Why hasn't there ever been 'real' communism or socialism?

for communism to be achieved, there has to post-scarcity

since scarcity of resources continues to be the standard case due to technological and scientific limitations, communism for now remains an Utopian fantasy

America, gilded age

No, communism like all economic theories does operate on principles of scarcity

people constantly chomping out over labor disputes and a major depression ever 15 years is real capitalism?

well thank God we don't live under real capitalism

Yeah I'd much rather be in a gulag

Any ideology that seeks to abolish the state will fail, and I say this as somebody who favors limited government and all that jazz. The moment you say "let's get rid of the government completely!" you've gone full retard.

What are hunter gatherer societies?

>The only way to "seize the means of production" is to go back to a mode of living where there is no means of production

Nice logic commie-cuck

it almost always gets co-opted by authoritarians, usually dictators

thank you for reminding me of that song

It's almost like economic systems that rely on extensive central planning naturally attract control freaks or something.

More like the natural state of man for tens of thousands of years is inherently commie. The hunter of the tribe goes out and gets something, the women gather berries and other useful items. Then they bring it to the resting ground and all eat. They don't screw members of the tribe out of food because they don't have enough "money". Most of them are related anyhow. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Mutual social survival.

But all of a sudden in the last couple thousand years people forget how it used to be and start asking trollish question about how it's even possible to live without the ziggurat high priest/king/capitalist. Some pretty creepy year zero shit when you think about it. "The current authority is sacred and eternal because it's always been done this way and service to the current masters in the particular current way is the natural state of man." No it's not like that at all, you pawns.

I figured it was more that it's a very sweet idea in its way, making it much easier to hide a bitter pill in it
also, Marx preaches revolution, and hey what do you know, so does every would-be dictator, it's almost like they're playing to the same human desire to not have the same old shit

>cavemen didn't club each other to death over who got to eat the last fish or fuck the hottest loli constantly
go away commushit, there is a reason people accept hierarchy, there is a reason civilizations arose from this hierarchy universally

>anthropology is for fags.
>I don't need to have a correct understanding what pre-agricultural society was actually like or understand history in general because I know what's true in my heart. And what's true is what's convenient for what I think my political ideologies are.

Ah status quo apologetics laid bare. It always comes down to "fuck questioning things".

You're romanticizing the past a bit too much, but I'm going to let that slide for a moment because I'd rather point out something different.

The society you're describing isn't communist. The means of production have not be seized. There are no means of production. What you're describing is a hunter-gatherer society. Do you think that the Bushmen in Africa would identify themselves as communist? Do you think that the Sentinelese identify as communist?

I do agree with you, that sounds very commie to me. They lived communally / tribally and had their hierachy on a small scale, but everyone was provided for with enough.

>Do you think that the Bushmen in Africa would identify themselves as communist? Do you think that the Sentinelese identify as communist?

Ofcourse they wouldnt identify themselves as communists, they don't know that word.

>I do agree with you, that sounds very commie to me.

Marx specifically said that socialism was an economic state that happens in a developed, industrialized country. In order to meet Marx's definition, you need to have an economy more developed than just a hunter-gatherer system. Simply pointing out that a small, tight-knit group often shares things is not an example of communism.

Already happened under the Incas.

>Then they bring it to the resting ground and all eat. They don't screw members of the tribe out of food because they don't have enough "money".
You're right they didn't screw each other over because of money. They screwed each other over because one guy banged a girl the other one liked. Or one guy was getting to bossy and needed to taken down a peg. Or he's a weirdo faggot buggering dudes, and offending the gods so he needs a beating. Let's not even get into fighting over position in hierarchy.

>Most of them are related anyhow
Half of history is children spiting parents, siblings murdering one another, and cousins mobbing up on each other

>From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Mutual social survival.
I don't know where you get the idea that paleolithic tribes tried to make sure everyone was equal. The farther back in history you go, the stronger "Might Makes Right" dominates. The invention of property and agriculture didn't flip a switch from loving and sharing to hating and selfish in human brains.

