Adaptations on Marxism

Holy shit, this board fuckin sucks. Get a job worthless pinkos. You are not entitled to anything.

Sucessful communist countries: 0 and that number will stay until the end of time.
Stay mad.

We also can't conclude that man is not an egoist though.

Everyone lusts for power, and commies are just as honest as anyone in that sense.

Not completely. Out of all species we're by far the most empathetic. The problem is that the maximum number of people that can cooperate on an egalitarian scale is 150. Any number above that and people will be alienated from each other without some kind of arbitrary unifying force like religion or war. That would be the closest to the answer OP asked. But really the best way to figure out why it keeps failing is to analyse what happened in 1917 and where Lenin fucked up.

Every time.

Ask yourself: why didn't the richer, more developed west european countries or the United States try communism? And what unites the countries that communism and socialism spread to?

Of course man is by far the most altruist being on earth (otherwise communism wouldn't even be a thing as an idea), but that doesn’t mean he's not an individual looking for HIS survival, or at least the survival of HIS close acquaintances and ideas. That's the thing each one of us cares about the most. Imagine you're in a room alone with a complete stranger. You’re dying of hunger, and so is he. What choice do you have? I mean, if the said man was a dear, dear friend or something like that you could sacrifice yourself in order to make him live, but why would you care about a complete stranger? One of our many limits is that we can't know deeply and form a bond strong enough to sacrifice ourselves with every single person in the world. And that's also the limit of communism.

> Why is it so hard to put Marxism into practise?
It's extremely easy.

> Where did Lenin and Mao fuck up so badly?
Lenin didn't.

> it went so wrong in practise.
> communism
> in practise.
Extreme levels of retardation detected.

> H U M A N N A T U R E
You got it wrong, user.

That's the reason why Capitalism can't work.

> Sucessful capitalist countries: 0
Fixed that for you.

There are successful capitalists. There are no successful Capitalist countries.

Lenin died too early

>read Jared diamond

Good one

The human condition.
A libertarian society also works well on paper, but will never be sucessfully implimented on a large scale.

0/10

>that bullshit prehistoric agenda driven drivel
>biology

No, you're mixing social sciences with biology (a hard science). There is no direct, undisputable proof of an 100% egalitarian society.

>Therefore they didn't exist

If you reject theories because there's no 100% indisputable proof supporting it you'll have to write off sociology, psychology, biology and to extends, physics and chemistry.

Why are you talking about biology? It has very little to do with the success of economic models.

>a bunch of primitive unga bungas who have literally nothing are egalitarian therefore civilized people should be egalitarian too
That's what you sound like right now

Straaaawmaaaaaaaaaaan. I only stated that there is not enough evidence to support a statement like "There have been plenty of..."

Also a fully egalitarian society is extremely unlikely. Cripples, mentally retarded, otherwise physically weak were most likely left behind.

I never said that.

Fine not completely egalitarian. But without strict hierarchy isn't a strange thought. Modern egalitarian tribes have been observed. Google reverse dominance if you're wondering.

Boehm, having explored data from 48 societies spread across the globe, ranging from small hunting and gathering bands to more sedentary chiefdoms, suggested that with the advent of anatomically modern humans who continued to live in small groups and had not yet domesticated plants and animals, it is very likely that all human societies practised egalitarianism and that most of the time they did so very successfully.[20]

Boehm writes:

"As long as followers remain vigilantly egalitarian because they understand the nature of domination and leaders remain cognizant of this ambivalence-based vigilance, deliberate control of leaders may remain for the most part highly routinized and ethnographically unobvious."
Boehm identifies the following mechanisms ensuring the Reverse Dominance Hierarchy: Public Opinion, Criticism and Ridicule, Disobedience, and Extreme Sanctions. Further characteristics include ambivalence towards leaders and anticipation of domination.

Interpersonal complementarity[edit]

Sounds like a dictatorship

It's not. It's like your family and group of friends.

Meant for

My household is a dictatorship on small scale.

I'm sorry about your anger issues, user.

Now we just have to create a family bond to 8 billion people.

Vanguard parties,
Socialists realised that the proletariat would never start a revolution by themselves, so they had to create vanguard parties to incite anger, revolt and gibsmedat ideology.
When they reach power and start to enjoy all the good things that come with absolute authority, combined with the fear of losing said power, socialists leaders become increasingly authoritarian. As central planning is inefficient, poverty and corruption soon follow. As a result, you end up with an opressive society with people living in misery.

