The main thing that appeals to me about communism is their conception of totality and the idea of the classless...

The main thing that appeals to me about communism is their conception of totality and the idea of the classless, universal man in their utopia. What are some commie books that focus on these areas?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century#Criticism
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Read Hegel

Already have. Where do the communists expand on his ideas explicitly?

Why are you interested in a jewish ideology that was used to murder countless millions? Are you jewish yourself?

going from idealism to materialism. also the forward march of history goes beyond simple state

>The main thing that appeals to me about communism

stopped reading there

>Someone has a different opinion to me
>Stopped reading there

/narcissism/

Pre-Marxian socialism (before it got all scientific and economical) was called utopian socialism. Read about thinkers like Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Étienne Cabet, and Robert Owen.

communism is literally retarded.

Communism is a good tool to critique but not create. I don't think Zizek is as far as a Marxist, I think he exaggerates his leftist leanings to disrupt and gadfly the public forum.

>Communism is a good tool to critique but not create.
I think you meant to say Marxism?

The main thing about communism is that it's inherently a retarded ideology destined to fail 100% of the time because humans are flawed. Shove your utopia up your ass.

Why is the same guy bumping this thread again and again if he hates it as much as he claims?

good question. I make sure to sage when posting in threads about your shit ideology that has no real world application beyond decimating populations through starvation and genocide.

>muh human nature
Let me take a wild guess here: everything you know about socialism was told to you by a capitalist.

marxism is what we have now but even more so:
higher taxes
big government
gay transgenders
pizzagate
regressive left
benghazi
sjw
muslim brotherhood

This post was either made by the person being replied to in it or a really new poster.

>muslim brotherhood
Religion is the opiate of the masses. Seriously, none of you wankers have actually read a word of Marx, have you?

don't reply to the south american, retard

Veeky Forums has gotten much dumber over the past year so I'm guessing this isn't a satire post.

if you think a post was a trick to make you reply, don't reply to it

I only like Pol Pot.
>tfw you will never be a part of Khmer Rogue getting rid of intelligentsia

"A Tomb for Boris Davidovich"

This is fiction, but deals well with Trotter's disappointment of how that ideal was never realized because of Stalin

Socialism has never worked. Ever. Period. Never will. Sources: Venezuela, Soviet Union, Eastern Germany.

They could still have been inspired by marxism, no matter how misguided they are.

There is no such thing as classless, social class exists even among lesser animals and even the mindless bugs.
>totality
another foolish aspect. If this is what appeals to you then you are lost

What about China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba? And what do you mean by socialism?

The problem with Communism is that it denies the existence of hierarchies. A classless society cannot exist unless everyone is an exact clone of each other and even then different task must be assign to different individuals. So what you end up with is a dictatorship who claims he's doing it in the name of the people.

Now socialism works as long as you have two driving factor. One factor is the sentimental one that liberals love. To help your fellow man. The other factor which works for conservatives is fear or rather paranoia of the existence of an outside enemy. Basically to work together because there is an enemy tribe at the gates.

>NOT REAL SOCIALISM REEEEEEEEE
Cuba is shit, North Korea is a prison for everyone living there and is also shit, Vietnam.... well yea, and China is so fucked up I don't even know where to start. Tibet probably.
Go try and live in one of those countries, I fucking DARE you. Put your money where your mouth is instead of shitposting on products of capitalism and white men aka the computer and the internet.
>Now socialism works as long as you have two driving factor. One factor is the sentimental one that liberals love. To help your fellow man.
Will never happen. Stop living in a utopian fantasy land. People are garbage inside and out.

I hate gomanism so much that I bumped a thread about it for days on end.

>human nature is an objective 100% static thing that can't be changed by your enviorment, econimic reality or anything else in the world
...

...

t. someone who endorses zionist neocons

Thats because world wide revoultion has never happened. The proper material conditions for the fist stage of communism hasn't occured yet because capitalism isn't fully devolped.

>literally shitposting using products of capitalism to further the communist agenda
I can't think of anything more retarded.