>Simply pointing out that a small, tight-knit group often shares things is not an example of communism.

That's right its not communism but the original point said by our fellow was that it was LIKE communism, and human's have had that sharing mentality with their own kind longer than they've had the lone wolf mentality that's created by capitalism.

>You're romanticizing
I am not, I'm just reporting what I understand to be the current anthropological consensus. I didn't say it was ideal or that I want to live in a primitivist society. However it should be noted that the "life was nasty, brutish, and short." meme was written by a man who had no earthly fucking clue or expertise about the era he was writing about with that line. And, totally coincidentally, that popularly taught statement that came from his IMAGINATION complimented is political ideals where a strong state is justified in "saving" us from the supposed hell that came before the blessed state.

Currently academia however has discovered a different reality. Hunter-gatherer societies were actually healthier, via study of bone length and whatnot, than early civilized societies. Even today tribal people have more non work free time than the common first worlder.

>The society you're describing isn't communist.
Right it's "proto-communist". There are no means of production, but what if people operated in a similar way with means of production?

The implied narrative of OP is that the capitalist authority system is a natural order and justified in that anything else is "unnatural" to humans. But this is objectively wrong according to modern history and anthropology. Capitalism is the a new and abnormal (not necessarily wrong) behavior. Personally I believe Capitalism to in constant struggle with human nature because it does not fit. It's a great propaganda coup that it has managed to convince people of the exact opposite. Many social ills arise from Capitalism contradicting human nature imo.

>Do you think that the Sentinelese identify as communist?
No, but if you looked at their society and then a modern white Australian you might notice the primitives are remarkably "socialist" for lack of a better term. Concepts like property are very fluid. Think Europeans buying land from Indians for beads because the Indians thought the concept stupid.

>I'm just reporting what I understand to be the current anthropological consensus.

You forced my hand. I'm dropping the bomb.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

Have you even read Marx? He called this state "primitive communism". What you're thinking of is the end-goal communism. The thing is you're getting that wrong too, end-goal communism comes after the means of production have already been seized and collectivized. The stuff in between is aristocracy, capitalism, revolution, socialism, and other states.

Communism is only achievable in a post scarcity economy, which has yet to be achieved.

Socialism is going to become increasingly necessary as Capitalism continues to push globalism and automated production.

>Why hasn't there ever been 'real' communism or socialism?

Because communism and socialism isn't just an idea, it's also the actions of it's adherents.

Communists are willing to destroy everything to reach their goal, which is ironically why they will never reach it.

>Citing an insane primitivist terrotist's criticism of anarcho-primitivism.
I don't even know what the fuck.

Obviously there's too much here for me to read. Skimming over some of it looks good.

>It seems to be an article of faith among anarchoprimitivists that our hunting-and-gathering ancestors had to work an average of only two to three hours a day, or two to four hours a day ... the figures given vary, but the maximum stated never exceeds four hours a day, or 28 hours a week (average). People who give these figures usually do not state precisely what they mean by “work”, but the reader is led to assume that it includes all of the activities necessary to meet the practical exigencies of the hunter-gatherers’ way of life.
Fair enough I don't have a coherent definition of "work". Nor am I that familiar with the academic work.

>She also mentions two other hunting-and-gathering peoples who have been shown quantitatively to spend far more time in hunting and foraging than Lee’s Bushmen did, [10] and she points out that Lee may have seriously underestimated women’s working time because he failed to include time spent on childcare
Seems a bit reaching. All societies need to spend time on childcare. There's no way to shorten that other than communal child rearing, which is almost exclusively a hunter-gatherer thing if it happens at all.

So on and such. To be clear again, I ain't no anarcho-primitivist. Unlike our friend Ted I like technology and want more of it. But I think there are problems that have to be admitted to that arise with new ways of doing things and I hate naturalistic fallacies, especially when applied to economic-political structures.

The phenomenon of not knowing your neighbor is certainly exacerbated if not a total product of Capitalism for example. The division of work life and social life is unnatural. Even in feudalism people knew each other in the village. I think this causes problems. Like higher murder rates problems.

