When did communism become a meme again in the U.S.?

When did communism become a meme again in the U.S.?
Is it because people lack an education in political philosophy? Or is it more an obliviousness to economics?
How do we get rid of ancoms? What do you think we need to do before adopting a communist economy so that it doesn't cripple the country financially, if possible at all?

>When did communism become a meme again in the U.S.?

When whitey finally got it as bad as the other minorities.

It will always be a meme until you retards stop calling everything left of democratic party "gommunism".

Ancoms and pic related are literally communists you stupid faggot

Actually i take back pic related
They're just using communist buzzwords, i don't actually know that they're communists

Marxist subversion has been around for decades.

>political philosophy
Lmao I thought this site had an age requirement

have considered that there's been marxist labor movements persistently since the middle of the 19th century and that what you are now perceiving as a :::new meme::: is just your own coming to class consciousness colliding with your own doctrinaire regressive views of politics and history?

liberals will always frame young people getting interested in marx as a "new trend among the youth" because marxism threatens their pop-patriarchal ABC sitcom familial structures locally and their petit-bourgoeis/middle class ideologies globally.

>marxism threatens

marxism threatens every member of the population with unimaginable suffering, up to and including totalitarian thought control, extrajudicial murder, deliberate mass starvation, enslavement, universal penury, and all the other horrors attendant to hard-left regimes

the hardest left regimes in the world today are venezuela, cuba and north korea, look at how well that's going for them...

>the hardest left regimes in the world today are venezuela, cuba and north korea, look at how well that's going for them...

Surely you realize those are not real communism, and even so their difficulties are only due to hostility from capitalist imperialist powers :^)

you seem to have confused marxism with stalinism. try again after you've read a book

...

It can't be coincidence though that the countries that attempted marxism ended up being totalitarian regimes, surely?

you're papering over historical ignorance with generality. what the fuck does it mean to "Attempt Marxism"

because it is a meme you semenspouting pretentiousfag

socialism, neo-liberal capitalism, monarchal feudalism only acceptable systems of government in the modern era

part 1. spend less time on social media, communism is not very popular in the real world

part 2. never trust a self declared communist who does not work.

most of the people you are referring to, OP, tend to confuse communism with welfare state socialism, and have this bizarre belief that communism is the emancipation of labor. it isnt, if anything a transition to a communist economy would pull most of these people out of their ivory towers and into the farms and factories.

also anyone who says a revolution from the left can come about bloodlessly is wrong.

It's a combination of the great recession and Fox News's inability to go five seconds during Obama's first term without referring to something as socialism.

It's straightforward and has little to do with "lacking an education" desu

It's not read some Nietzsche and you'll understand how it can never work since it conflicts human nature

>a meme again
When did it stop?

what would nietsche know about human nature? he can tell you an awful lot about german, perhaps even expanded to european, nature and society, but those are not representative of overall human nature.

>nietzsche, an autistic syphilitic, has enduring insight into Human Natureā„¢

read some nietzsche and you'll understand how transparent it is that you haven't read any philosophy when you cite him to make claims about a universal ideal like human nature

Note how the only good post ITT has no replies

>user, a teenage autismo, thinks being edgy substitutes actual arguments
When the fuck do summer vacations start? Fuck off to a containment board with your ebin edgelord memetexts.

reverting to ad hominem declares yourself too much a brainlet to continue the conversation. why dont you fuck off and read a book?

This is the smartest poster on Veeky Forums guys

We found her

What's your IQ, Miss?

I bet it's like 700!

>literally based his whole ""argument"" on ad hominem towards Nietzsche
>muh ad hominem
Seriously - /b/, /pol/, /r9k/, /tv/. Just take your pick and leave this board for us, brainlets.

>read internet fight
>neither side makes a persuasive argument I can agree with

Actually i was marxist because of my eastern euro cultural/financial background up until about high school
I can't seem to recall Antifa's setting streets on fire in response to peaceful demonstrations until a few years ago
>Inb4 antifa/= ancoms but shut the fuck up they're literally flying ancom flags while pretending they're just there to protest "fascists".

The reason we frame the nuclear family as ideal is because they and their kids statistically perform better financially than broken up families
If you're going to be a postmod cunt saying "u don no if das da bes" then you should at least provide statistics for a functionally preferable alternative instead of destroying what works to put in place what you decided was the best, you insufferable bottom-feeding edgelord

Neck you are self

im not even the guy you were insulting, just an outside observer. your lack of self awareness is astounding.

>The reason we frame the nuclear family as ideal is because they and their kids statistically perform better financially than broken up families
yeah that's how most people form their preferences, by reading statistics

Go back to /pol/

But for a serious answer: since basically the whole washington consensus crumbled a couple of years ago and the last 40 years of economic policies have proven nothing but disastrous.

[citations required]

as it stands you are espousing dogma as proof in and of itself

i'm not being edgy. im just pointing that making some ridiculous, unsubstantiated claim about "human nature" is completely incongruous with the final critic of metaphysics, nietzsche, upon whom your stupid ideas rest for authority. read a book. get educated. learn history of philosophy. it might do you some good.

hmmm

I wonder what happened in 1979?

