Did he realize how much harm he was inflicting on countless future people? Not sure if evil or just terribly wrong

>It's literally not accepted as fact anywhere but Ukraine.

holodomoreducation.org/news.php/news/4

>In accordance with the information from the Ukrainian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 14 countries have recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide:

>Ausrtalia
>Canada
>Colombia
>Ecuador
>Estonia
>Georgia
>Hungary
>Latvia
>Lithuania
>Mexico
>Paraguay
>Peru
>Poland
>Vatican

>and 5 countries have recognized the Holodomor as a criminal act of the Stalinist regime:

>Argentina
>Chile
>Czech Republic
>Slovakia
>Spain

Why does the mere suggestion of cutting the capitalist middle man out of our lives still cause so much extreme butthurt?

Really makes you think

Not him, but Marx's ideology has done nothing but cause unbelievable amounts of suffering. Nothing good has ever come out of communism.

You ever read Marx? Because you sound like you just got memed on by red scare of cold war.

You ever look at the outcomes of countries that tried to become communist because you sound like you got memed on by an 19th century basement dweller neckbeard.

Do you think Nietzsche caused suffering because Nazis used his ubermensch idea?

The ubermensch stuff is propaganda they were only concerned with the German or Aryan nation. If Marx didn't come up with this commie shit nazis never get into power in Germany as a response to Bolshevism.

What harm?

That person is most likely a denialist tankie, but it's absolutely true that communist ideology did not cause the Ukrainian famine.

People say "collectivization caused deaths", but they mean the feudalistic aspects of the five-year-plan. Stalin wanted to make Russia a strong nation with a developed industrial base, so he forced peasants to give him a huge amount of grain to sell to European capitalist countries. With this money, the government would invest in industry. Grain not sold, instead of being given back to hungry peasants, was given to factory workers.

Many Marxists like economist Richard Wolff argue that this was state capitalism, rather than any kind of socialism. Stalin's government filled the shoes of the feudal aristocracy.

>Dude workers conditions in the time I live in are ultrashit.
>Dude I must not do something about this.

>posting a movie with heavy Marxist themes

Should Oppenheimer be held responsible for the Cold War?

Real talk, there's no way to pursue authoritarian revolutionary policy in Russia or China without at least a million people dying

>Stalinism is totally what Marx wanted guys

Terror without virtue is fatal; virtue without terror is impotent.

>it just hasn't been done properly yet.

Tbh Nietzsches übermensch has nothing to do with the Nazi equivalent. Nietzsche is like strict individualism like you see in modern feminism and queer movements.

He just wanted to sell books

On that we can agree.

What do you want me to do when they actually weren't?

realize that the exact theoretical version of communism will never happen and stop advocating for it.

>evil
baka Veeky Forums, how many memes must we post before you learn?

>Nothing good has ever come out of communism.
Even if you're a liberal or a conservative this is patently untrue.

Remember WWII ending? How about improved living standards in Rural China? How about helping to end Apartheid? How about promoting reformist policies globally and establishing effective trade unions so that you all don't have to suck off your boss every day?

>Marx is responsible for Nazis
God, you memers and your memes

I think this point gets less credit than it deserves. The point isn't saying Marxism = ussr perfectly.

The point being made, I would say, is the transitionary period. People I would say definitely attempt socialism, or communism. There is not doubt attempts are made. I would say that these attempts always end in failure. By failure I dont mean the fall of the USSR, I mean that instead of it becoming communism or whatever end goal it should have become, something causes catastrophic results before this promised land can be obtained.

Every possible attempt at employing marx's ideas may start off good, but they don't last. I would assert they don't last because its disregard of human behavior. Constrained view of man(tragic view) vs the more Rousseau view of man being born free, yet everywhere he is in chains, that man could be perfect.

The US in its founding went completely counter to that, assuming man had darkness in their hearts and no amount of social conditioning, rhetoric, genocide and so on, could ever erase that. and so you do your best to cope with it, and set up your society with mechanisms to cope with it.

