I've asked leftypol before.. I have more questions

Ask the alphabet soup. Genuine socialists tend to get killed.

I'm not sure I follow. Why would I want less ability to represent myself politically?

You're basically asking for a comprehensive purview of the whole of radical leftist thought, from the ground up. Go to the reading thread and look at some basic readings or something.

The quote by Jefferson was meant to emphasize that the porosity of the ideology of the masses meant that they were volatile and susceptible, such that they would easily abuse the democracy to oppress those of a minority opinion. It was a basic defense of the initial order of American democracy - the protection of landowners rights from inroads by non-landowners. It's a fundamentally didactic defense, it states that democracy requires necessary and stringent divisions (by """merit""") to protect the representative disposition of the body

The left support the public control of industry

Marxism is an initial criticism of capitalism and political theory to establish a communist society.
Marxist-Leninists support an elected communist party centralising and collectivising all national industry to the state, for the party to then manage, and sustain society by.
Models of this sustainability are usually theorised in the mode of "state-capitalism", like China.
State-capitalism is when all of the industry in a country collectivises it's efforts to import goods into the global capitalist market to compete with other corporations, to make profit as a result. (look at "made in China" products)
the profit is then naturally distributed towards the wages of the workers, to infrastructure and maintenance of the country, and to trade and production of more materials to sell in the market, just like a regular corporation.
Maoism is an amendment in Marxist theory which corrects the assertion that a socialist society can't exist until capitalism creates the necessary modes of production in that country. Socialism can usually be seen as a synonym for state-capitalism, socialism is just the intermediary stage between capitalism and communism.
Neo-Marxism is just an umbrella term for any Marxist who adds their own perspective to Marx's criticisms or theory, so Maoism would be neo-Marxist. Maoism also has it's own theory which supports peasant revolution against feudal lords, but that is not relevant to today's world.
An anarchist is a socialist who rejects the centralisation of industry to the state-national level, they prefer more local and minimised collectivisation and influence. They are usually categorised under left-libertarianism, which is a broad term to describe all socialists who reject the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the state-national centralisation of industry. This can be a rebellion against the regimes of the soviet union or of China.
Tankies are people who defend the actions and intentions of the soviet union.
Social democrats are people who believe in global capitalism but with major regulations on the market and on the income of citizens, usually of the rich, but also lower classes, since they figure the government can supply living conditions with compromise. Look at Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein as examples of that, although Jill is more left than Bernie.
Communism is the idea of a stateless, classless society, and it is usually imagined to be achieved through automation through the efficiency of labour in symbiosis with the rest of the nation, and in more modern times, we imagine that robots can replace workers and we can live like the people in Wall-e, so we kind of live in a renaissance of Marx's idea of capitalism improving the modes of production to perfection, as a natural transition into socialism and then communism.
NazBol is a more edgy region of leftism that usually focuses on more identitarian issues or resort to absurd and ahistorical ultimatums like working with Nazis to end global capitalism.

we're cool with anyone who isn't an asshole, that's why we don't like conservative control freaks like pro-life 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Shapiro.🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Attached: TjrLFNDK_400x400.jpg (400x400, 21.54K)

Ahem, how do you think we will get a socialist economy? Do you think the bourgeoisie are just going to give it to us? Don't you think that maybe it follows that the rest of whatever you think you're noticing from leftist politics might be due to the resistance we understand to be inevitable?
I am a communist. I want communism. All good leftists want communism of some variety. The hell are the "8 pillars"?
This has to be bait. There is a huge contingent of leftists who are either anarchists or libertarian communists and you think we aren't concerned with freedom. I'm pretty sure most centralized communists talk about this shit all the time at this point, if only because they've been forced to by people who fear monger about the USSR.
Miss me with that imperialist freak. His arguments are beginner mode rightist trash.
Who was the left supposed to be here? I'm confused.
We can't be consistent with you because you're asking "the left" what it wants. I personally want libertarian communism, achieved with the arming of the working class, class struggle against the bourgeoisie which would culminate in the overthrow of the latter, the abolition of the police and private property, and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat through worker self-managed society through collaborative councils. Other comrades have different ideas, but ultimately, we all just want capitalism gone, mate.