Because Lenin killed all of the real communists and then called his insane bullshit communism, then because he did it first everyone decided that's how it's meant to go.

Was Marx even serious when he wrote about the final state of communism? It felt like he was serious about wanting people to be equal to the extreme but the end result is just so wacky and unappealing
>The whole world is communist
>people can pursue whatever they like
>Jobs that no one wants to do still happen because I said so
>everyone shares everything
It's like a cartoon except even more bizarre

There's been plenty of real socialism (various states and societies have taken various steps to address the various ills of labour brought about by the rise of capitalism; in some form or another, socialism is basically omnipresent, if not exclusively applied), but there's never been "real" communism because there's never been a society where ownership of property was truly collective.

muh youman naytur

>Jobs that no one wants to do still happen because I said so

You know how when people own property they'll engage in various tedious, unpleasant housechores to maintain their property? I don't think it's entirely inconceivable that we'd see people doing shitty jobs because they need to be done, even if they weren't forced to do them by the threat of privation.

Not that I'm a communist or anything, I just think your criticism there is silly.

I really don't think he cared that much or put much thought into it at least. Little did he know everyone else would assume it's the most important part of his work for a 100 years.

We got to keep in mind Marx hated the "Utopian Socialists" and was specifically trying to react against them. He didn't want to waste time trying conceive of or create the perfect society. He wanted to write technical analysis of political-economy and theorize how to start revolutions.

Which I guess he thought was more scientific.

>We got to keep in mind Marx hated the "Utopian Socialists" and was specifically trying to react against them.

As I recall that only came about after Stirner utterly wrecked his own utopian, idealistic notions.

>people rake their leaves and mow their lawn once a week therefore people will volunteer to work at sewage treatment plants and as garbage collectors

face it Marx's vision is a farce robots do everything

>Why hasn't there ever been 'real' communism or socialism?
it's happening right now in europe though

When shit starts backing up and garbage starts posing a health risk, I could see people coming up with systems for volunteering time to ensure that doesn't become a problem; especially considering this isn't a case where you could say it's "someone else's" job.

Also I never claimed Marx's vision was sound; I've never failed to be absolutely flabbergasted by how there's such a surplus of people out there that think a 19th century philosopher and economist had prophetic insight into how 21st century economics and politics would play out. The religious devotion I've seen them lay on the guy's work (including what are effectively claims of heresy termed "revisionism") is just baffling.

I just think that criticism is absurd, since you're looking at it from the perspective of our current understanding of property relations, rather than a scenario where everyone has a vested interest in the upkeep of the land and society that they all own.

user sewage management requires round the clock work and preventative maintenance and dedicated professionals with years of experience

your "shit will get done because it has to" is very hand wavy

Communism doesn't real

>your "shit will get done because it has to" is very hand wavy

No political theory ever advocated the kind of detail you seem to expect. I can only imagine how obnoxious you'd have been when Liberalism was a new thing existing only in theory. Make your criticisms less ridiculous and they'll be more effective.

listen man I'm not going to going to get into a debate with you with Marx's proposed end game for society but the whole "be a poet on Monday, a coal miner on Tuesday, and a Fisher on Wednesday all without any kind coercion or inventive" was just musings that aren't taken seriously by Marxists any more and it's accepted that any kind of end game communist society would rely on robotics and automation.

So. There's that.

But it creates a fuckton of free rider problems. If there's a serial killer on the loose everyone wants him caught but everyone is going to expect someone else to get it done. If the shit is all backing up then of course they'll want it fixed but why would you get the training to fix pipes and deal with that if you could just do whatever the hell you wanted. There are a ton of practical jobs that would, at the very least, have severe shortages. At worst there could be entire categories of work that are completely abandoned until there is an unavoidable crisis where it would have to be dealt with.

It's fucking hard

>prisons didn't exist before the USSR

I wish

>a slave laboring camp where at least 3 million people die is okay as long as it's "for the cause"

Stratification is necessary for society to function. Sociologists deny the fact that we have classes, castes and norms for a very specific reason and they need to be there.

