The world is divided between those who own the means of production and those who are forced to sell their labor power. It is not divided between nations and races. The bourgeoisie today is international. A wealthy Brazilian may have shares in an American company. A wealthy indian may have shares in a German company,
*World´s bourgeoisie (Who rules the party) Top 10% north americans Top 6% japanese people Top 4% of Europe Union Top 1% of Russia, Latam, China, Middle East, South Korea Top 0,5% of Indians, Southeastern asians and africans
They have stocks from companies all around the world. They control almost 100% of the financial wealth of the world. Don´t matter the colour of their skin or their gender or their nationality. They rule this world.
Having stocks of a company doesn't mean owning it unless you have the majority of it, and even then some countries have a ton of regulations put in place
Joseph Rivera
Not wrong.
Jeremiah Gutierrez
>REEEEE MUH 0.1% SCAPEGOAT RUINING EVERTYTHING DESPITE LITERALLY BEING THE MOST PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY If you live in a first world country and have an IQ > 100, there is literally no excuse for being unsatisfied with your income by age 30 unless you are genetic trash and/or had a shitty family. In which case, you should die and not reproduce.
Especially in the US, if you live here and don't earn at least 45k a year by the time you're 30, there is actually something severely wrong with you. Any immigrant from the 3rd world who moves here joins the top 10% of income earners almost immediately because they have an actual work ethic.
Marxism is a garbage meme religion. Equality is a false god.
Christian Perez
>tf >tp Post automatically discarded.
Luke Russell
>and have an IQ > 100 Doubt it, to be honest. >unless you are genetic trash Certainly am. >or had a shitty family Come from a broken home, yes. >you should die and not reproduce Have no intention to spread my genes because I don't want to inflict someone else with them.
>Especially in the US Don't live there.
>Marxism is a garbage meme religion Marxism is a market system. >Equality is a false god Okay but how is that related to Marxism?
Carson Reyes
>post defending the r*Ch >it’s an american Every time
Camden Moore
feel free to explain what you mean instead of just ignoring me because you're a marxist zombie.
Charles Gomez
>defending the r*Ch literally the people who are more productive and better than the poor in almost every way, except they don't have enough children. Of course I will defend them for being the most virtuous members of society on average. Virtue ethics and evolution are the best ways to make the world better.
>market system no, it pretty explicitly requires a USSR or Cuban style transition communist government (that lasts forever) that controls everything. >how is that related to marxism? >muh equality of outcome >to each according to his need
Jace Smith
>no, it pretty explicitly requires a USSR or Cuban style transition communist government (that lasts forever) that controls everything. This is objectively incorrect. >muh equality of outcome What does that have to do with Marxism? >to each according to his need What exactly is your issue with living according to your needs?
Jordan Fisher
>This is objectively incorrect. how? >What does that have to do with Marxism? stop playing dumb. The vast majority of marxists believe in equality of outcome. >living according to your needs requires society to provide them to you. I say, if your needs are excessive and you're not productive enough to provide them for yourself, you should be culled from society or at least I should have the option of not supporting you. If the evolutionary pressures were in favor of productivity and intelligence, society would improve sooooooo quickly. Right now society is improving only because of technology--because of the contributions of the top few percent of intellects. Instead, we have welfare and extreme dysgenics, both internationally and within the first world.
Anthony Diaz
>it pretty explicitly requires a USSR or Cuban style transition communist government (that lasts forever) that controls everything
>"Communism is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money[3][4] and the state" >and the state >and the state
Luke Torres
this is the game you retards play. You act like you're only advocating for the end state of communism, and completely ignore the transition state necessary for true communism--which, by the way, is post-scarcity, a priori impossible.
>Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Josiah Taylor
>Africa's Richest Man
lol so he has like three cows and grows an acre of wheat?
hahah
Josiah Turner
>You act like you're only advocating for the end state of communism well yes, of course we would advocate for the end stage of the transitional state rather than at any other stage, that's the stage we want doofus
Levi Richardson
>how? Because what you have described is not Marxism. >The vast majority of marxists believe in equality of outcome. 1. How do you know this? 2. How does this change the fundamental nature of Marxism?
>I say, if your needs are excessive Define excessive. >and you're not productive enough to provide them for yourself, you should be culled from society or at least I should have the option of not supporting you Okay, what does this have to do with Marxism? >If the evolutionary pressures were in favor of productivity and intelligence, society would improve sooooooo quickly If birds were fish they could live at the bottom of the ocean. What's your point?
>Right now society is improving only because of technology That's a bold statement. You're going to have to describe what you mean by improving and technology. >because of the contributions of the top few percent of intellects. People are not islands, user. Without interactive systems supporting the implementation of these alluded to bodies of intellectual work, they would remain purely speculative and theoretical. >Instead, we have welfare and extreme dysgenics, both internationally and within the first world. Perhaps we live in different worlds because I'm not seeing that.
Hudson Sanders
>define excessive I wasn't really expressing myself exactly, nevermind this point--see right below >If birds were fish they could live at the bottom of the ocean. What's your point? We evolved as humans from the micro level because of the evolutionary pressures of nature encouraging us to become more complex and stronger and smarter. Civilization, the welfare state, and advanced technology have completely erased these pressures and introduced new ones, which I argue will make people less and less happy and less intelligent as time passes. I believe in virtue ethics--people should be getting smarter and happier and stronger, not the opposite--but just the opposite is happening, and communist society represents the total opposite: everyone gets what they need to survive and (if you apply the theory equally to sexuality, which, I am surprised few people do) reproduce, regardless of their merit.
