/lit/ - Literature

edgy kid detected

>>3851491

JIDF detected

you'll grow out of it when you turn 14

fascism is just when spindly little racists see cool communists marching with rifles and want to imitate it while still being racist and spindly.

>>3851484

>>3851533

Fascists were marching with rifles before the communists were.

Also modern communism =
>muh identity politics
>muh feminism
>mun LGBTQXYZ rights
>muh rich white men keepin me down

>>3851484
You are not the only one, but there will be fewer intellectuals of the right than the left always because the right must necessarily always consider itself an elitist movement. Even in the case of a populist fascism or the left-wing Strasserism of National Socialism, the populism presents itself as a movement of the elite steering the organic body of the nation towards an end.

>>3851484
oh, don't be silly. /pol/ is not to be taken seriously

>>3851555
thats not communism dork, that's your liberalism and your legacy. own it. the only guy outta the frankfurt school we want to keep is benjamin, the rest are your people.

I can't see the appeal, probably because I'm well out of the age now when things like Ayn Rand will do anything for me.

>>3851565
live a little

>>>/pol/

>>3851564

What's liberalism got to do with Fascism? You go to any modern day 'communist' website now (RevLeft, /r/communism) and they're all obsesses with that bullshit.

>>3851497
>>3851558
>>3851573

Coming from the board that posts pictures of themselves with books over their cocks and goes crazy when a girl posts a pic.

>>3851555
This has nothing to do you communism. You americans can be dumb.

>>3851565
Fascists don't like Ayn Rand. In fact, both fascism and National Socialism are incredibly hostile towards capitalism, which Ayn Rand holds as the highest value. The Third Position ideologies are usually very socialistic in economics, believing that the economy, as an extension of the state, must function as part of an organic state.

>>3851564
The fascistic and national socialist right does not claim liberalism, but it is fitting that you show antagonism towards liberalism. The fascist right and leninist/stalinist communism could be allies in ending global capitalism and reasserting order over degeneracy, but the biggest disagreement is on materialism. Marx and his disciples and Marxism itself are materialist. Fascism, national socialism, revolutionary conservatism all believe in a certain amount of transcendence and immaterial substance of state organization. But, other than this, there is much to agree on. Let us not forget that communist countries outlawed much of the degenerate behavior that fascists hate, they instituted family planning and subsidized childbirth to increase birthrates, etc.

im here with you brother dont let the reds bring you down

>>3851580

Notice the word 'modern day'? Go on any communist website and they're obsessed with identity politics.

>>3851564
>Frankfurt School

none of whom, at least in the first group, ever really talked about identity politics. Their cultural and economic concerns spoke to suffering among the entirety of humanity

>>3851575
>>3851581
Wrongo bongo, fascism arises to save capitalism from self destruction. Nazism was famous for its huge corporate backing, and its well known that JP Morgan and friends were interested in a fascist coup in America during the 30s.

>>3851581
>Fascists don't like Ayn Rand.
Yeah, I realize that. I was making a comparison of mental effect, not political stance. The further you get beyond adolescence the harder it is to have a political watershed moment; and even then, such a point may be a product of youthful idealism and will thus leave after some time has passed.

>>3851589
you're on first world centric websites then

WWII completely discredited fascism and the various similar movements in popular consciousness worldwide. Might makes right doesn't work when you get your ass kicked. There will never be a mass movement toward that sort of society again. If it's not a mass movement, it's not fascism--it's just a sham. My advice is to come up with a new system of ideas along the same lines, but spin it as far as you can from the WWII radical right, because the old position is indefensible as things stand today. I'm an anarchist myself, so you might not listen to me.

>>3851589
I do go to leftist websites and have seen a number of criticisms of identity politics. Most are concerned with neoliberalism like counterpunch.

>>3851589
out of solidarity, perhaps, but that's not the main concern of any nominally communist group. the very concept implies an economic and political restructuring where resources and class are central, not identity (though one should, and communists do, address racial and sexual disparities among distribution - but that's not identity politics).

>>3851603
>implying we won't forget all the lesions learned from WWII within the century

>>3851610
What lessons did we learn from WW2?

>>3851615
Don't start a land war in Asia.

>>3851484
Does a Catholic Monarchist/Distributist count? It's weird to most others because I am an American.

>>3851618
I thought we supposedly learned that from Napoleon?