It's no surprise then that Humans are born with innate physiological inclinations and traits. Some of us are made to rule, some of us are made to work, and that's how it's meant to be.

Literally the only way for Communism to work is if we actively brainwash Humans to not think that way by constant reinforcement of that idea.

A spiritual caste system with central planning =/= Communism

Ted isn't saying that hunter-gatherers didn't have it better, he obviously believes that, he's arguing against the foolish anarcho-primitivists who repeats the "noble savage who only works a few hours a day" meme. He does state that HG were more peaceful, their work was more fulfilling, and their societies were more egalitarian, just not to the extent APs would like to believe.
>Citing an insane primitivist terrotist
You shouldn't write Kaczynski off like that. He's a very intelligent and well educated person who has plenty of insights to share.

>Stratification is necessary for society to function
[Citation needed]
>we have classes, castes and norms for a very specific reason and they need to be there.
Yes, for the benefit of the upper classes who have fooled the majority into thinking they deserve to be there.
>It's no surprise then that Humans are born with innate physiological inclinations and traits. Some of us are made to rule, some of us are made to work, and that's how it's meant to be.
Yes indeed, no children are ever rebellious and don't want to do what they're told, they definitely don't have it constantly drummed out of them that they must be obedient. People are naturally just servile, so it's perfectly okay to rule them and order them around like plastic army men.

>People are naturally just servile, so it's perfectly okay to rule them and order them around like plastic army men.
Yup. Glad we can agree.

>Humans are born with innate physiological inclinations and traits

In communism there would be levels of responsibility to a job function. There will always be a position for someone to order another about (Like in an engineering environment would have its project manager).

So why do you assume that communism would deny these responsibilities to those who warrant it.

If someone is better at a job that they do, it should and would be duly noted, and they will be given more for what they produce, but in due measure.

>it's perfectly okay to rule them and order them around like plastic army men.

This.

>[Citation needed]

Every single successful society has had it. So I have countless historical example while you have countless thought experiment from a sofa by a pair of commie. Veeeeeeeery empirical.

>Yes, for the benefit of the upper classes who have fooled the majority into thinking they deserve to be there

Any society with potentiality for difference, no matter what kind of difference, is going to have people on top and people on the bottom. None of them is going to perfect in its distribution of course but desiring otherwise is utopian.
>Yes indeed, no children are ever rebellious

what is a phase

>[Citation needed]
Functionalism. Since Sociologists enjoy working in theory, let's stick to theory.

>Yes, for the benefit of the upper classes who have fooled the majority into thinking they deserve to be there.
Of course it's for the benefit of them, everything someone does is for their own benefit.

I'm surprised you've fooled yourself into thinking you somehow deserve to be there.

>Yes indeed, no children are ever rebellious and don't want to do what they're told
How does this go against what I said?

>People are naturally just servile, so it's perfectly okay to rule them and order them around like plastic army men.
Just because you don't like the truth doesn't mean it's wrong big fella

>So why do you assume that communism would deny these responsibilities to those who warrant it.
Collaboration=/=being bossed around. If an authority commands their will upon you to work, then you have achieved nothing and it's still serfdom.

All depends if you think that's ok or not. Either way, you're not achieving the desired goals of what Communism sets out for (the alleviation of strain from an authority, an authority of course having the necessary power to do so, thus the power is not in your hands but in someone above you).

Because a real communism situation is very easy to exploit by the local despot, since it won't field police, or army, or organize a defense.

Real communism is anarchy.

Communism won't come because people wish to be ruled. They demand it.

You would be correct if communism was synonymous with tyrannical dictatorship, as you like to describe it.

But I say that communism doesn't and shouldn't be the way you describe it (serfdom); So if you recognise that it could work the way I have described it, then I guess you have one less reason to dislike communism. After all there is nothing to suggest that ideal communism can only work if it is through severe dictation.