An just in case you are sceptical of the Chinese economy, read up on this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China

I don't think modern China is an example of communism. In some ways (lack of business regulations) it's more capitalist than the United States.

I don't blame them. You can make enemies with a lot of people with that type of thinking considering how you want to take away everyone's property. How in practice would you actually distribute land fairly when we are all inherently biased anyways?

I think democracy has less to do with the individual considering how it relies on the majority. Is my logic in the wrong place on that aspect?

Hmm I might be wrong on 8 pillars.. I've heard of it but it might not have substantiated.
On the tucker video when the guy refers to the left on that guy, he doesn't deny being representative of left.. So I don't know if that counts for something.

Wew lots of information there. I just don't sit comfortably with how other communist rulings whether it's not the same as yours- many people were slaughtered in large numbers. But I guess you or anyone else would say nothing comes without a price? How much are you willing to give for such a cause? Do you scrutinize communism enough to look for any cons?

Overall you guys.. I don't understand the majority of the issue… That if there are many people who identify with the left that you claim doesn't represent anything true to your convictions- why isn't anybody speaking up? Is it just detrimental to your cause if you do so?

… Do you like to be monitored everywhere you go? Not saying the US is very different from them- but they seem to have a more strict way of life that if you don't agree with the government they keep some "citizen credit score" that can be used to reject you from getting loans. They police people who criticize or question them.. Is that not true?

And couldn't China's "fastest growing consumer market" be contributed to the globalist agenda and NAFTA-like policies around the world? What do you think would happen if we start putting higher tariffs on their imports or just rejected trade with them? They can't sustain themselves without us in my opinion- correct me if I'm wrong… And their quality of air in Beijing.. Fuck that. They use apps to filter out the pollution just to take good pictures… Maybe their main problems have more to do with population size?..

I mean if China was a good example of communism, no thank you. I like my ability to say whatever the fuck I want. One of main issues is that there is no "good" examples of communism out there. Everyone who has attempted their own version seemed to have missed the whole point of it all- am I right? If this an ongoing premise- what is to say that your own cause might not meet the same fate as all the others that have failed?

Well yeah, it's state-capitalist, not communist.
It takes time to become a self-sufficient society
I was just informing OP on the success of the socialistic model of China in the global market.

Dude, don't shit up an info thread with crap about China being socialist, its no more socialist than the EU countries. That is to say, it's flat out not socialist at all

Radical and revolutionary democracy and the democratization of all spheres of power, including of arms.
Read some leftist theory though, and learn why we cringe whenever someone calls liberals leftists.

Attached: thy pitchfork.jpg (720x720, 55.23K)

That fucking pic dude, lol

Attached: stalinchuckle.jpg (720x718, 30.93K)

It produces goods and makes profits on them, then the workers see the reward of their labour, this process is collectivised and centrally planned by the state.
It seems pretty socialistic to me.

Broadly speaking, we stand for a society that's under the control of its people and works to meet their needs. Socialism and communism (and anarchy) are ideas about how to transform the current society from capitalism so it will be like that. The main schism between the left and right is that the right believes society as it is is fundamentally on the right track (with maybe some adjustments) while the left thinks that the core of society's present structure is an obstacle to having the best possible society. If you want a reasonably beginner-friendly explanation of why the left thinks present society is fundamentally flawed, then you should read Wage Labor and Capital and Value, Price, and Profit. Here they are.

The economy is totally open to foreign investment, China exports more in value than it imports, wage labor exists, no centrally planned economy, workers don't own the means of production, capitalists do. Capitalists who own Chinese businesses.

"No"

Attached: pissedrich.jpg (227x222, 3.67K)

I don't support mas murder of the public
you satisfied?
What else do you want from me?
Explain exactly how my philosophy leads to murder without just making bullshit fallacies pertaining to
Child rape exists in capitalist societies, you don't see me making accusations that there is a pattern between the economy and what people do under it.

USA and many other countries need China, because corporations like to buy cheap shit in bulk, so putting tariffs on China will cause just retaliation and corporations will suffer, but the government in USA is ran by corporations, so USA cant afford it. Trump just doesn't understand economics.

