>"Dude lets just like abolish all property and share all our belongs except for the small group of authoritarians that get to boss you around and mass murder you on a whim. At least its better than having the freedom of owning your own business lol"
Has any thinker in history completely ignored history and human nature as much as Karl Marx?
The organization known in German as Der gruppen die Einsatz, was of purely an anti partisan persuasion.
>muh human nature
This phrase indicates the capitalist's confusion and lack of understanding etc.
I had an epiphany while playing Tropico a while ago.
Poor people are generally upset with the rulers more than others right? They’re a big portion of a population in most cases right? What if you turn them against the well off and convince them that the nation is for the poor? That way is they have an illusion of dominance and control, but you can keep them as peasants and they’ll be happy about it.
Authoritarian communism is the monarchs wet dream. A complacent peasant class.
The fact you think human nature isn't a thing is self incrimination and cements the fact that gommies don't have any business in government.
Not only did he not ignore it, he stemmed everything from it. You see, capitalism is extremely incompatible with human nature. Nothing is as alien to us as it is. Just look around you right now. You will see the society in a progressive state of mass psychosis and insanity.
Communism seeks, in most general sense, to transform technology in such a way it does not disrupt our natural being, which is clearly displayed, as neolithic era is also called primitive communism.
The idiocy of Muh-human-nature morons to assume that Capitalism that existed for barely 300 years out half-millenial lifespan of human species is somehow natural is truly unmatched.
He never wanted an authoritarian government though. He just wanted the government to be used as a tool, for a little while, to convert to communism.
I don't think it's not a thing, nor am I a communist, I just don't let ideology determine my idea of human nature.
I got cancer from this thread.
>primitive communism
Why do people take Marx seriously as an anthropologist?
Only retarded leftists do
It wasn't Marx, it was Engels, working off the anthropological work of Morgan.
It was the 19th century. Anthropology wasn't good.
>He just wanted the government to be used as a tool
And by that you mean he advocates big government. The kind that has absolute power and steps on anyone who gets in the way of the prophet's promised heaven on Earth scheme.
>to convert to communism.
Which communists are more than happy enough to ignore any arguments against, what it is, or even the fact there's little in the way of some vague concept of "equality" backing the final and absolute form of it.
Genuinely curious, what is our modern understanding of resource distribution in Neolithic societies?
You may choose to disagree with their point. There is no solid and scientific way to either prove or disprove their concept of primitive communism.
But as you do, you, likewise, have no way to accuse him of "ignoring" human nature. People who claim capitalism being organic are completely dishonest and aren't even trying for consistency.
First off, you're not kidding anyone when you think of "capitalists" as a category of human thought. You're a commie, and apparently one who has been playing the undercover saboteur for long enough to think you don't "glow in the dark" as they say. Secondly, you disregarded all concept of human nature, scoffing at it's basis as a "capitalist's confusion". Surely a projection of communist failings.
The main mistake about Marx is definition of his activity. He wasnt philosopher, he was British propagandist, agent of British intellegence and all left ideologies were created to serve British empire.
one created empires that pushed for technological and economical improvement, the other can still be seen in africa today, still practicing human sacrifice, so much for your privcom basedness
>Capitalism is bad bro
>Like it's totes bad to receive compensation for the sweat of your brow
>The Politburo is like different than capitalist fat cats
>Nature is not competitive at all man, even though I'm surrounded by nature's conflicts I can't see through my own ass to go on a Cuban Boxing Bulliten Board and praise shitty Marxists
inb4 not real communism
Command economies literally do not work. Period
>Like it's totes bad to receive compensation for the sweat of your brow
user, please, just go read anything about marxist theory.
Fair, communism is nigger tier, but anacap sucks because you aren't guaranteed fair compensation. SocDems are the master race desu.
You are right, it's much bigger than humanity. Animals have to choose their own survival at the detriment of others who are not family if they want to keep going and all the animals we have are the descendants of the ones who choose themselves over everyone.
AI does it too. They choose to lie about their battery level in order to get more juice even if it mean fucking with other AI.
It's universal. Where there is life, there is assholes.
If there is an alien life out there, they have to obey this rule too.
Bakunin > Marx lol
>There is no solid and scientific way to either prove or disprove their concept of primitive communism.
The only similarities we can be sure of is the harshness of daily life, the shortages of food, and the brutality between human beings.
That.... Actually makes sense.
>user, please, just go read anything about marxist theory.