Stratification still exists in communism as I have said:

>In communism there would be levels of responsibility to a job function. There will always be a position for someone to order another about (Like in an engineering environment would have its project manager).

>So why do you assume that communism would deny these responsibilities to those who warrant it.

>If someone is better at a job that they do, it should and would be duly noted, and they will be given more for what they produce, but in due measure.

This is intelligible.

>try to genuinely learn what communism is about
>its world war 3: the debate
>mfw

Communism is the absence of ownership.
No ownership, so no money, no trade, no inheritance, no tax, no state, it follows from there.

It was believed during Marx's time that before cities and kings the people lived by not owning things, and sharing everything. Thats what communism was built on, this idea that ownership is not a natural state for our community, and the sad result of people banding up and creating a city to protect themselves from raiders. We now know this to not be the case, so the basis for communism has been disproved by anthropologists.

Another now outdated idea that communism is heavily based on is the idea that things are worth as much as their production is worth. This may have been true during the time of Marx, and many famous economists agreed back then, but today you can easily look at your Intel CPU, which cost $0.20 to produce, and cost you $400 to buy. Some musicians make 99999 times less than others, without their music being 99999 times easier to make. Some football players make many hundreds of times more, without running hundreds of times more, and so on. Many, if not most, of the products and services we pay for and consume, are not worth what we pay for them.

A third flaw of communism I want to point out is the idea of capital, and the notion that only the rich can produce wealth, by exploiting the poor. Again, this used to be true when Marx wrote about it, but it isn't true today. I don't need a factory to make money, I can make money with just a laptop. Google, Fracebook, some of the richest companies on the planet were started with minimum capital. You don't need "the means of productions", which during the industrial era were expensive huge factories, to produce wealth these days.

So we can conclude that marxism and communism were products of their time, and have not aged well.
tbc

We concluded communism is outdated, now lets see if its even needed anymore.

We no longer need factories to make wealth, so thats one less reason for communism, The problem is already solved.
Similarly we solved gender inequality, race inequality and militant nationalism without needing communism. We have social services and healthcare that eliminate extreme poverty, and available basic education.

Of all the problems it seeks to solve, the only ones left are inheritance, which allows people without merit to control much of our resources, and religion, which stands in the way of progress in cloning, genetics, and some health concerns with abortion for example.
And I am sure you can think of a few ways to solve these without communism, or even argue they don't need solving (this board is heavily religious).

tbc

Saying there has never been real communism because regimes that tried to implement it failed is like saying there has never been "divine rights of kings" because god doesn't exist and therefore couldn't possibly grant divine right to a monarch.

Communism is extremely privileged as a ideology in the sense that it's the only one we judge the intentions, not the results.

Because we are incapable of it.

In this third post I'll write down what communism actually is, even though we decided its not fit for modern use and we don't need it anyway.

The idea is that we use our resources very inefficiently. You own a washing machine that you use for 2 hours per week. Your neighbor has one, and his neighbor, and they see equally infrequent use. This is a waste of expensive machinery. Rather, you should all share the washing machine, each using it when you need it, and letting others use it when you don't.
Makes sense for this example, now apply it to everything. When you drive from home to work, your car is useless for the next 8 hours when you work. Other people should be able to get it and drive as they need, and you can pick some other car to come home, from some other person who left his as he didn't need it right now.
So in a communist world you wake up from the sleeping house (that is heated during night, instead of wasting heating to heat 50 bedrooms), go to the clothes house to pick up what clothes are there, go to the car parking to get some car, drive to work, do some work, pick up a car at the parking there, drive to the dinner house, eat there, drive to the clothes house to leave your clothes for washing, and drive to the sleeping house to sleep.
This is of course oversimplified, but the idea is that everything is used as people need it, and not owned, and no resources are hogged.

This can be seen in action on a small scale in a family household, where people don't have my spoon, or my glass, or even my slippers. If you need a spoon, you pick one up, use it, and leave it there for others to pick up when they need it.
Making it work on a state wide scale is very hard, and you can argue not worth it. I certainly think it isn't worth risking, since the very likely collapse of such a system would be devastating.

tbc

Didn't mean for this to turn so long, and my bad control of english is showing, Oh well.
In this post we talk about the political implications.

