Latest users (3): asotil, loomiss, youregaylol, anonymous(17).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2483 - arisaka (06/27/2012) [-]
I am a Marxist.

What most of you think you know about communism is wrong. Very wrong. Here are some Marxist truths:

>marxian communism was based off of an analysis of history and a scientific approach to it
>marxian communists are opposed to the state and are very libertarian
>lenin and all of his asshole friends weren't marxists
>communist parties are anti-communist because marxists disagree strongly with reform socialism
>communists reject the notion of nationality
>political power in the hands of any governing body is abolished; we view political power as a means of one organized class for oppressing another

Most of the people on this board have no idea what Marx was talking about or have even read anything he's written. I wrote a short essay and posted it here earlier describing the differences between Leninism and Marxism, I don't know how many of you have read it.

If there are any other legitimate Marxists out there, post here and discuss things Marx would be proud of. Ask questions about things you are unsure of and generally have a hoot of a time.

Pic related, it's Guy Debord, probably the most important Marxist writer next to Marx himself.
#2572 to #2483 - summersalt **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2587 to #2572 - arisaka (06/28/2012) [-]
Well, it will take time. Capitalism will have to run its course, and will eventually bring death to itself. Marx has written far too much to just simply explain on a funny junk political board
#2590 to #2587 - summersalt **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2593 to #2590 - arisaka (06/28/2012) [-]
Except for the Misanthrope part.
#2594 to #2593 - summersalt **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2592 to #2590 - arisaka (06/28/2012) [-]
You and I are alike in many ways.
User avatar #2550 to #2483 - techketzer (06/28/2012) [-]
I don't care what name you put on it or what claims you make.
Steer clear or aggression, and we'll get along nicely.

The minute you exact force or even violence against other people, you are my enemy.
User avatar #2591 to #2550 - arisaka (06/28/2012) [-]
Every single one of my actions is out of love and compassion. I will not use violence to push my ideas on anyone because I won't be better than my enemies; I'll only become them. I move with the proletarian movement, I support it and accelerate it; but I will not force it.
#2571 to #2550 - summersalt **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#2525 to #2483 - thesageteffect (06/28/2012) [-]
Marxism isn't wrong, it is foolish. It is impossible to have a state without someone in power, and if you try to create one like that then someone will always find a way to power. It is better to have a state where you grant someone power but ensure that it is limited by the people.

If Marxism ever worked, it would be near-Utopian. But without a government, who pays the police, and without the police, who stops crimes? Crime aren't only motivated by oppression, after all. That's just an example.
User avatar #2646 to #2525 - arisaka (06/29/2012) [-]
Also, Marx took a scientific approach to history and applied the Hegelian dialect which led him to his theories; they are not utopian because they have a huge foundation based on a scientific process. Marx wasn't just some stupid kid on his computer chair without any prior knowledge of anything, you know. The guy was a goddamn genius, along with his colleges and most of his followers. (The ones who contributed to Marxist theory, etc.)
User avatar #2645 to #2525 - arisaka (06/29/2012) [-]
You're talking about post-revolutuonary life as if pre-revolutionary social constraints still had relevance.
#2681 to #2645 - arisaka has deleted their comment [-]
#2655 to #2645 - thesageteffect (06/29/2012) [-]
So a post-revolutionary society wouldn't have crime, or people who want power, or deceit to gain power? That's human nature. No type of government can change human nature, it can only dampen its effects. Even in a classless, Marxist society, there would still be crime, there would still be hate, and there would certainly still be people who wanted to gain power over their peers (money is just one manifestation of that desire). The difference is that there would be no governing force to stop them.
User avatar #2682 to #2655 - arisaka (06/29/2012) [-]
Human nature changes with the surrounding social conditions. That is human nature under capitalism.

Linear human nature does not exist.
User avatar #2504 to #2483 - FuckingMagnets (06/28/2012) [-]
How do you plan on making a society where the workers control the means of production if there is no vanguard party to spread class consciousness and get the ball rolling. In theory, the socialist phase is to eliminate the bourgeoisie, and when the class is eliminated, the state would absolve.

