/lit/ - Literature

>>21653194
Foucault and Debord. They are two writers who will truly get you thinking about things differently.

>>21653194
I don't know what political map you're "projecting" onto but anarchism is petty-bourgeois, there's not really much difference between fascism and anarchism and they clearly attracts similar psychotics.
All you need to read is Dialectical Economics by comrade Lyn Marcus

>>21653220
Both are homosexual fascists

>>21653194
Sorel.

>>21653194
Lenin

That pic is alos pretty funny considering the fact that bakunin once took over a townhouse in a small revolt and then declared that the state has been abolished.

Bakunin,
Kropotkin
Malatesta
Stirner
P. Clastres
J. Scott
Graeber
Kaczynski
Bookchin
Nietzsche
Many many others

>>21653378
>Both are homosexual fascists
That makes them double left wing.

>>21653378
Fascism is the opposite of anarchism. Are you mentally retarded?

>>21653594
hypocrite

>>21653657
>filtered by the dialectic

>>21653485
Lenin's declarations were funny as well.

>>21653684
Well he never claimed to have abolished the state or reached socialism and he did alot more than just take over a townhouse lmao

>>21653657
neofascists in 2023 are anarchists. they're domestic terrorists too

>>21653657
He is, or just spreading disinformation

>>21653657
He just fell for the stalinist/soviet propaganda because they say capitalism is an anarchist form of production

>>21653194
Marx was not on the left wing. no leftists are worth reading
>>21653731
it's not anarchist but anarchic (because not regulated by a social plan, but through actions of independent buyers and sellers). but it's also true that anarchists advocate for having independent owners of property that trade with one another, which is exactly the basis of capitalism.
and both anarchists and fascists share the delusion that if those owners would only come into intercourse on the basis of some unifying principle like the good of the nation or natural altruism or whatever, then the bad aspects (in reality the essence) of mercantile economy (and of capitalism) would be expunged.
so they're definitely similar as far as the question of property goes. but Stalinism wouldn't be able to correctly express this, because Stalinists themselves believe in "socialist commodity production" and stuff. so they too are on the side of the anarchists and the fascists here.
and, to come back around to >>21653194, this is why we need to distinguish leftists (like Stalinists and anarchists) from communists like Marx and Lenin

>>21653194
It wasn't the "proleteriat" that siezed power, but a small clique merely claiming to represent it.

>>21653194
I guess Bakunin’s saving grace is that his work lead to nothing whatsoever.

>>21653911
a "clique" can't seize power. you need the support of a strong class for that

>>21653194
Gramsci, Chomsky, maybe Benjamin

>>21653913
Hehe

>>21653194
Stirner.

>>21653731
Capitalism, pure capitalism, is anarchist. But facism is not capitalist.

>>21654107
fascism is capitalist. it's all about preserving the national capitalist economy against the revolutionary workers and against excesses of individual capitalists who endanger the interests of the total national capital

>>21653903
Based leftcom

>>21653691
>Well he never claimed to have abolished the state or reached socialism
Right. He did everything in his power to stop the revolution. Hence it wasn’t communist.

>>21653692
Ukrainian and American neonazis are not anarchists. They don’t think of themselves as such either.
And state directed saboteurs are not anarchists but feds. What a useless troll.

>>21654107
The opposite. Ancap-ism is liberalism that falls apart and leads to either fascism or oligarchy again

Lenin

>>21654322
An anti-leftist. Not worth the effort.
Only state socialists worth reading are Marcos and Cockshott. Marginally Wolff and Harvey for modern currents in Marxian thought worth saving

>>21654407
>modern currents in Marxian thought

Yikes.

>>21653194
bakunin was incorrect in literally every image shown

>>21654432
>bakunin was incorrect in literally every image shown
By definition left-wingers are wrong about everything

>>21654438
> By definition
By what definition?

>>21654432
Marx may have wanted “the proletariat” workers in control, but that became vanguardist just as Bakunin warned. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
The state is the opposite of the commune. How is giving it more power going to bring it about? IT. NEVER. HAS.

Wake the fuck up, youngling.

>>21654217
Anything with that much explaination is a scam and not capitalism

>>21654668
State controlled capitalism exists, in many different hues. This is the same story through history we see played out. Merchant oligarchs holding kings in check, or kings having all the cash and murdering the aristocracy.
The beast and it’s blood. There is an alternative

>>21654689
No. Not capitalism.

>>21653584

>>21653378
>I don't know what political map you're "projecting" onto but anarchism is petty-bourgeois, there's not really much difference between fascism and anarchism and they clearly attracts similar psychotics.
In the U.S. I think this expressed by a variety of "anarchists" who are repeating something that happened in the late 1990s in which a good share of momentum from stuff like the anti-WTO protests in Seattle was suddenly redirected toward a smattering of suspicious men with beards talking about teaming up with the militia movement, which didn't die down until the Iraq War protests started.

That's to say that anarchists in the U.S. are overwhelmingly white, petty-booj media junkies, but the movement has also largely acted as a reservoir for those playing at adventurism. At least those "post-left" guys could claim they were following in the footsteps of the Unabomber. But there's a new farcical version where the next crop got convinced to volunteer for the Bernie campaign, and now they're being wooed into a similar thing or teaming up with your late friend Lynn, which does tell me there's a similarity between fascism and anarchism that you're talking about, but I'm not sure everyone involved gets the irony.

>>21654666
>Marx may have wanted “the proletariat” workers in control, but that became vanguardist
the proletariat is in control if the vanguard of the proletariat is in control. not every single worker is going to act according to his class interest, and not every single worker will be able to deal with management functions before society is transformed and the social division of labour is abolished. that's what the vanguard of the proletariat is for: it's made of those who understand and act according to the class interests of the proletariat, and those who are ready and capable of organization work at the highest level
>The state is the opposite of the commune. How is giving it more power going to bring it about?
because in order to bring about communist society, you need to concentrate the means of production in the hands of the proletariat, destroy the capitalist economy and decisively smash all counter-revolutionary forces. all of this requires state force
>>21654668
what's your point? is a single sentence explanation too much for you to comprehend?

You guys should look into the Temporary Autonomous Zone (T.A.Z.)

American's are more obssed with marxism now than they were in the cold war. lol.

>>21655068
Crisis of liberalism.

Like, one of the hallmarks of liberalism is an "open" position towards all possibilities via "the marketplace of ideas." The U.S. government did lock up communists in the 50s on charges of sedition because they were asked if they agreed with the Communist Manifesto which has a line about the "forcible" overthrow of "all existing social conditions" which, the federal prosecutors argued, included the government. Their sentences were later commuted and those convictions thrown out by the Supreme Court. But I think the perceived threat to liberalism that communists represented in the early 1950s had passed.

Liberalism is pragmatic in the Jamesian sense, truth is what works: i.e. communism "didn't work" so therefore it isn't true. That's a liberal proposition. That also makes liberalism accommodative, its strength is in its "exchange of views" which pose a dilemma for absolutist systems. But there's another argument that liberalism is doomed in the long run. Liberals have been confronted by reactionaries of the right and radicals of the left which is what happens after recessions and humiliations overseas.

>>21654919
Post wrist.

>>21653929
Which is why they hired the reactionaries to slaughter and jail the socialists

>>21654107
Read Bakunin. You cannot reach the commune by keeping any corrupt part of it, most especially capital itself.