> Why is it so hard to put Marxism into practise?
Because capitalists always trying to ruin workers solidarity.

That's what culture does.

>Muh capitalists
Workers under capitalism in the West generally have it alright, especially if they have trade unions. The bloody retard unions in the 70's tarnished the name of trade unions in the UK though, and it's not that bad. Not all workers have no sense of the individual m8.

Because you only need one little corrupt human to break the whole system.

Capitalism is also corrupt, but when mixed with sensible governance and sensible unions, it gets balanced out.

Communism opposes capitalism so there can never be any counter to the inefficiency.

Also, purges of the weslthy and intellectusls set back a state a generation or three. Because these people are the driving forces of progress (both good and bad)

>Russians
>no guns
>no germs
I'll give you the steel, it's shit anyway.

A central idea of Communism is the dismantlement of nation states, forcing Communism inside a nation state is guaranteed to fail.

On a related note, Communism needs to arise in a global revolution. Communism will always lose to Capitalism in a head-to-head confrontation.

Because all previous so called communist revolutions happened in essentially pre-capitalist economies that totally lacked the labour productivity to actually enable what Marx envisioned.

The total global development of capitalism is a necessary pre-condition for the possibility of socialism, since only capitalism's economic compulsion to maximize labour productivity is capable of generating the productivity necessary to actually make communism possible.

I hate commies but they were Veeky Forums as fuck

Blahnik?

...

And the fact that no revolution has ever happened in an advanced capitalist economy means that Marx was wrong.

Because since capitalism seen through a Marxist's eyes is such a powerful device of ideology, their own ideology has to be even harder and more authoritarian, and leave less room for freedom.

In order to remove the perceived ideological convictions of people in a capitalist society(ideas of commodification, acceptance of capitalist authority et.al), they had to become a brutal collectivistic dictatorship.

The problem is of course, that this created an even worse society than the industrial capitalistic ones, because the freedom to choose between 5000 different types of gum, is at least a freedom to choose.

Another problem is also the amount of ideological infighting between Communists themselves, where the essential thing they usually argued about was the role of the State and the monopoly of violence. Marxist-Leninists actually believed that they could use that power as a tool to create a more peaceful and prosperous society in the long run, which was at odds with the more anarchist inclined Communist such as Bakunin, who wanted a society where the means of production(the factories and shops), were owned collectively by the workers themselves, instead of by the State.

The Marxist-Leninists won most places, because they could channel the power of the State into massive armies and ensure hegemony over geographical areas, which is something the anarchist movements in Catalonia or the Free Territory in Ukraine were less interested in.

Just my 2 cents.

Based Eisenhower.

NEVA BEEN DONE BEFO

>it's a Veeky Forums talks about communism thread

Critique my post then

well, it means that capitalism is more adaptable than marx thought, sure. doesn't discount his analysis of capitalism though.

this is the answer. the material conditions weren't actually ready for it yet, basically, and so the marxist-leninists and maoists tried to force their way through it, which doesnt work. automation will be what makes socialism and then communism possible.

>doesn't discout his analysis of capitalism
It actually does, since he believed that the capitalist system was unsustainable and would collapse because of its inherent contradictions. It also invalidates his claims that the working class is exploited.

Sure. Keep in mind I'm an anarchist, so I have no interest in defending Leninism, and your post is probably the best itt so far.

I would argue that Marxist-Leninism states were not authoritarian as a reaction to the "freedom" in capitalism; rather, they were authoritarian because all states inherently are. I don't think you need "brutal collectivist dictatorships" to change ideological convictions, given that we have plenty of real-world examples of rapid change in ideology without any sort of top-down pressure.

That Eisenhower quote is pretty useless too, given that prisons (in America) are extraordinarily inhumane, and not just because of a lack of freedom.

>
I would argue that Marxist-Leninism states were not authoritarian as a reaction to the "freedom" in capitalism; rather, they were authoritarian because all states inherently are. I don't think you need "brutal collectivist dictatorships" to change ideological convictions, given that we have plenty of real-world examples of rapid change in ideology without any sort of top-down pressure.

I agree that states are inherently authoritarian, however there are scales of overt physical domination that differ vastly between them.