Really, take marx's ideas to the utmost extreme and imagine if you could function in that society with some of the people you absolutely hate

he wasn't a trot

>harm

Oh no skepticism in capitalism is going to end the world

Get over yourself rust belt faggot

>tfw the line between ironically liking Stalin and actually liking him are becoming blurred

Why do you keep posting this edge lord fag lmfao

WW2 ending was a natural conclusion to the end of a war. Germany did not have the resources to fight a way against the world.

Rural China is a great example of how capitalism has helped a society dramatically. As the government loosened up regulation, many were brought out of poverty and starvation. Being rural isn't necessarily bad, and deciding your going to force everyone out of that mode of living isn't going to bode well.

>apartheid
Yes. Look at SA before and after and tell me theres been an improvement. That isn't to say it wasn't morally right to have apartheid, but be real here. You would not live in the northern part of South Africa. or as a farmer.

Trade unions that were voluntary were fine, you forget that particularly in the US, industrial work was loads better than rural work and living. Trade unions in many industries were hardly effective until government action. Now trade unions simply soak up dollars and chase new companies out of the US who don't want to pay people exorbitant amounts of money to do menial work.
in the US alot of trade unions were simply white laborers in the North attempting to secure their wages by excluding black labor.

These aren't good examples

Most of the world today is democratic-capitalist.

Most of the people all over the world lives like shit.

Does that mean that democracy and capitalism are "evil" and "bad"?

This is why your endpoint analysis of history is both biased and retarded. You should try less to accomodate history to your preconceived moral opinions and try more to understand why and how things developed which is the purest form of understanding.

>Did he realize how much harm he was inflicting on countless future people? Not sure if evil or just terribly wrong.

Did he realize how much harm he was inflicting on countless future people? Not sure if evil or just terribly wrong.

Did he realize how much heroism, goodness of heart, bravery, courage, and general wealth of truth, he was inflicting on countless future people? Not sure if saint or just terribly right.

Didn't he explicitly write that the invisible hand should be protected from those who would exploit the market? Sounds an awful lot like state capitalism to me.

Marx was right though

The only harm inflicted was mostly on behest of capitalist governments who understood the antithesis of the "free market" could exist.

Of course, no alternatives can exist. You either like Capital or your nation gets a coup.

Pretty sad shit. Capitalism is pathetic.

>As the government loosened up regulation, many were brought out of poverty and starvation.
You mean smashing the landlords?

M-muh human nature y-you cuck

l-learn economics.

n-no n-not those perspectives on economics y-you have to read books I agree with

Despite Mao being Mao, and not doing a very good job.

The landlords did deserve the smash

He was spooked AF desu

Go on and name a single significant innovation or invention that was developed under communist rule other than the space toilet and a few weapons.

I'll wait.

...

>Go on and name a single significant innovation or invention that was developed under communist rule

The first satellite to go into orbit and the first man to go into space.

That's a terrible strawman. Economic systems don't produce anything, the people do.

To start a communist society, you need an organisation to seize the nation's wealth and assets. This task falls to the government established by the revolutionaries.

You then need to tell the people that their shit now belongs to the people (meaning the government).

Herein lies the problem: not everyone is going to give up their shit, it's simple human nature. In order to make them give up their shit, you need to do it by force. Force means authoritarianism.

This simple logic shows that Marxism does inevitably lead to authoritarianism, or Stalinism as you call it.

Both of which were made possible by technologies started on prior to communist rule beginning.

There's a reason why China used to be an incredibly technology forward nation, but these days exclusively innovates in ways to steal from other cultures.

>This simple logic shows that Marxism does inevitably lead to authoritarianism

Capitalism is not authoritarian it's a precious babbu who dindu anythin

I know in Shsrtia everything is about muh feels. But the world is not Shartia. And your feel speech does not change the fact that a capitalist middle man decreases the efficiency of a society by a great margin.

>Both of which were made possible by technologies started on prior to communist rule beginning.

True, that doesn't make their industrialization into becoming the first people to utilize that technology not impressive.

They have their mark in space before the Americans, or the European West, whether you like it, or not.

Yes, and economic systems shape the culture in which the people exist. On a national level, communism is detrimental to culture, and therefore detrimental to citizens. It leads to a state of flaccid cultural stagnation.

All successful countries are actually socialist and capitalist mix.

