How does it feel believing in a FAILED ideology that only works on paper and that has cost the lives of over 200 million human beings?

>>430858
Feels good, man.

>>430858
How does it feel to use the same association fallacy over and over again?

Why do you hate individualism?

>>430884
OH COMMUNISM HAS ONLY KILLED OVER 200 MILLION PEOPLE! IT WILL WORK THIS TIME GUIES!

>>430891
Who said I hate individualism?

I'd say I don't like the destruction of community and atomization. Capitalism is good at that, and bad at producing individuals. People aren't free to explore their own creativity. People are free to spend money on the same trends, clothes, music - which is evidence that most people use the act of consumption to mark themselves as unique, rather than the act of creation.

>>430910
>implying the soviet union was communist

How does it feel to believe in something that has never been implemented as it was meant to be

>>430920
"Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else."

>>430926
Of course. As soon as a communist gets into power, he is no longer communist.

What method do you think should be used to take other people's property away from them?

>>430939
Well yeah, if there's a power structure that allows a single person or a cabal (rather than the collective) to govern, it's not quite communism, is it?

Pic related.

>>430929
I think there are some people who focus too much on the blueprints for the future and not the movement itself. I did, too. I was terribly depressed. Now, I focus on my understanding of capitalism, of the process of accumulation, historical materialism, and the real movement of the working class. Those things are real, here and now, and they build toward a change in the mode of production. I won't call the socialist mode of production inevitable, but I will say that change is absolutely unavoidable.

>>430946

Violently siezing it and murdering anyone who opposes is the usual answer. What is you answer, OP?

How would you make people qork at the job assigned to them without using pay to motvate them? The usual answer is to force people to work for free and murder any opposision. But I'd like to hear your answer, OP.

>>430959

Then communism, as we've suspected all along, is a crackpot and self-contradictory ideal.

>As soon as the sovereign is to make use of the force which it possesses, that is, as soon as it is necessary to proceed to a practical organization of authority, since the sovereign itself cannot exercise the authority, it delegates it…. The action done in the name of all necessarily being willingly or unwillingly at the disposition of an individual or of a few individuals, it comes about that in giving oneself to no one, one gives oneself, on the contrary, to those who act in the name of all.

In other words, the "collective" decisions will need to be delegated to some authority for them to actually take effect. And then the state will rise all over again.

>>430926
>implying the soviet union was not communist

>>430946
Participatory democratic worker councils form, direct General/Mass Strikes, begin to send workers back to work and coordinate production themselves. Urbanization makes it possible, because it has amassed people and the great bulk of the MOP in concentrated areas worldwide. So these worker councils simply take over. The inputs of demand occur within the process of production itself, because once all producers control productive assets, they become a single class of producers and consumers. The act of control realizes ownership, and for property to be owned commonly, it must be controlled commonly. Common control can only be realized through democratic control, and only a single class of producers has the ability to decide that which it produces it will also consume. It's in this sense that while we work for money today, in a world where we make it possible to produce for use, we work to feed each other, clothe each other, build homes, explore for the sake of exploring, educate for the sake of education, house people for the sake of sheltering them. Instead of doing it for money, we do it because if we don't produce, we can't use.

>>430858
How does it feel to incorrectly assume that all communism is violent?

>>431082
Marx was adamant in the belief that the communist uprising would be violent

>>431072

>So these worker councils simply take over

There is nothing simple about stealing someone's possessions. How would you make someone give up their property?

Taking peoples stuff away from them and forcing people to work at jobs they do not want to do for no pay is going to involve ruthless violence.

>>431072

>Instead of doing it for money, we do it because if we don't produce, we can't use.

In other words, you want to return human beings into a state of primitive substance. Oh boy, enforced poverty.

Anti-communist resistance here. We're prepared in case we ever see the second coming.

>>431102
Revolutions should be violence. How else would the French Revolution would succeed, if not for violence? What happen after that is another question altogether.

>>430920
How the fuck is giving people free choices bad at producing individuals? The nature of logistics with regards to moderating the distribution of resources is counterproductive to individuality, atleast at large scales.

Personally I think Communism is alright, but only in very small scale social units. Any communal unit that is small enough so every member in it is there voluntarily. At small scales all individuals involved can help manage aspects of this logistical issue. Once you get large enough so that some sort of bureacracy is required, the whole thing goes out the window.

>>431118
Doesn't sound like communism at all.

>>431161
So everyone gets to do what ever they want. 7 billions artists and no one to pick up the trash weekly or maintain the sewers or shovel shit in a landscaping job.

>>431161

Oh, I was assuming that property would be owned collectivly and the means of production would be owned by the state. So, tell us what communism really means, then.

>>431105
>There is nothing simple about stealing someone's possessions. How would you make someone give up their property?

The idea is that the worker councils are made up of all the workers of a region. For example, the proto-worker council of Syntagma in Greece. All workers go on strike. No workers to guard their property, no workers to operate the means of production - or more realistically, so much worker participation in the General Strikes that they effectively shut down nearly everything. After that, the physical act is easy. Say a Worker Council develops out of the General Assembly of the Occupation of Columbus. The teachers of Ohio State and surrounding school are all present, and they decide they're going back to the schools and are going to open up for class, and not accept tuition. At the same time, they're a part of the council that decides we're also sending our workers back to the food service workplaces, and they're going to do things like stock the food on shelves, etc. The idea is that the economic conditions capitalism has led to - especially considering the economy is global - are common across the world. Shit wages, shit jobs, shit opporunities, shit future. Leads to a consciousness that the game is rigged, that people are being dominated. So a giant working class movement springs up worldwide. Impossible? It's already demonstrated over the past few years that it's possible, because it's already happening. I'm not saying the fatal crises is at hand, but this is certainly some good practice for the working class.