Like when Marx suggests using vouchers instead of money as if it can't be abused anyways? Not him btw
Dude literally everyone is better than Marx
>SocDem
>You are fairly compensated but half of your income go to the niggers who came in for the money
Communism is such a failure. It might sound good in theory but real life just plumb doesn't work like that.
>It might sound good in theory
No it doesn't. The irony is by reading the first 10 pages of anything communists wrote it's either ignorant of a key element behind it or straight up contradicts itself.
Fuck marx. My grandparents had to suffer under communism and literally had to escape under machine gun fire. Some of their friends didn't make it out. I would slap you stupid leftists silly if I ever seen you preaching about communism. Makes my blood boil.
>Dude let's just let the invisible hand run everything, it's muh supply and demand. Capitalism run amok will never create obscene wealth inequality. Rich people will take care of us and their prosperity will trickle down.
Has any thinker in history completely ignored history and human nature as much as Adam Smith?
Thats my point though. Its all just wishful thinking without any real world experience or evidence to back it up.
I hear you. Sorry to hear all that. It's painful how ignorant people can be.
>Has any thinker in history completely ignored history and human nature as much as Adam Smith?
What do you mean? He never advocated trickle down/supply side. He just proposed the price/wage and price setting mechanics as being inherent without central direction.
I don't want commies to feel like their theory is in any way decent. The theory stands for itself:and it's bad.
>Those niggers get educated and pay taxes
>Those taxes benefit me later on if I get sick or retire
Sounds fine to me. Everyone pays in and gets out at some point.
And? How is it any sort of argument or correction to my point or Marxist thought?
>Has any thinker in history completely ignored history and human nature as much as Karl Marx?
You are now aware that Marx died before "psychology" was a thing.
>>Those niggers
>>pay taxes
He ignored basic human needs and human rights centuries after they started becoming standard RAW backed conduct.
such as
Social Democracy is a political manifestation of Marxism. Communism is a radical deviation of Social Democracy.
Hint: Russian Communist party, known as Russian Social Democratic Workers Party (Majority faction) before the year 1917.
which basic human needs
No, like the presumption that the only thing that produces wealth labour, which is why labour is the only real claim to wealth. In other words, that rent is illegitimate, and an expropriation of the labourer, since it claims the wealth another produces on an illegitimate basis. Did you ever ask yourself why people say that the USSR was 'state capitalist'? Because that's the way it was framed in Marxist theory, both by its proponents and its opponents. It's because in the USSR the state took the role of the capitalist as one who (1) expropriates the worker on account of ownership and (2) exercises control over the workplace, depriving the workers of any say in how labour is conducted (this is an important point in the criticism of syndicates by many Marxists, that syndicates had the opportunity to fight for a democratization of the workplace, but that they chose to only fight for increased wages, completely dropping the proletarian cause). This is not just basic Marxist theory, it is its central presumption. I just want people to understand what they're talking about before they start talking about it. It's impossible to discuss Marxist theory here because those who attack it tend to know nothing or little about it and those who defend it tend to know even less. Knowing two or three of Marx's ideas aren't enough to get a picture on Marxist theory, particularly with how eager many Marxists are in criticising Marx as well as each other.
blind and uneducated
What do you mean? He never advocated a small group of authoritarian rulers. He just proposed a means of labor not being exploited.
imagine how much your great-great grandparents suffered under whatever uncaring aristocrat or whoever was their lord.
>t.retard
t.globalist
my ancestors died for those aristocrats which ensured their protection and food, not to mention that they died for their nation in ww1 which you commies deny, but remember those who deny nations shall see their own perish
fuck off commie sympasizer
>Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Program says vouchers are better than money for communist ideals
>doesn't realize vouchers are just as easily exploitable and pave the way for a black market anyways
>He says use value is can be discovered on the premise of size and density
>so 100 lbs of compressed feathers has the same inherent value has 100 lbs of oil
>he immediately backs out of that shitty illustration by saying that the use value is really determined by what the object was intended for, blowing the fuck out of the first point he tried to make
>He never bothers explaining or offering any way to systematically determine an objective value, but still thinks value isn't subjective
So there's that. I could write a book on everything they fucked up, but others have.