>>3851615
Don't mess with the juice else they'll make up and sell horrific stories that will make your race the central antagonist of history books for centuries.

>>3851609
The left is unpopular and really has no hope of being popular anywhere except campuses, so it's taken the "let's see how many groups we can fit into the bandwagon" approach to political organization. If it wasn't for identity politics there would be no left left anywhere.

>>3851597
You are referring to capitalism in the sense of big business. You are right that fascism and national socialism do not eliminate this, but they do coerce the large industries into serving the interests of the state because all aspects of the state, its people, and its economy are supposed to act as one organic unit. Fascist and national socialists are completely opposed, however, to materialist international capitalism, that places all emphasis on money, profits, and none on the nation, its history, and its folk.

>>3851625
Have you been to North America lately or Europe lately?

>>3851597

>fascism arises to save capitalism from self destruction

Nonsense. The fear of communism certainly helped the rise of fascism, but claiming that it's just the evil capitalists protecting their money is a leftist conspiracy theory.

>>3851628
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/24/the-silent-death-of-the-american-left/

http://newleftreview.org/II/74/t-j-clark-for-a-left-with-no-future

>>3851484
>ideology

>>3851618
The fact that that lesson was learned by Napoleon the century before and so quickly forgotten should show how quickly people will forget about WWll. Large percentages in Germany and Austria have already forgotten who Hitler was (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/29/half-german-teens-dont-know-hitler-dictator_n_1636593.html).).

>>3851634
TL;DR
Turn on any of the tens of news stations that aren't christian/fox

I am kinda fascist. I would say I'm a Sorelian Authoritarian. But basically that means fascist 95% of the time.

I also value a lot of liberal stuff though. Freedom of speech and thought is cool. I don't think it's incompatible, in a modified/superior form to the one we enjoy now.

It was Pound's facial hair what swayed me.

>>3851628
Are those continents on the eve of revolution, comrade?

Socialism had its chance and fouled up. They're in the same position as fascists. When you promise the world and deliver nothing, people give up on you. These small movements you see are really movements in search of an idea rather than movements driven by ideas.

>>3851643
By "left" I thought you meant libruls, didn't know you meant the actual far left.

>>3851603

>WWII completely discredited fascism and the various similar movements in popular consciousness worldwide.

Why hasn't Stalinism, Maoism and the other brutal regimes that came out of communism discredited communism then?

You ever bring it up and you get 'no true scotsman' arguments thrown at you left, right and centre.

>>3851646
Just because you give an argument a name doesn't invalidate it. There has never existed a true communist state on this here earth.

>>3851645
Sorry, I should have specified. I view liberalism (classical "conservatives" and reform "liberals" both) as center and basically indistinguishable from one another.

>>3851581
>. Let us not forget that communist countries outlawed much of the degenerate behavior that fascists hate, they instituted family planning and subsidized childbirth to increase birthrates, etc.
That was mostly mr. Joseph 'Socialism in One Country/muh red fascism' Stalin's work though. As were a lot of very realistic reforms. Stalin kept it frighteningly real.

>>3851649
>There has never existed a true communist state on this here earth.

Yes there has. The USSR's policies were based on the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto.

>>3851646
To me the Eastern Bloc has discredited socialism. But try telling any socialist that.

>>3851656
They were still transitioning from socialism to communism when they fell. They never made the switch, never even came close really.

>>3851646
Most leftists called Stalinism a betrayal of communism and don't even bother looking into it taking the line set out in 1984.

See http://homepages.spa.umn.edu/~marquit/nst161a.pdf#page=30 and http://homepages.spa.umn.edu/~marquit/nst134a.pdf#page=54

>>3851649

Don't the myriad failed attempts to achieve communism suggest that it is an unattainable goal?

>>3851663
I'm not the white knight of communism. Alls I was saying was that it's never existed. I have no comment on whether it could or not.

>>3851656
>Yes there has.
No there hasn't.
>The USSR
was an agrarian society, not industrial. So again no.

>>3851484

Because out of all the dumb, failed ideologies that turned out to be horseshit in the long-run, Fascism is the most discredited due to its real-life implementation being closest to its theoretical form, and therefore has the least amount of self-deceiving jackasses going "Well, the real deal has never been tried yet!" (eg communism and capitalism)

>>3851579

You make it sound like that's worse than /pol/

>>3851669
the USSR after Stalin was heavily industrialized, you'll have to do better than that,and I mean that in solidarity.

