The situation in Ukraine...

[Deleted member 586536]

WAAAAAYYYYYYY more died under Communist rule. And yes, ever hear of the bread lines? Well because their was such a shortage on food (prolly shouldn't kill your farmers and put inexperienced idiots in charge),

As I discovered after reading the communist manifesto. The USSR was more state capitalist. It attempted to move over to communism, however. it failed. If you read it, you would of realized that USSR got caught on two issues.
1. power was not equally distributed and previous oligarchs from capitalism moved their way up further. Paired with a famine which wasn't in their control, obviously caused a lot of problems. ("A lot of problems" is a mega understatement obviously)
2. Marx clearly overthought the method of retention. As in, what's stopping someone from just, overthrowing the revolution that was done right after. He argued that a temporary state(government) to be formed that would then eventually dissolve.

This obiviously is where the second part of the USSR failed. It did not dissolve. So by marx's own definitions, no, USSR is not communist.
I am ancom, I personally believe that the second part, the method of retention can just be straight up left up to the people. Having a overarching governing body creates a imbalance of power/class. Which well, the desired affect was to abolish class.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Meaning you trust in mankind to be honest and fair and divide things up equally without screwing anyone over... riiiiiggghhhhttt.

People don't naturally want to screw others over, it's only when say... the bottom line is at stake. you know...
can I obtain necessities and live
We're a social species, we're literately built to try to cooperate.
It's just that the system has been designed to pit us up against each other. If I can make a living off of scalping ps5's.
technically this also applies to landlords as well
The system incentives that. I have more money, so I can do whatever the fuck I want, I don't need to think about the people I'm screwing over
even though everyone else will hate you for your choice on that
however, if say, idk, it was provided with no strings attached, most people become a fuck ton more considerate of the person (or persons) involved.
In other words, I don't believe people are inherently awful. It's nurtured

 

[XDel]

Uhh yeah...your response implies that I was praising big corporations, when in fact I was doing the opposite. Of course they don't actually give a damn about gay or black people despite celebrating both gay pride month and black history month. It's all about the money, capitalism always is.


I'm not suggesting they will, a criminal justice system would still be required in a democratic socialist country. But capitalism long ago passed communism's body count, and it just keeps growing. In my relatively short lifetime alone, the US has gone through multiple economic collapses, and the vast majority of my generation will never be able to afford their own homes or pay off their student loans as a result. Shit's just not working.

What you are referring to is a result of greed not necessarily capital. Murder isn't built into the capitalist philosophy, that again is a bi-product of laws and regulations not being followed in the first place. I.E. If I have an apple tree and you do not, but you want some apples real bad and are willing to pay me $2.00 an apple. Well as a natural result and over the course of time your apple consumption makes me a lot of money, and yet no one has died. Why? Because making money can be ethical and does not have to result in murder and greed. And who knows, maybe I may see you down on your luck later on down the road, and I decide to hook you up an apple tree of your own so you have food for one, and for seconds, can sell apples of your own if you need. Again I can choose to do this because of free will.

 

[XDel]

As I discovered after reading the communist manifesto. The USSR was more state capitalist. It attempted to move over to communism, however. it failed. If you read it, you would of realized that USSR got caught on two issues.
1. power was not equally distributed and previous oligarchs from capitalism moved their way up further. Paired with a famine which wasn't in their control, obviously caused a lot of problems. ("A lot of problems" is a mega understatement obviously)
2. Marx clearly overthought the method of retention. As in, what's stopping someone from just, overthrowing the revolution that was done right after. He argued that a temporary state(government) to be formed that would then eventually dissolve.

This obiviously is where the second part of the USSR failed. It did not dissolve. So by marx's own definitions, no, USSR is not communist.
I am ancom, I personally believe that the second part, the method of retention can just be straight up left up to the people. Having a overarching governing body creates a imbalance of power/class. Which well, the desired affect was to abolish class.

I have read the Communist Manifesto, it is rather dull, and for a dude who never worked, he talks a lot about work conditions for a guy who never worked. Further more Marxism isn't about the end of Capitalism, it is about taking control of Capital, therefore, you would not be in control of your own business and affairs.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

I have read the Communist Manifesto, it is rather dull, and for a dude who never worked, he talks a lot about work conditions for a guy who never worked. Further more Marxism isn't about the end of Capitalism, it is about taking control of Capital, therefore, you would not be in control of your own business and affairs.

