Has anyone actually read any theory?

Never said that. It's my fault for not elaborating.
Except that's not the goal for socialists, both Marxists and non-Marxists.

>Communism is unpractical except in small autonomous communities. Period.

then just have a federation of communes, like communists want to do

> it just replaces one overlord class with another

communism is a stateless moneyless classless society

>have fifty small communes
>a warlord bands together ten and conquers all other tiny communes

Whoops.

>stateless moneyless classless society
And that's where the human nature argument comes into play. A nice dream, but not very realistic at this point.

>Except that's not the goal for socialists
The socialist stage will naturally lead into communism in time.
You cant 'do' communism, you have to do socialism and then wait for it to create communism for you. Just like you cant 'do' socialism, it is created eventually when capitalism has ran its course, which in turn can only come about after feudalism, etc.

Its progressive, you cant directly do any of these systems, you can only nudge the conditions forward.

>voluntarily reading Jewish propaganda

It's a fantasy, a simply story that's only applicable by a case-to-case basis. It's not a fucking foundation to all of human existence.

You've chosen to believe instead of seeing reality with your own eyes. Remove yourself from the gene pool and kys.

Kapital, What is To Be Done, State and Revolution. Its still shit.

>a simple story
Fixed.

Except Marx explicitly stated otherwise.

I already know that stuff. That's the basic of basics. What I meant is most people who believe in some form of marxism or just general socialists are people who think we can copy the scandinavian model and apply it to other countries like the US and expect the same type of utopia. As for informed communists, their goal is to achieve what you're describing - statelessness through state authority. I simply think it will never happen.

>human nature

read mutual aid, a factor in evolution by Pyotr Kropotkin, its the works of a scientist explaining how human nature works

>human nature argument
le epic reddit man here to school everyone

The vast majority of human existence was stateless moneyless and classless. These are things that were invented when we invented agriculture, we required these tools to make use of agriculture as it necessitated a social structure we were not used to in our hunter gatherer phase.

The entirety of the past several thousand years, as well as our socialist future, are all simply a transitional phase as we fully adapt and internalize agriculture into our natural human society. Once we have gone through all the steps we will return to our pre-agricultural small communities while enjoying the full benefits of modern technology and industry with out needing to have larger structures than the community.

You claim to have read theory but you miss one of the most basic and underlying principals of historical materialism.

Even before agriculture we had classes, are you retarded? How do you think the tribe decided to move to the next location? Did they all just argue forever? No. There were chieftains, shamans, people in charge.

>scandinavian model
thats capitalism, no socialist thinks otherwise. Those are liberals using their new liberal definition of socialism to try and lead people away from actual socialism.

No

I read like 1 page from a marxist book in powells book store in portland oregon when i was there for work

I laughed and put the book down

It eluded to people only buying a house or a car to "one up" their neighbor, and that the motive force of capitalism is "one-ups-manship". It shows who these people really are, how sick their very souls are that they could only imagine such a behavior as selfish. Their imaginative capacity is a reflection of nothing but themselves. Marxists are evil, and thats why they cant see good in things.

in a communist society conquest doesn't make any sense, there is no reason to do that, what you just said would never happen

>implying i'm some kind of neolib or neocon from r*ddit
don't even have an account

You are expanding the definition of class to mean any form of hierarchy. Class is production class. It is your position within the relation of production, that's what class means when a marxist says it.

>Has anyone actually read any theory?

What would be the point in reading theory about work from someone who never worked or had a job?
Its like reading a virgin Yas Forumstards theory on sexual interaction. Its got no solid foundation of experience.

Ah yes. Because no one would ever do something evil, or for greed, right? We're exactly like ants who work together for the common good of the nest.

Because that's what it means. If you think the guy making something is in a different class than the guy who owns the business even if their economic situations are similar, you're retarded.

Communism wont happen untill this is impossible. The world that socialism develops removes the motivations to do this. By the time communism comes along the things that drive people to these sorts of conflict will have been abolished by creating local self sustainability for every group.

An absolute fairy tale then. Even if we eventually reached some sort of reality bending method of obtaining infinite resources, people still want to be on top. People will still fight for who's the one in charge.

Yes, in his letters between Lenin and Engels around the time of the First International.

Nobody cares. These autistic mental gymnastics are why nobody gives a shit about Marx and his theories. Not to mention his background. Communism will most likely never be achieved. Not to be a globohomo-shlomo but it's true.

>MARX IS THE ONLY LEFTIST THEORY EVER
damn big brain take. Also adam smith never had one and he was and still is a msaaive influence on capitalist theeory

>in a communist society conquest doesn't make any sense, there is no reason to do that

What if the capitalist country next door is totally out competing you and everyone in your country is miserable and desperate to escape the hell you have created for them?

this. Wasted too much time on that stupid shit.

It has nothing to do with how much wealth or luxury any specific person has, it has to do with who is subordinate.

A person could own a factory and pay the workers almost all of the profits, paying them better than he pays himself, and only himself living in poverty. He is still a capitalist and the workers are still the workers if he has the capacity to fire them, if they must be subordinate to him, if he decides what the factory makes and not them.

It is not any individual, individuals dont even exist. It is the MECHANISM and STRUCTURE of capitalism that causes its problems. The existence of capitalists and workers as a social relationship is what the problem is, not any specific capitalist.

>Because that's what it means.
but it literally isnt when it comes to topic of marxism.
the term "class" has a specific meaning in marxist theory, just like "libertarian order" has a specific meaning in hoppean theory. you dont get to change it.