The worst thing communists can do is to claim that the USSR was not "real" communism, since this implies that there even is a "real" communism in the first place, instead of a family resemblance of commitments and policies.

>>3851670
Who the hell claims that capitalism has never been tried? What are we supposedly living in right now?

>>3851682
libertarians love to claim it

>>3851682
You haven't talked to the type of libertarians who claim a true free market has never been tried and everything would be fixed if it was?

>>3851682

Randbots and tea partiers. You criticize capitalism, they end up pulling the same no true Scotsman bullshit as nostalgic leftists, going

>MUH CRONY CAPITALISM

>>3851682
We're mostly living in a hybrid of socialism and capitalism. Otherwise known as the Centrist Master Race.

Anti-Ideology thread?

Anti-Ideology thread.

>>3851682
mixed market economy.
The government can have NO say in the economy in true capitalism.

>>3851690

You can easily get away with fascist ideas just don't called yourself one. Nobody gave a shit about Franco or the other conservative dictatorships.

>>3851681
>the USSR after Stalin was heavily industrialized
That's not anything like what Marx describes though.

>The worst thing communists can do is to claim that the USSR was not "real" communism, since this implies that there even is a "real" communism in the first place, instead of a family resemblance of commitments and policies.
The worst thing doughnut makers can do is to claim that bagels are not "real" doughnuts, since this implies that there even is a "real" doughnut in the first place, instead of a family resemblance of recipes and foodstuffs. Blah blah blah blah language games, get that beetle out of your arse box.

>>3851579
Wh-what? Since when did we start doing that? The cocks thing i mean. (There is always a nerdy girl/anti-feminist thread)

>>3851684
>>3851685
>>3851686

Okay, now that you bring that up, I know people who say this, I just usually brush them off as insane or unintelligent.

>>3851688
Oh, centrism. Out of all the people who get on my nerves, it is mostly the centrists. I call people who are extremist centrists the "Fareed Zakaria" types. I know a lot of people like this. They watch PBS and 60 minutes, listen to NPR, watch Fareed Zakaria, and read CNN online and the NYT. They don't have an opinion on anything that doesn't consist of "well, these people think this, but these people think that," and they never say what they think because they don't think anything. They have a list of memorized politically correct platitudes that have no substance whatsoever. The only thing that stand for is "democracy, increased political freedoms in the third world, the global community, and international dialogue, and the effects of globalism." Of course, they don't even have opinions on these things, they have just memorized what Fareed and his ilk have to say, which isn't anything either because he holds no opinions himself. When asked his opinion on the Iraq War, Fareed said that he supported invading, overthrowing Saddam, and turning over the situation to the international community instead of committing ourselves as a nation. Who the hell is the international community? You can't just give a country to the "international community." He didn't want to be for or against the war, so he created a completely fabricated response. This extremist centrism is the worst ideology currently plaguing us because it isn't an ideology at all. It is absolute emptiness of any thought.

>>3851707

>>3850930

>>3851714
Personally I'm apolitical and I lead a rich intellectual life. I think politics is the lowest and least interesting sphere of discourse and endeavor. I supposed I'm a techno-anarcho-Christian, though I very rarely voice my beliefs and I'd never do any sort of activism because I have more important things to do than waste my time bashing my head against a wall to try to shake loose some of the mortar. I've only ever voted once in my life, which was a mistake I made when I was young, and I'd sooner get into professional wrestling fandom than pay attention to elections, because at least some pro-wrestling matches aren't 100% fixed and sometimes there's a glimmer of real animosity between the wrestlers, which is not the case with politics I'm afraid. People who vote or try to cram their opinions down your throat disgust me with their stupidity and sadden me with their futility.

>>3851733
You are not the type of person that I am talking about. The type of person that I discussed in my other post in usually very politically active, usually studies political science or international relations, and they very often, if not always, vote. In many ways, I agree with you. You are apolitical, and, therefore, not extremist. The people I am talking about are centrist extremists. You say that politics is a low level of discourse (at least modern politics) but these people only talk about politics. They are an enormous problem because they denigrate politics to the level of filth in which is exists today and have no intellectual capacity.

>>3851749
Okay. I see what you mean.

>>3851649
Oh come on, you're worse than an anti-communist.

>>3851769
I'm not pulling for one side or the other, I'm just saying a truly, 100% communist state has never existed.
I try to stay away from politics myself. My greatest aspirations are to be a hobo who has plenty of time to read, so I don't really need politics as I could most likely live that way under any system.