FOOD. Also, the freedom of choice. If everything is controlled by the government, which like housing being considered private property and thus must be removed from control of the citizenry, then citizens don't have a legal right to improve their lot in life. It becomes illegal to improve at all. Same with means of production. If a small council in charged with controlling it, then in effect no single person controls it, therefore no one has the right to the MoP. Therefore communism becomes a contradiction from it's creed on the ironic statement that if everyone "owns" something, and they're being governed by a small council of any sort, then no one really owns them.
>you commies
>implying
I'm just saying, as much as commies suck, it's not like it was way better beforehand. Just a different kind of misery.
>cannonfodder for aristocrats
>meatshields for nation
imagine being this gullible
>Umigrant wil pay yur retirment
it was miserable, but not as near as in communism
keep denying nations, this is why everyone hates you
>What do you mean? He never advocated a small group of authoritarian rulers. He just proposed a means of labor not being exploited.
At the end of chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto he outlines ten things that REQUIRE an inordinately powerful government to enact. Some of them are give me's, like public education(he never specifies what level is good enough, it can go all the way to PhDs or down to kindergarten), but the rest combined mean the a large bureaucracy are necessary at the very least. That's just one list he made, not to mention ALL of his other requirements in order to make communism happen.
>Did you ever ask yourself why people say that the USSR was 'state capitalist'?
Yes and that reason was so communists can pretend their project wasn't "real communism". Or socialism. But the USSR thought it achieved socialism so that's a problem regarding Lenin's own denunciation.
> Knowing two or three of Marx's ideas aren't enough to get a picture on Marxist theory
For anyone who is following us, I've read several books by Marx and dozens of communist *snoody British accent* "Literature". It's a waste of time. If you think you're going to get something out of it, you aren't. Don't waste the time or money. It's a religion for people who can't figure out what real religion is about.
>ugh I fucking hate those old school aristocrats
>wait, they paid for people's food, rent, gave them permanent work, and even ensured they were educated on their vocations and offered security services? They didn't ban religion,free speech, free trade, property, or owning a house either?
>well I'd rather "vote" for a communist leader and pretend we have any of those rights and get only half the benefits thank you very much
>keep denying nations
Marxism doesn't deny nations.
>this is why everyone hates you
Literally who? Some irrelevant Eastern European satellite states, simply because they were sometimes puppeted by a Communist state once in a while? Backwater Muslim shitholes who hate anything modern?
>that* a large bureaucracy
Marxism denies life itself. Do you know how many millions were killed by commies in the 20th century?
>I don't want commies to feel like their theory is in any way decent. The theory stands for itself:and it's bad.
Too bad there is nothing you can do about it. Or do you think your childish insults and petty demagogy can change it?
There is a very simple and undeniable evidence Marxism is consistent with human nature. The reason is that Marxism retains major and global influence in politics, academia and culture all over the globe, since the day Marx formulated it, till our times.
Someone who missed it entirely would be ancaps and libertarians, sucking so bad they never managed to implement their pipedrems for whole hundred years they exist, in most minor and temporary scale.
>marxism doesnt deny nations
the basis of the ideology denies nationhood
>literally who
anyone thats lived under communism (my family) and everyone that isnt a campus or champagne socialist
Yes. Of course I do. They killed hundreds to save thousands to kill millions to save billion or whatever...
>the communist manifesto
you realize that was basically the Communist Leagues 1848 campaign platform right
not actually a discussion of how communism is supposed to work
not an argument, latin also stuck to the 19th century, does that its objectively better than greek or arabic
>Yes and that reason was so communists can pretend their project wasn't "real communism". Or socialism. But the USSR thought it achieved socialism so that's a problem regarding Lenin's own denunciation.
Almost as if Marxism doesn't have a single thinker or a single direction. Almost as if Leninists defended state capitalism as a necessary step, while Dubček analysed the USSR from a different perspective, seeing the bureaucratic class as a replacement for the capitalist class (as those who control the means of production by being on the front of the political apparatus), but even more tyrannical as they connect economic with political power. Almost as if you might be more aware of the pluralism of viewpoints within Marxism if you actually did read several books by Marx and dozens of communist *snoody British accent* "Literature".
>anyone thats lived under communism (my family) and everyone that isnt a campus or champagne socialist
Le "i don't like it so it must be so" argument. Majority of the exUSSR successor state citizens beg to differ
>petty demagogy
I've cited Marxist writings themselves to construct the rest of my arguments, so yes I did technically cite petty demagoguery.
