternational cooperation."

The US Constitution is a liberal document; it glorifies individualism over the collective, and emphasizes personal Iiberties at the expense of the State and society.

The majority of the GOP espouses conservative liberalism - that is, socially conservative and economically liberal.

Communism is anything but liberal - communism does not emphasize individuality nor personal freedoms. Communism emphasizes the common ownership of the means of production, the absence of social classes, money, and the state. (Ironically, the dictatorship of the proletariat often results in an oppressive dictatorship propping up a capitalistic class of its own.)

>so, user, what is the alternative to capitalism or communism?

Fascism decries both.

I'm an ardent nationalist; I believe that it is right and normal to be proud of ones homeland and people, and to be loyal to it. I believe that capitalism and communism both lead to social degeneracy. I believe that as loyal citizens of our states, we have an obligation to provide for our brothers and sisters who are in need - balanced welfare. I also believe in advancement within society (i.e. social stratification) based on merit, not on where or who you were born to. Ultimately, the economic model that a state follows is unimportant to me, as long as it provides for its citizens, encourages them in self-improvement and constantly striving to improve their country and race, and, above all, loyalty to a social order.

>worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

Most economists read Marx, the fuck are you talking about

>Marxism
>liberal ideology

Haha Jesus, what a fucking mong.

>Socialism is okay.
Meanwhile in Venezuela...

Not once has anyone on Veeky Forums produced any actual criticism towards Sowell, other than the usual 'hurr durr nigger' or 'hurr durr capitalist shill'.

>he actually thinks economics is any more rigorous than sociology
It's cute when your little social science pretends it's up there with the big boys like physics.