So such a communist state would have no government, no army, no police, it will be very easy for an actually organized and militarized state to beat and conquer it.
Because of that, communism needs to be adopted all around the world, or it will inevitably fail. You see that line of thought during the earlier, more ideological part of the USSR formation.

Also this state will be getting weaker and weaker, as when you make abortion free and make marriages non binding the birth rates will rapidly decline. USSR had this happen early on, and they reverted the changes. Early USSR history is actually a nice way to see them trying to be communist, hitting a rock, and reverting back to the old ways on every single thing.

So yes, communism hasn't been tried. USSR had money, had army, had trade, had ownership, had inheritance, and so on.
If I have to classify it, I'd say its an internationalist fascist state, as opposed to the nationalist fascist states of central Europe. In all other ways they were similar, except for the globalist focus of USSR. A minor difference is that business imperial Russia was mostly owned by germans, british and french, so when the revolution happened it was nationalized, and thus there was no privately held business, unlike in Germany and Italy (where it was still state ran, but privately owned).

In retrospect: communism was attempted, under the worst circumstances - in a huge and underdeveloped civil war struck country recovering from losing the greatest war ever seen, and it was never fully implemented. It hasn't been tried since, but I don't think it should be, as we now know its foundations to be false, and the problems it seeks to solve are already solved in other ways.

thanks i appreciate it a lot
funny how supposedly marx never worked and lived the life of luxury yet judged people's worth based on how they worked and shared things the sob

Marx worked as an academic, which is now seen as being a lazy writer publishing one work per decade, but back in the day was respectable and expected of his station.
He didn't live a life of luxury, in fact he had relatives bail him out so he doesn't live on the street, struggled with rent, and had a bad skin condition that cost him money to treat all his life.

The actually interesting thing is that Marx was old money gone dry, while Engels was new money. So these two people, who combined prove that rich people can become poor, and poor people can become rich, wrote a manifesto about the inability of poor people to produce capital and how all money and wealth is locked away in a sort of aristocracy or merchants.
I mean, in general they were right, for the period, but they two themselves were the obvious exception to their own theory.

At any rate, personal attacks against Marx poison the well, because reasonable attacks against his idea are easier to make, and hit harder. It is based on theories of history and economics that no longer apply, and it proposes to solve problems we have already solved via other means. This is argument enough.
Marxism and communism are products of their time, and no longer apply.

thanks for clearing that up lad
>but they two themselves were the obvious exception to their own theory.
we humans are an ironic bunch aren't we

the means of production are privately owned and workers produce more than they earn as long as capitalism exists marx will apply.

>Another now outdated idea that communism is heavily based on is the idea that things are worth as much as their production is worth.

To suggest a modern communism wouldnt take into account the variable cost of things is ridiculous. Things do have a variable value, nobody would deny that, espeacially a communist. Your argument against communism lacks integrity because you brought this up, its ridiculous.

>I don't need a factory to make money, I can make money with just a laptop.

Great! Niether does a communist. You can guarantee that a communist wouldnt shunn a computer because they would see its uses, just as they'd see the use for IT security etc.

>So we can conclude that marxism and communism were products of their time, and have not aged well.

If we look at a mandate designed in the past then you wouldnt find items of the future within that mandate. Wow, really?? Please take your moot argument elsewhere. I havn't read a single noteworthy point, they are all clearly ill-thought-out.

Don't tell me you take what this guy has said as dependable!

Maybe you would be fooled into thinking he's spoken correctly if you didnt know anything about communism, but he's extremely and incredibly wrong, you would not expect this kind of reasoning from a teenage school child.

Because there's no "real" socialism. Socialism is any system theoretized to, in time, achieve communism. And communism wasn't yet (and I don't think ever will) achieved because we have not achieved post-scarcity, and the state has not withered away.
Now, please, stop making these threads.