A quick look onto your claim, and from what I can find, he did work. He was unable to hold down a stable job due to health issues, specifically carbuncles. He worked as journalist briefly and made money off his own political writings.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Further more Marxism isn't about the end of Capitalism, it is about taking control of Capital, therefore, you would not be in control of your own business and affairs.

Uh yeah it is. Captalism requires inviduals to hoard wealth/power. Otherwise you die. Communism is about class struggle/removal of class. Just because I own more money than you due to multiple generations of horded wealth, should not mean I get different privileges than you do. It also means that if you made the business, great, but you have to work your fair share. You don't get to live off the backs of hundreds of thousands, and make 5000x more than everyone else just because your the CEO. In other words, switching from a society that is top to bottom. to one that is bottom to top.

 

[XDel]

Uh yeah it is. Captalism requires inviduals to hoard wealth/power. Otherwise you die. Communism is about class struggle/removal of class. Just because I own more money than you due to multiple generations of horded wealth, should not mean I get different privileges than you do. It also means that if you made the business, great, but you have to work your fair share.

Ughh, you forgot the Jungle, and no Marx lived off his wife's money. He sucked as a journalist, and his writings were not unique to him. I'd have to pull out my Encyclopedia Britannica, because it states in there that he had attracted the attention of an old society who's name eludes me right now, but they were already working on philosophical works based upon what we now refer to as communism. They brought him in as sort of a face for the philosophy, seeing as his writings were already well conformed to their own output.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Communist Manifesto, it is rather dull, and for a dude who never worked, he talks a lot about work conditions for a guy who never worked

He sucked as a journalis

So... how did we get here? You straight up just stated he did not work. you also did not address the fact the dude had a disease that would make work substantially harder. Seems to me that's a pretty convenient thing to just leave out.

 

[XDel]

So... how did we get here? You straight up just stated he did not work. you also did not address the fact the dude had a disease that would make work substantially harder. Seems to me that's a pretty convenient thing to just leave out.

A lot of people have physical handicaps and that does not hold them back. Have you ever seen that Christian dude who travels around preaching, but was born without arms or legs? Anyhow Marx was silver spoon, he married into money, and was helped and assisted by the order. Besides, people write him up as if he were some ultra compassionate brainiac who had ideas that trancended even those of Christ, Krishna Conciousness, or The Buddha, and who himself could not get any sleep because of his concern for the working class who he himself never spent a moment with. Gay!

EDIT, no wait, he hated gays, I almost forgot.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

he married into money, and was helped and assisted by the order.

And if you had backround knowledge marx, you would of also known he was petty bourgeois and was very honest with that. However he was surrounded by the working class he was not a speaker but the listener.

esides, people write him up as if he were some ultra compassionate brainiac who had ideas that trancended even those of Christ, Krishna Conciousness, or The Buddha

That's stupid, (on the entire concept of trancending) but he was extremely sympathetic to the working class against the state. Infact, you want to know why he wrote the manfiesto? Or continued pushing with his writings. It was because a friend of his (Engals) stated that it was so important he would support him in the endeavor.

could not get any sleep because of his concern for the working class who he himself never spent a moment with.

That's also false. He spent a lot of time with them, he never claimed to be part of the working class, and was extremely open about it. You don't need to be in the same class to be sympathetic to the other.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

addendum: he also went through poverty multiple times before becoming part of "petty bourgeois" which would heavily imply he was part of the working class on several occasions while growing up.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

EDIT, no wait, he hated gays, I almost forgot.

if it was true (which I do believe as plusabile. Mostly because back then, homosexuality was not accepted at all.) then well, that's his problem. However that's not a problem modern day ancoms have to carry with them/ not part of our beliefs.
besides I'm bi

 

[XDel]

And if you had backround knowledge marx, you would of also known he was petty bourgeois and was very honest with that. However he was surrounded by the working class he was not a speaker but the listener.

That's stupid, (on the entire concept of trancending) but he was extremely sympathetic to the working class against the state. Infact, you want to know why he wrote the manfiesto? Or continued pushing with his writings. It was because a friend of his (Engals) stated that it was so important he would support him in the endeavor.

