REDpill

onepeterfive.com/pope-communists-think-like-christians/

I'm not a Catholic and I'm asking you. I seem to have missed the point when Jesus urged people to kill the bourgeoise and advance history by creating a proletarian ruling class.

Jesus is merely saying that wealth corrupts, that rich people worshipping mammon won't get to heaven, and that the material world is irrelevant. Marx on the other hand is a diehard materialist who believed the material base is pretty much the only thing that's relevant, so he's an exact opposite of Jesus.

Not sure what's so bad about this. Jesus shits all over classism in the Bible. Buddha does too in the Pali canon, as do people like Mani and the Gnostics. Reject desire and open your heart to the good of mankind. I mean shit that's really what enlightenment and gnosis both are. All Marx did was turn that into an industrialist economic system.

You're missing something.

"In Marxist sociopolitical thought, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a state in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power"

See

And that ultimately this state would wither away and be replaced by the economy

Right but Marx advocates for wealth redistribution in the grounds of human dignity. Sure it's materialist, but one cannot have society without material, making Jesus' philosophy inapplicable, even if everyone became anti-materialist, there would still be material. In such a case material redistribution would come about, as the personal desire for good accrual wouldn't exist.

>I seem to have missed the point when Jesus urged people to kill the bourgeoise
I seem to have missed the same thing with Marx.
He believed revolution is inevitable as an effect of opression. He didn't urge for mass killings.

>Marx advocated wealth redistribution
And Jesus doesn't. Jesus wants people to give up whatever they have. Marx wants to stop labor alienation so the proletariat gets richer and more "dignified", Jesus on the other hand says that poverty and living in shit is a virtue. To make a tl;dr of this:

>Marx: living in poverty is undesirable and it should be fixed
>Jesus: living is poverty is desirable

>The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

He wrote this after the failed revolutions of 48-49.

>Marx: living in poverty is undesirable and it should be fixed
Would that make him evil?

Jesus: Love thy neighbour -> help eachother ->socialism

>The purposeless massacres perpetrated
See attached picture.

Of course Marx is not Jesus (at least one existed).
The cult of personality is actually contrary to the socialist ideas. Marx could be a bloody murderer, it's the direction of thought he produced im after.

If someone says - don't kill your mother and then kills his mother, that does not make the idea of not killing mothers a bad one.

I used Marx and Jesus as symbols for very similar ideologies. Yes it was a simplification.

If you don't understand that anti-materialism is literally the antithesis of materialism then I don't know what to tell you.

Yeah, but a vanguard party was supposed to be a proxy for that exact thing you moron.

Great, you've found a difference between communism and christianity. Good for you.

Be polite, it's not that hard.
The key word in your sentence is:
>supposed
Go back to OP for the hijacking of democracy.

How about cooperatives?

>Figure out a solution to the problem of the working class not having organized political power by introducing a vanguard party comprised of members of the working class
>"Not real Communism lol"

And yet you post a picture validating what I said.

If you want to call it communism - fine. Now lets think of a system that retains democracy and is as nice place to live in for as many citizens as possible. You can even give it a new name.

>And yet you post a picture validating what I said.

Not really. "Hijacking democracy" implies that democracy is the goal in the first place, and "the dictatorship of the proletariat" is not a democracy.

...

what about me?

If everyone is proletariat, than yea.
I'm definitely sure it does not mean having a sociopat dictator.

That'll do, piggy.

>A sociopathic dictator that was a member of the proletariat doesn't count because I say!
The sheer amount of No True Scotsman required for communists to hand wave away failed Communist experiments is mind boggling.

Are you kidding me? When Hitler came to power by means of democracy, was that still democracy under his rule?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the counterpoint to the dictatorship of bourgeoisie: capitalist republics

The difference is that the Soviet Union had elections for local issues and Politburo representatives, unlike Germany where any official was sacked and local issues were determined by the Party. That the Secretary was not elected (they were, by the Party) is completely irrelevant. Again, your no True Scotsman (and new red herring) are irrelevant.