>>21654826
Note the OP's request. That was the best answer ITT

>>21653220
Foucault literally advocated against age of consent laws entirely and is regarded as a massive thinker in LGBT thought.
>thinking about things differently
yeah, thinking about children.. pedo

>>21654919
>the proletariat is in control if the vanguard of the proletariat is in control
No, an elite is in control. This was bad, a disaster, a counterrevolution.
>and not every single worker will be able to deal with management functions before society is transformed and the social division of labour is abolished. that's what the vanguard of the proletariat is for: it's made of those who understand and act according to the class interests of the proletariat, and those who are ready and capable of organization work at the highest level
So when will fascist China make this transition?
>destroy the capitalist economy and decisively smash all counter-revolutionary forces. all of this requires state force
This is science fiction. You must first offer the people, the entire population, that better deal, right up front. Not enslave them and put them under the thumb of some puffed up ignoramus. The majority will go with that better deal. That's not utopian thinking, that's just common sense.

>>21654443
The left is the opposite of the right. The right is, as you might assume, right. Because we have established the left is the opposite of the right, we may conclude that the left is indeed wrong.

>>21653692
A twitter-approved take.

>>21656084
> The right is, as you might assume, right
Prove it.

>>21656112
It’s in the name you nincompoop

>>21653194
Braverman, Federici, S Fitzpatrick, C Hill, Annales. Historians basically.

>>21654217
So if there is a power above the holders of capital that can supersede them, it really is not capitalism. That description also sounds universally appealing

>>21656123
Nice bait.

>>21653194
Piketty and Kelton were surprisingly good reads for being modern authors

>>21653194
All Leftism is garbage, and the only time a Leftist ideology is really useful is when you are using it to manipulate others for an ulterior goal.
Pol Pot is my favorite "Leftist" for this reason. He understood what it was about at its core: the people.

Read Spengler

>>21653194
Howard Zinn

>>21653194
Engels

>>21656045
>Which is why they hired the reactionaries to slaughter and jail the socialists
they got into power because they had the support of the proletariat, and they used state force to suppress representatives of the possessing classes like the petty bourgeoisie, who aimed to destroy the proletarian dictatorship. what does this have to do with being a clique again?
>>21656083
>No, an elite is in control
no, "elite" is not a political subject. social classes are
>So when will fascist China make this transition?
when a proletarian party takes power there and in other crucial countries in the world
>This is science fiction
coming from the guy who believes in "elites" that float in the ethereal realm and can magically impose their will on all social classes
>You must first offer the people, the entire population, that better deal, right up front.
no, at that point the better deal is already offered by history, that's why the proletariat puts its vanguard in power.
and the dictatorship can't be deluded into treating "the people, the entire population" as a single subject, unless it wants to give its enemies a weapon which they'll use against it. for example, the only thing that should be "offered" to the possessing classes is expropriation.
>Not enslave them and put them under the thumb of some puffed up ignoramus.
still more science fiction. you should really learn the basics of the science of human society and stop with this embarrassing great man theory shit
>The majority will go with that better deal.
yes, they will take the better deal from history and put their class vanguard that they've been developing for this purpose in power
>>21656221
>So if there is a power above the holders of capital that can supersede them, it really is not capitalism.
it really is capitalism, simply because this power supersedes them for the purpose of enforcing the interest of a sum of capitals against momentary interests of single capitals. so it's more capitalist than a single capitalist could ever dream of being. just look at the sea of commodities that China floods Europe with

>>21653194
Camatte, Tiqqun and Agamben

>>21657492
literally me

>>21657506
Probably won't be for long. You've had your fun with the post-left meme, it's time to drop it.

>>21657197
>the proletariat,
The rightwing reactionary, working class and security/military helped them kill off the leftwing. Need I remind you what Lenin thought off the leftwing?
It was a rightwing reactionary fueled counterrevolution.

You aren't smart. The books you've read have brainwashed you and you don't know how people behave or what words mean

>>21657952
Literally who cares you are both the same thing

>>21657952
>The rightwing reactionary, working class and security/military helped them kill off the leftwing.
the only people they've killed were tsarist and petty-bourgeois counter-revolutionaries. if the latter count as "left-wing", then so be it.
>Need I remind you what Lenin thought off the leftwing?
the left wing of bourgeois politics is an enemy of the proletariat and should be treated as such
>It was a rightwing reactionary fueled counterrevolution.
you're describing the civil war against the bolsheviks
>You aren't smart.
coming from you this really feels like an unintended compliment
>The books you've read have brainwashed you
lol because I actually understand things instead of just going by libertarian memes and cliches like you?

>>21658027
>the only people they've killed were
>Kronstadt was just a bunch of White Russians. Totally not the working class that had been fighting the Whites
>leftwing are liberals and always rich
>Bolsheviks (the minority political group that took advantage of the split majority they jokingly refer to as the Mensheviks)
Yeah, you are not smart at all. Over and over and over and over and over again it’s demonstrated that Marxist-Leninism does not work and never ever leads to working class rule much less shows any sign of turning into communism. The experiment fails every time. When will you learn this lesson? Bakunin was right from the beginning
You are brainwashed into a cult. Deprogram yourself

>>21658223
>Kronstadt was just a bunch of White Russians. Totally not the working class that had been fighting the Whites
no the tsarist counter-revolutionaries were White Russians. Kronstadt was petty-bourgeois. their demands included petty property guarantees for peasants and artisans, as well as political freedoms for petty-bourgeois organizations.
>Over and over and over and over and over again it’s demonstrated that Marxist-Leninism does not work and never ever leads to working class rule
no, shit. Marxism-Leninism is the ideology of Stalinist counter-revolution, which by the way was in essence the continuation of Kronstadt, since it consisted of letting the peasantry prevail over the proletariat and securing peasant property in the USSR constitution.
>Bakunin was right from the beginning
bakunin was a retard with a childish understanding of society

>>21658302
>working class socialists petty-bourgeois when they’re leftwing
Kys, moron. You are petty-bourgeois ivory tower intelligentsia
Learn to connect with people, judge character.
>confusing Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, fascism and what a revolution means.
>Peasants are the petty-bourgeois bro. Totally not working class. Totally not worth working with as land occupying workers. Murder them all
>like Bakunin was retard cuz I say so

I’m beginning to believe you aren’t this stupid, but are just a troll or fed troll. Fuck off, bourgie

lotta wanna-be-based-history-repeaters ITT

>>21658357
>>working class socialists petty-bourgeois when they’re leftwing
anyone is petty-bourgeois when they agitate for political guarantees for petty private proprietors against proletarian dictatorship. left wing or not
>You are petty-bourgeois ivory tower intelligentsia
says the guy who defends petty-bourgeois demands as socialism
>Learn to connect with people, judge character.
is that from your yoga teacher or something
>>confusing Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, fascism and what a revolution means.
says the guy who thinks communism is Marxism-Leninism and pb socialism is communism
>Peasants are the petty-bourgeois bro
yes
>Totally not working class.
working class refers to wage workers. peasants who work solely on their own land aren't wage workers. they don't need to sell their labour-power to a capitalist for a wage because they already own means of production. there are also people who are semi-proletarians and semi-peasants, but if they agitate for private property guarantees like Kronstadt, they're still taking the side of petty property against the propertyless working class. especially when they want property guarantees over the means of production of the food that proletarians in the cities desperately need not to starve.
you should feel embarrassed that you need to have such basics explained to you
>Totally not worth working with as land occupying workers.
??? it is definitely worth for the proletariat to work with the peasants in certain circumstances. but on their own terms, not surrendering the proletarian dictatorship to them like Stalin did
>Murder them all
"all" lol. in reality you're talking about a small politically active minority that actively worked against the proletarian dictatorship. if you're an active counter-revolutionary, you might get murdered. if you aren't, you won't. if you can't deal with it then at least keep the whining to yourself, because doing it openly makes you look pathetic
>like Bakunin was retard cuz I say so
no, it's because him and his retarded followers don't understand the 101 of class relations and are still in the year 2023 unable to distinguish the interests of the proletariat from that of the petty bourgeoisie
>I’m beginning to believe you aren’t this stupid, but are just a troll or fed troll.
and I'm pretty sure you really are this stupid, unfortunately. but you might still be in high school, so it could be a normal phase

>>21653657
>Fascism is the opposite of anarchism
Fascism is a variety of syndicalism and epistemologically guys like Mussolini were in line with the likes of Stirner

>>21653194
Hitler

>>21658673
Once upon a time Mussolini was a socialist, but turned fascist. He was more in line with Lenin, who was not communist, but a rightwing reactionary.
They believed in the authority of the state in one guise or another.