>communism is detrimental to culture

do you know how many artists and musicians and composers and cultured people supported communism in the 20th century

It was far more the opposite.

You know what kind of art capitalism produced at the same time?

Ed Wood. Plan 9 from Outer Space. Godzilla King of the Monsters.It! Terror From Beyond Space? The Giant Gilla Monster!

It's eerie how we're back to selling out shit like this for cheap

Let's not be childish. Capitalism has its faults, but it is infinitely better than communism.

You accepted your fate as the cattle of others I see. Sad to throw away all that potential.

>Capitalism has its faults, but it is infinitely better than communism

You don't even use the term correctly, how the hell do you think I'm going to take you seriously if you haven't read what you disagreed with at all.

You read, you come to your own conclusions based on what you see.

What I see is massive corruption throughout our government, lobbyists turned into politicians, politicians turned into lobbyists. Imperialism, forever war, and profiting off bodies. I see people clinging to hope that oh precious nationalism will save us

It won't. Marx was right. This is how Capitalism functions, so it either must be erased or there must be a nation or space which offers alternate. But the Cold War managed to fuck anything up that was even what Europe is today anywhere besides the west. Capital is an authoritarian regime that shits out propaganda and spits out lies.

In the capitalist society I live in, the wealth I acquire is mine, to spend on what I want, when I want. If I decide I no longer want to work, I stop working, period. The potential I have I can harness by learning about what I want to achieve, then getting a job or starting a company in order to achieve it, the latter option allowing me to employ others and increase their own personal wealth.

In a communist society, my job is chosen for me, regardless of if I am suited to it or not. I am not allowed to keep what I earn. If I decide to stop working, I will be thrown in prison, as will anyone else who decides that they do not want to work. I have no potential, as I am not allowed to spend my money acquiring an education in order to achieve what I want to achieve. I am typical of thousands, a man reduced to a feudal serf, who will live and die at work.

And you say the latter isn't the fate of cattle? Ridiculous.

Whether you like or not, bragging selfishness like this is just proving Marx right. This is a ridiculous argument.

your description of communism sounds an awful lot like capitalism tbqh famalam

Actually, I live in Switzerland, and as such, enjoy very limited political corruption and complete neutrality in regards to war. You, on the other hand, are speaking of America, which is, for all intents and purposes, a merging of business and government, a failing crony-capitalist society.

While true communism has never been tried, true capitalism certainly has, and it was what led the U.S. to become a superpower. What it is today pales in comparison to what it used to be.

That's true, I was just exaggerating and over simplifying my point to make it clear. And because, you know, Veeky Forums.

There is definitely still innovation that comes out of communist regimes, but it tends to be far, far less than what capitalist ones produce.

I'd argue that the majority of positive innovation arises out of capitalist cultures, even if you control for capitalism's global spread compared to communism. It's also responsible for a ton of negative developments, but hey, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Nice strawman (artistic expression isn't quite the same thing as technological innovation, now is it?), but I'll bite. Notable creative types and intellectuals supporting a communist movement that comes about during their adulthood is a very different thing than a communist society producing notable creative types and intellectuals.

Besides, Ed Wood wasn't exactly mainstream culture, and more to the point, there were good and bad artists on both sides of the spectrum during the 20th century. In both communist and capitalist societies during the 20th century, the majority of media was hokey crap, while a minority of good art was produced - usually to less fanfare. That's just the nature of creation.

I am perfectly free to brag selfishness. I will enjoy my wealth and freedom, you will work where and when you are told or be sent to prison.

By all means, explain how.

>a merging of business and government, a failing crony-capitalist society.

There's a specific cross nation term for it.

Late Capitalism.

And Capitalism has never been tried either.'

Maybe there would be more if the cold war pressure of the Truman Doctrine exists and we attacked Korea and Vietnam and supported every coup throughout the world.

Maybe if we left nations to their own soviegrn rights to govern themselves how they please, as long as it doesn't threaten anyone.

America threatened first, because it is Capitalist. Besides I'm not even a state socialist.

>I am perfectly free to brag selfishness

Ad-hominem. Try again please, I'm interested to hear what you have to say. If not, I'll chalk this one up as a win.

