Message from @Jamin
Discord ID: 673270329543753761
"b-b-but that wasn't real communism!"
The way Communism promotes Collectivism is bad.
I once asked a commie and he told me that "real communism" is a global collective or soem shit
I would argue that Stalin was more practical in that he mostly sought to establish it in the Soviet Union.
Communism is largely "failed ideology " because Marx was inconsistent in his hagelianism.
he also mentioned that it's anarchist which just won't work
in the sense Stalin's cult of personality is more practical.
i am not a fan ideologically but i think that despite stalin's marxist vision of theworld he furthered the interests of the russian ppl which is based
communism has never been tried
Be gone thots
go away
all the "communist states" are socialism gone wrong
Marx stressed centralization before eradicating government
erradicating state
not government dumbass
@Small Man No adhom.
shut up dildo face
dildo face
lol
@Small Man Last warning. Ad hom in <#587028275918929925>, <#588205956039442452> and <#587029563863990282> isn't allowed.
anyways he never talked about eradicating the state but rather that the state will naturally cease to exist for it will have no purpose anymore
Hey
@battlegoth5 <#587115763106840576>
Now that's just disrespectful
I think Communism is a horrible system that's only aim is to mix together all the people under it's control, and to destroy the enemy of the Jews. If I were Lenin, Stalin or any other (likely Jewish) Communist leader, I would dismantle it all. I also think it is obvious that Communism is on the rise again, even tho it's the most shittiest kind of Communism, but I remain calm in the fact that when Communism rises, so does Fascism and National Socialism.
That made me hard.
lol
The problem with communism is materialist conception of history as class struggle, it’s reduction of man to just an economic status and the fact that throughout history all it has done is destroy cultures in the same way capitalism does. Communism is not the correct alternative to communism because it does not correct the primary disfunction of capitalism, it’s materialism.
@WΣIRD NΣTWØRK ϟϟ communism is not “on the rise” that’s ridiculous. China is the furthest thing from communism, and most of the “communists” today especially in the US are just liberals dressing up in red. The few that actually are communist are more worried about not misgendering each other than actually starting a working class revolution and aren’t taken seriously by the majority of the working class. The threat is global capitalism and neo-liberalism. Stop buying into old Cold War propaganda
Yes, but you're not seeing the threats on rise. US Liberals are the new Communists, as well as Antifa and all the other Ancoms. The threat isn't their ability to actually organize anything serious, it's the fact of their rampant violence against any who even slightly disagree with them. I agree the global capitalism and neo-liberalism are both threats, but I believe that they are possibly even threats to modern Communism.
US liberals are not "the new communists." America as a country is literally built of liberalism and the values it espouses. Either you misunderstand what communism is or you misunderstand what liberalism is. "Antifa and all other Ancoms" are again, not taken seriously by the majority of the working class, literally the people they are trying to appeal to. As well as this all they end up doing in reality is re-enforcing the status quo. They are incapable of brining real fundamental change
We are no longer in the cold war. You need to understand this if you want to evoke actual change and rid the world of materialist disease and the systems that stem from it
Reminder that the American Antifa branch occupied the New York subway yesterday to make public transport free and to suspend cops from the subways
antifa is racist
Anybody who calls himself a socialist in the United States is most likely what Sorel called parliamentary socialist
Ie a libtard soc dem or anarchist sperg
I have more respect for state socialist however their ideology is a complete paradox. They take the position of Marx which is based on individualistic ontology like liberalism because it argues the individual is pre-existing state and the point of the theory is to destroy the state internationally because it holds “capitalist relations”. Obviously putting communes or worker councils with state oversight means the state bureaucrats are going to eventually run the economic sector and then you end up with something like modern China a corporate technocratic system, which is insanely superior to liberal free markets.
The fundamental problem with socialism in its current form is liberal ontology. If you get rid of liberal ontology and materialism you will end up with something more analogous to mercantilism or Guilds.
Possession is the act of possessing. Property is the act of ownership as recognized by law.
Law is administered and is a function of a judiciary and legal system maintained by a political organisation. Custom is collectively acknowledged conduct in accordance with authority (implicitly or explicitly.)
But why would these concepts be conflated so much by all modern political theory from the 1600s to the present? Again, Hodgson notes the connection between such opposites as Marx and Mises on page 105 and page 106:
“Consider the Austrian school economist Ludwig Von Mises. He argued that legal concepts could be largely relegated from economics and sociology…
Hence for Von Mises, ownership was natural and ahistorical rather than legal or institutional. A physical rather than a social relationship, it was deemed independent of law or any other social institution. Von Mises downgraded the institutions required for the protection and enforcement of the capacity to have and neglected the social aspects of ownership and consumption, which may signal identity, power, or status. Contrary to Mises, the law does not simply add a normative justification for having something: it also reinforces the de facto ability to use and hold onto the asset.