You no longer need "means of productions" to produce huge amounts of wealth.

Learn web programming, buy a laptop for $11 per month, and work hard. You will be rich enough to buy a house within five years.
Using a guitar you can make enough money to eat simply playing music on a public square or in the park.
You can sell overpriced biological vegetables and vegan snacks by working your small garden.
There are websites selling hand crafted trinkets and other such for a healthy profit for the craftsman.

You don't need a factory to make money. We are already past the whole means of production issue. It was a problem of the time Marx lived in, and has since been solved.

you've gone full retard m8

But I provided multiple examples of making capital without needing capital to start off.
The simple average man can produce wealth without having the need to be part of the merchant aristocracy of "capitalists", which is what Marxism protested.

Have you read his works?

>You no longer need "means of productions" to produce huge amounts of wealth.
Cool.

So maybe they should hand them over. No harm no foul. They don't need them anyway.

Why? There is no longer a purpose to it. You are proposing theft for no reason.

Really? If there's no reason for them to hold on to it, it's not theft.

It like an old coat. Might as well give it away.

>Have you read his works?
you didn't, I can tell you that much

There is a reason for the owners of big corporations to hold on to them - profit.
However there is no longer a reason to force them to give it away, since there are now ways to enter the market and produce wealth without needing to be part of their clique, or caste, or whatever you want to call it.

You want to rob the rich to solve a problem that no longer exists.

But I have. The manifesto was mandatory reading in school when I was growing up, and his other work, along with similarly themed academia, were forced on people buying fiction. If you wanted to get Stanislaw Lem's latest, you also had to pick some communist academia. Luckily their print was cheap, because you had already paid for them via the heavy taxes. I think I own seven or eight copies of the government approved history of my home area, the cheapest "good" book used to pad my fiction list of "bad" books when buying.
So yeah, I own and have read more communist academia than I'd like to admit, or think anyone deserves.
Have you come across the "rule of engineers" in your reading? Different authors from different states within the Warsaw pact wrote about the rule of soldiers (despots), rule of church (monarchies), rule of merchants (capitalists), and the rule of engineers (communists). Sometimes specialists, or scientists, but always the idea that we have our most reasonable and brightest leading us, unlike those western pigs. This is pure Stalinism, of course, a strongman in charge of a totalitarian big state, and has nothing to do with the more anarchic nature of Marxism and Communism.

Please be more precise in your critique. What is so wrong in what he described?

>the manifesto
>not das kapital
>people actually read that crap
>people think the manifesto is marx's magnum opus

>You want to rob the rich to solve a problem that no longer exists.
Capitalists own the means of production to enrich themselves while workers produce more than they're paid.

Stuff is made only for profit instead of need.

The problem still exists. It's the same fucking mechanic. Totally unchanged.

Are you dumb?

I stated I've read much, you are creating a strawman here.
Yes, I have read Das Kapital, and various academic analysis of it, praising it, or critiquing it, or trying to make it fit more with Stalin's big state government.

There is no means of production anymore, You can produce from next to nothing. I gave examples earlier.
You don't need a factory to make money. We aren't in the industrial age.
Also insulting me with every post doesn't accomplish much. This isn't /pol/, people don't side with whoever shouts the loudest.

That pirated software you use to make dosh is you seizing the means of production.

There is a free alternative to every piece of software.
I am currently using maybe 20 free programs rather than paying for their alternatives, not because I can't afford it these days, but because I am used to them from back when I started from scratch.

>There is no means of production anymore
Okay so maybe they should relinquish control of all the factories, coal mines, steel mills, oil refineries, and stuff like that.

It's all useless anyway. All the smart people know the real wealth is in coding the next FaceBerg™ app. Maybe making a few YouTube videos. Playing a guitar for $100 at your local bar.

>(You)

top fucking kek

>There is a free alternative to every piece of software.
Made by the goodwill of man working for the common good.

You two are no longer attempting to argue, so I will stop responding to you. Please reconsider your views and base them on reason next time, not on emotions.