That's also false. He spent a lot of time with them, he never claimed to be part of the working class, and was extremely open about it. You don't need to be in the same class to be sympathetic to the other.

My second point is stupid, but is a solid point. Ever here of Thoth, ever here of Jesus, how about Socrates? King Minus perhaps? All real people who had much better advice on how to go about life than Marx. Marx was a propaganda writer, as was his friend Engals, who he ended up upsetting greatly, as their friendship was not all peachy keen. As I stated, he/they were supported by the order which had formed a good 100 years or so before Marx and Englals were ever born. And yes, while it is true, you can be born into wealth (the story of everyone who lives in the proverbial west, from ghetto to Hollywood), you can still hold compassion for those with less, but as for Marx being all heart felt and what not, and choosing not to be materialistic, that is all myth. He was bad with money and he didn't want to work, though can you blame him? I don't want to work, or rather, I don't want to work for someone else, but alas, I was not born in the Jungle or the Wilderness so I have to make compromises with those whom I live among.

 

[XDel]

if it was true (which I do believe as plusabile. Mostly because back then, homosexuality was not accepted at all.) then well, that's his problem. However that's not a problem modern day ancoms have to carry with them/ not part of our beliefs.

You need to freshen up on your history about homosexuality not being accepted. That was a cultural thing so a lot of that depended upon what part of the world you are talking about and when. Then you have to consider that if it were normal for all the human race to be bi-curious or what ever, then why would we all have chosen to walk away from it, or to accept a belief that it is bad if all was cool?

Check out how they celebrated Winter Solstice in ancient Rome, they fucked kids and everything; openly. Soldiers could have their way with your wife if they wanted, and so on. This is partly why early Christian were so hated in the early centuries, because they believe the individual had a divine source and had a degree of sovereignty
and individual worth. Concepts which were not exactly valued by the residing culture of the time.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

My second point is stupid, but is a solid point.

can we take a moment to just... really take in the amount of hoops your jumping through? Those two phrases do not go together in the slightest.

All real people who had much better advice on how to go about life than Marx. Marx was a propaganda writer, as was his friend Engals, who he ended up upsetting greatly, as their friendship was not all peachy keen.

first half is subjective. Second half I don't understand the issue. Are you saying politics is bad? that propganda is bad? What's next? Political memes are bad? is that the point your making???

As I stated, he/they were supported by the order which had formed a good 100 years or so before Marx and Englals were ever born.

Yeah, the environment has a big influence on what you do. Your point?

He was bad with money and he didn't want to work

Okay now this is just really stupid.
Boss/manager:
I want you to work 70 hours a week, no questions
Me: that's really stupid
Boss: you don't eat then.
Can you blame me for not wanting to work in those conditions? Or are you going to say "well you don't want to work, sucks for you"
Because that's the conditions they were dealing with. (except most definitely substantially worse)
yeah back then factory work was hitting it strive and there was zero protections

 

[XDel]

can we take a moment to just... really take in the amount of hoops your jumping through? Those two phrases do not go together in the slightest.

Ha ha, I meant to write that my point was not stupid, rather than it was stupid.

first half is subjective. Second half I don't understand the issue. Are you saying politics is bad? that propganda is bad? What's next? Political memes are bad? is that the point your making???

The first half is not subjective, it is about what has gotten results, and what has not. And yes, of course I am anti-propaganda, because propaganda would mean that you are trying to convince me of something without pointing out the cons with the alleged pros. As for memes, they can be funny, but to make a religion out of politics would be foolish, yes.

Yeah, the environment has a big influence on what you do. Your point?

Okay now this is just really stupid.
Boss/manager:
I want you to work 70 hours a week, no questions
Me: that's really stupid
Boss: you don't eat then.
Can you blame me for not wanting to work in those conditions? Or are you going to say "well you don't want to work, sucks for you"
Because that's the conditions they were dealing with. (except most definitely substantially worse)
yeah back then factory work was hitting it strive and there was zero protections

The environment? No, by order I am talking about the group of men who supported him behind the scenes, I hate to use the term because it has such a bad wrap, but their order was based in Illuminism. If you would like to know more about that, then I would whole heatedly suggest you check out the book, Fire In The Minds Of Men By James H. Billington, he was the Librarian of Congress for a number of years, so you know, not exactly dime store material. Probably the best book on history that you'll read in a long long long time, I can assure you!!! It will strike your interest!

