Ask a Marxist!!!

No point in it. You'll just lie. Since marxism isn't based in truth, but in subversion of the target countries by destroying their cultures.

 

a gang is not a state, stateless societies exist today they are usually run by a gang or somekind of religous group, parts of somalia are stateless, parts afghanistan and tibet are stateless, lets say the state collapsed tomorrow what would stop Alabama from going back to slavery?

i have always seen anarchists as people who are a bit elitist and quite religous, your basically saying that without the state, and the state alone, everyone would get along fine because were all civilized Christians, and its only the evil government thats getting in your way

communism is scientific socialism, not scientific anarchy

 

the quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" comes from the critique of the Goth programme one of Marx's last works, he described it as the higher stages of communism and wouldn't exist until we could provide for everyone's needs https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

i don't know what a formula would look like but this is from his book wage and capital:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch02.htm

marx spent alot of time writing about how to determine value in das kapital

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

the proletariat

you can still have possessions just not private property marx described private property as "productive assets"

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

 

You mean the "gangs" that have to fight against a state to survive? Does that even begin to make sense to compare them to an anarchy when in an anarchy there would be no government at all? The state is the enemy of liberty, who do you think it was that kept people in bondage? It certainly was no overseer of a plantation. It was the state that enabled them to do it. Take away the state and watch as they collapse in on themselves because their model for a community is based upon subjugation only the state lets them get away with.

Who said anarchists like religion? Anarchists simply realize that the state is the culprit behind everything and the sooner its gone, the sooner everyone can have true liberty.

So explain that to me then.

 

I do think humans have not only the capacity, but are inevitably going too live under full world communism, but there is no final utopia, there is no society that we can one day reach where everything will be great and all of mankinds problems go away, communism is the opposite of utopian scoialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism

 

first of all north korea is state capitalist, its poor because of it (still technically ongoing) war with america, they even removed all mention of communism from their constituion and every other government document a long time ago. They are closer to a right wing monarchy then anything else.

second of all regarding your question about housing, their wouldn't be any real controversy because there are already 5 times more vacant homes in america than homeless people, the reason they can't have a home is because capitalism is requires a small portion of people that "go without" in order to work, which was fine when a man could build his home, and hunt and fish for his own food, but someone born in raised in New York or Tokyo in 2015 can't go fishing because the nearest waterways are so polluted the fish are toxic, they can't build a home unless it out of cardboard or a ready made dumpster, because capitalists have taken this away from them, to the point that a person would have stop spend thousands of dollars travelling to the "woods" where they can live naturally, and spend massive amounts of time and money studying survival skills. therefore the capitalist will eventually have the responsibility of housing millions of people that can't be housed and will adopt social policies that will eventually collapse the system, we are doing this currently with public housing, section 8 housing, rent control programs etc etc etc but these programs only delay capitalism's eventual collapse

now think about what your saying in regards to the 50 bedroom mansion, if you have no wealth too pay servants and handymen to maintain your home would you be able too live in it? would you want too? this is why many of them will be abondned and eventually demolished, at wouldn't necessarily be converted, we wouldn't pluck 50 homeless people and put them in nearest manision if thats what your asking, do you think that society should have people come to your house to clean your home and fix your plumbing so you can stay in your sprawling mansion by your self?

therefore if 50 people found a nice manison or lets say 20 people found a 50 bedroom mansion that they "wanted" too live in, they could, because they could keep up with maintenance they could voluntarily do the necessary renovations you mentioned like extra bathrooms or a bigger parking lot, which are extremely easy renovations too make.

now lets say you have a particularly beautiful mansion with some historical value like the vanderbilt and carnegie mansions






then you could work to restore them and keep them preserved as museums.

 

the dictatorship of the proletariat

- - - Updated - - -

yep you got it

 

so in your mind capitalists never hurt anyone?

 

i blame america for that, if it wasn't for the americans threatening their communist allies with nuclear war after WW2 communism could've kept spreading, but almost immedietly after the soviets defeated hitler, the cold war started and shortly afterwards the korean war started.

The Americans waited years to get into the war and only went too war after FDR allowed pearl harbor to be bombed, something we know now that he was warned days in advance about and could've avoided a war with Japan altogether if they promised not too attack Japan, during the japanese conquest of southeast asia.