>The difference is that the Soviet Union had elections for local issues and Politburo representatives
The name of the system doesn't matter if it's just a facade.

>if it's just a facade
It wasn't a facade, though. You're really digging your heels into that No True Scotsman fallacy.

Fuck off, you commie faggot.

this guy knows whats up

If it wasn't a facade, then what were the kubutzes in Israel? Not real communism?

Thank you for bumping the thread.

>another red herring
Stop.

Facts mean nothing to you.
What are you even arguing about? That communism = dictatorship? This is clearly wrong.

You keep throwing out irrelevant examples that we aren't even talking about. The Soviet Union, for better or worse, was just as democratic as other Western states and in many cases even more so.

>What are you even arguing about? That communism = dictatorship? This is clearly wrong.
Stop moving the goalposts, you backpedaling negro.

indeed stalin did remove the more jewish aspects of communism from soviet government

Varg Vikernes.

You are not deciding what is relevant and what we are talking about. If you don't like it, then get out of my thread.
Saying that Soviet Union was democratic is an insult to millions who died or suffered because of it. Do you think they were suicidal?
>Stop moving the goalposts,
I don't even know what you are arguing about.

>You are not deciding what is relevant and what we are talking about. If you don't like it, then get out of my thread.
Red herrings are not relevant and I won't leave because you've just made my purpose BTFOing you at every turn.

>Saying that Soviet Union was democratic is an insult to millions who died or suffered because of it
The two aren't mutually exclusive.

>I don't even know what you are arguing about
No one knows what you're arguing about since you argue like Jello, but here we are.

Go on.

I've already explained the democratic aspects of the Soviet Union that you so diligently handwaved away as facade despite being the actual core of Soviet governance.

Define "democratic"

People voting on issues and/or representation? The vast majority of governance in the Soviet Union and it's satellites revolved around local councils and issues being voted on by the local populace. Realistically, the only non-democratic issue regarding the Soviet Union was the Party Secretary and even that was democratic as the Party Secretary was elected by Party members.

And if the people were intentionally misguided, lied to, deprived of freedom of speech, terrorized to consent and their elections were fraud - does that still match your criteria of democracy?

>And if the people were intentionally misguided
A democratic decision was made

>lied to
A democratic decision was made

>deprived of freedom of speech
Not a pre-requisite for democracy

>terrorized to consent
>the Soviet Union was only Stalin

>and their elections were fraud
There is only one instance of guaranteed Secretary election fraud in the Soviet Union.

Looks like I expect more from democracy than you do.
It's hardly your decision if you are basing it on false information. This is manufacturing consent.
For example someone is called a traitor. People are okay with killing him. But the guy was really innocent. Did people decided to kill an innocent man? I don't think so. For me it's hijacked democracy.

If it's ok for you to call it "democracy" - go ahead. It's not enough for me.

>terrorized to consent
>the Soviet Union was only Stalin

>and their elections were fraud
>There is only one instance of guaranteed Secretary election fraud in the Soviet Union.

These are your arguments?

>Democracy: (countable, government) A government under the direct or representative rule of the people of its jurisdiction.
Sounds like democracy to me.

Stalin was in the working class prior to being leader of the USSR senpai.

Shhhh he doesn't want to hear facts

I could've brought up Trotsky. People forget that Stalin was actually the voice of reason in the vanguard party era.

Over 150 years later Marx is still tricking people with his bullshit

>You are not deciding what is relevant and what we are talking about. If you don't like it, then get out of my thread

On Veeky Forums, the threads belong to the proles, and the proles is everybody.

It's easier to rule people by making them think they rule, than being upfront with it. Still it weren't the people who was pulling the strings.

So? He turned against his people.

And what's that exactly? That capitalism is not the "final solution"?