Again you're confusing Communism with Socialism because you're uneducated.
And who the fuck said I like communism?
You said communism doesn't work, well then I pointed out the existence of communist countries that are still here today. Or are you saying they're not communist?
>Will never happen
What are the Nazi. What is Soviet Union. What is America during WW2 and all them programs to militarize the nation?
You're just a little shithead with no understanding of history.

i only support communism because i think that red and yellow is a nice a e s h t h e t h i c

m8 modern China is based entirely on ruthless capitalist competition. That's why most Western consumer goods are made by their migrant labour, which is exploited by the ruling party... that fact that party has the word "Communist" in its name doesn't make it so.

So what you are saying is that to advocate an economic system you have to pretend like you are allready living in it?
>WHY AREN'T COMMUNISTS STARVING THEMSELVES TO DEATH??
Would you call a peasant advocating capitalism a hypocrite because his clothes were made in fuedalism?

Communism is fundamentally flawed.

You are confusing communism and socialism. Read Lenin.
Communism = Stateless classless society
Socialism = Workers control state

>argues for socialism
>You're just a little shithead with no understanding of history.
what is projection? wew lad

why socialism works

d i s i n g e n u o u s

I'm saying exactly that. There is no such thing as true communism because true communism is physically not possible. What occurs is a set of individuals, "party members," ruthlessly ruling over everyone else. It is a severe caste society bet lies to itself to say that it's classless.

>currency exists in communism
>production for value not useh
r e a d m a r x

>communism with a state
read marx

Young Marx deals a lot with the human Gattungswesen aka his idea of the human as a free producer which finds full realisation in the communist society.

Read his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts in particular.

I have. The only thing Marx got right is the existence of class warfare. Everything else was wrong. Marx thinks that classless system will emerge by having the bottom overthrow the top. But all that really happens is that you change whose on top. Except now it's worse because the people on top lies and say there no class system when clearly there are. Hierarchies are natural. Its principle in nature. Chimps form hierarchies. Naked mole rats, ants, bees, wasps, and all social organisms end up developing hierarchies.

But everything else (bar maybe dialectic itself, which comes from Hegel anyway) proceeds directly from the class conflict.

>comparing sentient to non or at best quasi-sentient beings

>Venezuela, Soviet Union, Eastern Germany.
>socialism

From 'The Communist Manifesto' read the chapter 'Bourgeois and Proletarians', the rest is outdated.

Then read 'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'. It explains the history of socialist theories and historical materialism.

If you want to read more on economics see 'Wage Labour and Capital' and if you want more on how an early communist society will emerge read 'Critique of the Gotha Programme'.

The above reading list should take about a week if you take it slow. They're all short reads. If you want something in depth look at 'Capital'. If you want to get into Leninism see 'State and Revolution'.

>literally the most discredited ideology in the entire history of the world

We're going to have to bring you faggots out into the light kicking and screaming, aren't we?

>Everything proceeds from the class conflict
The only thing that result from class conflict is a reshuffling of the pyramid. I hate to say it but there will always be a pyramid as long as human beings are social organisms. A true classless system that is stable would consist of only one individual. It's like a muticellular organism with no differentiation in cells.

Strawman arguments by those with vested interests, who inevitably think that all socialistic concepts = the late USSR, are not "discrediting".

Proletariat revolution: still waiting, I guess we'll be in late late capitalism soon
Number of successful communist economies: 0
Number of communist economies that swung to capitalism because communism was so shit: pretty much all of them
Number of communist countries that were not extremely oppressive moral atrocities: 0
Number of successful capitalist countries: a very large integer
Last time a reputable economist took marxism seriously: ...

That's about as discredited as it gets.

>what is Scandinavia?

>free-market capitalism with some social services is socialism

Bernie pls

Listen brothers.

The earth is not a ball to which we are glued by the mystical force of "gravity", no.

The earth is flat, just as the ancient peoples believed. Heaven is above you, hell is below you.

The devil first spread the idea of a ball earth revolving around a ball sun in the ancient Babylonian and Egyptian mystery schools. These teachings were passed down to Pythagoras. They were handed down the ages to the occult mystery schools of the European Renaissance, who adopted them as their own. Then the occultists Copernicus, Kepler, Bruno, Newton, published the idea and started the "Copernican revolution".