>>3851484
The board you're looking for is called /pol/.

Good luck.

>>3851663
Depends. The Frankfurt school came up with many reasons for why global revolution/socialism hadn't happened and may continue not to happen. There are arguments for and against single state socialism and leading to communism from all sorts. I don't see that a marxist end of history can't occur though, but this and similar has been argued too.

>>3851706
what did Marx describe?

I'm serious though (sorry if the Wittgensteinian terminology upset you), there is no "true" timeless communism; it's a historical set of commitments and policies that has no fixed determination but multiple possible expressions.

Someone can claim that a form of historical communism doesn't live up to what it should have been, but that's different from waving around an ideal like a mace and bashing away any other competitors with the sheer force of definition.

>>3851774
A communist state hasn't existed because you have to go through socialism to get there, but there have been plenty of socialist states. The furthest advances of socialism to date have been Stalin's USSR and Mao's China. And I say this as someone who upholds the two.

>>3851803
this actually is getting better since at least one is clarifying one's terminological commitments

>>3851790
>what did Marx describe?
I would look up that Socialism in One Country malarkey if I were you.
>there is no "true" timeless communism; it's a historical set of commitments and policies that has no fixed determination but multiple possible expressions.
All I'm saying is that this is like someone saying "they say they're bringing democracy to the middle east, but the west doesn't really have democracy", and you coming along and going "But there's no such thing as '*really* having deomocracy'" and missing the point. If you want to be Wittgensteinian, at least wait around long enough to learn the language before jumping in.

Have a look up above, you'll the defence of the USSR being true communism are in relation to Marx's ideas, I'm just saying that doesn't work. Let's not lose sight of context here.

There's an important aspect to this discussion that everyone seems to be leaving out. Marxism - I here presume this is generally what is referred to in this thread as "communism" - is necessarily international. A socialist workers' state such as the U.S.S.R. that developed into an extremely patriotic entity along typical patriotic lines is little different from the National Socialism or Germany or Fascism of Italy. Principally, as was mentioned by someone early who correctly identified the "communism" discussed in this thread as being similar to third position ideologies, the U.S.S.R. developed in a wholly opposite direction of traditional Marxism or even the later Russian adaptation of Lenin. Trotsky, of course, correctly identifies this tendency of Stalin and the contemporary Bolshevik party for what it was.

Even after February and before Lenin's April amendments to the Bolshevik party-line, Stalin and his circle had been taking a defencist, patriotic position towards the Great War and their alliance with the Entente. Before joining the Bolshevik party, he had been a nationalist - an apparently endemic problem amongst Georgian socialists.

So, in summary, I don't think it proper to class the U.S.S.R. circa Stalin as Marxian ideology at all. So long as a strong nationalism exist - no matter the disguise party-sophists might give it - it simply does not fit.

>>3851839
That is the point I was trying to make about how Leninist/Stalinist communists are natural ally to Fascists and National Socialists in the alliance to end global capitalism, reassert the nation-state, deport non-European immigrants from western nations, and restore order and civility to the West.

>>3851839
Socialists broke the second international so many times what were you supposed to do? The social democrats in Germany did not hesitate to crush those that didn't fit with the line.

>>3851839
Stalin not a Marxist-Leninist? Wha? The history of Marxism in the Soviet Union clearly shows that, fiscally if not entirely socially, Stalin was a stalwart orthodox Marxist, and that M-L as the guiding ideology was abandoned shortly after his death due to the revisionist coup.

Nationalism isn't entirely incompatible with Marxism...see China for an example of this.

And to that one guy, Socialism in one Country was pragmatic socialism. Stalin obviously would have preferred an international revolution in the capitalist countries to support the development of the USSR, but that never happened, so they worked with what they had....and guess what? They built socialism. It had a productivist bent with its own problems, but it was still socialism and it lifted millions out of poverty. What would you have preferred, Trotsky's program of just not trying at all, of trying a suicidal hell march through Europe to instigate it through force after they'd just gotten out of a debilitating civil war.

Say what you will about Stalin's brutality, but there's no mistake that he tacked a Marxist-Leninist line...it had its flaws, but I don't trust trots and capitalists to examine those comprehensively; ultimately it was Mao who came up with the best critique of the Soviet model, another avowed Marxist-Leninist.