Under an actual leftist regime, that dude would be shot in the head and buried in a shallow grave.

Attached: d61790248b4e73be90823b21f0018ff212bd86cb81ea2acac28238b3f89e6841.png (645x729, 118.61K)

He might be representing liberals, maybe, but not the left as you would be looking for it here. Like, Zig Forums left and liberals are two veeeeeery different things, and it's a distinction some of us get pretty aggro about. A lot of rightists think liberals are commies in hiding, but they are hilariously wrong. Liberals are more likely to support fascist-enabling politics, if we're being honest.

If you think China is socialistic, then you must think France is socialistic as well, because they operate the same

Every assumption you have is wrong. The only truth you have been told is that the Soviet Union does not exist. Capitalism slaughters people today, except this mode of production never gets the blame. The amount of deaths caused by imperialist wars are always handwaved as terrorists…yes very bomb, missile and bullet met only belligerent targets and not innocent civilians or even friendlies. The deaths caused by communist revolution is no different than bourgeois "revolutions" like the American one.

The private businesses that people are hired into are all sponsored by the state in China, they're probably all managed by them too.
I never said it was ideal situation over there
obviously it's not.

pic related

It's not just not the "ideal situation", it's just capitalism. Making the argument that post-Mao China is "socialistic" is like saying the Russian Federation is "socialistic". Only thing is China has communist aesthetics

Attached: newman.png (215x288, 71.46K)

How do France and China operate the same?

French and Chinese governments completely control certain industries, regulate all other industries, heavy funding for social programs, in your words "produces goods and makes profits on them". Profits don't even exist at all in socialist economies, there's no investment and subsequently no return on investment/extraction of surplus value

...

Does anybody have that one pic of the political spectrum that's like a flowchart and outlines the primary distinguishing features of the main alignments?

Of course profits exist in socialist economies, that's how they get more money, the incentive of a wage slave to work is the measly paycheck they get while their boss makes all of the profit, in socialism, where income is distributed amongst the workers, more exportation and consumption of their goods means more money.

If a company worked only to provide minimal sustainability for itself, we would still have wage slaves under socialism, but we don't, theoretically, more profit = higher income for all workers.

I was only inferring socialistic elements in the Chinese economy anyway, I wasn't saying that they were completely socialist or anything.
You can identify characteristics between China's economy an socialist ones, like the state management of certain industries.

I'll give a reading later.. I have an important question in regards to economics.. Are any of you economic majors or have any education/readings in economics at all? Just wondering. I don't- but I am going to be reading thomas sowell's book on it soon that I heard was a very good thing to read.

I won't download unknown pdfs sorry. I'll definitely utilize the public library though if I can locate them via title.

You say that and yet any publicly known leftist I have seen represent something drastically different.. ydoesthiskeephappening2me.jpg
are you guys living in a caaave?

I don't know Trump is entirely incorrect: thebalance.com/u-s-china-trade-deficit-causes-effects-and-solutions-3306277

I'm not trying to make that distinction directly, but I'm trying to see what is and isn't.

I don't see how a boss making more money is entirely bad considering how not all demands of work is equal- nor is the expertise given particular fields. You work more- you get paid more. You know more- you get paid more. Is equality always a good thing to you personally?

I have an interesting idea… If you guys have some dead-on absolute belief on your cause.. Why don't your board elect 1 person whom you feel understands majority of the issues, represent you, and have an online debate live with someone like Shapiro. If he is indeed wrong- now is a great time to put him in his place if he is indeed in the wrong. You may not like the guy, but you shouldn't turn away from debate. Many people respect his views and you can earn it as well especially if you can prove him wrong on anything on his show. Can we arrange that? Can you guys come to an agreement who will represent the majority of your voice? You guys can score some points for your board if you make any sense to the viewers. Thoughts?…

You probably can't. Disable javascript and read them on marxists.org

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/

Because of Wall St

Attached: noggin joggin.jpg (1568x2146, 867.79K)

There are already people who do this on youtube but leftypol hates most of them most of the time