You would consider yourself an anarcho-communist or left communist right? Do you think Lenin was just an opportunist?
User avatar #2507 to #2504 - arisaka (06/28/2012) [-]
I am simply a Marxist of the most traditional fashion.
User avatar #2505 to #2504 - arisaka (06/28/2012) [-]
I am a Marxist. Lenin was wrong.

Lenin was an opportunist, and many of his ideas differed strongly from traditional Marxism and that is why he failed. Class consciousness will be achieved by its own and all a vanguard party is, is just another bourgeois institution. The Russian revolution was not a proletarian one.
User avatar #2508 to #2505 - FuckingMagnets (06/28/2012) [-]
If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years.
- Vladimir Lenin

Is this an elitest statement, or just a realistic one? By "intellectual development" he doesn't mean that the workers aren't smart, but that they don't have the means of educating themselves about their situation.
User avatar #2510 to #2508 - arisaka (06/28/2012) [-]
And when I say state, I mean the vanguard party that acts on behalf of the people, which is why Leninism is closer to reformist politics than radical politics. If the Vanguard party must act on behalf of the people then it's clear that the conditions were not yet ready for the revolution. It is supposed to be the mass proletarian movement that overthrows the bourgeois; not bourgeois overthrowing the bourgeois.
User avatar #2511 to #2510 - FuckingMagnets (06/28/2012) [-]
Right, but Russia wasn't industrialized. Lenin wasn't trying to establish communist society, but rather do all he could to help the situation until an industrialized society like Germany had a revolution. Then Russia would be helped in industrializing. I'm not a Marxist-Leninist by any means. I lean toward Trotskyism. At least he believed in international proletarianism. I believe, excluding some south american revolutionaries, anything post Lenin/Trotsky is damaging to socialism.
User avatar #2512 to #2511 - arisaka (06/28/2012) [-]
Trotsky formed the red army. You know who hates soldiers?


Anyways, that article basically disproves Lenin and all of his comrades. Trotsky was better than Lenin, but not by much.
User avatar #2509 to #2508 - arisaka (06/28/2012) [-]
A bit of both. Lenin believed that the people didn't have the time to learn marxism.

Marx viewed communism as a historical period, and that the natural development of capitalism would lead to it's downfall. No vanguard party is necessary.

Class consciousness can be spread by individuals, but Lenin's interpretations of this, manifested into a vanguard party, was very un-marxist because it puts political power in the hands of the state; the vanguard is a coalition of upper classmen doing upper class things. I urge you to read Rosa Luxemburg's article, "Leninism or Marxism." It's a very strong critique of Leninism.
User avatar #2491 to #2483 - airguitar (06/28/2012) [-]
Please tell me why you didn't mention Friedrich Engels even once. It is often debated who contributed more to the communist movement. Many scholars even suggest that Marx was a leach of Engels work. I understand you might not consider this the case, but why not mention him at least once?

In addition, I am strongly libertarian. My favorite economists are Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, and F.A. Hayek. Libertarian beliefs are that for people to perform their best there must be highly valued incentives (usually money). In a libertarian society there must be strong property rights, inheritance, and intellectual rights. Libertarians think that men only become wealthy by providing goods and services to others that are valued. I believe even pure Marx/ Engels theory varies vastly from libertarian-ism in these aspects, key ones at that.

Please respond to the first paragraph as my request then respond to the second at your own leisure. I look forward to hearing your response, even though I strongly appose non-capitalist systems, I would very much like to have a discussion.
User avatar #2492 to #2491 - arisaka (06/28/2012) [-]
Yeah, sorry about that. Yes, Engels did contribute a lot. I really enjoy reading Engels as Much as I do Marx, it's just that Marx is more mentioned, that's all. And as for my comment on Guy Debord, I should put Engels in his spot and Guy Debord afterwards.

It was just me, really. I do acknowledge Engels' contribution to Marx's work and to the development of Marxist theory. The Condition of the Working Class of England is very much as important as The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, and 'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific' is extremely important in defending Marxism.

