Why does Veeky Forums hate Marxism/Communism

>I'm not.
Then there's no reason to pretend that "literally every time communism has failed was because the US or capitalists stopped it" instead of leninism being garbage.

Fuck off collectivist, this is a libertarian board.

>it took hundreds of years to try democracy and capitalism before it "worked"

>Athens tries democracy
becomes most powerful city state in Greece

>Europe tries Capitalism
rapid material advancement

>dozens try socialism/communism
failure after failure

>Holy shit you're so fucking dumb.

Great counterargument there, OP! Truly, you are a visionary and a master debater!

Is there anything sadder than the redditor that desperately shills for communism day in day out on Veeky Forums?

The use-value of commodities isn't really important to most people

Good societies have always happened on accident (they weren't planned)

Communism as an ideology leads to neurosis

It's also a dumbass board apparently.

Tankies love Stalin. Lenin wanted a stateless society Stalin wanted to be atheist Hitler.

>It's a &humanities thread

>Tankies love Stalin. Lenin wanted a stateless society Stalin wanted to be atheist Hitler.
Tankies love both. Lenin concentrated the power away from the soviets.

The Filth of Marx
>Many found Marx’s personal appearance and manner off-putting or even revolting. In 1850, a spy for the Prussian police visited Marx’s home in London under the pretense of a German revolutionary. The report the spy wrote was shared with the British Ambassador in Berlin. The report said, in part:

>[Marx] leads the existence of a Bohemian intellectual. Washing, grooming and changing his linen are things he does rarely, and he is often drunk. Though he is frequently idle for days on end, he will work day and night with tireless endurance when he has much work to do.

>He has no fixed time for going to sleep or waking up. He often stays up all night and then lies down fully clothed on the sofa at midday, and sleeps till evening, untroubled by the whole world coming or going through [his room] ...

>There is not one clean and solid piece of furniture. Everything is broken, tattered and torn, with half an inch of dust over everything and the greatest disorder everywhere ...

>When you enter Marx’s room smoke and tobacco fumes make your eyes water ... Everything is dirty and covered with dust, so that to sit down becomes a hazardous business. Here is a chair with three legs. On another chair the children are playing cooking. This chair happens to have four legs. This is the one that is offered to the visitor, but the children’s cooking has not been wiped away and if you sit down you risk a pair of trousers.

Marxism doesn't work.

Socialism doesn't work.

Communiams doesn't work.

>Nietzsche was a nihilist

Whoever made that was a retard and shouldn't be regarded seriously.

You can't possibly say the entirety of socialism doesn't work. It's more of a concept. It's such a bold claim, there are so many different forms of socialism.

No form of socialism works.

because its killed million.

And why not?

For instance, what do you think about the forms of socialism proposed by
a) St. Simon
b) Fourier
c) Silvio Gesell

>Communism has never existed at any point in history

I hear there are no real Scotsmen either.

its been tried and tested. never worked. end of story. buh bye

Point me to one case where it has worked.

You can't. It's a ponzi scheme.

All trash tier.

No True Scotsman is bullshit. If X doesn't fit the definition of Y, then X clearly is not Y. And if you argue otherwise, then you're retarded.

>all trash tier
Really? So you've heard of all those already?

I think you're lying.

>real communism has never been tried before
>mfw

Actually it worked in the Paris Commune, Free Ukrainian Territory, and the Communes in Spain during the civil war.

>socialism

It can't be anything but trash tier.

Thus we have arrived at the following conclusions: Attempts at Communism have hitherto failed because:

[1] They were based on an impetus of a religious character instead of considering a community simply as a means of economic consumption and production,
[2] They isolated themselves from society,
[3] They were imbued with an authoritarian spirit,
[41 They were isolated instead of federated,
[5] They required of their members so much labour as to leave them no leisure time, and
[6] They were modelled on the form of the patriarchal family instead of having for an aim the fullest possible emancipation of the individual.

Communism, being an eminently economic institution, does not in any way prejudice the amount of liberty guaranteed to the individual, the initiator, the rebel against crystallising customs. It may be authoritarian, which necessarily leads to the death of the community, and it may be libertarian, which in the twelfth century even under the partial communism of the young cities of that age, led to the creation of a young civilisation full of vigour, a new springtide of Europe.