Correction: >many people in my echo chamber respect his views

Attached: stalinslist.jpg (750x422, 45.73K)

Jeez you're an ass. You're pretty lucky Im waiting right now.
So private property is property that someone owns but does not singlehandedly work. If you own a farm, and you employ workers on that farm, that is private property. Under Communism this farm will be socially owned. It's "evil" becausee it is a necessary part of of Capitalism, and Communists are against Capitalism, so it follows that they would want to get rid of private property. It's basically one of the cores of Capitalism.
Abolishing private property establishes a stateless society as the bourgeois class depends on private property to exploit the proletarian class. Without private property, this class will cease to exist, then the class divide will cease to exist, and then their will be no classes to exploit, and thusly their will be no way for a state to be used to oppress one class.
I wouldn't put it like that but Marx did literally write books you can teach yourself with.
I'm the only "try hard" on Zig Forums that doesn't get into an autistic rage when responding to bait posts so I'm not surprised.
Does it give you a chub to passively insult constantly?
But I'm having fun describing this to you, so feel free to ask for more explanation of these "pseudo concepts".

Hey user, responding to your question whether we read up on economics: I have a companion to post keynesian economics at home, and I like to read articles on price theory, trade theory, and developmental economics.

If a worker is unnecessary then he would not be hired and would not see the share of the profits
so all people who work for the company are equally necessary and so all deserve an equal share of the profit

simple

You're not the only one who makes effort posts. I see little reason to hold someone's hand like a toddler while they condescend to me when the reading list is pinned and has pdfs from the introductory level onwards. I don't post in these threads except for when I see idiots misrepresenting things like the China shill above

Well, yeah, obviously. I was being hyperbolic.
That's fair, I just enjoy running through the beliefs to make sure they line up. It helps when the person you are running it through has reason to critique and will usually over critique as opposed to under critique.

I was intentionally being an ass. You caught me red-handed. Hehe but everyone is like that on these sorts of boards..
So back to topic- hows does socially owned property actually get handled in practice?
Like just what is #1 book on private property argument that you are making and I will make that my first priority.
I'm seriously considering making a simulation where we can put this to practice and see how it works out.

I'm aware of the pins…. And yes I was condescending because people don't always respond accordingly when you don't unfortunately on iMaGeBoArDs.. :(

Nigga the USSR was all the simulation you need, economic growth surpassed the US throughout its entire existence right up to the capitalist coup, it was so good the referendum in 91 people voted to bring it back and people still want it back because capitalism destroyed the living standards in the ex-USSR countries

socially owned property is like now except that it is wilfully maintained by workers since their livelihood depends on it
what else did you have in mind?

Good sources on this:
Is the Red Flag Flying
Blackshirts and Reds
The Triumph of Evil

Their are differing opinions on it but the main consensus is that workplace democracy would be introduced and that when the Capitalists are removed the workers would stay.
I suppose Capital but that's a really large book. There are other anons that could most likely recommend you a better book, but if you are looking for a "Commiefesto" with arguments, you probably won't find a better book.

I guess I need a picture or something..
If it's maintained by the workers… how are decisions made among the workers? There are still bosses correct? Does everyone vote? What happens when someone wants to work on a different piece of land? The intricate details and challenges people may face are what I am wondering about.

Capital written by whom?

Marx

Attached: 1273455161464.jpg (640x480, 21.4K)

There may be "bosses" but they would be elected out of the body of workers, most likely still work alongside the other workers (at least some of the time), and wouldn't extract surplus value. And definitely wouldn't make shitloads more than the workers

The workers will vote for delegates to manage the company under the permission of the workers, the workers will vote for what is best in their favour, like they obviously would. This could include anything from time off to overtime for more income.
Basically, the workers would write their own employment contracts.

I will be wrapping this conversation up though. I feel bad I didn't started reading after the first discussion I had- but to be fair I'm supposed to be studying for my programming exam coming up next week. I like the conversations here. I want to be able to get into the nitty gritty of the theory and practices and discuss that more deeply in the near future. I also want to code simulations that can /kindof/ be audited by you guys so it can observe the conditions and effects.. obviously it won't be perfect but I think that would be a fun project to attempt. Maybe it will bring new insight.

thatface..