That is in no way anarchist. Did you not know Anarchism was against authoritarianism? It is.
At what degree could an anarchist be persuaded to go along with anyone else's plans is at the heart of it. Ana anarchist who give his whole life to the state is by default no longer an anarchist.

Anarchism is the method, or methods, to reach communism, which is a world without states or capitalism. Read some Bakunin to see why and stop trying to muddy the waters.

>>21658480
You can stop now. More words=/=winning arguments.

>>21658932
>More words=/=winning arguments.
it's not my fault people who aspire to discussing this need most basic things explained to them as if they were primary school children

>>21658955
I explained basic things to you, but you took it like a brick wall takes instruction.
You’re an idiot or a troll and I give up on you. You’re lost to liberalism as the cure to liberalism. You are the enemy of all humankind and life on Earth.

>>21653584
Wait how is Nietzsche left wing

>>21653903
>ng independent owners of property that trade with one another, which is exactly the basis of capitalism.
This is a good thing though. You must be retarded if you think the ownership of property and trade are something we should get rid of. Just imagine being so retarded you think the government should kill people for owning property in a productive way, and trading the fruits that productivity to the world.

>>21657197
>>21658480
Communism is just slave morality on steroid. Its pauper resentment towards the rich and well off. "Counter-revolutionaries" are always just the middle classes, the most useful members of society, who resist their property, their livelihood being stolen by thugs from the government like you. Sadly, your violent fantasies will never happen. People are well aware of what communists will do. You have a target on your head, and you are not long for this world.

>>21659113
Kaczynski is the funniest since he starts shitting all over leftism almost immediately in his manifesto

>>21658991
>You must be retarded if you think the ownership of property and trade are something we should get rid of.
no, I just understand that it inexorably leads to capital, and capital inexorably produces a revolting proletariat that can only win through abolishing property
>Just imagine being so retarded you think the government should kill people for owning property in a productive way
I have imagined that, now what? it's not what I think so I don't see the relevance
>>21659265
>Communism is just slave morality on steroid
no, it's master morality on steroid. it openly aims to destroy the possessing classes through violence and laughs as they and their petty-bourgeois flunkeys >>21658991 cry that it's immoral and totalitarian (or about muh livinghood being stolen lmao)
>"Counter-revolutionaries" are always just the middle classes, the most useful members of society
counter-revolutionaries are those whose rule has led to the social catastrophe in the first place, plus their flunkeys and wannabes.

>>21653194
This thread reeks of r/antiwork refugees.

>>21659113
He is a strain of individualist and anarchist that way. "Left/right" isn't useful sometimes.

>>21659311
He's piking on the hippie New Deal democrat kind of lefty there.

Again, the "left/right" dichotomy is an illusion. There aren't just two teams. There's more two forms of society. The barbarity of civilization and the relative civility of natural life

Hegel, Rousseau, Marx, Stirner, Nietzsche, Saussure,
Merleau-Ponty, Eco, Adorno, Baudrillard , Debord, Barthes, Levi-Strauss, Benjamin, Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida (but never Lacan), Land, Agamben, Tiqqun.

>>21660092
Fair. In that case I'm in agreement. They're the only 'lefties' worth a damn.

>>21653194
Read Ellul.

>>21653194
Foucault and Debord

>>21659644
I've never heard a meaningful difference between personal and private property made by a commie

>>21656262
He was correct about academics as well

>>21660811
private: means of production
personal: not means of production

>>21660811
you don't need to, it's not a useful distinction

Commies are brainwashed cultist parasites and their stateless, classless, moneyless, post-scarcity utopia will never, ever happen.

That one commie ITT be like:

Modern leftist writers worth reading:

Bob Jessop
Murray Bookchin
Jason Hickel
Kalyan Sanyal
Kohei Saito
Max Ajl
Samir Amin
David Graeber
James Scott
Francisco Martins Rodrigues

>>21661884
this is amazing. Where did you get it from?

>>21661900
idk it pops up now and then on other boards

>>21661884
who here supports red capitalism?

>>21653194
No one. You must be able to babble about Marx to pursuit certain academic careers but if you're not then reading leftist fantasies will only make you dumber and less successful in life.

>>21654217
fascism is theoretically and practically opposed to free market

>>21656221
Hitler was financed by Rockefeller.

>>21653194
For those who think Marx and Engels didn't anticipated State Capitalism, here is a literal quote from Engels, in socialism: utopian and scientific, who saw bolshevism State Capitalism happening 30 years before it happened.
"But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and
trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the
capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock
companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again,
is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to
support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production
against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual
capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially
a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal
personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to
the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually
become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The
workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation
is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to
a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is
not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the
technical conditions that form the elements of that solution."

>>21662050
>But, brought to a head, it topples over.

Not even ChatGPT can come up with something this confidently wrong.

>>21662069
The coming decades will confirm if this assertion was true or not.
In any case, this quote ascertain that Engels was not in favor of State ownership of the means of production. This invalidates all the preconceived notion that many have.

>>21659829
In a communist world, shit jobs disappear. Fulfilling work will be plentiful, but we’d do less of it if we wanted.
It’s a sign of health to want to ditch soul crushing capitalist wage slavery

>>21662187
>In a communist world, shit jobs disappear. Fulfilling work will be plentiful, cute superstition

>>21662183
>The coming decades will confirm if this assertion was true or not.

Commies have been crying wolf about capitalism's imminent collapse for over 150 years. It's the longest-running "two weeks" other than Christcucks waiting for Jesus to return.

>>21653194
Wonderful meme OP. I recommend Chris Hedges

>>21653378
>there's not really much difference between fascism and anarchism
Anon, I’m sorry you had to find out this way, but you’re a political retard that should refrain from giving their opinions on things they know nothing about.

>>21662187
>In my far-flung sci-fi fantasy world, robots and computers will do all the boring repetitive work so that my comrades and I can spend all our time frolicking in the field and picking flowers

What a great story Karl

>>21662015
so what? capitalism can't exist with an ideal free market anyway. it needs state regulation for stability. it wouldn't even have developed without big states using protectionism

>>21661086
Technologically outdated definition, a computer is both

>>21661574
Agreed, it's all private

>>21662187
>communists deciding what a sign of health is

>>21662209
No need for bankers, insurance companies, stock market firms. No need for lawyers, politicians, judges. Townsfolk police themselves. Many other jobs centered around babying the wealthy all go away as we have the time to take care of our own spheres.
Fulfilling work, vocations people usually get into because they love it, like teaching, medical care, growing food, crafting and building the necessities of life, become as artistic as the entertainment field.
>but, muh warlords! Muh warlords will kill you all!
Psychiatric wards would replace prisons for such broken people. We can have a better world. Will we fight for it or stay a sulky bedbug like you? I donno.