And when I spoke of Libertarianism, I just meant more freedom, considering most people think that communism = giant state controlling everything.
User avatar #2499 to #2492 - airguitar (06/28/2012) [-]
I can't pretend I know a ton about communism, I merely have written a term paper on. That paper ended up being more pro-capitalism than anti-communism too. It was during my research period that I realized that Engels contributed A LOT more than people give him credit for, I was amazed at how many more times "Marx" is mentioned on the communism wiki page. There are several problems I have with communism, I will outline them. I need to go for the night afterwards though:

- Human nature. I am a strong believer that capitalism is the best system because it aligns the best with human nature. Communism is not one that aligns with human nature in my opinion because it requires the value you earn through work to be distributed. If people were naturally prone to give their own wealth to others, then why must taxes be mandatory? Wouldn't people just give away their money to others if it was human nature to do so?

- Hayek argument. There is no way to replicate a market. Correct me if I am wrong, but the ideal Marxist society would be money-less and resources would be distributed based one need. The problem is, in a money less system there is no way for the suppliers to know how much demand there is. In addition, market signals that would be translated by price changes can not occur without a market economy (ask me if you do not know what I am saying and want me to elaborate).

- 3rd and last point I'll make. Motivation to work hard and innovate. In a capitalist society the hard works and creative individuals get rewarded for their efforts with wealth. This is because the goods and service that result of their talents are desired by others who are willing to give them wealth. However, in a communist society you are not rewarded for working harder than your fellow man. You also don't have incentive to create great new innovations. Without these innovations, over a long period of time a communist society will fall far far behind a free-market one.
User avatar #2502 to #2499 - arisaka (06/28/2012) [-]
Marx wrote quite a bit about your 3rd point.
User avatar #2501 to #2499 - arisaka (06/28/2012) [-]
1) Marxists argue that human nature is non-linear and is subjective to surroundings and the current social conditions. People become greedy and selfish because the system we live in creates the situation that makes them so.

2) A large scale census takes care of that. Instead of transforming wants into needs, simply ask people what they want.

3) Marxism allows people to develop themselves as people by giving human beings the ability to peruse their passions and desires without financial boundaries. The diversity of the human race will fill the roles of the labor market. Capitalism tries to base the entire human race on it's most productive subjects but forgets to realize that people are different and their capabilities are not the same and punishes people based on that notion.

Capitalism alienates people more than it frees. Capitalism does not inspire people to work; it forces people to sell their labor power like they are objects in order to survive. Also, the smaller capitalists are the ones who come up with new ways to exploit various new industries, but it is the big capitalists who further develop them. The majority of the people with ideas fall to the hands of venture capitalists everywhere.

Not to mention that every invention relies on a lot of things that have been invented in the past, correct? A computer uses a multitude of parts that were developed by other people. Every achievement is a collective achievement.
User avatar #2503 to #2501 - airguitar (06/28/2012) [-]
Very good points, these are of the better counter arguments I have had worded in response. I really need to go though I will respond tomorrow/later in the day. I want to write this comment to praise you on a good argument (although I don't agree with the fundamental mindset you provided and have a feeling neither of us are going to gain any ground in this conversation, still it will be fun).
User avatar #2506 to #2503 - arisaka (06/28/2012) [-]
Aye, this is what a healthy debate is like. It's not even a debate, really. This is pretty much what I intended when I originally posted. At the end of the day I don't expect to change anyone's political ideology (I do want to bring about class consciousness but we're on an fj political board, come on, right?) and I know I probably won't.

Marxism can be viewed by non marxists as a historical wonder, so there's always that!
User avatar #2528 to #2506 - airguitar (06/28/2012) [-]
Well I have conjured up many counter arguments in my mind but before responding I would like you to explain to me something. So how does economic planning work in your Marxist scenario? I am an economics major, so the economics, incentives, and freedoms of the structure are my focus. I understand that the communist revolution is one where everyone overthrows a current regime in an effort to create a classless, money-less, communal society. Still, there needs to be some sort of planning. I guess this is a hole in my knowledge of communism but I still always thought there would be a central planner that would attempt to allocate the resources. Obviously this existed (terribly) in the USSR, but I never considered that Marxist anyway. However, how can a factory in a Marxist society know how much of something to produce?