Quality of life improved on all counts under communist rule in both china and russia before the war

http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/failure.html

lol the gulag was system was meant to show the uppes class what a hard days work was actually like, not too profit from their labor, or to be a permanent system, nothing like picking beets in silence for 10 years, too cure you of your evil capitalist ways

 

I,Pencil was written by Leonard Read, founder of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

One could say that it's a powerful illustration of the socialist calculation problem.

 

Why take the white mans money?

 

just letting the readers know your a right wing conservative and your very-anti marxist your criticisms aren't invalid there just inherently bias

I never rejected them

your question might be better phrased as "can you explain dialectical materialism too me", or what would be even better is if you explained your main criticism, instead you just asked "what do you think about it" which too me sounds like your asking me if I have any criticisms about it

it's like I started a thread called "Ask an American" and you asked what do you think about america, my repsonse would be the same

you can still be a marxist and not know what those things are, you can be illiterate and still be a marxist there's no required reading, do you think every soviet soldier had an understanding of the labor theory of value?

your talking about something that can be traced back to ancient greece, the dialectic isn't controversial, it's important, but if you were too explain it (outside of a philosophy college) most wouldn't have the faintest clue what you were talking about. Hegel was a great writer but so was plato, i dont have to read all of his works too call myself a marxist either. Marx called Hegel a "dead dog"

I'm neither of those three, and there's no rule saying i have to be you can call me orthodox or classical or neo or whatever label you would like too attach if it makes you feel better, but i prefer just marxist

while you can abolish capitalism through a party or vangaurd (which is what im guessing your asking me) it can collapse naturally, technological development is exponential while human need is linear

maybe you could answer one of my questions, since your a straussian would do you agree with leo strauss that hitler's biggest problem was that he wasn't fascist enough?

 

Without state sanction, it sounds eminently criminal.

- - - Updated - - -

Capitalists? Who are they?

 

And the state does something different? It allows those in power the freedom and liberty to kill or steal from those without power, and prevents those without power from doing much, if anything, about it.

 

what about religous groups? they certainly wouldn't need a state too fight against

you can still form gangs and control/hoard resources even if the money system collapsed. ever read lord of the flies?

i can own slaves without a state or the approval of a state there are millions of sex slaves today, that are not approved by the state. there can be forced marriages, factory farms, even drug slaves a person force fed heroin to the point of being an addict and will do whatever their drugmaster says for more, it doesn't have to be for money

so lets say you go straight too anarchy which wouldn't require any form of economic or political movement we could have anarchy with something like an asteroid hitting earth, in that event what would stop another state from forming? what would stop capitalism from forming again?

a ton of people most people say taoist were the first anarchists, even the modern republican party pulls some notes from anarchist handbook, theres even christian and muslim anarchist movements

"The true founder of anarchy was Jesus Christ and ... the first anarchist society was that of the apostles." -Georges Lechartier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

anarchy is simple it can be accomplished tomorrow, scientific socialism however, requires abolition of private property, the state, religion, money, class, nations, do you know how long that would take? how long it will take too truly abolish religion alone? if we were too have anarchy tomorrow we would just go through the same stages of human history, that we already went through, we would go back too barbaric communism, then feudalism, capitalism, and maybe then we can get back too where we are today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism

 

OP:

Do you want to ethnically cleanse America of Europeans?

 

I would rather move to Germany.

 

Germans have the same European hating and Europhobic social policy that the Americans do. Which is to do away with the white race or the native inhabitants of Europe.

 

If you say so...

 

Well, some term was needed to describe that aspect of what they were. We've got words like despotism, tyranny, and authoritarianism but those fail to capture the party system and more importantly the systems and methods enacted by the communists and fascists to actually achieve pervasive totalitarian control. Arguably you need 20th century technologies to even make it practical over a substantial amount of territory.

In any case you can call it whatever you'd like. The point is it's what you get when a group of people attempt a communist/socialist revolution, regardless of what those supporting it thought they were fighting for.

Why wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that something similar would occur in any hypothetical future attempt.

 

So you're denying that communism killed a bunch of people and attempting to redirect that blame toward capitalism?

 

So are you denying that communism has killed many people?