>>21662243
I like Star Trek Utopia, but I’m not so sure it’s socially possible to have with advanced technology. Mild tech if not full Kaczynskiism would probably be best. But it would be left up to a million divisions of communities to decide just what direction or shape they take

>>21662464
>duh soviuts wuz commie!! Rrrrrrrrr!!

Read Bakunin, Kropotkin.

>>21662243
Marx talks about work literally all the time.
Why would you attribute to Marx this utopian conception?

>>21662464
Mental illness has never been more widespread than in capitalist society and increasingly borders on something that literally everybody has.

>>21662511
I said literally nothing about the USSR faggot. Leftists only know obfuscation and redirection.

>>21662526
This correlates more closely with the collapse of religion but ok

>>21662518
because he doesn't care what Marx actually says. Marx being wrong is an a priori position for people like this

>>21662505
>No need for bankers, insurance companies, stock market firms. No need for lawyers, politicians, judges. Townsfolk police themselves. Many other jobs centered around babying the wealthy all go away as we have the time to take care of our own spheres.
>Fulfilling work, vocations people usually get into because they love it, like teaching, medical care, growing food, crafting and building the necessities of life, become as artistic as the entertainment field.

What's stopping you from joining or forming a commune where you can do all this right now? Property taxes?

>>21653220
Absolutely, Foucault for his methodology and Debord because he is right about almost everything.

>l'imposture de la satisfaction doit se dénoncer d'elle même en se remplaçant, en suivant le changement des conditions générales de la production. ce qui affirmait avec la plus parfaite impudence son excellence définitive change pourtant, et c'est le système seul qui doit continuer

I have read the book front to back a dozen times, and I still open it weekly. I can recite half of it by heart at this point kek.

>>21653584
Great names. Add Camatte who is too often forgotten.

>>21659311
Kaczynski attacks the psychological motives of leftist activists. He is in every metric much closer to the radical left than any other "side". His framework is purely materialistic and unlike individualist types he has historical consciousness. Possibly one of the most important person of our times.

>>21662050
Every marxist erudite I've come across can eventually justify just about every atrocity with obscure quotes. I have studied marx and engels, albeit superficially, for their methodology, not to act as some moronic vindicator of the ccp lol. a true marxist believer will be glad a million peasant died for a new industry plant to open.

>>21662527
I guessed what your problem was. I underestimated how bad off your mind is. Same recommendations.

>>21662552
Generally yeah. Guys named Fink, Buffet and Gates are buying up huge tracts of land they can’t use. The leeching rentier class need to be shuffled off. Money itself needs to be abandoned, not just a debt jubilee

>>21662623
>Guys named Fink, Buffet and Gates are buying up huge tracts of land they can’t use

Then pool all the money you and your comrades have to invest in low-cost REITs and use the returns to pay for your plot of land and annual property taxes. It's like semi-publicly owned property!

>>21662672
>Feed the system. They totally won’t stop you from educating you and your surrounding population in revolutionary methods of state subversion. They won’t stop you from taking people off the streets and replacing their money for a shared economy.
Yeah, it’s not like we can’t just elect leaders to write legislation that favors us…. Oh, wait. They will try and stop that at every turn. They DO stop any such reforms.
But I hear ya. Read up on a few Gar Alperovitz methods. Maintenance of the system, paying taxes, is not going to help

>>21662623
Why are leftists all (bad) armchair psychiatrists?

>>21662722
You, an anonymous mystery, left a brief tweet of a comment. Why are you still sore that I guessed wrong? Educate yourself on the topic at hand or don’t. Tell me more about yourself or don’t. But do take your poo slinginng out of here

>>21662835
I'll probably just keep messing with dumb commie larpers, thanks for your useless post anyways

>>21662877
Sad sack, you are the dumb one here.

>>21662552
no "commune" can have the means of production for electronics, medicine, and so on. to acquire useful products it would have to directly or indirectly deal with all the elements of capitalism listed, and due to the disproportion of power not just deal with them but be ultimately subservient to capital. so your retarded question is a non-starter. the means of production exist at a global scale. society can either take them all or not take them at all

>>21663022
So you want all the benefits of industrialization and modern science with none of the economic and societal conditions that make them possible in the first place. Interesting, wonder if anyone will figure that out. Maybe it'll be you, with your giant dialectical brain and all.

>>21662445
which means it is (can be) both private and personal property.

>>21663062
>So you want all the benefits of industrialization and modern science with none of the economic and societal conditions that make them possible in the first place.
yes, just like capitalism used cities that developed in feudal Europe, or used absolute monarchy developed in it against entrenched aristocratic power, all while ultimately getting rid of feudal societal conditions that made those developments possible in the first place.
training wheels can be crucial, but at a certain point they start to only hinder the rider. humanity can throw theirs off now

>>21663119
Hence, no meaningful distinction

>>21663260
Both feudal and colonial / capitalist societies developed on top of existing social structures that were deeply inherently unequal, hierarchical, and organized around private ownership of resources. And so your plan is to do away completely with those enormously consequential structures while also ushering in the next great era in human development because... some German pricks 150 years ago said it would happen?

>>21662505
You're unemployed

>>21663260
>capitalism used cities that developed in feudal Europe, or used absolute monarchy developed in it against entrenched aristocratic power, all while ultimately getting rid of feudal societal conditions that made those developments possible in the first place.
This never happened

>>21653220
Foucault is okay in small doses. Debord is a silly hylic retard drunk on his own farts. Good thing he killed himself

>>21653692
Domestic terrorists and domestic violence are both great. Not a big fan of domestic beers thoug

>>21663351
You’re a NEET bucks boy

>>21663326
capitalism revolutionized society because existing social forms based on economy of self-sustaining feudal islands were no longer adequate for the developing productive forces that called for the development of all-national business environment and world trade. and the same thing is happening now but with capitalism: ownership of means of production split between many corporations and competing states is not adequate for a world where even basic items like food can be shipped thousands of kilometers from Ukraine which has superior soil
>>21663362
it did

>>21662050
Stalin yelling at editors of a textbook about political economy questions is a fun read.

https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/notes-meeting-between-comrade-stalin-and-economists-concerning-questions-political-economy

>>21663296
If you want to make a distinction between people and things, then it is a meaningful because necessary distinction.

>>21663062
>So you want all the benefits of industrialization and modern science with none of the economic and societal conditions that make them possible in the first place.
Those are the conditions that made them possible but they are by no means necessary for sustaining (reproducing) them.

>>21663434
So clearly the answer to a dynamic competitive global marketplace with responsive material yields is a top-down world state rife with bureaucracy and opportunities for corruption and abuse

Is this a good introduction to Lenin's writings? Not feeling like reading a doorstopper like Capital, just interested in a volume on his thought written by the man himself

>>21663694
Incomprehensible, want to try again?

Limonov

>>21663987
Leftism (and Western philosophy in general) is just an incredibly long quote-retweet thread of bitter angry white men @ing each other in the form of polemics

>>21663987
>doorstopper
The man wrote a bookcase full of drivel like this. He's an asshole counterrevolutionary

>>21664053
So you'd like it. It's very fascist

>>21663403
We left "no u" behind 20 years ago, get with the times grandpa.
>>21663434
It, in fact, didn't. You're delusional and should not be allowed within 5 miles of an history degree at university, or a printing press for that matter. You're also likely brown, and thus subhuman.

>>21654666
How is an anarchist going to ACCOMPLISH.ANYTHING.? Aren't you guys just slaves to Idealism? Like another anon said in here, you're going to need the powers of a state to destroy the current state. I don't understand how it could be otherwise, dawg.