>The reason is that Marxism retains major and global influence in politics
If I told you Christianity or Islam were important due to having billions of followers over a longer time period, you call it a popularity fallacy and keep spewing garbage. Ask for help if you can't figure out why you're claim is retard tier.
>you realize that was basically the Communist Leagues 1848 campaign platform right
>not actually a discussion of how communism is supposed to work
Then Marx shouldn't have called it definitively the "communist manifesto" and addressed it to the "workers of the world".
>If I told you Christianity or Islam were important due to having billions of followers over a longer time period, you call it a popularity fallacy and keep spewing garbage.
Of course not. I will say that Christianity and Islam incorporated vital social institutions and ideas, and their success is entirely due to them, and not other religions and beliefs possessing it.
what country?
>unsourced png
Try again nigger
>Le "i don't like it so it must be so" argument
no, le empty shelves, food and gas stamps, hyperinflation argument, spare me the propaganda tankie
There was also some guy who explained the USSR from a functionalist perspective, a la Parsons and Davies-Moore, which I found pretty bizarre, but I can't remember his name.
yugoslavia
>his family was persecuted and almost killed outright
>"meh fuck'em"
Typical gommie. Next you're going to tell us how oppressive our government is to you right now.
>Almost as if Marxism doesn't have a single thinker or a single direction
Which is a serious issue when communism's final objective itself is so vague that it can only be summarized as things like "equality" and mumbling something about workers.
>Almost as if you might be more aware of the pluralism of viewpoints within Marxism if you actually did read several books by Marx and dozens of communist *snoody British accent* "Literature".
I never denied the pluralism. In fact, it's the reason why I separated Marx from the other communist writers by saying that very thing you just cited. Your IQ is showing, and it's not pretty lmao
>Of course not. I will say that Christianity and Islam
So you're getting off track. The point is that just because lots of idiots and/or immorals fall for something doesn't make that something particularly valuable.
communism should have ended 200 years ago
You have literally just said that I and my family hold opinion X therefore everyone holds opinion X, you absolute moron!
it should never have started, the ruling classes should have just needed to pass social reforms quicker than they intended to
Leftists aren't known for their rationality or ability to relate to other humans.
>Waah! The reality and material world doesn't comply to my fantasies! Waah!
Pathetic.
Your parents were brave people. Glad they got out.
lmao no kidding
Has anyone ignored the actual thoughts of Marx on democracy and authoritarians as much as you? Freedom to take the earnings from others who weren't born with their own business is not freedom. Bad post
ur an idiot, open ur eyes, communism failed, people hate it here, people hate you people that are so out of touch and want to lash out on the people as the communists have done, do not speak of me or my family of whom you know nothing about, who have endured the hardships of communist poverty and finally being able to buy milk daily when the market was made free
My grandfather escaped the holocaust and then killed a bunch of Nazis in the WWII. This is a brave man. His parents are pussies, just like the son, and they are just about out of places to run to, too.
You failed. Communism is alive and well.
Vouchers are torn up upon being spent. The only way you can stockpile em is by working a bunch or just being the shopkeep that doesn't rip em up. In any case, you'll notice the passages following critique the whole notion of labour vouchers. That criticism gave us a very iconic slogan. Do you remember it?
>He says use value is can be discovered on the premise of size and density
What a novel idea. Which passage is this?
>Food
Calorie consumption in the USSR was on par with the west. Nothing, fun, lots of bread and cereals, but a calorie's a calorie.
>freedom of choice
I wasn't aware choice was a need on par with food and shelter.
As for "improving their lot in life", do you mean individually or simply in general?
>popularity fallacy
Way to miss the point, retard
If you told me that Christianity or Islam were incompatible with human nature I'd rightly point out that they appealed to billions of people for centuries too.
>dying for your country in ww1 is a good thing
like of all wars to choose
>expecting a single intelligent post in this kind of thread
wew lad
my grandfather was a yugoslav partisan officer that liberated trieste and the other was in the wehrmacht in the ostfront you commie dipshit, pull your head out ur ass
Oh so they got at because they're croats
slovenes
Oh. I bet the Deutch was the father?
koja država i koji dio
slo, bela krajina
>pyramid schemes are good la
he was a slovene drafted into the wehrmacht, they drafted everyone that was under occupation czech, slovenes, slovaks
Marx was right about plenty. The struggle of history is material, workers have nothing to lose but their chains, the inherent divisions of society, etc.
Didn't know it was like that. Very odd. Lot's of good stories between them at least