And for clarifications.. does a doctor make the same amount of money as some easier occupation- and would people's occupation be governed by the need of the land/people of the area? I.e. what if everyone wants to be an astronaut.. Obviously that can't happen, so how are occupations/needs handled?

sounds like something similar to socialism.. but it starts with a t… I don't remember :-x

what are you implying?

There is another concept that might be similar to that. I wrote it down somewhere. I'll look for it.

Teleological Tit-Trampling

Which according to what youve been posting im going to wholeheartedly assume its what you got told in your high school, shown in History Channel, or read about in snippets used in media when they refer to other things. Yeah sounds like a perfect plan

If you are interested in worker coops (democratically run enterprises) check out Richard Wolff
youtube.com/watch?v=qbgFvqKppIU

I'm not planning to do it any time soon. I want to read and fully understand the theories.. Then put the theories to practice with your guys help. It can probably just be stuck into github and we can have like 10 different models branched out hehehehehe

okay

If you want to learn about leftism but don't have the time or attention span to read a book, check out Michael Parenti's lectures on YT:

youtube.com/watch?v=_IO_Ldn2H4o

youtube.com/watch?v=MfDnQPtijjc

youtube.com/watch?v=9-SK8bUsshQ

I'll quickly walk you through it. Imagine a company with shareholders. The shareholders hire a manager to do the actual running of the company, and pay him a wage. The height of the wage doesn't really matter much. The point is that the workers and the manager together do all of the work involved in the business, and are paid a wage for their work. Yet mysteriously, at the end of the year, there is an amount of earnings left over that is paid out as dividends.

Where did this mystery profit come from, and why should people who were not involved in running the company (remember, they hired a guy for that) receive any rewards for all the work done by the people at the company? That is in part what socialism is about, it's the abolition of rewards from naked ownership. In socialist society no-one is paid anything just because they own something, every rewards comes from socially necessary labour.

How do people invest or help create new products when everyone is seemingly equal? Do people just put their money together in groups on whatever they wish to make? How does funding for big projects happen? Do people just put the work in first if they don't have enough?

People have an easier time creating and innovating during socialism. Socialists wish to create less work and more time for leisure, achieving this through higher efficiency and by distributing work equally. This means that you would have more time to work on research, hobbies and your personal interests.

In the USSR, people would apply with the government and get credits to start their project if it's something that needs heavy machinery or manufacturing. Same with scientific research. This is why a lot of the greatest discoveries (Darwin for instance) in the 1700's and 1800's were done by bourgeoisie science hobbyists who could afford to fund their research due to their wealth.

As opposed to capitalism, where all research is driven by a profit motive and you can only become a scientist or a surgeon if you can afford school.

The Soviet state used Gosbank, primarily, as a tool to impose centralized control upon industry in general, using bank balances and transaction histories to monitor the activity of individual concerns and their compliance with Five-Year Plans and directives. Gosbank did not act as a commercial bank in regard to the profit motive. It acted, theoretically, as an instrument of government policy. Instead of independently and impartially assessing the creditworthiness of the borrower, Gosbank would provide loan funds to favored individuals, groups and industries as directed by the central government.

This is high quality bait; I'll bite, sorta.

First we need to define freedom.
What do you mean by freedom?

Attached: 1522584523083.jpg (539x538, 67.48K)

Thank you for those great explanations. But something to keep in mind. Will the government always have people's interests in mind? And doesn't a stateless society mean no government? If so, how/who would help direct actions and necessities?

this seems more like high quality bait, m8
Uhh freedom I suppose would be as little governing control over people's lives as possible I suppose? People can argue that with capitalism that it allows corporations and the sort to take advantage and it's very easy to make such a connection- but there is the idea that people with a lot of money can invest in ideas/innovations worth investing into that can push the economy forward. I think that in itself incentivizes people to try to innovate- to become doctors- to provide better care- etc etc. As far as laws/regulations on things like drugs.. food.. and other products- I think the consumer should have some level of protection- but I don't know tbh to what extent it would be considered too intrusive… so I guess I am concerned with how socialism would try to approach these sorts of issues in their developments of their economy and whether it would be effective enough or capable of enforcing at all.

