Hello Comrades. This general is for the discussion of Marxism-Leninism, the ideology of revolutionary socialism and communism.
Communism is the next stage of humanity following the capitalist stage and the socialist stage.
What exactly is communism according to Marxist-Leninists:
>Communism is a stage of society in which the productive infrastructure is socially owned, and goods are produced not in order to sell for profit, but in order to meet a social need. >Communism in it's full form is a stateless, classless society that follows the maxim "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." >To achieve such a society Marxism-Leninism teaches us that we must replace the capitalist state, which is controlled by the capitalist class, by a socialist state, which is controlled by the working class. Then, a period of class struggle follows in which the capitalist class is liquidated by the working class. When the capitalist class has been completely vanquished, there will be only one class, the working class, and eventually the functions of the state will become indistinguishable from the functions of the society as a whole, and the state as such will 'wither away' as Marx said. marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
"To each according to his contribution" is a principle of distribution considered to be one of the defining features of socialism.
The principle has its roots in the way that capitalism manages its affairs. That is, each is rewarded according to how much he produces. Remuneration increases as the amount of labor contributed increases. However within capitalism, the means of production are owned by a small minority who do not produce, but rather live off the labor of others. Socialism is said to remedy this by putting the means of production in common hands and rewarding individuals according to their contributions.
It's those goddamn communists taking Jow Forums go back to lefty/pol/ you fucking commie shills
Dylan Martin
NIGGER THERE ARE SOCIALISTS ON Jow Forums WHO WOULD LIKE TO HAVE DISCOURSE AND RATIONAL ARGUMENTS TO BE MADE AGAINST THEIR CAPITALIST PIG BULLSHIT BUT YOU IGNORE THEM
ARE YOU A BOT
Thomas Gutierrez
Slide thread...
>saged.
Juan Gomez
So, I been thinking about how a revolution could occur in Britain, and the only viable path without some major event happening that catches the government off-guard is Corbyn gets elected and Momentum and McDonnell push Corbyn (who is pro-union anyway) to remove regulations on unions and install pro-union laws. From there, the working class can be radicalized and educated in marxism, ready for the revolution. Then, we arm the working class and start a general strike, weeks long and cripple the British economy, leading to armed conflict between the government and the workers and unions. From here, Corbyn or another marxist may be in a position to install a ML vanguard party or if they won't, we storm Westminister, sack it and dissolve the government, leading to union control of the UK.
That's all well and good, but what happens next? The bougie USA and EU will almost certainly come for us and try to support fascist or nationalist uprisings in the UK. Its simple: we re-orientate the economy until Britain is self sufficient and turn our nukes on the USA and the EU, threatening nuclear war if we catch them meddling with us in anyway. Then, we wait until the global revolution. Britain is very hard to invade or get spies into anyway on account of it being an island, so we're in prime position for a permanent revolution.
Wyatt Davis
There's no point in arguing with fascists because they're not arguing in good faith.
Sebastian Rivera
I much prefer Stalinism to your fairy tale utopian bullshit.
Parker Lopez
S A G E
Chase Hughes
Stalinism is socialism. Its just a variant of it called marxist leninism.
William Wilson
Fascism is socialism. Stalinism is socialism. Communism is socialism. They all vary on different grounds which are just as important as their economic system.
Dominic Scott
What incentive is there for me to give all my money to the retards and the niggers. Will they be killed if they don't work?
Nicholas Peterson
Fascism isn't socialism, its corporatism. There's nothing socialist about it, if not only for the fact Hitler and Mussolini despised communism.
Have you read 1984 By george orwell? You should give it a go
Gabriel Hall
You mean by George Orwell the anarcho-communist? Yes I have. A valid if a little stupid criticism of Stalinism, considering that without Stalin Hitler would've flattened Europe.
Joseph Sanders
Hello gomrades! XDDDD Dis general is for disgussion of margsism-lebonnism, da ideology of revolutionary socialism and gommunism.
Gommunism is da next stage of guckery following real society.
Wat exagtly is gommunism according to gommies:
>Gommunism is a stage of guckery in which the produgtive infrustrugture runs away from gommie country, and no goods are produced and beeple starve. XDDDD >Gommunism in full form is obressive, statist society dat follows maxim "gib gib gib!" :DDDD >To achieve gommunism we must replace broduction with murderous obressive rulers liek me, fug working glass beeple. XDDDD Struggle while I liquidate you all lol. When capitalists run away we win and I kill you all. Eventually the functions of state cease and state becomes murderous and indistinguishable from other gommies. Da state withers away liek da people. gommies.gom/fug/ gommies.gom/starve/
----------------------------------------- Da sdages of gommunism.