Currently, accountants and financial analysts do that using the price system and other messages from supply and demand. However, it becomes much much more difficult to gauge supply and demand once money is abolished. Who then does the planning for these factories and how? To avoid surplus and shortages I mean to say.
User avatar #2567 to #2528 - arisaka (06/28/2012) [-]
Also, hat tip to you for not considering the USSR a communist society.
User avatar #2695 to #2567 - airguitar (06/29/2012) [-]
Sorry for not responding so long. I wrote a two paragraph response yesterday but was feeling sick of politics so I just didn't respond.
User avatar #2697 to #2695 - airguitar (06/30/2012) [-]
Well it would honestly be silly to consider the USSR a real communist country. If you don't even consider the differences in how the movement was supposed to occur- there was so so much corruption in the USSR that it was completely impossible for it to be considered one. For example, my favorite professor was born in the USSR and she wrote a book on the topic. In it she used texts talking about how much different some officer's "A Rations" were compared to normal people's "B or C Rations"- that is an obvious indicator of a failed system where people are supposed to be equal.

With that said, I still don't think the Marxist ideology is based in this world. I don't totally discard your 1st point, I agree that if a society is built upon community and is absent of greedy individuals- the people will act much different in general. However, I think you are making a very very tough argument to say it is not a persisting element of human nature. Greed, or "family-interest" as I like to call it, has always existed in man kind. Even in times of barbarians and hunters & gatherers, people were much more concerned about themselves and their families that the people around them. Even working together or giving to charity can be viewed as acts of self-interest as well. Why do you give to charity? Because it makes YOU feel good about it. Sure, the act doesn't directly benefit you, but the only reason people give to or help others is because it makes them feel like a better human and makes them happier. I think it is very difficult to find a point in time or scientific study where it is shown that interest for ones self and their family is eliminated.

I also want to emphasize that this is not only an inherent characteristic of human nature- but one of ALL animals. Animals act with a me-first mentality. An Animal may work in a group, but only because it benefits itself. Personally, I think it is an absurd statement to say that greed is caused by one's environment.
User avatar #2963 to #2697 - arisaka (07/02/2012) [-]
Not all animals function in the same social system. Wolves versus Badgers, for example. One of them is a very social animal, the other is more introverted.

Hunter Gatherers were much more communal than you think; Marxists writers used them (as well as Marx himself) In a lot of their arguments, especially in the topic of the "Essence of Man."

Food was collected and distributed by need. Commodities were not produced, etc.
User avatar #2989 to #2963 - airguitar (07/03/2012) [-]
I would still argue that both the wolf and the badger still have greedy instincts, to protect their children and value their child's life above any other. This is "greed". Anytime you value your own life above someone else's- that's greed and that involves the same principle as greed. Even if they were communal practices in hunter & gatherer times, I think you will be VERY hard pressed to say there wasn't greed.

The Smithsonian here in D.C. recounts the inception of government during these hunter & gatherer times (10,000 or so years ago). This creation of government formed due to greed, since when agriculture was discovered one person wanted their crops protected so that other could not eat the plants the grew (I typed the story out originally but it was really long so I summarized it).

Now even if it is possible to have a world like this, I don't think it is credible to base a system for society on the grounds that "we can change human nature". Very honestly, I think this notion is fairy tale-like. Unless you can scientifically prove that humans can act without greed in a controlled environment, then I do not value that argument at all. I would say you need to deal with the current conditions of society, and communism can not work in any sense unless all of the citizens, every single one, is absent of greed.
User avatar #3014 to #2989 - arisaka (07/03/2012) [-]
Free Territory Ukraine, good sir.
User avatar #3157 to #3014 - airguitar (07/06/2012) [-]
Reply here I guess? I prefer these discussions to be in comment form because they're easier to find/ aren't removed after 30 days.
User avatar #3164 to #3157 - arisaka (07/06/2012) [-]
Alright. Well, I think that human nature is always subjected to their surroundings and that greed is born out of the capitalist (or general slave-master relationship) system and when it is replaced greed will vanish with it. When what you need is supplied to you there isn't a reason to 'take'. It's kind of a complicated system and I don't have the time to really dish out one of marx's long and important treatises. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
User avatar #3176 to #3164 - airguitar (07/06/2012) [-]
I understand the concept, I do, I just think it is much too far from reality to even become even partially true. Not only would you need all the people of the Marxist nation to be completely devoid of greed- but you would also need everyone in the WORLD to be. The reason being is exactly what I mentioned, one greedy person can fuck up the entire system. What if, for example, the Czech Republic became an ideal Marxist state. We will use your theory and say that everyone here is completely and entirely non-greedy. What happens though, if someone from another country enters Czech, legally or not, and starts taking advantage of the peaceful communal society? They proclaim that they "need" more resources than they actually NEED to comfortably live. They steal, take advantage of people, and sell the resources they produce to other countries that DO use money. Like I have been arguing this could dismantle the system on a minor extent, but if this greedy individual raises their children similarly, the problem multiplies.