Here is Putin's federal assembly I highly recommend to watch youtube.com/watch?v=iDGvrdqQZVY
It's a bit long and he highlights the improvements they have made in their government he- someone who was working for the USSR back in the day he seems to imply things are better now after the fact that the USSR has collapsed. So what are all of your thoughts on that?

Give it a listen.. The things he mentions are worthy of praise and admiration.. He's definitely a person I would call a strong leader.

That would be true if we were all making the same. Ten dollars an hour, I work for 4 hours and Ted works for 8, he has $80 and I have $40. That's "you work more, you get paid more."
What we have now is Ted is my boss and gets $12 and hour while I make $8. Even if we work ten hours, I've only made 80 while he's made 120. I have to work fifteen hours to make as much as Ted does in 10. ''That's literally the opposite of doing more and getting more."

Fuck you, by the way.

Fuck off, you stupid bastard.

But someone can make the argument that he is doing more complicated work than you are, no?

">If you guys have some dead-on absolute belief on your cause

Fuck off, you stupid bastard."
I was merely asking you guys to step up to the scene of debate if you strongly feel you're correct. When I said dead-on absolute belief.. I mean for those who have little doubt that their ideas are indeed inherently good and smart. Stop getting offended prick. ;^)

Nope

Attached: Soviet_Union_GDP_per_capita.gif (952x565, 37.82K)

shit. I mean little doubt that their ideas aren't indeed inherently good and smart*

Soviet Union was larger than Russia was it not since it comprised of other territories/countries no longer in the control of Russia? Could that not play a factor in the GDP?

And? So what?

Also, fuck off.

That's why it says "Former Soviet Union" instead of Russia

Is it really that shitty to you that someone more skilled and intelligent than you makes more money? I don't like it either don't get me wrong.. But if you were doing really fine I wonder if you would still believe in what you preach good sir.

I used to blame everyone else for my finanical problems when really it was my own bad decisions. Maybe you're just doing the same? Why else would you be so pissed off?

I think you're missing the point. You disagree that Russia is better now than the USSR..

Well I am saying it is kind of biased to ignore the fact that USSR comprised of many other territories in its existence than Russia today so of course there could be a good chance that they were producing more.
More territories = more GDP

Better shit for me.
Why communism? Because capitalism isn't letting me gain better shit and it's creating alienating shit that's hurting me mates.

Attached: 11.jpg (217x255, 19.05K)

Imagine being this retarded.

But can it be argued you can work your way if you're smart, competitive, hard working enough to reach for the stars? With communism could it be the opposite, that you would kind of remain the same? Nobody is born equal, so there will always be inequality. It's a quote I've heard recently and I think resonates with the case I'm making.

what is being retarded? the grammar? You're going to cry over the grammar?

Tell that to Cuba, a communist nation with the highest amount of doctors per capita.

So what happened to "do more work, get more pay?" You don't seem to care about that now that you're being made to justify it.

No an argument, faggot.

Attached: anti socialist smear tactics.jpg (1360x1316, 796.8K)

you don't know how mad you're making me

Fucking cringe. Do you not realize that "the Former Soviet Union" and "the Soviet Union" occupied the same amount of territory?

hmmm foxnews.com/health/2011/10/24/cuban-doctors-get-sickly-results-in-brazilian-medical-exams.html

What about the quality though?

I'm a communist not because I want everyone to be equal, I'm a communist so people aren't exploited.
Under capitalism, I'm likely to either get kneecapped or exploited. If neither happen, then it means at some stage I'm exploiting someone else, and that would mean I've lost myself.
Under communism, if I work hard enough, there's nothing stopping me from getting better shit.
Communism, I feel, would streamline my process to getting a happier life.

Former Soviet Union=All Former parts of the Soviet Union, not just Russia. That's what the graph means.