>>21664262
>You can’t have a real revolution if you don’t seize the state machinery bro

>ends up recreating the state apparatus verbatim with all of its bourgeois bureaucracy and corruption, but the bourgeoisie are now called the vanguard party

Very cool!

>>21663866
no, the answer is a unitary society devoid of bureaucracy and the possibility of corruption
>>21664199
why would I want a degree in bourgeois ideology

>>21664284
>You can’t have a real revolution if you don’t seize the state machinery bro
no, you can't have it if you don't destroy the state machinery, for which you need political power
>ends up recreating the state apparatus verbatim with all of its bourgeois bureaucracy
bureaucracy is not "bourgeois" if it answers to the proletariat
>but the bourgeoisie are now called the vanguard party
no, the vanguard of the proletariat is called the vanguard. the bourgeoisie is being expropriated using state power

>>21664284
So I was right, there IS a reason they call you guys "anarkiddies"

>>21664302
>the vanguard holds absolute legitimacy so long as I can say that sweaty dudes swinging hammers at the 1920s assembly line support me, and if they don’t they must be counter-revolutionary reactionaries in immediate need of “re-education”

>>21663987
>"Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder
It's pretty interesting. The term isn't an attack on "left-wing" politics in general but what in Marxist lingo tends to be called the "ultra-left" which is a form of thought and behavior like "argh we need a revolution now" and being really "ultra" about it or acting childishly (hence "infantile disorder," although that can also mean an expression of an "immature" movement) or barking slogans at people. This sorta critique is usually aimed at anarchists for obvious reasons but I think it can apply to others who'll roll up the street with red flags with hammers and sickles on them.

>>21664333
If the party put in place by the vanguard no longer holds the support of the people, then its members no longer represent the people, yes. If the party comes into power and is no longer interested in the material realities of the masses, then they are right wing and now only interested in maintaining the status-quo. They're no longer revolutionary.

>>21664368
Lenin once again being based and a man of all times. It's striking how much this shit from way back when still rings true today, despite the huge differences in our own material and social realities.

>>21664333
>the vanguard holds absolute legitimacy
no, the vanguard doesn't hold absolute legitimacy. the vanguard is the vanguard only as long as it "1. points out and brings to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. in the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole"
otherwise it's not legitimate at all
>so long as I can say that sweaty dudes swinging hammers at the 1920s assembly line support me
to the contrary, "It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do".
there's no guarantee that the majority of the working class will be positioned in line with its class interest in any given moment. in fact, in bourgeois society the default is for them to support bourgeois society against their own interests.
which is why whether a party is communist isn't decided by whether it has momentary support of "sweaty duded swinging hammers", but by whether its political program corresponds to the general interest of the proletariat in its struggle with the bourgeoisie, which can be derived from the study of society
>and if they don’t they must be counter-revolutionary reactionaries in immediate need of “re-education”
no, having false consciousness does not equal being a counter-revolutionary. one becomes a counter-revolutionary only when one takes real action against a revolution.

>>21664286
Bourgeois ideology is the entire foundation of Marxism, you shitskin

>>21664368
It's like we forgot what the OP is for this thread.
You get to communism DIRECTLY.
"Scientific socialism" is a farce and a dead end. Lenin has egg on his face from a historical point of view and anyone giving credence to this guy's views still are the childish ones.
Bakunin was right.

>>21664423
>You get to communism DIRECTLY.
HOW? How?

>>21664407
>common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality
This doesn't make sense to me. How would the proletariat of one nation have common interests with that of another, especially if they come from radically different cultures? Or do you just mean that their common interest is toppling the bourgeois order and having real representation?

>>21664428
Unite, organize, take.

>>21664575
>If labor becomes free, the State is lost
so we have to work for free? that's the solution?

>>21664588
no he means like if u work at mcdonalds instead of selling the cheeseburgers for a profit you just keep them and trade them to the guys at wendys for different burgers. this is true liberation, you see?

>>21664588
No, more like free of money.
You may think, "where are we going to get this and that from without money?" You are free to take what you need.
But this is basic level Stirner-ism. We also need to freely organize our needs as we want. That dissolves the state and capitalism. We'd be free in such a world.

>>21664599
>>21664622
Wouldn't that just create trader communities and eventually revert us back to tribalism as some communities get jealous of others?

>>21664418
how so?
>>21664423
what the fuck does "directly" mean? can the transition last at least one day or is even that too long for you?
>>21664450
>How would the proletariat of one nation have common interests with that of another
because they're all exploited by capital and can only liberate themselves from that by concerted action of proletarians of all nations. otherwise proletarians of one nation will be sent to kill proletarians of the nation that's revolting, and in the end proletarians in both will keep being exploited.
>especially if they come from radically different cultures
capital erases cultural differences. people get torn away from their communities and become wage workers, who everywhere in order to survive must internalize the same imperatives of a citizen of a bourgeois state.
how the state shapes its citizens is dictated by the best way to ensure the growth of national capital, and this is generally constant between nations. it is subject to international standardization in terms of how the educational system is organized, how the welfare state is organized, how the police is organized, how the labour law works, and so on.
the only remaining cultural differences will be the different ways in which bourgeois rule is ideologically propped up in different countries, because this tends to exploit leftover local cultural material. but at that point those are only empty husks of the old cultures. they're only superficially different because their content is everywhere the same: subjugation to capital.
>Or do you just mean that their common interest is toppling the bourgeois order
it's ultimately that, but it doesn't immediately reduce to it at all. because they already have a common interest when they, for example, fight just to defend falling wages. because if they aren't united, they will be played against each other. from the start, the best way to fight successfully is having a union of workers that reaches everywhere capital can reach. and the worst way is dividing yourself along lines that are irrelevant to the condition of being a wage worker.

>>21664670
It would result in organized communities and for real free trade.
In real observed "tribal culture" you see a lot of fluidity. They really took advantage of their freedom and had accepting natures. I do anticipate birds of a feather flocking together in such an environment though

>>21664678
>>How would the proletariat of one nation have common interests with that of another
because they're all exploited by capital and can only liberate themselves from that by concerted action of proletarians of all nations. otherwise proletarians of one nation will be sent to kill proletarians of the nation that's revolting, and in the end proletarians in both will keep being exploited.
>especially if they come from radically different cultures
capital erases cultural differences. people get torn away from their communities and become wage workers, who everywhere in order to survive must internalize the same imperatives of a citizen of a bourgeois state.
how the state shapes its citizens is dictated by the best way to ensure the growth of national capital, and this is generally constant between nations. it is subject to international standardization in terms of how the educational system is organized, how the welfare state is organized, how the police is organized, how the labour law works, and so on.
the only remaining cultural differences will be the different ways in which bourgeois rule is ideologically propped up in different countries, because this tends to exploit leftover local cultural material. but at that point those are only empty husks of the old cultures. they're only superficially different because their content is everywhere the same: subjugation to capital.
>Or do you just mean that their common interest is toppling the bourgeois order
it's ultimately that, but it doesn't immediately reduce to it at all. because they already have a common interest when they, for example, fight just to defend falling wages. because if they aren't united, they will be played against each other. from the start, the best way to fight successfully is having a union of workers that reaches everywhere capital can reach. and the worst way is dividing yourself along lines that are irrelevant to the condition of being a wage worker.
Yeah OK, we're in agreement. Just had to check, you know. Based, my friend. What's your thoughts on the war between Russia and Ukraine? And NATO?