The ancient Hermetic principle is "As Above, So Below". This has many applications. One of them is this: what people believe about the heavens above them, well determine what they believe about the earth below them. In other words, how they interpret the sky will correspond with how they interpret their own lives. Our materialist society would be impossible without a materialist cosmology to justify it. A mechanistic Newtonian cosmology justifies a mechanistic view of human life, a mechanistic politics, sociology, and economics. It sounds like a joke, but the idea that the stars are giant balls of gas reflects the modern obsession with fossil fuels / material goods in general. Copernicus wasn't going for a mechanistic religion, by the way; he was a Pythagorean and Heliolator, and hoped that the belief that the sun was at the center of the universe would usher in a return to a sun-worshipping priesthood like those of ancient societies.

The reason why the Devil spreads the idea of the ball earth is that it totally overturns mans relationship to the world. Instead of man being a spiritual being with heaven above him and hell below him; instead he stands on a ball where there are infinitely many ups and downs, where heaven isn't "above" but only "outside" the earth - moral and epistemological relativism, infinitely many points of view.

OP back to check on this thread.

Thanks for those. Do they give an account of the Marxist conception of totality?

What the fuck is wrong with the rest of you. I'm not reading Marxism because I'm a communist. I just want to learn about it. You wanna burn my books?

News From Nowhere: William Morris. It's a pleasant Utopian response to Bellamy's Looking Backwards, but give it a chance.

ITT: classcucks and socdems (with the exception of )

OP if you are interested in a look into communist or just leftist thought in general give lefty pol a browse over at 16/2chan. Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums are here for fiction, literary criticism, and writing improvement.

But to your question, the ideal of the universal man is a highlight of mainly Soviet thought. I would recommend that you start with Soviet Marxism by Marcuse as a touchstone to understand the context of theory surrounding the universal man. Also that book will give you a brief overview of modern leftist praxis and the Soviet system both before and after it started liberalizing in the 60s.

>implying any left wing government wouldn't degenerate into a sjw sharia transgender dictatorship in which pedophiles are allowed to rape children on the open street because diversity and progress while white people are enslaved to pay for the guilt of their ancestors

I've been bested

WAYQ

>price is value

can't think, no discernible talent

if by totality you mean totalitarian government, look no further than Leninist vanguardism. But if you are interested in it as an analytical tool, look to the Frankfurt school for its main applications. The poeisis of Dialectic of Enlightenment is an attempt "represent" totality, not merely to "use" it as an analytical tool. Following in this vein is Fredric Jameson, who tones down the poetic vaugeness but maintains the allusive, associative character of the analysis: read his big Postmodernism book, specifically its first, sweeping chapter, to get a sense of how totality can be deployed in this kind of lateral fashion.

If you want something a little more rigorous that "totalizes," I would look in two places: first, Nicos Poulantzas's "structuralist" readings. They're inspired by Althusser but they are densely empirical/historical and demand totalization of these disparate facts. Second check out Ernest Mandel, who denies the structuralist account of things but also dialectically totalizes: its why he can talk about "late capitalism" as a whole in the last chapter of his book of the same title.

>successful capitalist countries
The whole point is that they are not succesful. They are profitable to their ruling class, which is not "success" in any meaningful sense.

>Last time a reputable economist took marxism seriously: ...
First, your concept "reputable" is pretty much designed to exclude any who do, and second, Piketty.

tak le rep pill cunk

>Piketty

so this is... the power of leftism

woah

>content-free meme response
You might as well just go "ree" at this point.

user, I said "reputable economist".

You really need to take off those ideology tinted lenses btw. They look horrible on you.

Thomas Piketty is a reputable economist. What grounds do you have to claim otherwise?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century#Criticism

JUST

*downvotes u*
cuk

Expectation:

>For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic and must remain so if he does not wish to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.

Reality:

>[Trotsky] argued that the economic situation in the [Soviet Union] required introduction of the universal labor duty. In the case of workers, this could be done with the help of trade unions, while in the case of peasantry, Trotsky argued, it was possible only through mobilization.

>He argued further that "army-type organization is in fact inherently Soviet type of organization".

A libertarian and a staffer for a finance-industry magazine? They're capitalists. Of course they're going to find excuses for why a leftist text is supposedly bad.