If I could be a little light hearted about it, it's a like the years of little league are finally becoming the majors, and we're warming up for the World Series now.

>>431184
>The idea is that the worker councils are made up of all the workers of a region

What if I don't want to join?

>shit jobs

There will always be shit jobs.

>>431184

I love how you keep referring to "workers" like its still the 19th century. That's cute.

>>431195
>What if I don't want to join?

By the time the fatal crises comes around, you may change your mind. For example, there's some literature available that described the dramatic individual changes in people during France in 68'. People who were self-described "conservatives" came to join the uprising. But anyway, if when the time comes you want to be anti-social, when you're no longer able to work in exchange for a wage but instead must find work through the direct democratic council you're free to participate in, with equal political power with everyone else, then you may find yourself shit out of luck.

>There will always be shit jobs.

There will always be shit work. There doesn't have to be shit lives to go along with it.

>>431199
What should I call them instead? Associates? Ha!

I call people "workers" because they work for a living. They are paid for the time they work in exchange for a wage or salary. I call the owners and controllers of productive assets "capitalists" because they own and control capital. Sometimes I call financiers "financial capitalists" to distinguish between the capitalists of the financial sector and the "real economy."

Why do you make stupid threads like this? Nobody gives a fuck about what you think.

1) Problem of corruption. >>431005
2) Calculation problem.
3) Incentive problem. (And saying "if you don't work you don't eat" doesn't cut it; see the history of production quotes in the Soviet Union.)
4) What if 51% of "workers" vote to kill 49% of "workers"?

Until OP can answer these issues, his ideology remains not worth taking seriously.

>>431275
Aw, don't be sad the big bad communist is getting responses.

What are your views on Democratic Socialism?

>>431255
>By the time the fatal crises comes around, you may change your mind. For example, there's some literature available that described the dramatic individual changes in people during France in 68'. People who were self-described "conservatives" came to join the uprising. But anyway, if when the time comes you want to be anti-social, when you're no longer able to work in exchange for a wage but instead must find work through the direct democratic council you're free to participate in, with equal political power with everyone else, then you may find yourself shit out of luck.

Seems like force to me.

>>431288
1)Without economic corruption, almost all corruption is eliminated through democratic process. Corruption is more readily seen in capitalist systems. Case in point: the world

2)Not everyone gets FOOD in capitalist global system, fuck calculation for now

3)This video sums it up quite nicely
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

4)What if a big blue monster came down and ate you right now!?

>>431288
>1) Problem of corruption.

Participatory democratic councils. No heads of state. No leaders. You are the leaders.

>2) Calculation problem.

The calculation problem is an issue based on a critique of central planning being inefficient, but not impossible. That's just a reminder. Next, I would point out that a network of direct democratic councils coordinating production doesn't fit the description of centralization, especially not in the Stalinist sense, what with unelected bureaucrats being placed by unelected bureaucrats into positions of control over productive assets. Only when common control over productive assets is realized can a single class of producers emerge. When a single class of producers has control over all productive assets, they aren't atomized into producer, consumer, owner, worker, politician, citizen - they become all of these. The single class of producers, also being the single class of consumers, has all the information necessary to produce to meet it's own needs.

>3) Incentive problem. (And saying "if you don't work you don't eat" doesn't cut it; see the history of production quotes in the Soviet Union.)

But it does cut it. That's the motivation. We don't produce, we don't use. You're using the Stalinism as a metric of comparison and that's more similar to capitalism than what I'm talking about. A tiny minority of powerful oligarchs control society and production there, and a tiny minority of powerful oligarchs control society and productive assets in the global capitalist system.

>4) What if 51% of "workers" vote to kill 49% of "workers"?

Why would they when they depend on one another for prosperity? Voting to kill one another is what capitalist countries do - or rather, what sometimes elected politicians debate among themselves before they slaughter the people of another country, often for the latent function of amassing wealth or enabling the amassing of wealth.

>>431360

Did you know that there are doctors that won't work for less than 300K?

>>431377
Did you know that there are capitalists that eat babies?

>>431394

What's a capitalist?

Why would you trust a massive and tyrannical government to run your life?

>>431405
What's a doctor?

>>431415

a health care provider

>>431427
Do they eat babies too?

>>431439

no

>>431340
I used to consider myself somewhat a Democratic Socialist. Not so much anymore. I would say that in a narrow sense, you could describe me as a "Democratic Socialist" if you were trying to differentiate or distance yourself from Marxist-Leninists to yourself or your liberal friends as much as possible. I would say it's politically immature. That if you want an understanding of anything, you have to have an understanding of capitalism. Once you understand capitalism from a Marxist perspective it's clear that the kind of revolution Democratic Socialists envision is either not part of the real movement or it's simply a small part of the real movement. That seizing the capitalist state really isn't necessary to overthrow all existing social conditions, and may be anathema to revolution. The old debate between seizing power and rejecting power is stupid. You either do both, or you create your own power.

Seems like the thread died. No problem, I need sleep anyway. I hope I entertained and intrigued a few people friendly with the left, and flustered a few cheerleaders for our class enemies.

G'night