The only durable form of Communism, however, is one under which, seeing the close contact between fellow men it brings about, every effort would be made to extend the liberty of the individual in all directions.

Under such conditions, under the influence of this idea, the liberty of the individual, increased already by the amount of leisure secured to him, will be curtailed in no other way than occurs today by municipal gas, the house to house delivery of food by great stores, modern hotels, or by the fact that during working hours we work side by side with thousands of fellow labourers.

With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible. Without it, it necessarily becomes slavery and cannot exist.

Communism and Anarchy

by Peter Kropotkin

Freedom: July, p. 30. - August, p. 38, 1901.

dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/comanar.html

How would you like it if I just walking into your house and pissed on your bed and if you got mad I just say "hey, this is communism, there are no possessions"

>Paris Commune

You are really going to cite a government that lasted 2.5 months as proof communism works?

I don't know if you've looked around, but the rampantly capitalist US is the world's only superpower and China is the last "socialist" country of any real importance. Even then, ever since Xiaoping China has gradually moved away from its central planning model because that shit caused unimaginable famines.

I see you've never found a true Scotsman.

You're lucky to even have bread lines in communism, see the Holodomor or Great Leap Forward famines.

The US focused merely on containing communism, it's not like we fought a land war in the USSR. Communism just isn't sustainable and you're deluding yourself by thinking otherwise.

The funny thing is that the makers of that list made one criticizing capitalism. You just don't see it made into an info graphic.

3 words, The Gulag Archipelago. Now shoo shoo commie.

Wrong.

>achuly it wasnt reeeel soshuleezm

kys

If half of you dweebs knew what capitalism actually was you'd all be socialists too.

If any of you think this is wrong then answer me this: why are the capitalists entitled to the working class's surplus product in the form of profit?

Obvious never-even-fucking-googled-what-socialism-is replies will be ignored.

They're better than us.

Yes even Paris Hilton is fundamentally better than 99.99999% of every disgusting greasy worthless neckbeard that posted on this site.

Universal health care and public schooling is derived from ideas of socialist theory. Checkm8, bourgeoisie

>why are the capitalists entitled to the working class's surplus product in the form of profit?

Because of marginal utility. Unless this worker is literally sitting in his basement running a shop or something (at which point he's not solely a worker and would be entitled to the full sum of his product's profitability), that worker's output is in part because of the efforts of others; the providers of his tools and working space, the marketer of his goods, the manager of his raw input to make sure he always gets enough. Those people shouldn't be expected to work for nothing.

Of course, none of that means anything, since Marx's entire conception of Mehrprodukt ignores any sense of demand driven value, which is pretty much standard these days.

Because investment is in and of itself a form of productive labor.

The USSR tried replacing capitalists with a central committee, but it turns out they can't do nearly as good of a job and everyone suffered for it.

There is a difference between managers and owners however. It's actually only a very small number of cases where the two are the same individual (yet modern propaganda would have you believe this is the majority)
Ah but you forget the investment itself stems from alienated labor.

Also I know I said I'd ignore obvious no-clue-about-socialism responses in the interest of preventing misinformation spreading I just want to say that what this poster said about worker councils 'replacing' capitalists absolutely did not happen. And that's coming from someone pretty anti-Lenin.

>There is a difference between managers and owners however.

Sometimes this is the case, but given that the owner provides the capital investment, which is itself part of the productive equation, the distinction, even if they are separated, is irrelevant. The owner's contribution of whatever labor amplifying devices is itself a compensible contribution.

This is of course assuming that you hold with Marx's assumptions as to the creation of value and how it is done,which I have already stated that I do not; I find the concept of Mehrprodukt not so much wrong as simpy non applicable

Inasmuch as it is falsifiable, it's wrong. The rest is just drivel.

Isn't this easily fixed by pic related?

At least it can claim to be better than fascism. That's something at least

The average "fascist" state was much better for the average person than the average socialist state.

ronald reagan, democratic socialist

Go back to /pol/ you useless sack of pus fueled by your mother's welfare check. Libertarianism was a lefftist philosophy before it was co-opted to corporate interests by right-wing PR think tanks. Only in the "intellectualy enlightened" USA does Libertarianism mean what you think it means.