>>3851851
this one is better

>>3851860
I wasn't criticising socialism in one country friend, I'm actually rather impressed by the sheer pragmatism of it.

>>3851867
Lol. The funny paradox about statelessness is that you need an initially strong state to defend the revolution before delegating its functions to localities. So basically Marxists are going to be the ones who deliver the Anarchists' utopia--direct democracy right away, with no defense against reaction, leads to getting steamrolled. See Engels's critique of the Italian anarchists who did manage to set up local power, but were destroyed by the state because of their strident localism. See Marx's critique of the Paris Commune, whose biggest mistake was not marching on Versaille when they had the chance.

>>3851849

I have some vague memory of Trotsky warning German communists to make common cause with the Social Democrats against the Right or suffer the consequences of each of them being defeated individually. Ominous, considering that's exactly what happened.

I perhaps tend towards the Menshevik position. The establishment of a liberal democracy seems the necessary precursor to the political-democratic education of the proletariat needed to seize the aforementioned democracy. Yes, I understand Trotsky's explanation of co-development, but whatever faith he placed in the real presence of democracy in the West influencing its wider understanding in the East looks to be unfounded in hindsight. The proletariat was class conscious in Russia, but while such consciousness is necessary, it is not sufficient. A too brief political education in democracy and a past of innocent credulity allowed Stalin to quite handily seize the power for himself and his patriotic post-communist Bolsheviks.

The Tsarist regime was dead, and Stalin and his cabal filled the autocratic gap. Beelzebub slew Belial and declared, "All is well now, the devil himself is dead!"

>>3851646
> Why hasn't Stalinism, Maoism and the other brutal regimes that came out of communism discredited communism then?
Then why is communism weaker than ever and the supporters have changed from working class to mostly highly educated people working in humanities and such? Why is it that Finland, a country that was 54% Red in '62 is only 21% Red now? Stigmata of communist dictators, brutal regimes, their failures killed the cause. It's a minor political extremity with about as much credentials as anarcho-liberalism had hundred years ago - For it is the anarcho-liberalism of our times.

>>3851867
Well, some things happened, but then the states aka party-communists came and killed the anarchists.
But I'm sure you already know that.

>>3851875
Ah, cool ideology you have where it doesn't allow you to ever implement it because it inherently prides itself on its weakness. What does anarchist political action look like? Sitting around the parlor waxing romantically about Spain 70 years ago?

>>3851860

Stalin's regime was anti-democratic and patriotic besides being barbaric. These things are simply antithetical to Marxism. The history of post-Revolutionary Russia demonstrates only the steady abandonment of democratic principals in any but the rhetorical sense.

I won't reject the term pragmatic socialism, but it was certainly autocratic. This, as mentioned before, is must more in line with the thinking of Fascists than Marxists.

>>3851880
Wat? I just posted that because, in my opinion, the comic implies that Anarchism was never ever tried and fought for. And it's true that it was never tried in a long term (compared to different kinds of socialism and capitalism) because of the fast intervention by the surrounding fascist or socialist system.

>>3851883

This this this, a thousand times this.

It was not what most people who consider themselves marxist (such as Karl Marx, lolz) would ever want.

>>3851484
I thought they made /pol/ for people like you. Have fun with those tards.

>>3851883
Equating the USSR with fascism is bone-headed. Their similarities just about end with their authoritarianism once you start asking questions about class, which are, if you're a Marxist, the determining questions in the last instance.

You're also not taking into account the various forms of democracy. In terms of political, intellectual, and cultural expression, no, there was not much concern for democracy from the Russians.

But socially and economically, there was more freedom and democracy than what the West imposes on the world today. The freedom of education, housing, the freedom to eat, national identity, etc, are not freedoms to be scoffed at when someone's prior existence dictated death due to starvation and malnutrition at the age of 35. 35, dude. Fact is, Stalin doubled life expectancy in so short a span of time as to be unprecedented, and not surpassed until Mao did it with China. That is the first democracy that needs to be won, in my opinion, and any protestations of "Big Brother" seem hollow, privileged, and callous in light of how much the mass of people are suffered then and are suffering now. It's for that reason that I am NOT ready to relinquish the legacy of Stalin to the enemy.

Any Republicans here?

>>3851965

The fact that similarities begin at authoritarianism is when any question of its supposed extant Marxian principals ended. It is something close to mad to suggest that an autocrat and a council of ministers consolidating whole power to themselves under the banner of class-minding adages is in any way democratic.