That is the reason I believe every single person in the world would have to fit the non-greedy mold for it to work. Also, there are always people who do not follow the normal trends of society. For example, there are people who live in the most competitive cities of the world who are not concerned about self-interest. Even if most people transitioned into a communal mentality, I don't think you could ever change everyone- which I believe you would need.
User avatar #3217 to #3176 - arisaka (07/06/2012) [-]
Marx proclaimed that the proletarian revolution would be international and all at once, or followed very closely after one another after class consciousness was achieved.

I understand where you are coming from though; if said individual was still living under the capitalist system and for some reason migrated to said marxist nation. (Which I doubt he'd do because he's a capitalist.)
User avatar #3222 to #3217 - airguitar (07/06/2012) [-]
Alright then, we're in agreement then. For the whole world to have a revolution would be extreme though, especially in 3rd world countries where people can not understand the goal or 1st world countries where people love their current system (like myself). It is supposed to be a peaceful revolution for the proletariat- how can that happen if the majority of the proletariat of a country, say America (because we have a reason-less hate for communism) do not want revolution? I just don't think you can achieve that complete overhaul.

I've been portraying capitalists as bad people, which in general I don't believe they are at all. I have been portraying them as extremely greedy because there ARE people like that. There is always someone willing to take advantage of a system, that is why I know few greedy individuals could undermine an entire system.

Now a point I have wanted to make since the beginning, lazy people: I have a friend who is incredibly lazy. Seriously, he doesn't "like" to do anything, I'm sure there is something somewhere but he is not a motivated individual. So in a Marxist society, individuals such as my friend can simply do NOTHING at all and receive the same amount as everyone else? What if there are a lot of individuals like this? Because I have noticed from university that a huge portion of people are extremely lazy, possibly 50% or higher.
User avatar #3582 to #3222 - arisaka (07/09/2012) [-]
There will always be countervailing powers; the proletariat's struggles are against the bourgeois totality! The conflict would exist between classes only.

As for lazy people I believe they have been born into a system that alienates them. They were born into a system that separates him from himself because capitalism does not respect the diversity of human beings, only the small majority of capitalists.

How can you be content with a system that has starved entire countries and is the cause for most of the worlds global suffering? Colonialism and imperialism are two direct manifestations of the capitalist system (although those things could be viewed as extreme malfunctions of said system.)
User avatar #3608 to #3582 - airguitar (07/09/2012) [-]
By the way, if I thought Marxist capitalism were possible, I would support it MUCH more than socialism. The reason being is because Marxist capitalism implies, as we have discussed, that everyone has consented to sharing their resources/value. This is huge steps above socialism, which is unjustly taking money from people in the form of taxes. I don't think money can justly be taken away from people unless they did something unjust to earn it.
User avatar #3607 to #3582 - airguitar (07/09/2012) [-]
Well this is generally the case used by people who oppose capitalism and I can understand why. At the same time though, not many countries use capitalism, for example here is an economic freedom index:


Personally I don't even think some of the top ones are free ENOUGH, but you absolutely can not consider any of the countries with a lower index than 60 as part of the "capitalism system". In fact, America, which is ranked 10th (I have seen it deservingly lower in other rankings) isn't even CLOSE to having free markets. I offer the data point that 40% of all economic transactions today, all spending, is by the government. In times around/after the great depression I think Milton Friedman sited it rising to over 60%. My first argument is that not many of the countries which may be considered "capitalistic" can really be judged under that lens.