Take for example my own country Norway, where some form of ideological humanism permeates every single aspect of society, even through the legislative and punitive parts of the State apparatus, to the extent that people everywhere else in the world are whining that we are treating prisoners "too well".

As for the ideological changes, it's pretty clear to me, and several Marxist intellectuals like Zizek and others agree, that domination was the key feature of the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist states; that having removed the at least superficially voluntary associations of a market, i.e trading money for goods and services, the only thing you were left with was physical domination by the State over it's subject.

>Prisions in America are extraordinarily inhuman
They are fucking palaces compared to most prisions in the world.

Yeah, no. There isn't any such belief outside of vague platitudes. People are as bigoted and hateful as they've ever been, the only real difference now is that we're somewhat more secretive about it in certain cases now.

Because central planning is completely untenable.

This is a weird argument to me, and I'm not even a Commie at all, because how are private corporations not centrally planned?

Not Norway

Maybe because Norway has, like, 12 prisioners?

"Planning" is not "central planning".

Because private companies deal with microeconomics. They focus only on the needs of their particular businesses.

Central in this context is only euphemism for bureaucracy though, which a corporation has a lot of.

>Because private companies deal with microeconomics. They focus only on the needs of their particular businesses.

Sure. Their plate is smaller. But in saying that, you are essentially saying that if the State had numerous smaller companies that were owned by them but had their own specific part of the economy to worry about it would suddenly work out fine?

>But in saying that, you are essentially saying that if the State had numerous smaller companies that were owned by them but had their own specific part of the economy to worry about it would suddenly work out fine?
It wouldn't, as that would still require a system to understand the individual wants of every citizen. Not to mention the inefficiency that is generated by government services.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=zkPGfTEZ_r4

There are only two ways of running an economy: from the top down (centrally planned, by command) or from the bottom up (market, by demand). Communism attempts the former, and fails every time, because command economies are inefficient, subject to horrific errors in pricing, and only utilize a fraction of all available knowledge.

A market economy operates on price signals. The cost of a good or service fluctuates, affecting the cost of other goods and services. In a market economy, this happens smoothly and without delay. When there is a drought, the crop yield on grain goes down. When the crop yield drops, the farmer charges more for his grain. When grain prices go up, the demand for bread drops. Perfect adjustment.

In a command economy you don't have any of this. What you have is a bunch of government bureaucrats sitting in an office somewhere trying to decide what everything should cost. In 1950, the Soviet union had some 3.4 million prices to set. Who in the world is capable of doing that? Not only do you have to set them, you have to keep them correct in relation to one another without having access to the widely distributed knowledge base that a market economy benefits from.

Private corporations do have some elements of planning, but they are still fully subject to market forces. Coke changed its formula a few decades ago. That move was planned. But it was a sales disaster, and Coke quickly got rid of it because they were losing money.

I agree that they cannot accurately predict pricing and that without a market economy a society would fail.

But that doesn't stop every company from being owned by the State.

You could potentially have a state capitalist market economy, where every single company is operated and owned by the state, but is run for profit.

That's called socialism user, and it's a terrible idea.

Qaddafi (RIP) nationalized everything in Libya and ran his country into the ground.

>Central in this context is only euphemism for bureaucracy though, which a corporation has a lot of.
No, it is a descriptor of a kind of an economy in which the state decides focus and production, an extreme counterpart to a completely unregulated free market. It's not about "having a bureaucracy".

Nationalization (state ownership of the means of production) is what has allowed for so much corruption in the Middle East, Africa, Russia, China and elsewhere.

ever since I left the city (You)

>Nationalization (state ownership of the means of production) is what has allowed for so much corruption in the Middle East, Africa, Russia, China and elsewhere.

Sandniggers gonna sandnig.

My country nationalized the oil wealth and we are one of the richest and prosperous countries in the world.

The oil company is still run for profit, the state just has has a over 50% majority, and puts all the money in an oil fund and uses it for infrastructure and the health care system.

Meanwhile, in America taxpayers subsidize the oil companies.

>doesn't stop every company from being owned by the state
That's Venezuela to an extent. The USSR went even further. Do you consider them to be examples of efficiency, intelligent management and prosperity?

Which country is that pham? Norway?

>Norway

Yes.