Democracy is the question of power and where is lies. The proletariat did not have the power, and there was not democratic organ by which they could realistically seize it. It is simply shameful for a self-avowed Marxist adopt such an anti-materialist position as the political supremacy of the proletariat by its own hands being secondary unto irrelevant.

The last bit of your post is precisely the sort of tripe made famous by Sidney Webb.

>>3851965
To add to this Khrushchev Lied. You can find a book about it here http://www.amazon.com/Khrushchev-Lied-Revelation-Khrushchevs-Communist/dp/061544105X

You can find a critical review of said book here http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/books-arts-and-literature/khrushchev-lied-but-what-is-the-truth-1246.html

You can find the author's response here http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/books-arts-and-literature/rejoinder-to-roger-keeran-1262.html

You can find the authors webpage straight out of the fucking 90's here http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/<wbr>

>>3851967
Conservative America reporting in

>>3851989
Like someone said above, the huge bureaucracy of the USSR and the Party's increasing alienation from the masses it was supposed to lead is something I and all good Marxists are critical of. I mean, I'm a Maoist here, and Mao fought tooth and nail against bureaucracy's tendency to restore bourgeois ideology amongst technocrats and Party members. But you have to understand how and why this sort of rule came into being, and when I look at it I come to the materialist position that to an extent it was necessary for the survival of the state. I don't uphold the excesses but I DO recognize them as such: excesses.

Simply saying "the proletariat needs to take their destiny into their own hands" is a nice slogan but its empty if you have no plan behind it. The USSR was an attempt to do this, reality dictate to a degree that it wouldn't be so simple...I agree with Maoism here. Or look at the centralized reaction to the blunders of the Great Leap in China: I agree with the thrust of the plan but its execution was disastrous and dictated that the reins of power be temporarily turned back over to the central apparatus. Marxists must be realists here.

Hey ho don't mind me, just being the good guy that nobody pays attention to.

>>3852006
Got what he deserved.

>>3852006
Go back to bed Trotsky.

>>3852006
I know that feel bro.

>Believe in an ideology whose central premise is that liquidating a certain class of people is the solution to all of the world's problems.
>Act surprised when people who share your belief commit the largest genocides in history.
lol communists.

>>3852008
>>3852006

His looks are so unique, it'd be easy to pick him out of a crowd.

...


...

...

Get it?

>>3852012
>Believe in an ideology whose central premise is that liquidating a certain class of people is the solution to all of the world's problems.
You really know communism, don't you?

the truth is that communism is the only total set of thought we still have. It gives humanity a direction and new values in a time where all is being lost.
Read Gyorgy Lukacs in compendium and you'll find it epiphanic

>>3852006
>trotsky
>good

that fucking fascism's whore

He was killed with an ice axe, not an ice pick.

>>3852016
Yeah. Use the proletariat to take over the state and liquidate the capitalist class. No more class system. State withers. Everyone rides pink unicorns into the sunset. Right?

>>3852004

What were the results of putting that theory into practice? In the case of the Soviet Union, the restoration of capitalism after a particularly bloody and oppressive reign. In the case of China, the same process seems ongoing. Surrendering the element of the proletarian dictatorship is to surrender the whole ideology. If the proletariat is not prepared to seize power, direct, and retain it; it is not a proper workers' democracy and can not seriously be called Marxism.

A conscious proletariat means a democratically conscious proletariat. Without this fundamental political education, the best they can hope for are more caring masters; the most benevolent of whom will only issue to them what little bits of power are unimportant enough to direct any real power or challenge the bureaucracy.

If capitalism is not defeated by the democracy, history has shown us it will return. To defeat capitalism by a proletarian revolution that surrenders the power to dictatorship will end in the fall of that dictatorship to the very thing that all the old dictatorships fell to. Capitalism.

>>3852022
And your problem with that is...?

>>3852026
I want to ride a blue unicorn.

>>3852022
Only that liquidating a class doesn't mean eliminating the members of that class.

>>3852033
Only that exterminating the members of that class is obviously the quickest and most effective means of liquidating that class.

The ONE time that communists worry about efficiency, am I right?