Leave it, m8. This board is infested with /pol/tards. They're raiding again. Keep actual historical and philosophical discussion for when they're gone.

That said, Kropotkin was right,

Look I hate communism because I can't have a business, I can't have my own fucking house and I can't trade stocks.

And at the moment, in capitalism I do all these three things

C'mon lads there is life beyond acting like oppresed proles

Not an argument.

>Took hundreds of years to try democracy and capitalism before it "worked"
No, democracy has always been around since ancient times, ever heard of Ancient Athens? What about in the Middle Ages, where Switzerland's cantons who practiced local democracy? And capitalism was always there since the Dark Ages, actually at the 9th century when merchant houses were a thing in the Islamic world. This then spread to Yurop in the 12th century.

In fact, you can read all about it here. Capitalism has worked for a very long time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_capitalism

>Communism has never existed at any point in history
Yes it hasn't, and you know why? Because it keeps failing, everytime. Whereas capitalism has always succeeded throughout the ages. Surely you would think by trial and error that this inapplicable ideology cannot possibly work with humans?

>When the economy goes to shit in capitalism there aren't even breadlines, people just starve. The people must go through a transitional period of hardship in order to achieve true communism.
What are you talking about, there were breadlines in the Great Depression in literally every capitalistic country. But naturally they get out of it, because they were capitalistic, not communistic.

>Literally every time communism has failed was because the US or capitalists stopped it.
If your economic system was too weak and inefficient to keep up with capitalism then obviously there's something wrong with your ideology, not ours.

Reminder that a communist party controls one of the largest countries and they are overcoming the US and all western powers through socialist economic planning.

>inb4 not socialism
Give me one example of a capitalist country that has the level of state economic planning that China does. They are communists, they've just learned to adapt and be more flexible with Marxism.

Based Deng fixing Mao mistakes

The whole appeal of communism is that no one can own a business or trade stocks.

says the guy who denies Nietzsche believed in nihilism

Having ton of state economic planning doesn't equal socialism.

China has just silently reverted back to eunuchs and bureaucrats ruling everything.

>They were modelled on the form of the patriarchal family instead of having for an aim the fullest possible emancipation of the individual

All commies must fucking hang.

>communism just means "lots of state planning" and your one party state calling itself communist

>it took hundreds of years to try democracy and capitalism before it "worked"

So what you're saying is we should keep trying at the costs of millions of lives until you commie fucks think it's successful?

they all hate communism because they like heirarchy because they're a bunch of sad betas dreaming of being alphas someday

bing bing bing boom

>he hasn't read The Gulag Archipelago
I don't know why this book isn't brought up more. Every thread on communism, whether Veeky Forums or /pol/ should just start and end with download links to this book.

Why does this literally never happen?

I think the valid conclusion is "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."

There are people who have a kneejerk "FUCKING COMMIES STALIN MAO IT DOESN'T WOOOOOOOORK FUCK TANKIES REEEEEEEEEE!" response to even a hint of socialism. Even when it's just meant to curb some of capitalism's inefficiencies rather than replace capitalism entirely.

Do you know of a download link to the book? I'd be very interested in one.

>he doesn't understand the different concepts of property

>yet another "MY SPECIFIC INFALLIBLE BRAND OF COMMUNISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED" thread

ALL OF Veeky Forums: GO TO GULAG

>it took hundreds of years to try democracy and capitalism before it "worked"

Setting aside that no, it didn't happen like you're implying, what I fucking hate about progressive of all kinds is this willingness to destroy everything in order to achieve some totally un-empiric idea they conceived of while sitting on their sofa.

If I were to plan an experiment in a controlled setting, which would undoubtedly gives us useful information about a subject, but which would require having subjects who don't agree with the entirety of the experiment, no ethical committee would approve it. If I went ahead with it regardless of their opinion, I would basically become a pariah.

But fucking up society as a whole is apparently ok.

Not even Marx was a marxist after seeing the first attempt at communism

I'm not a materialist.