>Sdage one Bourgers aren't allowed to vode :DDD but otherwise da system is digtadorshib of gommies. Everything is stole by digtadors and digtadors rule all.
>Sdade two Withering All beeple who aren't digtador glass starve. XDDD Once glass disabears and we steal everything more beeple wither away. Bolice begome unnecessary as beeple are dead lol :DDDDD Central blanning begomes unnecessary begause sgarcity caused starving. Money is all ours.
>Sdage three Gommunism. No beeple. No food. My money. Much benis
>The first consideration in immigration is the welfare of the receiving nation. In a new government based on principles unfamiliar to the rest of the world and resting on the sentiments of the people themselves, the influx of a large number of new immigrants unaccustomed to the government of a free society could be detrimental to that society. Immigration, therefore, must be approached carefully and cautiously.
What makes you think Jefferson's Democracy = open borders? Also this.
Hello gomrades! XDDDD Dis general is for disgussion of margsism-lebonnism, da ideology of revolutionary socialism and gommunism.
Gommunism is da next stage of guckery following real society.
Wat exagtly is gommunism according to gommies:
>Gommunism is a stage of guckery in which the produgtive infrustrugture runs away from gommie country, and no goods are produced and beeple starve. XDDDD >Gommunism in full form is obressive, statist society dat follows maxim "gib gib gib!" :DDDD >To achieve gommunism we must replace broduction with murderous obressive rulers liek me, fug working glass beeple. XDDDD Struggle while I liquidate you all lol. When capitalists run away we win and I kill you all. Eventually the functions of state cease and state becomes murderous and indistinguishable from other gommies. Da state withers away liek da people. gommies.gom/fug/ gommies.gom/starve/
>Sdage one Bourgers aren't allowed to vode :DDD but otherwise da system is digtadorshib of gommies. Everything is stole by digtadors and digtadors rule all.
>Sdade two Withering All beeple who aren't digtador glass starve. XDDD Once glass disabears and we steal everything more beeple wither away. Bolice begome unnecessary as beeple are dead lol :DDDDD Central blanning begomes unnecessary begause sgarcity caused starving. Money is all ours.
>Sdage three Gommunism. No beeple. No food. My money. Much benis.
>Sdage four Nod real gommunism. Move on to nexd goundry :DDDDDDD
It’s doubly hard to avoid the Effort Trap because our culture so strongly reinforces its deceptive message: Hard work is ultimately what matters. From childhood, parents and teachers drum into us the moral virtue of effort, and the importance of “doing your best”. Numerous approaches to productivity—even the best ones, like David Allen’s Getting Things Done—encourage a “cross-it-off-the-list” mindset: They’re so preoccupied with clarifying and keeping track of your to-dos, you forget to ask if they’re the right tasks to begin with.
And too many workplaces still subtly communicate to employees the idea that intense effort, usually in the form of long hours, is the best route to a promotion. In fact, though, if you can do your job brilliantly and still leave at 3 p.m. each day, a really good boss shouldn’t object. And by the same token, you shouldn’t cite all the effort you put in when making your case for a raise. Why should a results-focused boss even care?
In a situation where value is measured almost strictly in dollars (i.e., as in the case of profits measured by a large company) an employee that brings in the most revenue or a manager that oversees a profitable division will be rewarded, regardless of how many hours he works. When analysis is done with numbers, "coffee is for closers" you might say, and not for people who just put in long hours.
Joseph Martinez
>That's all well and good, but what happens next? The bougie USA and EU will almost certainly come for us and try to support fascist or nationalist uprisings in the UK. Its simple: we re-orientate the economy until Britain is self sufficient and turn our nukes on the USA and the EU, Have fun starving to death due to sanctions and not being a first world country due to massive resource shortages.
As Burkeman notes, American workers, like so many others, mistakenly think that work has economic value in itself, and not the product of the work.
But when value is calculated somewhere other than on a ledger, things start to get more complicated. Burkeman writes:
The behavioral economist Dan Ariely tells the story of a locksmith, who, as he got better at his work, started getting fewer tips, and more complaints about his prices. Each job took him so little time or effort that customers felt cheated—even though, pretty obviously, being super-fast is an asset in a locksmith, not a fault. Each job took him so little time or effort that customers felt cheated.
So, managers and workers aren't the only ones who think that more work brings more value. Your customers might mistakenly think that also. As a result of their poor education in economics, the customers end up actually giving value to work because they like to watch people work harder. So, as in the case of the locksmith, the customer isn't actually valuing the product of the locksmith's work alone. The customer is also valuing the process of seeing the locksmith work. They might not realize this is what it going in, but it makes sense that people might feel they get more bang for their buck after decades of indoctrination into the idea that more work equals more value.