>>3852025
Dictatorships or authoritarian states can easily get along with capitalism. See Singapore and Chile. What people hate about the free market is it means you can spread ideas like with loompanics. Lower taxes enough and allow people to sell harmless wares like wood and metal and even libertarians are willing to overlook political oppression or how the public and private interact such as in Hong Kong with the government owning a good amount of land that they lease off (while trying to keep property values high) so they can provide welfare services without higher taxes.

>>3852037
>Only that exterminating the members of that class is obviously the quickest and most effective means of liquidating that class.
If you want people to talk to you about this, it might serve you well to do some basic research.

>>3852039
You mean like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

>>3852045
I mean like reading some Marx.

>>3852045
Still, genocide isn't a theoretical base of communism, like you want to imply.

>>3852046
No thanks. I'd rather not waste my time reading discredited pseudoscience from the Victorian era just so I can enjoy the privilege of conversing with breathing historical atavisms. I've read the Manifesto. Isn't that enough?

So please tell me what does the manual suggest we do with the capitalists, then? Please cite exactly.

>>3852047
No, it isn't. That's because Stalin pushed for the UN to change the definition of genocide because he didn't want communism to be labelled an inherently genocidal ideology.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ay76mYBLU3sC&pg=PA267&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

LOL

>>3852052
Short and simple, because I will go to bed now:
If you take away their "possessions" and power over the production and distribute them among the people or let the state manage them, there's no need to do anything with the capitalists. They are now workers like everyone else.

>>3852055
LOL
You just mention Stalin as an example of communism, but you still can't prove or source that genocide is part of the theoretics of communism.

>>3852061
I don't see a citation.

And what if the capitalists don't want to have their possessions and power "taken away"? What if they resist? Send them to starve to death in a gulag death camp? Take them out to the Killing Fields? Hold their hands and sing the Internationale until they die?

Don't let your pillow hit you on your ass on your way down.

>>3852038

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Authoritarian states by definition fail to eliminate class. The rest is simply the progress of time and the division of labor. The authoritarian regime first consolidates all resources, as happened in the Soviet Union. The next course is that regime's failure to properly manage the scope of industry, hence the dissemination of responsibility to a wider group of party-men. This also happened in the Soviet Union. The capital that was not eliminated along with class continues to divide further until the rebirth of the middle-class. Now we have the whole affair back where it started; a ruling bureaucracy that no long controls the whole power, an ever growing middle-class returning to the old bourgeois ethics, and an underclass of politically impotent workers with no democratic education and no real share of the value their labor adds to society wondering where it all went wrong. Look at Russia today and tell me that isn't the state of things. Putin's administration is the corpse of state power; a paper tiger propped up by thuggery and the speculated price of oil. When it all finally comes crashing down, capitalist-bought "democracy" will be the new way of life in Russia as it is currently in most Western states.

>>3852065
That's because communists changed the definition of genocide. And they had to do that. Do you not see the irony?

>>3852066
>And what if the capitalists don't want to have their possessions and power "taken away"? What if they resist?
This is fine and is necessary for permanent revolution and death of the capitalist class. However, there is not necessarily a need for revolution, or if revolution comes the need for death.

>>3852066
Gulags weren't death camps.
Death camps were camps where people got systematicaly executed. Gulags were work camps, where people died because of the shitty conditions.
Only Germany had death camps.

Hey guys! Here's a fun interview where Marx advocates bloodshed against capitalists. Check it out:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/79_01_05.htm

>>3852066
>And what if the capitalists don't want to have their possessions and power "taken away"? What if they resist?
Then the working class takes it by force. Besides the capitalists will just run away once the police and army crumble (assume the revolution is successful).

>>3852076
>However, there is not necessarily a need for revolution, or if revolution comes the need for death.
Yes, yes there is. It is completely naive to think that you can create socialism without a revolution, and also that a workers revolution will be peaceful. The aims of a revolution is to complete smash the bourgeois state, to think that the state won't kill people in an attempt to survive is fucking stupid. You can also bet that there will be poor people killing some rich people and taking their stuff, while it's no necessary, it will happen.

>>3852071
No, because
> you still can't prove or source that genocide is part of the theoretics of communism

Independent from the definition of genocide.

>>3851733
I used to be like this and I considered myself in the Nietzschean vein of leading a higher and more enriched life for being obstensibly apolitical. Of course I wasn't. I was tacitly supporting the status quo, which only ever needs the tacit support of the "silent" majority. That is not so bad, perhaps, if I weren't living in a country ruled by idiots in a world ruled by idiots and people who I don't think lead any sort of "intellectual life", but who thrive off a culture of sound bites and widespread inanity.