As for work, I am with you, I don't want to work 70 hours either, but let's say I had no choice, let's say there was no where for me to go, and I could not say pirate and sell movies and such off the internet for a living because of copyright laws, then what? Go live in the wilderness? But all the winderness has been privatized. OK, so how about national parks you say, I'll go live in one of them, well if they had not been claimed by the U.N. years ago, and locked down in the name of GREEN FRIENDLINESS, then you would have to contend with nature, and you would have to have the skills to survive, know what to eat, avoid being eaten, conquer the elements, and so forth.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

And yes, of course I am anti-propaganda, because propaganda would mean that you are trying to convince me of something without pointing out the cons with the alleged pros.

So... you don't view this discussion as not propaganda? The modern term of propganda has more so involved to include anything political or vouching for a side. May it be an argument, a fact, half truth and so on. You yourself have technically disseminated propaganda have you not? sure, it's you and I talking, but this is not in a dm. this in a form thread for others to read.
It's how that propganda is used, and what it's being used for. If a nazi made propganda about jews being bad (which has happened) then naturally, that's bad propaganda. Not in the sense of effectiveness but morality speaking. since the statement and what they argue for, is unethical and is usually untrue or half truth. however what marx argues is not untrue. It's how he went to solve it that needs work. Right problem, issues with implementation

 

[XDel]

Y

So... you don't view this discussion as not propaganda? The modern term of propganda has more so involved to include anything political or vouching for a side. May it be an argument, a fact, half truth and so on. You yourself have technically disseminated propaganda have you not? sure, it's you and I talking, but this is not in a dm. this in a form thread for others to read.
It's how that propganda is used, and what it's being used for. If a nazi made propganda about jews being bad (which has happened) then naturally, that's bad propaganda. Not in the sense of effectiveness but morality speaking. since the statement and what they argue for, is unethical and is usually untrue or half truth. however what marx argues is not untrue. It's how he went to solve it that needs work. Right problem, issues with implementation

Semantics aside, yes I'm saying Just be up front about where you stand and I see no propaganda or rather deceitfulness at all, but merely an honest effort to persuade through conversation. No tricks up your sleeve, none up mine.
That said I am not a friend of modern marketing, it is both unfairly seductive in that it's all persuasiveness, and exceptionally dishonest.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

That said I am not a friend of modern marketing, it is both unfairly seductive in that it's all persuasiveness, and exceptionally dishonest.

that I agree with.
Moving back somewhat to earlier. Marx made critics that are fairly valid. But as the first person to popularize those critiques (and who also choose to use it. cough cough lennism is gross cough) it's naturally going to have pitfalls until it's further refined. Issue with that is... well... United States and conflicts with other socialist countries, that usually ends up with socialist country's government being in shambles. and to refine it, it requires additional attempts. Same with democracy. you make changes and edits to the base, and what others have changed in hopes it's better

 

[XDel]

that I agree with.
Moving back somewhat to earlier. Marx made critics that are fairly valid. But as the first person to popularize those critiques (and who also choose to use it. cough cough lennism is gross cough) it's naturally going to have pitfalls until it's further refined. Issue with that is... well... United States and conflicts with other socialist countries, that usually ends up with socialist country's government being in shambles. and to refine it, it requires additional attempts. Same with democracy. you make changes and edits to the base, and what others have changed in hopes it's better

I won't deny that Marx made some valid points, even Hitler had some sane things to say, not to mention Charles Manson of all people, not to compare them to Marx or anything, but you get my point. And yes, some people took his ideas and built upon them, strayed from them, etc. In fact Marx would not consider many people today Marxist who claim to be Marxist, though the core of the philosophy is usually in tact if anything, at least in regards to breaking down all of reality into materialistic value systems.

The thing is though that while we bumble along, and occasionally get things right, we forget that we don't invent the truth as we go along, the truth is always there for us to discover or re-discover. The problem is though is that as a species we run away from truth more than we run towards it. Most of us can't handle the truth about our self compared to our Self, let alone the hows and whys of the world.