Ignoring the fact that the current Russia is a criminal hive known for trafficking, poverty, high depression and suicide rates, killing gays, and having police brutality that makes the US look like New Zealand, why is Russia not a shithole?

wired.com/2016/03/students-ditching-america-medical-school-cuba/

theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/11/cuba-health/508859/

nytimes.com/2015/02/18/world/americas/americans-may-see-appeal-of-medical-tourism-in-cuba.html

Cuban healthcare and doctors are still better than American ones.

alternet.org/story/149090/eight_reasons_us_healthcare_costs_96_more_than_cuba's--with_the_same_results

what's retarded is not understanding that "soviet union" is the same area and the same countries as "former soviet union" on the graph

forbes.com/sites/billfrist/2015/06/08/cubas-most-valuable-export-its-healthcare-expertise/#2933a6f5195e

Cuban healthcare is leagues ahead of the American system, with the only downsides being that supplies are short because of the US embargo.

Another thing, is that calling socialism violent is silly when the US has murdered and overthrown most democratically elected socialists.

Attached: ae766191bbd1aebb5efe0962637ee6a0.jpg (600x731, 73.17K)

No bud dat was grony gabidalism ::DDDD

Attached: Porky.png (576x566, 412.67K)

Attached: 37c43f1f88e4cdbc303ac4b909958cb98c5e804634050c38da71c4e4998f433d.jpg (4879x3489, 593.18K)

It's not even that corperations take advantage. They are tyrannical institutions of power. It's basically fudealism, m8.

If you define freon a basis of autonomy you're communist Wether You known it or not.

Attached: Frances the Mute_TMV.jpg (1024x768, 78.79K)

1. No, which is why democracy is needed.

2. Stateless society means no government, but this doesn't mean no organization. Communism's end goal is the total transformation of society into a post-scarcity one. The entire state works towards the goal of a self sustaining, democratic union of communities with none of the tyranny or corruption that could come with a government.

How familiar are you with anarchism? A common misconception is that anarchism is just a bunch of people doing whatever they want, when most anarchists want to live in peaceful, well and responsibly organized communities without hierarchy. This is the simplified version of the end goal of communism.

RULES:

Don't:

-spam

-post cuckshit, "commies BTFO," or any of that kind of shit

-post any porn depicting underage (including drawings)

-deny the problems of climate change or imperialism

-attempt to cloak reactionary politics in left-wing rhetoric (Strasserism, "Nazbol" Asserism, National "Socialism," Zionism, "Die cis scum"/"Kill all white men" SJW shit)

-voice support for NATO intervention, or explicitly state that you support imperialism in any context

-incite specific acts of terrorism or similar acts (use your head, don't act like a fed)

Non-leftists can come here to ask questions. Board moderation here is more focused on maintaining a good board index, so non-leftists have to be on better behavior as OP than they do as participants in someone else's thread. If you aren't b8ing or shitposting, your thread is likely to stay up.
———————————————–
I don't think I broke anything that was ban worthy. I obviously hurt someone's feelings and I get banned. Way to keep control of your fucking audience. Biased fucker whoever banned me.
Hmmm
Sorry I'm not fucking pro-trans feminist who thinks gender inequality exists. Statistics show people who are taller make more money. People who are stronger make money. People who are more intelligent (men) make more money. Women have a common notion of aiming for fields that make less money.
Fucking fact and generalized comparisons between men and women will hide that along with how much more men typically work. I think this type of failure to recognize some of the "issues" in this country can account for some of the paranoia surrounding capitalism. It's a valid fucking argument and fuck you for crying about facts. Seriously your modding privileges should be fucking removed. This is what will make your board die if you do stupid shit like that. Keep reacting with your "feelings". Not trying to fucking smear. I refute something, you should refute back. Getting all fucking commie on me is just so fucking stereotypical.

Give this a listen
youtu.be/btAUWI0rYJg
youtu.be/btAUWI0rYJg

I leave this for the mod:
youtube.com/watch?v=AhT2mRwrNno

youtube.com/watch?v=eXiIDhtrcdk

I don't believe I was being absolutely fucking unbearable that I had to be banned, but whatever. If you guys don't hold your mods accountable you're going to never grow.

>youtu.be/btAUWI0rYJg

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/13/gay-men-targeted-chechnya-russia

I was talking about the gay people killing.