>>3852079
>>3852080
Bloodshed and deaths during a revolution are not equal to a systematic elimination of all members of the capitalist class.

>>3852077
No. People were deliberately starved to death. The worked out a careful system of tiers of nutrient intake according to type of prisoner and labor performed. They calculated the caloric intake vs. expenditure. There were seven tiers. The top two or three a human being could survive on for more than three months. The bottom four or five were intended to be death sentences. There were camps they sent people to to die. A lot of the time they just shot the prisoners outright before they even delivered them to the camps. They had gas vans. They dropped hundreds of people on islands in the arctic promising to come back with supplies knowing they would never come back. Read something like Gulag: A People's History. Educate yourself. Dispel your ignorance.

>>3852085
Oh well, of cause not. You don't need to systematically kill the capitalist class. Once the workers have control of the means of production and the state then the capitalist class will vanish, as they are only characterized by their control of production. I mean, they will still have the class mentality of being a capitalist, but really they will be workers and within a few generations that class identify will be gone.

>>3852080
>Yes, yes there is. It is completely naive to think that you can create socialism without a revolution, and also that a workers revolution will be peaceful. The aims of a revolution is to complete smash the bourgeois state, to think that the state won't kill people in an attempt to survive is fucking stupid.
To think that it will or it won't is equally "fucking stupid". We simply cannot say either way. The idea that the eradication of a group of people due to class is extreme conjecture, and thus even more "fucking stupid". Marx's comments about rebels against a prole dictatorship involve confiscation rather than execution.

>>3852081
Okay. Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of a" class of people (let's include political groups here, even though Uncle Joe made them take it out). Communism advocates the destruction of the entire class of capitalists. There can be no communist society without that destruction. Communism is genocidal.

>>3852086
>No. People were deliberately starved to death.
This happens all the time in capitalism.

>>3852102
At least capitalists are competent enough to avoid *unintentionally* starving huge masses of people to death, am I right?

>>3852107
It's somehow unintentionally created anorexia.

>>3852101
But again: that systematic destruction of a class is not equal to the systematic elimination of the members of a this class.

>>3852097
>Marx's comments about rebels against a prole dictatorship involve confiscation rather than execution.

Execution of 100% every last member isn't the definition of genocide, you know. Destruction and execution are not synonyms. There are other ways to destroy a group of people than to execute them all, and such liquidation would still count as genocide.

The UN's list of genocidal acts includes:

>deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

So he advocated killing members of this class in part, and taking away their capital would certainly lead to the physical destruction of the capitalist class.

Yep.

>>3852112
Exactly! So why are you insisting that every last member of the capitalist class has to be murdered for it to count as genocide? Marx said that only some of them (a part) might need to be killed, but that they definitely would have to be destroyed as a class.

>>3852115
>So he advocated killing members of this class in part, and taking away their capital would certainly lead to the physical destruction of the capitalist class.
No it doesn't. Their capital is reduced to the level of the same peasants that have been collectivised.

>>3852118
And outlawing Judaism and Jewish identity, and killing any Jews who resist, would make them just as much gentile as everyone else, right? Still genocide, bro.

>>3852077
>Gulags were work camps, where people died because of the shitty conditions.

I'm not even sympathetic to communists, but the amount of misinformation passed around about the Gulags is ridiculous. Survival rates there averaged 95%+ and most prisoners were released in under 5 years. They really were "re-education" camps.

>>3852124
>and killing any Jews who resist
Again, resistance is met with confiscation, how are you not getting this? You might as well say the legal system is committing genocide against thieves with this argument.

>>3852117
Ok, right.
But I'm still not sure if the destruction of a class which is defined by it's possession can be named a "physical destruction". The members of this class can still exist in a physical sense, just their social status is changed.

>>3852127
Yeah. 3 million people died because they got lost in the woods. Oops!

>>3852131
Genocide means destroying a group of people as a group. Communists want to destroy the capitalist class as a group. Communists are inherently genocidal. This explains why communists have committed some of the largest genocides in history. How are you not getting that?

>>3852138
There you go. Gulag stats from '34-'53, J.V.'s playtime, right from fucking wikipedia. Yes, lots of people died. No, the camps were not intended or structured to kill people, except those select political prisoners who were marked out for death. Most prisoners survived.