>Ad-hominem

Welcome to Veeky Forums. Is this your first day?

>i-it's freedom if I can choose to be exploited and be stuck in drudgery instead of not working and starving!

Capitalism demand the vast majority of people are stuck in unfulfilling dead end jobs if they want to scrape out a bare miminum, while the people who get to have decent lives are milquetoasts who don't actually do any work. Capitalism demands a reserve army of unemployed labor.

...

Your skills and your whole worth as a human being is defined after how much profit you can earn for someone else. Your are calculated as a resource. Like cattle. You accepted your cattle being in the hope to be able to be a cattle holder yourself. You justify it. Well if this is what you defined for yourself as good.

>Maybe if we left nations to their own soviegrn rights to govern themselves how they please, as long as it doesn't threaten anyone.

Hey, I'm all for that, my personal political philosophy mostly boils down to "leave people the fuck alone", which is why I can't get behind communism. It necessitates the state sticking it's nose into all sorts of areas where it ought not be.

Besides, I would still argue that outside of pure need, there's no better stimulant for innovation and development than the free market. Humans are inherently selfish, and the possibility of personal gain and advancement helps to offset the risk required to try out something new.

>It necessitates the state sticking it's nose into all sorts of areas where it ought not be.

I'm an anarchist so I'd rather have something else entirely. There's multiple ways of approaching this. The point is that there could be an alternative to capitalism with the resources we have, but we're just not approaching it in any way because, this is capitalism and if you don't like it leave.

It's a stupid approach to civilization, and we're going to continue to pay for the hubris of the rich and the powerful.

Why is that a poor argument?

My seventh year in fact. But calling someone autistic or questioning how new they are both incoherent responses to a perfectly rational argument. Try again, please.

>unfulfilling dead end jobs
You're at perfect liberty to gain a qualification and get a better job. I quite enjoy mine, though it isn't always fun.

>scrape out a bare miminum, while the people who get to have decent lives are milquetoasts who don't actually do any work
Then work so your children don't have to. I myself have never had to have to work for a house because I have inherited a small one from my recently deceased father. He worked until he was fifty to pay for it. I assume that I am one of those "milquetoasts"?

Absolutely not

Full stateless communism would free us of essentially every social ill

The hard part is getting there

If you have a viable alternative, I'd love to hear it, and I honestly mean that.

Socialism seems to be most people's best alternative, and I can't ever support a philosophy that totalitarian.

>Capitalism demand the vast majority of people are stuck in unfulfilling dead end jobs if they want to scrape out a bare miminum
Within developed nations, the middle class used to make up the majority.

>But calling someone autistic or questioning how new they are both incoherent responses to a perfectly rational argument. Try again, please.

Capitalism is just another means to control and organize society and there is no intrinsic reality to it. Its all smoke and mirrors.

We can accomplish other forms of organization, and Capitalist nations have suppressed all of it. If you hate Communism for government meddling, look at your own Government. Bloated and corrupt, or allied with the bloated and corrupt.

>stateless communism
Literally impossible. Communism requires the subjugation of the people by force. Humans are far too selfish, far too willful, and far too idiosyncratic for stateless communism to happen.

>Your skills and your whole worth as a human being is defined after how much profit you can earn for someone else
A good argument, if it were not for the fact a) I don't particularly care how I am defined by anyone else and so fail to see the relevance and b) that I can choose to quit when I have amassed enough wealth, leaving my employer to seek someone else to profit from - in other words, the decision is in my hands and not in his.

Syndicalism

Anarchism is, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics. Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them.Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a particular variety of anarchism which was concerned primarily, though not solely, with control over work, over the work place, over production. It took for granted that working people ought to control their own work, its conditions, they ought to control the enterprises in which they work, along with communities, so they should be associated with one another in free associations and democracy of that kind should be the foundational elements of a more general free society. Ideas are worked out about how exactly that should manifest itself, but I think that is the core of anarcho-syndicalist thinking. I mean it’s not at all the general image that you imagine, people running around the streets, you know, breaking store windows. Anarcho-syndicalism is a conception of a very organized society, but organized from below by direct participation at every level, with as little control and domination as is feasible, maybe none.