>>21664678
>can the transition last at least one day or is even that too long for you?
This all depends on the organization. We celebrate New Years in an orderly fashion. A revolution won't go as smoothly, but it's conceivable.

>>21664678
Marx studied in bourgeois institutions, followed bourgeois trends and ideas, adopted concepts from bourgeois intellettuals, most of his livelihood came from the bourgeois Engels. Even as a journalist, he was not a wage worker.

Oh and almost forgot, you are a brown shitskin that will most certainly die during TND

>>21664386
>>21664407
>So long as the vanguard party can still quote from Marx and Engels and say nice pretty things about proletarian class struggle against the bourgeoisie, it is legitimate. They know what’s best for the working masses because uhhh they read theory. Do not question or oppose their authority.

>>21665399
>If the party put in place by the vanguard no longer holds the support of the people, then its members no longer represent the people, yes. If the party comes into power and is no longer interested in the material realities of the masses, then they are right wing and now only interested in maintaining the status-quo. They're no longer revolutionary.

How did you get whatever the fuck you said from what I wrote above? I thought I spelled it out pretty simply. Here let me try to rephrase it, if the party in power no longer represents the interests of the people they were put in place to represent, they are now right-wing and are counter-revolutionary. If over half of your country is unemployed and starving and your representatives are doing nothing about it, then they're out of touch with the reality of the people. That's my understanding of it.

>>21665488
Who determines what is considered counter-revolutionary, and what are the means for popular overthrow of the vanguard should they be deemed as such? The state owns and controls everything, the jobs the media the guns the factories the food supply etc. The security and surveillance apparatus is all-encompassing, omniscient and omnipresent. Agents of the state are everywhere, hiding in plain sight. There can be full employment but still mass hunger or even famine across the wider swathe of society while the vanguard lives in relative comfort, shielded from harsh reality, having appointed themselves the guardians of the revolution. Is that acceptable to the proletariat?

>>21665557
>Is that acceptable to the proletariat?
No, I doubt anything you listed would be.

>>21653194
Foucault and Debord.

>>21664694
>What's your thoughts on the war between Russia and Ukraine? And NATO?
the only way for Russia to keep its position as an independent imperialist power is through military aggression, because they're so much weaker economically that otherwise the West would slowly recruit Ukraine, Belarus, etc. and Russia would be reduced to a servant of China and the West
USA is using the occasion to weaken Germany and Russia so that they can't form an independent counterweight to the US.
proletarians are being used in this game as cannon fodder, and their only interest is to put an end to it by overthrowing all those states
>>21664707
it's conceivable that the entire capitalist economy will be abolished in a day?
>>21664980
>Marx studied in bourgeois institutions
you're historically illiterate. Marx got his phd in 1841 and in 1849 there was a defeated bourgeois revolution in Germany. the country and its institutions were still in the hands of the aristocracy

>followed bourgeois trends and ideas
criticized and rejected them*.
>What this reveals, on the other side, is the foolishness of those socialists (namely the French, who want to depict socialism as the realization of the ideals of bourgeois society articulated by the French revolution) who demonstrate that exchange and exchange value etc. are originally (in time) or essentially (in their adequate form) a system of universal freedom and equality, but that they have been perverted by money, capital, etc... The proper reply to them is: that exchange value or, more precisely, the money system is in fact the system of equality and freedom

>adopted concepts from bourgeois intellettuals
as long as they were useful for explaining bourgeois society and exposing bourgeois ideology. so?
>most of his livelihood came from the bourgeois Engels
bourgeois Engels went to the side of the proletariat, since young age dedicating his money and time to strengthening communism. if you have to resort to pretending man's background takes precedence over his actions, then you have no argument.
>Even as a journalist, he was not a wage worker.
so what? wage workers can be soaked in bourgeois ideology (many are), and non-wage workers can see right through it.
you have nothing. why did you have to waste my time with all this straw-grasping?
>>21665399
>So long as the vanguard party can still quote from Marx and Engels and say nice pretty things about proletarian class struggle against the bourgeoisie, it is legitimate
no, it's legitimate only if it represents the proletarian program in deed. if all it took was empty proclamations, anarchists would be the biggest communists, when in reality they're just petty-bourgeois nuisances
>They know what’s best for the working masses because uhhh they read theory
the interests of the social classes and the possible ways of enforcing those interests can only be determined by closely studying the real world, yes. what's your alternative? going by vibes? very fitting for an anarkiddie

>>21665557
>Who determines what is considered counter-revolutionary
the most advanced elements of the proletarian class, i.e. those who study the social process as a whole to determine the correct course of action for the proletariat
>what are the means for popular overthrow of the vanguard should they be deemed as such
"counter-revolutionary vanguard" is an oxymoron. but if you're asking about the means to overthrow an enemy government, the answer is the same as always: armed insurrection
>The state owns and controls everything, the jobs the media the guns the factories the food supply etc.
good. otherwise it's not possible to destroy the capitalist economy and properly defend against counter-revolution
>The security and surveillance apparatus is all-encompassing, omniscient and omnipresent
sure, if the proletariat has got its party into power, that means the government has broad support in the class and many proletarians will be vigilant to keep it in power
>Agents of the state are everywhere, hiding in plain sight.
predominantly class-conscious proletarians who support their state, yes
>There can be full employment but still mass hunger or even famine across the wider swathe of society
if there's a civil war or a natural cataclysm, then sure, this could happen
>while the vanguard lives in relative comfort
I'm sure if those who lead the civil war or work at the highest level to organize relief from the cataclysm starve to death in the name of social justice, the famine will magically disappear! and then when the representatives of the bourgeoisie step over their corpses to regain power for capital, they will surely give it back to the proletariat as soon as the famine is over!
>having appointed themselves the guardians of the revolution
no, in a proletarian dictatorship they've been appointed by the proletariat. you can't rule without the support of a sufficiently strong social class, especially in a critical situation like you're presenting. your scenario is pure fiction
>Is that acceptable to the proletariat?
some of it yes (e.g. the proletariat having control over food through its state), some of it no, like the famine, which is why the proletariat will work to do whatever it takes to get rid of it. for example using state force against private land proprietors who refuse to supply food to starving proletarians. oh wait, they can't use state force because the government no longer exists due to having starved itself in the name of principle

>>21666654
Universities were most definitely not in the hands of the aristocracy and Marx et al considered the whole country to already be capitalistic. 1848 was a revolution of anything but the big industrialists.
>criticized and rejected them*.
>as long as they were useful for explaining bourgeois society and exposing bourgeois ideology. so
These two don't go well together.
>bourgeois Engels went to the side of the proletariat,
By... writing books and joining assemblies? He was still living on the "exploitation of their labour" (stupid concept anyway).
>so what? wage workers can be soaked in bourgeois ideology (many are), and non-wage workers can see right through it.
How does this pair up with the tenit of socially and materially-determined consciousness in marxism? Wasn't the revolution inevitable because it would sow the seed of class consciousness in wage workers? If anyone can just become a communist, what makes the revolution inevitable? Sounds like you're an high-middle class brown trust fund baby coping about his birth. Consider suicide. Also post hand.