You dont need infinite resources, you need only enough resources.

People fight because they have to. They are driven to it out of concern for their own security. Make everyone secure and nobody will fight.

We see this already, people are happy to complain about everything, but nothing is ever done as long as they have a bed to sleep in and a roof over their head. Its only when they start feeling at risk of dying that they act.

>stateless moneyless classless society
>I'm a materialist I swear to god

I have it but haven't read it

Yes, was a lefty for years and went through all of it. The right has pretty decent theories aswell, although it is much less depended on it - not that anyone on this board would know or care

>mental gymnastics
The definition of class was well established. A hundred years ago anyone would know what it means.
Its you who are using some twisted definition designed to meet the goals of the twister.

This is actually a bretty good post.

>human nature
marxism literally depends on human nature, it is the basis of historical materialim

What? Who fucking cares?

Some old dead commie fucking Jew fuck him.

Attached: 1486340419205.jpg (349x356, 23.23K)

I can tell you right now people don't fight because they "Have to". I'd kill you in an instant if it meant I'd be officially declared King. Just for the title, and because you're an idiot.

yea but i don’t waste my time on marx

>What if the capitalist country next door is totally out competing you and everyone in your country is miserable and desperate to escape the hell you have created for them?

the USSR was a 3th world country when it began, it turned into one of the most powerful nations in the world in decades

>Ah yes. Because no one would ever do something evil, or for greed, right?

read mutual aid by Pyotr Kropotkin, we in Europe are at peace with each other right now, that any large scale conflict would break out with the people you trade with is unrealistic

and you just walk right into it. this shit is too easy.

>ask a communist how can you calculate the value of a good in absence of a market economy
>wait for the responses
>kek hard
Try it, guise, works like a charm every time.

>what are trade wars
>what are corrupt politicians

If you marxists think people are so willing to turn against their employers just because they're "Not the same" as them. Do you really think people aren't willing to turn against others with entirely different cultures and languages?

Materialism means physical reality exists irrespective of us and our conceptualization of it is derived from our perception of it.

It might seem obvious but you would be surprised how many idealists exists.

All his work together comes out to a boorish equivocation of his very Jewish hatred for mankind, and the ways of man.

Cuz Jews ain't men, and don't follow a man's ways.

>"The USSR turned into one of the most powerful nations in decades!"

And yet, the USSR fell, and the USA is doing better than ever.

Only because being king represents security to you.
Within our current social structure nobody is fully secure. The desire to obtain more than you need is just the desire to build up a rainy day fund of sorts. Its ingrained due to generations of exposure to insecurity.

Doesn't really matter. He was wrong about his main brain child, communism. I've spent hours listening to commies. They seem to think their end goal is a stateless, classless society. This is entirely unachievable, mainly because you need the force of a state to get equality. Libertarian lefties are living in a fantasy land. Tankies and Nazbol have it more right, simply because equality is in line with an authoritarian state. Equality is unnatural construct that needs to be enforced. "Real" communism shall never come to fruition.

>better than ever

equality doesn't mean what you think it does
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

>equality is in line with an authoritarian state.
Which is why the US is becoming totalitarian.

>what are corrupt politicians
>what is stateless

>f you marxists think people are so willing to turn against their employers just because they're "Not the same" as them.

we are not against them for not being the same as us, we are against them for what they do

>And yet, the USSR fell

corruption, the USSR was far from perfect, which just goes to show that even a failure for communism is still a huge success compared to capitalism

>and the USA is doing better than ever

Attached: lenin disepointed.png (126x200, 50.55K)

Projecting your vision of an utopian society based on XIX century's materialistic conceptions is, per se, an act of idealism. The hegelian youth never overcame christian morality and neither did Marx.

Surprisingly still better than USSR did.

(Source: me being born and living for a long time in post-soviet country as well as actual father who was part of nomenklatura **he worked in KGB**)

Its impractical overall. It has no conflict resolution except to rely on peoples feels or threats if violence from an authoritarian state, resource distribution is arbitrary and based on the subjective whim if a small group that needs authoritarian power to enact it OR is a chaotic mess of people voting to give themselves more of what their neighbor has. The labor theory of value that permeates all his writings are easily refutable (putting labor into something no one wants, putting too much labor in when it can be done better with less, ironically overvaluing/undervaluing peoples labor which affirms that value is subjective, etc)

Marx was a neet who lived off an allowance from his parents.

>the USSR was a 3th world country when it began

The USSR was never a third world country by definition.
A first world country is one that was on the side of the western powers during the cold war.
A second world country is one that was on the side of the soviet powers during the cold war (protip the USSR was on the side of the soviets)
A third world country is one that was too poor to be on either side of the cold war.

If your saying the USSR was poor I would agree with you. But it was poorer (relative to the rest of the world) under communism than it was under the Tzars. Because the period after the wars the whole world got richer but capitalist countries got way way richer than communist countries.

No, it isn't about security. Even if it was just a title people had to call me, and had no powers or privileges, I'd take it just so people had to call me King. I want that kind of shit.

Better than the USSR at least.

If you don't have a leader, you can't control a police force or an army. If you don't have an army or a police force, your country will disappear as soon as someone wants to take it for themselves.

>against them for what they do
So if I offer a guy 5 bucks to mow my lawn he's somehow now a slave under me and I'm an evil mastermind?

>usa is doing better than ever
Yes, compared to the USSR. Which fell.