I don't think he cared. He thought that the educated elites like himself would be the ones leading the filthy, uneducated proles around in glorious communist revolution. It's great because all the way back to its origins, much like most commies today, the only people who believed in a communist revolution were the bourgeoisie who felt they weren't going to have to do anything but be smart while everyone else does the actual revolutionary shit.

>Literally impossible. Communism requires the subjugation of the people by force.

Sounds like Capitalism

This one is from the midwest. I can smell it.

>Capitalism is just another means to control and organize society and there is no intrinsic reality to it.
Actually, the basis of all government, from Capitalism to Communism, is the control of resources. Resources and the human demand for food, water and shelter both have very "intrinsic reality" reality to them. If you don't believe that, just stop drinking water or eating food.

>We can accomplish other forms of organisation, and Capitalist nations have suppressed all of it.
This is something I agree with you on. A better form of organisation must be found if we are to advance as a species - but I believe that capitalism is the best we have thus far. I still maintain that it is provably superior to communism.

>If you don't believe that, just stop drinking water or eating food.

What does that have to do with what I just said. Do you think I disagree? What?

>but I believe that capitalism is the best we have thus far

Look at it. Just look at what we've done the last hundred years. Really study it, and look at it, and tell me again the classic "Capitalism ain't great but you with what you got"

We have a bloated corpse with a giant FED printing out money as fast and strong as Germans shit, and all of that money is going to the top of the pyramid. If you don't want to smash the pyramid you're blind to what's going and you've been too fooled to stop believing in the pyramid scheme you've been fed your entire life.

Basically, I'm for as little government intervention in people's lives as possible, and as much free will as is feasible. I guess my thinking would be closest to a libertarian viewpoint? I don't like putting myself in a box like that though, because then I have to answer for all the associated people, viewpoints, ideas and goals that I don't agree with.

Communism by it's very nature requires direct government meddling in almost every aspect of life, so it's irrevocably no-go for me.

See, something like this sounds attractive to me as an idea, but I just don't see how that could possibly function in the real world. It's all well and good to dream for the ideal, but in reality the ideal can never be achieved. You have to strive for the least evil reality as is feasible.

>great analysis
He was flat fucking wrong. The characterization of all conflict as class conflict is what one might call """""incorrect"""""""

How is "to each according to their ability, to each according to their need" not feasible with the resources we currently have.

For fucks sakes we have enough money at the top of it all to house every single homeless man woman and child documented, and we fed that same amount of money to a project in defense for a jet, we scraped.

All that money, gone. All that promise we can offer, gone.

I don't see how it's anything more unrealistic than what we currently have. Spending as much money as we can house the homeless, is the definition of unrealistic. Our government, our economy, everything about it is corrupt and defined by circular logic and the comfortable at the top who want nothing more than to remain there and do everything immoral they possibly can, manipulative, to stay.

Everything about the world we live in is unrealistic, and is headed towards climactic, ecological, and cultural end.

>What does that have to do with what I just said.
The organisation of society is not just "smoke and mirrors". It's as real as a slap in the face.

>Look at it. Just look at what we've done the last hundred years.
Thousands of people are now living in an abundance of food, shelter and technology, who would otherwise have been living in poverty. New medicines have been discovered, we are living longer, and I, a resident of Switzerland, am able to communicate with you at light speed merely by pushing a button. Market is leading to market: our need for communication has led to a space industry. One day, our demand for resources will create a market for space colonisation. While our society isn't all good, it certainly isn't all bad. It is certainly doing much better than former communist nations are doing, many of which do not have any of the things I have just listed.

Call me foolish, but I have no desire to smash a system that allows me, my family, and thousands of other people who I don't even know to live free from poverty, or at least climb out of it, unless you have a better system that is worth the task. And that system is certainly not communism.

>The organisation of society is not just "smoke and mirrors"

Yes it is.

As for the rest, Capital in the United States itself, has barely done shit but become more corrupt and useless. It isn't free. This isn't free. That fucking super market, is not free.

We don't exist in "freedom", as loose of a term I could apply it. We live in enough comfortable leisure to distract ourselves from the raging problems our society has

these people have no class