What the fuck does nuclear families have to do with Marxism or communism? lol

no. the truth of the post was that it's really obvious you haven't read any philosophy if you think nietzsche is ever talking about "human nature"

How do we debate with "self-proclaimed communists"? What should I read?

>argument from human nature
>Nietzsche

Also I love how you imply that capitalism doesn't conflict with human nature since it still requires for people to be honest and respect contracts.

>your lack of self awareness is astounding

user I'm shit posting

I win and you've lost

if it quacks like a duck

capitalism in the 19th century required strong male laborers to do back breaking work. this demanded in turn women in the home doing unpaid labor to support them, as well as doing the unpaid labor of reproducing strong laborers in the form of the child. moreover, by the mid 20th century this ideological reproduction of the family revealed its own truth when the family comes to be viewed as a little enterprise in its own, headed by its boss daddy. the nuclear family has always been the concrete site of the reproduction of capitalism, and a lot of critique, both theoretical and practical, has to start there. not all of it, not even most of it, but a lot of it. this, incidentally, is why anti-marxist feminism is a contradiction in terms.

the result of nixons changes to the way our economy functions, that is unshackling the dollar from gold

Also the year Thatcher was elected and one year before Reagan was elected. Really makes you think.

(Also Iranian revolution and Chinese invasion of Vietnam)

The nuclear family is an institution made of a legal status and a material status (the unity of a father a mother and children).

Criticism of its legal status (capital organizes itself in a form of exploitation because the family forms support eg.: both parents can work because grandma takes care of the children) is different from criticism of its material form. In fact many communists were very socially conservative.

I'm not though, and I think that in the case of the family personal freedom come first and the effect on the children is irrelevant.

dissolution of the family is the authoritarian wing of the left who despise independent thought.

Indian or Italian, lads?

yes, taking control of the currency in this way was part of a concentrated effort to establish a new world order and honestly it worked out pretty well, until the reality of eternal growth began to set in. population control is very much on the minds of our benevolent leaders.

maybe one should question why every single marxist regime devolved into stalinism in the first place :^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^)

You shouldn't debate with them
Communists don't believe in property or human rights
They believe that the government should own your body and property to do with as it pleases.
To extend human rights to someone who does not extend those same rights to you is suicide

The only argument that communism merits is /physical removal/

you dont have a clue what youre talkin about. i doubt you even live in a city

you don't have to read Marx, since they haven't either. If they did, they wouldn't be Marxists.

Rocky came out in theaters.

What is the essential Marx to read to understand the core ideas of Marxism? And what must be read after him to understand how we got where we are?

I knew that peterson posted here.

wow /persuasive/

fyi I live and work in San Diego and have lived in multiple other major US cities. Not that it has any bearing on the topic under discussion.

Are you a communist?

>Theses on Feuerbach
>Socialism: Scientific and Utopian
>Critique of the Gotha Programme
>Wage Labor and Capital
>State and Revolution
>ABC's of Communism
>Anti-Duhring
>Synopsis of Capital
>On The Reproduction Of Capitalism: Ideology And Ideological State Apparatuses,
>On Ideology.
for where we are today, well you can try the Frankfurters, like Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse. After that Debord's, "Society of the Spectacle." Marxism pretty much rapidly died off after the 60's though.

Right wing logic: I will just invent my reality so that I can be always right and I'll just keep repeating online because my repellent views have alienated every person that ever loved me and left my life in shambles... now let me tell you why high healthcare costs are a good thing...

now call me a racist

Nah you are just an idiot. Only an idiot would believe that property rights are natural

ownership is a natural extension of territoriality and an ability to defend oneself, a place, or a thing with violence

The only schools that teach right-wing and pro-capitalist materials in political philosophy classes are bottom-tier, 94% acceptance rate state schools and community colleges. It's why blue collar Americans are suspicious of and resent the educational system.

lol

all schools in America are pro-capitalist you clown, they're just neo-liberal.

>neo-liberal
meaningless outside economics
keep memeing yourself, bagman

What would you commies do if in real life you were having a discussion where you advocated Communism, and an immigrant who had family died/suffer from a regime overhears and tells you you're misguided? When I was a 14 year old marxist here in Florida elderly cubans let me have it lol. The cold war wasn't that long ago

what all leftists do - take a condescending tone and explain "not real communism lel"

right because a bunch of salty emigraes are your best source for positive attitudes toward former homeland. dumbass, do you ask only atheists to explain to you god, or garbage men to explain physics?

>People who lived under such conditions are not qualified to comment on such conditions

>being this much of an idiot
no neoliberal very well ties in with social and cultural positions, as does Marxism.

so you're saying those "salty emigres" are salty for no reason at all and just decided to abandon their homeland and go through all the trouble of relocating their families for no reason and gommunsim dindu nuffin

gotcha

no im saying youre obviously only going to get a negative attitude, poseur

then it that case you have no right to talk about communism either.
>you ought to be proud and happy that you had all your assets seized by a bunch of psychopathic untermensch, and who would've had your entire family summarily executed
lol, just lol.