>>21666798
>muh famines were caused by reactionaries

>>21666798
>the party is deemed by proletariat to have become a hopelessly corrupt self-serving institution that no longer represents their will, and armed insurrection is imminent

>whoops no guns no factories no food because said party controls it all and isn't feeling especially charitable toward insurrectionists for some reason

>also time to fire up the propaganda machine and smear/slander all suspected or known insurrectionists and their friends/families as bourgeois agents and traitors of the revolution who must be reported, arrested, and/or killed on sight

>also be sure to have a good counter-narrative to blast into people's brains 24/7 expounding on the eternal benevolence of the party

Sounds great

>>21666828
>Universities were most definitely not in the hands of the aristocracy
meanwhile:
>Due to his associations with this somewhat radical group [Young Hegelians], Marx was advised not to submit his doctoral thesis in Berlin as it might be poorly received by conservative authorities, and, as a consequence, Marx submitted his work at the University of Jena in 1840.
it's ridiculous to suggest that in a country where you had problems publishing a dissertation on Greek philosophy due to your association with bourgeois republicans, universities were somehow in the hands of the bourgeoisie

>Marx et al considered the whole country to already be capitalistic
meanwhile Engels:
>While in England and France feudalism was entirely destroyed, or, at least, reduced, as in the former country, to a few insignificant forms, by a powerful and wealthy middle class, concentrated in large towns, and particularly in the capital, the feudal nobility in Germany had retained a great portion of their ancient privileges.... This feudal nobility, then extremely numerous and partly very wealthy was considered, officially, the first "Order" in the country. It furnished the higher Government officials, it almost exclusively officered the army.

>1848 was a revolution of anything but the big industrialists.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/germany/ch01.htm
>Thus, with growing wealth and extending trade, the bourgeoisie soon arrived at a stage where it found the development of its most important interests checked by the political constitution of the country; by its random division among thirty-six princes with conflicting tendencies and caprices; by the feudal fetters upon agriculture and the trade connected with it; by the prying superintendence to which an ignorant and presumptuous bureaucracy subjected all its transactions. At the same time the extension and consolidation of the Zollverein, the general introduction of steam communication, the growing competition in the home trade, brought the commercial classes of the different States and Provinces closer together, equalized their interests and centralized their strength. The natural consequence was the passing of the whole mass of them into the camp of the Liberal Opposition, and the gaining of the first serious struggle of the German middle class for political power. This change may be dated from 1840, from the moment when the bourgeoisie of Prussia assumed the lead of the middle class movement of Germany.

>These two don't go well together.
they do, you just can't comprehend that the bourgeoisie is not unable to make scientific advancements at all, but only when those advancements begin to undermine their own rule
>By... writing books and joining assemblies?
among other things, yes
>He was still living on the "exploitation of their labour"
he was still using his money and his time to support the movement to abolish exploitation

>>21666828
>How does this pair up with the tenit of socially and materially-determined consciousness in marxism?
very well. it is a social and material necessity of functioning capitalism that workers go along with bourgeois ideology and let themselves get exploited by capital. it is also such a necessity that people from other classes that have the comfort to be able to study bourgeois society will arrive at a theoretical understanding of communism
>Wasn't the revolution inevitable because it would sow the seed of class consciousness in wage workers?
in the working class, not in each wage worker. the class develops consciousness through developing its vanguard, which consists of a minority of workers as well as of people from other classes who join them
>If anyone can just become a communist, what makes the revolution inevitable?
the fact that capital inevitably produces a working class struggling against the ruling class, which inevitably produces elements who discover that the only path for this revolt to succeed is to unify the proletariat and destroy bourgeois society
>Sounds like you're an high-middle class brown trust fund baby coping about his birth.
sounds like you're projecting
>>21666842
"if the proletariat lets political power get captured by an enemy class, it's going to be in a bad position". wow, what a great discovery, sherlock. anything else?

>>21656262
ideology in general is almost always about manipulating people for an ulterior goal, at least "modern" ones

nothing is funnier than 19 year old weebs who read political philosophy just to engage in internet debates lmao

>>21667053
>"if the proletariat lets political power get captured by an enemy class, it's going to be in a bad position". wow, what a great discovery, sherlock. anything else?

More like, “Maybe it’s a bad idea for workers to hand over all their newly won power and control over to a minority of privileged individuals on nothing but faith in their infallibility and incorruptibility.”

>>21667089
they aren't handing anything over. the communist party is their own organ that they've developed to hold power for them

>>21667106
What “communist” has been able to control its own elites in government/security forces?
You pretend party membership holds some sort of sway? Like you think they’re democratic or something? You are delusional.

>>21667413
>What “communist” *country has

>>21664302
You don't know what bourgeoisie means.

>>21653194
i like lenin, cockshott, parenti, hudson, and graeber
there was also the meme walmart republic book and it's good but i don't remember anything else from the authors

>>21667052
The German bourgeois (as in industrials) was not republican, ever. Especially in Prussia proper, where a distinction between aristocrat and bourgeois is hard to make. Landowners in Prussia usually owned industry in Rheinland. This is also why the local revolutionaries had strong autonomist tendencies. Republicanism being banned from academia doesn't mean it's anti-bourgeois.
>sources
Did you even read what you posted? Even there it says the majority of revolutionary fervour came from the urban middle class, as the majority of historical documents also affirm. Industrialist partecipation, on the other hand, was limited to their student offspring at most.
>you just can't comprehend that the bourgeoisie is not unable to make scientific advancements at all, but only when those advancements begin to undermine their own rule
This is both incomprehensible (you're brown) and retarded. That was not even my original argument.
>his money
>his time
While taking that of those he claimed to advance.
>>21667053
I was going to criticize this post point after point, but it's so retarded I really don't want to waste my time and energy continuing this conversation. Can you post a photo of your hand already? You're obviously a brown latrino-american or possibly even a seanigger. Also, the rate of profit is not falling, snlt is not the foundation of value and central planning is impossible if what one wants is a post-scarcity society.

>>21664302
>no, you can't have (a revolution) if you don't destroy the state machinery, for which you need political power
True
> bureaucracy is not "bourgeois" if it answers to the proletariat
False. It becomes the new middle class, the new elite. The new head of the state which needed tearing down in the first and final place. Your first statement is correct, but why would you need a counterrevolution to follow if the end goal is the commune? The ruling elite will never “answer to” the lower classes. You have to complete the revolution and wear down all unjustifiable hierarchies and establish direct democracy all across the board.
> no, the vanguard of the proletariat is called the vanguard.
You can call it Ned, Nancy or Nesbit. Never will an elite bow to a lower held class. That’s its nature, that’s why we want it gone, whittled down to only the most reasonable of hierarchies. The parents over their children, the teachers over their students, the experts over the novices.

>>21665399
>>21665557
Thats exactly the problem that Mao tackled with the cultural revolution.

>>21653194
>implying marxism wasn't controlled opp from the start

>>21653194
But if everyone becomes the "dominant class" then shouldn't it cease to exist and thus everyone's interests would remain common?
I can't help but notice this is never what happened in any of these real world examples and in fact they all more closely resemble a totalitarian dictatorship/monarchy...