>taxpayers subsidise the oil industry
No, they don't. And what are you going to do once oil runs out? Or now that the barrel itself is worth more than the petrol inside it? I'm sorry to break this to you, but your country will need some serious and painful reforms to adapt to the new realities. Something like that won't happen in the US, since their government services are not dependent on oil money.

Oh, there's no doubt about what you say. Norway is turning into a banana republic, and has been for the last 10 years.

Not that I think the oil will run out any time soon, but there is a serious need to create new markets in my country so we won't end up like Venezuela.

>false dichotomy
>factual error
>factual error
>unaware of "the firm"

>anti-empiricism
>anti-empiricism
>anti-humanism

let me guess, you're an Austrian?

What? Of course there's such a belief. In world war 1 countless soldiers got themselves killed because they fought for their nations. Nations are culture too, they don't exist. These people died for a belief that's been made up.

Wht do you mean nations dont exist? Of course they do. Its like saying peiople dont exist because we are made up of cells interacting.

This is probably the most retarded thing I'm going to read all day.

>There have been plenty of hunter-gatherer tribes that were completely egalitarian.
That's nothing but noble savage orientalism. Anthro cucks love to pretend the brutes were gommies just like them

>Implying an egalitarian society is desirable

You don't understand the concept of the nation.

Hunter gather societies were not egalitarian. Some positions were seen as greater than others and thus these people were given greater boons.

Besides the destributive method they used only works in a system where literally everyone in the community knows everyone else: this way they know if they give something they can expect something in return, because everyone is watching everyone else even slight grievances will be noticed.

In societies of thousands or millions this is not possible. You must do business with people you might never see again, this makes transactions a high risk so people only accept want to deal in currency which is accepted everywhere (federal notes). It's far too complex for any central planning so the market must regulate itself. And just like in the hunter gather society people are not equal, some positions are higher than others. Except now rather than there being 40 people there are billions. In the past if you were at the bottom it wasn't too significant since the gap between you and the top was only 38 people. Now the gap between the most valued members of society and the lowest valued is astronomical since it's a separation of billions.

>I realise they must have made some changes to his suggestions, but what were they and why adapt the theory anyway?
>suggestions

What suggestions?. What Marx said was "Capitalism is this, and communism should look like this." Everything in socio-economic terms, he didn't made political suggestions, or recipes as I've read around on /his.

>Why is it so hard to put Marxism into practice?
because total centralized economic control also necessitates total centralized political control, and therefore tyranny

beyond that the role of dissent takes on a far greater threat than in more free societies to the point that even minor dissent must be punished severely to maintain the facade of power.

read this article on what Communist society was like, its short but helpful to understand.
also its the same tactics Marxists use in our society to shut down their enemies.

history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165havel.html

marxism=/= centralized economy

yes it certainly does mean that
how else is the co-operative ownership achieved and enforced on any large scale?

and ignoring the inevitable logical dances Marxists make, they ignore the simple social aspects that lack of ownership brings. People are always far less careful with rented property than what they themselves own, its the core idea behind "Homo Sovieticus"

>What Marx said was "Capitalism is this, and communism should look like this."
Nope. Marx said, "These are the laws of motion of capital," and almost nothing about communism, certainly not what it should look like.

The only adaptions that realistically occurred were nationalist and autocratic adaptions which were honestly the only positives in these communists experiments.

The fact is communism/pure socialism is simply too inefficient, the USSR was able to offset this a bit via the economic boom of industrialization but even this wasn't enough to keep them going forever.

Socialism in neolithic tribes can be attributed to the closeness of DNA. The point of life is to pass on DNA, and it is counterintuitive to compete with those who have the same DNA. Which leads to my answer for OP.

You need genetic self interest to create altruism. This means ethnic homogeneity and an express desire to exclusively help members of the national "tribe". One person did this exactly right, and that would be Adolph Hitler. Sadly, he decided to pick a fit with the rest of the world, tarnishing that style of socialism - the only effective style.

Lenin didn't fuck up at all though

Is this the newest meme?

...

Capitalism does work, it is working right now, isn't it?

I'm not saying it doesn't strictly exist. But it's just a figment of our collective imagination. It's not real like methane or rocks are real.

Humans have close to 100% the same DNA. If what you're saying is true then nobody every picks a fight with each other. The point of life is also to stay alive and that means hoarding resources.

Because it's a failed ideology.