Now with that said... Why is it that generally there is a very strong trend of countries atop this list of economic freedom are the really wealthy countries while ones at the bottom are the ones primarily suffering? My argument is that the only reason the countries in the 1st world are richer is because of free trade. Free trade makes both parties of an exchange richer because of comparative advantage and specialization. I point back at history and argue that everyone in America is living better than they did 100 years ago, including the poor (the poor here are living better than the rich of most of the world). The goal of capitalism isn't for everyone to be successful, that can never happen because of the flaws in humans, the goal is to give people as many opportunities to succeed as possible.

You might say that the capital only belongs with the wealthy then, but I think giving opportunities is better than throwing money at the people who are poor (socialism) and I don't think people are equal (communism), as harsh as that might sound.
User avatar #2566 to #2528 - arisaka (06/28/2012) [-]
Well, people would be organized into communes, and assemblies would be held every so often and the planning would be done there; a lot of statistical data would be collected.
With the help of a census, people would know how much food would needed to be produced.

Everything that is produced is discussed democratically. The state does not exist in the political sense but functions as a means for distribution of resources; the state consists of the entirety of the working class.
#2533 to #2528 - airguitar (06/28/2012) [-]
This image has expired
This is my political spectrum btw (next to the guide one).
#2527 to #2506 - airguitar has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2500 to #2499 - airguitar (06/28/2012) [-]
I could go on but I'll leave it at that for now.
#2490 to #2483 - reaganomix (06/28/2012) [-]
I know what Marxism is. Do you love me yet?
User avatar #2495 to #2490 - airguitar (06/28/2012) [-]
Wow you got like the same spot as mine XD
User avatar #2496 to #2495 - reaganomix (06/28/2012) [-]
I looked at all the ones that were posted since I was the one to post the link to the compass website. I remember seeing yours too and it was close.
User avatar #2521 to #2498 - reaganomix (06/28/2012) [-]
I got 93% Gary Johnnyson
User avatar #2524 to #2521 - airguitar (06/28/2012) [-]
I originally thought I didn't like Gary Johnson as much.. But after I got those results I went to his website and I really like his platform, like more than Paul's (because Paul gives a half-assed effort to appeal to republicans like with gay marriage and such). I think I might vote for him, I can't decide.
User avatar #2526 to #2524 - reaganomix (06/28/2012) [-]
Well I think you need to write in Ron Paul, but Gary Johnson is on the Libertarian party ticket.
User avatar #2529 to #2526 - airguitar (06/28/2012) [-]
Yea I had been planning to write-in vote for Paul. Maybe I'll flip a coin XD. The vote isn't going to make a difference, it's just my first election so I want to vote, and I want to vote for someone I believe in.
User avatar #2530 to #2529 - reaganomix (06/28/2012) [-]
Personally, I feel if you voted for the libertarian party, it would bring more attention to the party.

This is most likely Ron Paul's last year in politics beside some cameo appearances so voting for Ron Paul (In my opinion) would have a least significant effect.
User avatar #2532 to #2530 - airguitar (06/28/2012) [-]
Alright. I think I'm going to talk to my favorite professor and ask what her opinion is- thanks for the recommendation.
User avatar #2497 to #2496 - airguitar (06/28/2012) [-]
I think I was slightly lower down. Take this (if you have not yet) and post results.

User avatar #2494 to #2490 - arisaka (06/28/2012) [-]
You've won yourself some coolpoints, perhaps.
#2485 to #2483 - arisaka (06/27/2012) [-]
This is where Marxists stand on the political spectrum, except all the way to the left and all the way to the bottom. Bottom left.

#2522 to #2485 - MyNameIsARickRoll (06/28/2012) [-]
Here's mine
Am I a good person yet?
#2536 to #2522 - Mentoman (06/28/2012) [-]
Where can I find this quiz, or whatever it is?
#2539 to #2538 - Mentoman (06/28/2012) [-]
Excellent, thank you!
 Friends (0)