>>21653194

bakunin

>>21653194
Didn't marx become weary of that idea himself eventually

>>21653657
Is it really though

>>21667413
>>21667419
>What “communist” *country has
the only one has, until the proletariat was defeated there
>Like you think they’re democratic or something?
not in the slightest. giving an equal weight to the voices of most revolutionary proletarians and the voices of people who openly call for the restoration of capitalist rule would be hands down the most retarded thing a communist revolution could do
>>21667772
please enlighten me
>>21667846
>The German bourgeois (as in industrials) was not republican
the representatives of the bourgeois (as in middle class) were republican. that's what the political interests of capital were, which is why with the development of capitalism, Germany ended up a republic.
>Republicanism being banned from academia doesn't mean it's anti-bourgeois.
feudal nobility being in power and banning revolutionary bourgeois thought does mean exactly that.
>Even there it says the majority of revolutionary fervour came from the urban middle class
so literally the bourgeoisie?
>This is both incomprehensible (you're brown) and retarded. That was not even my original argument.
how is it incomprehensible? your argument was that you can't take on concepts from bourgeois thinkers while at the same time rejecting bourgeois ideology. and the mistake in your argument is exactly that you don't conceive this: 1. bourgeois thinkers and scientists make genuine discoveries against medieval society, 2. they reach a point where their discoveries start to pass from the category "revolutionary against feudal society" to "revolutionary against bourgeois society", 3. at this point they turn to entirely to ideology
and it's completely coherent to accept genuine bourgeois discoveries (1.), while rejecting bourgeois ideology (3.)
>While taking that of those he claimed to advance.
its better for the money to support communism that anything else
>False. It becomes the new middle class, the new elite.
no, bureaucracy is not a class. it's a layer of functionaries who serve another class.
>The new head of the state which needed tearing down in the first and final place.
the head of the state is the proletarian government, not the bureaucracy, just like in capitalist society it's the political agents of the bourgeoisie who rule, not the bureaucrats
>The ruling elite will never “answer to” the lower classes.
sure, that's why the proletariat abolishes bourgeois rule and installs its own
>You have to complete the revolution
yes, that's the purpose of the proletarian dictatorship
>Never will an elite bow to a lower held class.
we're not talking about an elite bowing to a lower held class. we're talking about the lower class taking power for itself
>>21670219
>But if everyone becomes the "dominant class" then shouldn't it cease to exist and thus everyone's interests would remain common?
yes
>I can't help but notice this is never what happened in any of these real world examples
because those are examples of dictatorships of capital, not of the proletariat

>>21671589
forgot to quotelink >>21667920 in the middle

>>21671589
>please enlighten me
I liked to the wrong post. It was meant for the person you replied to actually.

>>21653194
Marx, Karl. Loathe him.
Brecht, Bertolt. A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me.
Doctor Zhivago. Detest it. Melodramatic and vilely written. To consider it a masterpiece is an absurd delusion. Pro-Bolshevist, historically false. A sorry thing, clumsy, trivial, melodramatic, with stock situations and trite coincidences.

>>21653584
>Kaczynski
not left wing

>>21653385

>>21671927
You don’t know what leftwing is.

Biden, Obama, Clinton. All rightwing.

>>21662445
drawing furry porn is not production

>>21672936
I understand that they're all right wing. Probably better than you do. Kaczynski still isn't left wing

>>21673222
Leftwing are for freedom.
Rightwing is for control.

One liberty, autonomy.
Other, statism/nationalism.

The former, nature and common sense.
The latter, the cult progress of technology.

>>21673222
Leftwing are for freedom.
Rightwing is for control.

One, liberty and autonomy.
The other, statism/nationalism.

The former, nature and common sense.
The latter, the cult of progress of technology.

>>21673594
and this is why I hate left/right
It means something different to everyone

>>21673999
You can see some of Bakunin in Ted, in Nietzsche even.

>>21659113
He isn’t at all, leftist are retards

>>21674256
>Leftism is all tat I despise!
See >>21673594
Foulcuat isn’t left. Read Bakunin. Also >>21674070

>>21674340
No that famous debate where Foucault strictly tail ends the proletariat in ethical matters means he's not left at all. Fucking "post-"leftists never work in service or factories.

>>21663260
>capitalism used cities that developed in feudal Europe
Cities are older than feudal europe. Also, what you call feudalism was not actually present everywhere in the same form.
>absolute monarchy developed in it against entrenched aristocratic power
This never happened. The third estate just started questioning the right yo govern by birth (which was also a criticism of democracy)

>>21667052
>bourgeois republicans
You mean german burghers? They were anything but republican. The right to govern just because you were born is after all an aristocratic idea :^). And the theory of class struggle was formulated not by Marx but by the burgeoise, notably under Augustin Thierry.

>>21672162
best fucking ted talk, this shit is so good

>>21653692
They want to destroy the government, but that's not their goal. I'd say they want a transformative moment of anarchy, a cleansing fire, after which they would raise a new (ethno)state to their own liking.

>ctf gramsci
>literally only one mention
Holy shit, you clowns seriously don't read at all. And that's just like like the bare basics or baby steps in terms of post-marxist reading. Like a centuries worth of refinement, critique and analysis, but you turds probably can't even read a simply primer on Marx even.

>>21674560
A coup. A change of head. Supposedly a pivot away from oligarchy, but they never have done this

>>21670230
every "character" in that shit is an american liberal

>>21653929
this is not true
you need, at most, 10% of the population
The majority can be ambivalent or ignorant, or afraid or submissive.
Honestly with the leverage of technology and tactics you can probably do it with 1% of the population or less.
maybe .1%
One collaborator for every 1000 people

>>21653194
stephen coughlin
unconstrained analytics .org
He did a military briefing for us redpilled memers and now we are armed and dangerous for the political war. You're done for kid, marxism is exposed as witchcraft by a professional think tank

>>21674392
>Cities are older than feudal europe.
no shit? why do you address only the dumbest strawman version of what I said? here's a confirmation of my actual point from 10 seconds of Googling:
>During the first centuries of the Middle Ages, a period known as the Early Middle Ages, cities of a certain size existed in Western Europe only in the territories of the Byzantine Empire and the Muslim Iberian Peninsula. In the rest of the European territories, it was not until the Feudal Revolution that cities of considerable size appeared...
>Three parallel phenomena occurred during the urbanization process in the feudal period:
>An increase in the number of cities.
>Increasing the surface area of the cities that already existed and stand to regain their vitality by growing outside the old walls.
>The increase in the number of inhabitants.

>Also, what you call feudalism was not actually present everywhere in the same form.
yes and?
>This never happened.
it has. strong monarchy represented a centralization of power, a movement in the direction of the modern capitalist state, removing some power from local feudal lords. this was able to get rid of some of the obstacles for the development of capital and its state
>>21674468
>You mean german burghers?
no, because you're probably referring to a very specific layer
>And the theory of class struggle was formulated not by Marx but by the burgeoise, notably under Augustin Thierry.
good job, but I already explained that there's a distinction between genuine scientific discoveries of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology and ideals
>>21675083
I didn't say you needed a majority. 10% of society is not a clique, you're necessarily going to have the advanced elements of some significant social class behind you. that's because, as you said, most people are passive. so what's crucial are the politically active elements of all the classes, which are going to be minorities, and 10% seems very reasonable for like one class. 1% and .1% are science-fiction though

>>21653194

>>21676531
is that a product of American education? how is it possible to be educated enough to be able to write coherent sentences, yet ignorant enough to not understand how science proceeds? namely by taking and developing the genuine discoveries of your predecessors while ruthlessly exposing their mistakes or points where they deviated from science altogether due to ideological blindspots inherent in how they were positioned historically?

>>21674340
>Nietzsche is leftwing
>Foucault isn’t leftwing
Do you realize that Nietzsche specifically wrote about how much he hates socialist, right?

>>21676769
>self portrait
Why are you on a literature board if you cannot read?
>>21673594

Leftwing or right, there is collective/communalism and then there are individualists. The extreme "left" of the freedom project is to break away from the pack and go out on your own. It is both an ultimate truth that we are individual and feel best while fully autonomous, but it is also true we cannot survive forever in such a vacuum. I love Stirner and Nietzsche, their critique of the mindless masses that drown the freedom of individualism are necessary. A collective that allows such freedoms is superior to the regimented fascist nationstate
He hated christian socialism, and he'd have hated Marxist-Leninism. He was closest to Stirner and that's libertarian-socialism, IE anarchism.
The übermensch would be an anarchist