But, in this case, the work being performed by a slower, more labor-intensive locksmith is not more highly valued because he produces a higher quality job than the faster locksmith. The slower one's labor produces more value because it produces certain feelings in the customer that the customer likes. At that point, the labor no longer has anything to do with unlocking a lock.
Cameron Adams
Democracy is publicly owned government, monarchy is —"privately owned government"— the latter is preferable; however, both monarchy and democracy are deficient systems compared to the preferred structure to advance civilization— the natural order, a system free of both taxation and coercive monopoly in which jurisdictions freely compete for adherents, "ordered anarchy", "private property anarchism", "anarcho-capitalism", "autogovernment", "private law society", and "pure capitalism".
Wyatt Scott
Self-sufficiency you idiot. Under central planning its easy to become self-sufficient. Indeed, during WW2, before modern mechanical farming, they worked out they were food secure even if no outside produce reached Britain. Of course, that's not something your neo-liberal overlords would tell you.
Caleb Edwards
leftist here
why can't you guys just drop the communism meme? any system without private property doesn't work, as evidenced by the failure of numerous communist countries. you all don't really help the leftist cause at all, you just make us look stupid.
Luke Williams
It does work and has worked better than capitalism numerous times and continues to in Cuba.
Yeah, when they weren't under the rule of communists. And weren't using central planning. Idiot.
Eli Rogers
>rationing and nationalizing agriculture isn't central planning Well they weren't going to use a fucking free market in the case of a siege were they?
Zachary Young
Labour Theory of Value (LTV):
Non arguments:
>If I dig a hole in my backyard and then fill it in I used labor but made no value! Commies BTFO!
Marx clarified (unlike adam smith) that only socially necessary labor (labor used to produce a commodity with use value) creates value. This is also the case if you spend 1000 years making a bed.
>Nature can create value as well. If an apple falls from a tree then value is created without labor
Marx also noted nature could create value.
>if labor determines price why is coca cola cheaper than bottled water?
Labor doesn't determine price. It determines value (not exchange value or use value) and correlates with the equilibrium price.
Machines cannot create value. If I make a machine that makes diamonds out of thin air then the value of a diamond falls below that of bricks now that they can be aquired with no work what so ever. Price might not fall because you can still manipulate supply and demand but value certainly does.
Some definitions.
Use value = How useful an object is. Exchange value = Market value of a commodity. Different from use value. You can sell a beanie baby for 200$ but it is almost completely useless. Value = the amount of congealed labor withing a commodity.
Even if you try to force the idea of a war economy unto that axis it's still somewhere in between free market/central planning. And it's not something that's meant to be sustainable either, they raked up an awful lot of debt for ~5 years of """central planning"""******.
Ian Edwards
Look, what I'm saying is, its no mystery how to fucking feed people. Thomas Sankara made Burkina Faso self-sufficient, and that was an agrarian society, not even industrialized. After the Ukraine capitalist purge, there was never a famine again in the USSR. The Zapatistas still manage to feed themselves and they don't have central government to centrally plan. The free market is far worse at feeding people than central planning or unions.
Also, Stalin's 5 year plans were a resounding success and without them, the USSR would have lost hard to the Nazis.
Carter Collins
>After the Ukraine capitalist purge, there was never a famine again in the USSR. And again the USSR raked up an awful lot of debt in the mean time, nice work.
>Also, Stalin's 5 year plans were a resounding success and without them Oh fucking lol, they were supposed to be done in 4 years (2+2=5, not fucking kidding, Orwell didn't make that shit up), and plenty were complete failures, like huge dams and what not or factories that were built sub standard. Even the most optimistic estimates of their industrial growth puts them on par with the rest of the western world, and that while treating them like slaves. The only impressive industrial/technological achievement was getting to space first and the t-34, which was basically just the best possible way to design a cheap pile of garbage that still worked awfully well, completely unlike over engineered german (late) tanks.
And I don't deny the ability of a nation to be self sustaining.
Nathaniel Martin
The USSR racked up debt when they liberalized the economy during the thaw, and this reached a head in the 80's with Chernobyl (in fact, its arguable the bill for the chernobyl clean-up is what stated the downfall of the USSR). This was 30 years after Stalin's death.
>Oh fucking lol, they were supposed to be done in 4 years No they weren't. Stalin's intention was to always have 5 year plans and no they weren't complete failures by any metric. Like I said, without them, they wouldn't industrialized quick enough and Hitler would flattened them. The USSRs growth under Stalin is the reason The USSR was able to become a superpower. And they managed to do what it took the UK 150 years to do in just 30, while feeding their children and educating them instead of forcing them to mine coal or work in mills.