But there is just one OP. In that sense the thread is mine. Other than that I see no disagreement.

>by making them think they rule
But they did rule. The local councils were the primary system of governance.

>the thread is mine
There is no private property. The thread has been collectivized for the betterment of the party.

>I made it, so it's mine!

Gee user, you sure are acting funny.

Tony, strip him. He's wearing a wire, I bet he had 2-3 tabs open right now, upvoting like a son of a bitch.

>But they did rule
See:
>the thread is mine
Why don't you pull couple of words from my posts, put them together and "quote" me?
>I made it, so it's mine!
Another one.

>falling back to the No True Scotsman

Well, user. We took a vote and you lost. We collectivized your thread. It's no longer yours because it was never yours, capitalist inroading scum. It was a purely democratic vote which is your only metric for something being allowed. Surely you aren't going to vanguard us out, right user? That would be wrong, by your own standards.

That post wasn't mine it was yours.

>Why don't you pull couple of words from my posts, put them together and "quote" me?

You mean our posts?

But there is just one OP. In that sense the thread is mine. And there is nothing you can do about it.

I mean you took a fragment of my post omitting an important part. With that you've changed the meaning of my words.

>but there is just one OP
And there is an entire proletariat which you are depriving of the fruits of their labor ITT.

>In that sense the thread is mine
But it isn't yours. We collectivized it, for the good of the proletariat. We took a vote. You lost. In that sense, through your own logic throughout the thread, the thread is no longer yours, but the Proletariats.

>and there is nothing you can do about it
We're doing it right now. Stop us.

Le Jesus was a socialist maymay. It's the same as the Jesus was an Arab (lol) thing that's supposed to make people upset (but doesn't) and it becomes pretty clear that the only time they've ever touched a bible is when they were moving them to the fiction section at the library.

Tell me more about them fruits.

>We're doing it right now.
Try harder. If you'll change the contents of OP, I will say that you've succeded.

Denial

We changed the content of the thread which is more than enough.

But there is just one OP. In that sense the thread is mine. And there is nothing you can do about it.

>something belongs to you and only you instead of the proletariat
Capitalist inroader

Oh, you can take my words. They will still be mine tho.

You're heading in the right direction but are currently devoid of any meaningful convictions

You could stand to lose your fetishization of the free market.

>libertarian left
>implying

That's my safe space.

ANARCHO-MUTUALISM

But seriously read some anarchist theory

Big swinging dick coming through

Perhaps. That's what's really necessary. I don't see anyone doing it though.

Give me one good reason why mutualism isn't better than communism and how communism resolves the issue of innovation.

Georgism is economically right now?

Because distributism is better than both because mutualism rejects the reality that leftist concepts can only be had through authoritarianism as the reaction to an individual going capitalist results in forceful collectivization of their property.

The questions and results of the questions of this test seem like they were written by an American Libertarian.

here.

Jesus fucking Christ. Half the questions are hurr state capitalism and central planning nanny state vs muh private property is an inviolable right don't tread on me with lots of moralfagging thrown in.

I answered every question in a way to get -100, -100. The vast majority of economic questions I had to answer that the state should regulate and control everything in the economy. Except apparently I believe in the establishment of the state.

Another piece of bullshit is that saying religions should be taxed like anyone else pushes you towards nanny statism. Whoever created this test clearly is only thinking of the American left/right dichotomy and thinks the left is literally Stalin.

Have you met Richard Wolff?
youtube.com/user/democracyatwrk

Collective planning is essential to human survival. Preventing the destruction of Earth's ecosystem or creating an anti asteroid shield - those would be group efforts on the scale of entire humanity. If we don't show any group intelligence and just act like cancer, we won't be better than cockroaches (which might survive us).

>leftist concepts can only be had through authoritarianism
Depends on what you call authoritatianism.
If the will of many imposed on the few for the good of all is also authoritatianism, than I will agree with that statement.