And again, all your responses are just repeating stale memes like "JUST", "this is the power of X, whoa", etc. It's lazy.

maybe leftist economists are just bitter fucks who couldn't get into think tanks or finance, so they spew sjw nonsense cause they hate succesful people

Economics is not a left versus right field. Piketty is a hack who, if he had anything worthwhile to say, would have had an article in a scholarly journal but instead saw huge dollar signs and published a full book, itself filled with half baked ideas that he fails to adequately support.

t. MBA

Yes, because it's simply impossible they could be right about anything, ever.

>sjw
What has a neoliberal "social justice" movement got to do with a leftist economic system?

user, there's a lot more there than that.

Also, it must be embarrassing to defend a book that a blithering ideologue like Paul Krugman gushes over.

>criticizing my memetic rhetoric

Weak, no discernable talent

Yes it is. You're either for or against capitalism, which broadly speaking positions you as either right-wing or leftist respectively.

>What has a neoliberal "social justice" movement got to do with a leftist economic system?

I don't see any of you explaining how value of goods is to be determined or how people are to be compensated for their work in a communist society.

>What has a neoliberal "social justice" movement got to do with a leftist economic system?

>pulling the classic Veeky Forums "SJWism is a capitalist phenomenon, I-I swear!"

This is getting very old.

But SJWs don't employ any "socialist strategy"; they're perfectly happy with capitalism, or have no interest in economic issues at all, preferring to focus on transgender toilets or whatever.

Then admit that it's true and move on.

>But SJWs don't employ any "socialist strategy"
SJW rhetoric is literally cultural Marxism but with power and race as opposed to economic power.
I really shouldn't have to spell it out like this, but hey, you commies/socialists are downright retarded.

The Bible, it's got a good grasp on a fantasy setting; I think would-be commies would love to enter a world where things have the potential to be perfect. Good luck, OP.

Frito-Lay makes chips. They are not an SJW think tank.

The primary SJW ideologues and the originators of the phenomenon are to be found among the intelligentsia, and when was the last time you heard the intelligentsia say something nice about capitalism?

>believes in "cultural Marxism"
>calls others retarded
Marxism is an economic movement. SJWism is a social movement. Do I have to break out the alphabet blocks here?

They're a capitalist corporation, which has realized "hey, gay people have money", and shifted their marketing accordingly to make profit. Profit is, ultimately, behind all or most SJWism, as corporations realize they can make more of it by appearing socially liberal. (The rest is self-interest on the part of politicians who want to get entire demographics' votes guaranteed to them by doing the same).

So? It's not a primarily capitalist phenomenon. The egg was hatched by academics, not capitalists. But you've already decided a priori that anything that distracts from the revolution or whatever is a capitalist conspiracy. This allows you to avoid swallowing the most bitter pill of all: your movement is dead. At best, the intelligentsia only makes side comments about "inequality" and calls for wealth redistribution within a capitalist framework. They would call you a "bro socialist".

It's not a "conspiracy" as such; that would mean that all the CEOs and wealthy investors got together and planned what they'll do next. It's just the nature of the capitalistic system; anything and everything becomes a commodity.

>This allows you to avoid swallowing the most bitter pill of all: your movement is dead.
Do you have any actual basis to claim that? In the US at least, socialistic/anticapitalist concepts are far more popular now than during the Reaganomics, Cold War "better dead than red" era, or even the soft-left Clinton era.

Marxism and communism cannot be defined by its economics. That's ridiculous.

Of course it can. That's what it IS on a fundamental level; Das Kapital is a critique of capitalism, which is economic, and the Communist Manifesto is a proposal for getting rid of capitalism (a flawed one, as it turned out, but that's neither here nor there).

>Marxism
>Economic and sociopolitical worldview based on the works of Karl Marx

But the social aspects are minimal, and derive from the ecnomic aspect. (Engels was more a social guy, with his "Origin of the Family" texts, but even he defined everything in terms of economic haves and have-nots)

I don't think that true. During those eras, there were plenty of marxist and socialist academics, but now they are SJWs (which rarely means marxist). Social issues have overtaken economic issues. As for the general public, most kids these days don't even know what socialism means. They think it means what Bernie Sanders means when he says he's a "socialist".

>Marxism is an economic movement which planned the upheaval of the social order to achieve its ends.
FTFY.

You can't study a historical phenomenom basing yourself solely in its own texts and self-definitions. Marxism as an intellectual history phenomenom, and communism as a political history phenomenom, have gone way beyond the mere concern with economical sphere.