Friendly reminder that all socialism is champagne socialism, and Marx's contribution to the ideology was merely a sophistic tool to legitimize the socialist platforms of classes historically unpopular with the working class majority.

you're implying those negative attitudes are illegitimate, which is false

Wealth has been redistributed to the top since ~1980. I don't think anyone believes "communism" would take root in the USA. Most "commies" want a shift away from feudal levels of wealth inequality. Less people opt for radical politics when they're financially secure. A massive underclass es no bueno

>be communist
>meet person who suffered under really existing socialism
>can't be communist anymore
>become pro-capitalist
>meet someone who suffered under really existing capitalism
>can't be pro-capitalist anymore
>become primitivist
>meet someone who suffered in a hunter gatherer society
>can't be primitivist anymore
>become pro-feudalist
>meet someone whose grandparent suffered under feudalism
>can't be pro-feudalist anymore
>become suicidal
>sudoku
>no one can convince yourself you're wrong anymore
the blackpill is the only ideology that works

>Wealth has been redistributed to the top since ~1980

BC?

>no criticism allowed here tovarish, only goodthink!

the funny thing about this is that communism creates an even larger wealth inequality - everyone is underclass except for the party members who make the decisions about the distribution of capital and goods.

the problem is central banking, fractional reserve banking, and globalist policies flooding the market with cheap labor.

So the consequence is that if someone takes it from you with force now it's rightfully his

suffering is part and parcel of the kingdom animalia
we all feel pain, we all shed blood
many of us are constantly engaged in killing each other with our faces and eating their flesh and blood. the ones who aren't engaged in this are primarily preoccupied with killing the animals attempting to kill them.
spilled blood is the eternal lubricant of evolution
in spite of this, limiting suffering to the greatest degree possible is a noble pursuit

Ultimately, yes.
However we exist under a government which recognizes property law, and concepts like theft. Going against the law legitimizes the use of societal-level force against the lawbreaker in retribution for his transgression. However if the thief is clever enough or powerful enough to circumvent this retribution he can, for all intents and purposes, be said to own that which he stole.

are you really so much of a child you don't understand this

also this point
>therefore if communism takes your property or life by force it is rightfully taken
is the point where I stop listening to any arguments you say and start killing you

wow it's almost like the original poster never conflated nature with morality like you did :^)

At this point, if communists want to behave like animals and forsake civilization, then they should be treated as such.

>the hardest left regimes in the world today are venezuela, cuba and north korea, look at how well that's going for them

Explain how these capitalist countries are leftist. Do the workers democratically control the economy in any of the listed? Certainly not Venezuela. Probably only minimally in Cuba. North Korea is essentially a jingoist monarchy.

The working class in Venezuela is rioting next to billboards advertising liquor and you assholes still have the gall to call it a socialism?

>>socialism, neo-liberal capitalism, monarchal feudalism

>Implying socialism can exist with neighboring capitalist countries without the US reagan-ing the region.

>only my definition of socialism is allowed to be socialism
lel, newsflash sweety, if your definition has literally never found its way in practice, then one ought start defining it based off its historical practice; not off your utopian definition.

...

>since it conflicts human nature

'Human nature' is not real. We have no reason to think that humans are preordained by any factual conditions to behave in any specific way. The only thing that exists is the human condition of total freedom.

>the government was elected to make this the land of milk and honey
>yep
>so this must be the land of milk and honey
>no, retard

>We have no reason to think that humans are preordained by any factual conditions to behave in any specific way.
topkek, I see socialists still haven't opened up an evopsych, or anthropology book since time immemorial.

socialist regimes never put """"real socialism"""" into practice because of the human tendency to consolidate power through violence

you are beyond retarded

>provide statistics for a functionally preferable alternative

You won't be able to because western global culture has been erroneously founded on the idea of a nuclear family. We assume children belong to one. They are seen as dysfunctional if they are unable to be adopted into a family. How can anyone succeed as a child without a family if all of our institutions require that someone have the support of a family to be even moderately successful? The family was a mistake. Maybe it was alright in a communal foraging society, but suggesting that the family unit is somehow necessary for human development is shaky.

>still provides no alternative
amazing

>not doing something that would contradict the first sentence of the post
>"amazing"

So the consequence is that if someone takes it from you with force now it's rightfully his

>>Communists don't believe in property or human rights
>>To extend human rights to someone who does not extend those same rights to you is suicide

Am a communist. Human rights are a liberal crock. Human responsibilities are where it's at. Also, I do believe in personal property. I just don't believe anyone should hold resources hostage from the workers that actually make use of them.

>>They believe that the government should own your body and property to do with as it pleases.

Communism is stateless. Find me one Marxian theorist who said that a government should control an individual's body.

Is your Youtube University diploma hanging on your wall or is it in the frame shop at the moment?

You mean Miami gusanos weren't ecstatic that Castro's revolution stopped them from selling peasant's-hand-rolled cigars to bourgeoisie American sex tourists?