>1. threads like these and real life experience with commies >2. if there is ever a commie revolution, it will be made by actual people, not "the theory" or "the fundamental nature of Marxism"
>improving by pretty much every measure we have except certain illnesses and certain subjective polls. see youtube.com/watch?v=yCm9Ng0bbEQ , Pinker wrote a whole book about it. Technology is getting better--do I really have to explain what technology is? The tools we use.
>people are not islands yeah, but productivity follows a pareto distribution, and you can apply that criticism to people at all ends of the distribution. >I'm not seeing that. pic related
>Because what you have described is not Marxism. then the USSR and China and North Korea and Cuba were never Marxist, and neither are the vast majority of actual communists
Yes, but it requires a transition state NOW, the end stage is only a theoretical progression from there (which, again, is post scarcity and never going to happen). What you end up with is USSR style communism until collapse (USSR) or market reform (China, Cuba to some extent, Vietnam).
>The world is divided between those who own the means of production and those who are forced to sell their labor power. >durr my $8/hr burgerflipping job is the only way to earn money
Logan Morris
Who judges what your abilities are? This sounds like a recipe for inequality where some people are arbitrarily held back and others end up with work that isn't optimal with their skills and/or desires.
As Marx put it, the transition to communism starts with a "dictatorship of the proliteriat." Although this dictatorship is different than one man ruling, it unfortunately makes corruption in the party too easy and an authoritarian regime inevitable.
Jack Barnes
>of nature encouraging us to become more complex and stronger and smarter No, not really at all. I'm sorry but you don't really seem to have a grasp on natural selection. Biology isn't teleological.
>The tools we use. What about those tools have to do with the current market systems?
>yeah, but productivity follows a pareto distribution Another bold claim.
>pic related What relevance does that image have to this discussion?
>then the USSR and China and North Korea and Cuba were never Marxist, and neither are the vast majority of actual communists Yes, this is an accurate statement.
>Who judges what your abilities are? Relevance? >This sounds like a recipe for inequality where some people are arbitrarily held back and others end up with work that isn't optimal with their skills and/or desires. What does this have to do with Marxism?
>the transition to communism Are we talking about Communism or Marxism? >it unfortunately makes corruption in the party too easy and an authoritarian regime inevitable. How does this differ to any other human controlled system and how does it make "an authoritarian regime inevitable"?
Jonathan Sanchez
>he thinks conventional genetic fitness is relevant to modern economics kekking
Gavin Nelson
..
Kayden Thompson
,,
Christopher Flores
youre almost correct but you make these sweeping generalizations that clearly indicate you've actually never analyzed these sorts of cases on an individual level, thus you have no real understanding or how or why people achieve merit when they do relative to their individual development , let alone also the statistics which you will not have which claim that all immigrants instantly climb the economic ladder in western society at a greater rate relative to domestic citizens
>thus you have no real understanding or how or why people achieve merit when they do relative to their individual development speaking of sweeping generalizations. feel free to make a point instead of just finding random and unfitting critiques and posting pathetic weab shit >let alone also the statistics which you will not have Filipino Americans' average household income in the US was $88,745 in 2016. 58% of Filipino Americans (as of 2010, mind you) came into the country after 1990; 90% immigrated after 1970. Indian Americans are similar but even more successful and more recent.
>which claim that all immigrants instantly climb the economic ladder in western society at a greater rate relative to domestic citizens I'll revise what you thought I said: Anyone who comes into the US with an IQ of over 100 and an actual work ethic immediately joins the upper class.
>boo hoo im a victim of being low IQ and having shitty parents :^( fuck capitalism give me money white people
>How does this differ to any other human controlled system and how does it make "an authoritarian regime inevitable"? "revolutionary/counter-revolutionary" and "proletariat/bourgoise" dichotomy that creates thought crimes; the necessity of a state that controls 100% of the economy; the violence necessitated by a Marxist revolution; that's a priori. If not inevitable, it is pretty obvious from the historical record that there is a very high probability.
>yes, this is an accurate statement. lmao I guess you just can't draw any connection between them and you despite you having the exact same foundational text and using all the same language and them calling themselves socialist (in the marxist sense) and etc etc etc.
>Another bold claim. No, not really.
>What about those tools have to do with the current market systems? I just used them to explain why society and the economy were improving despite dysgenics and health deterioration.
>No, not really at all. I'm sorry but you don't really seem to have a grasp on natural selection. Biology isn't teleological. LMAO. So your point is that nature doesn't have a purpose so we should just accept our devolution as a result of the new and very strange evolutionary pressures? You clearly didn't understand my argument. Obviously nature is random, and nature in the past 200 years has become dysgenic for humans. I am arguing, if society really tried to we could continuously raise the average IQ to 150 and eliminate pretty much all illness--we don't know the limit yet. Consider how effectively we bred dogs, cattle, and plants.
>What relevance does that image have to this discussion? you really totally missed my point didn't you. typical autistic marxist theologian.
James Martin
Where did you get those numbers ? >Top 4% of Europe Union So everybody who has a decent 5k + paying job ? You realize this includes a ton of doctors, engineers, scientists and so on ? Normal people with a decent life ? I'm pretty sure i don't rule the world, things would be different otherwise The 0.01% maybe
