Hello Communists

Can you guys explain Communism?

I mean there will always be hierarchies/classes/elitists and exploitation. You have to realize that to some point every society is based on these kinds of things.

I can understand wanting to kill the rich/upper hierarchies, but I do not understand the ideology after it.

(I also am an ebil natziii and would like to be spanked by a ☭TANKIE☭.)

Attached: farmer.jpg (360x252, 21.88K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Just read this thread 8ch.net/leftypol/res/2898810.html

Shit, I wanted the Nazbol flag.

Unnecessary hierarchies, not all hierarchies, are something we don't like. Exploitation of any kind must be minimized.
I'll be back with a book list for fascists to understand Socialism. It's a good pipeline, since these are the books i read when i stopped being Zig Forums.

That's plain false. If hunter gatherers can manage a non-hierarchical society, so can we. We have a massive advantage in technology and development of social theory. Here's a basic starter book that's relevant to the subject.

Unless you mean hierarchy in the sense of like a file system or something, then no, all hierarchy is bad. Any kind of system that grants power to some people over others is bound to deform as people use that to their advantage to seize more power. The people have to always be ready to stop that from happening.

Attached: READ NIGGA READ.mp4 (480x360, 271.72K)

Hunter gatherers did not have a non-heirarchical society. I would club you.

Some of them do.

You're gonna need to read Str*sser to transition away from Hitler's personality cult, but i won't link his book because it'd get me banned.
Paul Cockshott - Towards a New Socialism (CyberSocialism):
Muammar Qaddafi - The Green Book (Jamahiriya):
Daniel De Leon and the Foundations of American Socialism (Guild Socialism):
Abdullah Ocalan - Democratic Confederalism (Democratic Confederalism):
Murray Bookchin - The Politics of Social Ecology: Libertarian Municipalism (Democratic Confederalism):
Kim Il-Sung's Various Writings (Juche):
Joseph Stalin - the Foundations of Leninism (Marxism-Leninism):
George Douglas Howard Cole - Guild Socialism Re-stated (Guild Socialism):
Kim Il-Sung - Revolution and Socialist Construction in Korea: The Selected Works of Kim Il-Sung (Juche):
Gamal Abdel Nasser - The Philosophy of the Revolution, Book One (Ba'athism):
Peter Kropotkin - The Conquest of Bread (Anarchism):
Theodore Adorno - The Culture Industry: Enlightenment As Mass Deception (Frankfurt School):
Ber Dov Borochov - Nationalism And Class Struggle
Karl Marx - Das Kapital Volume 1 (Marxism):
Karl Marx - Das Kapital Volume 2 (Marxism):
Karl Marx - Das Kapital Volume 3 (Marxism):

Oops. Didn't mean to paste the link. I'm gonna get banned.

It's not about the necessity of hierarchy, it's about the innateness.

Exploitation is always maximized.

Attached: 1364099560230.gif (500x259, 494.02K)

Read Bordiga

Which one?

No - modern science and industry offers the possibility of giving everyone equal access to education, medical care, and a high standard of living. Technology has also created the possibility of rapidly educating and re-training people so that they are capable of learning a new trade quickly - thus eliminating the need for rigid divisions of labor between professions. This was the great possibility created by industrial capitalism. The problem is that hierarchies and classes attempt to defend themselves and protect their position within society, which is why despite the great possibility created 200 years ago we are still forced to endure an outdated and often dysfunctional system.

Start reading articles: www.marxistpedia.org

There will always be hierarchies in some industries and for combat and combat training, because a chain of command is efficient and some things need very fast decision making. But this hierarchy ends when the you leave the workplace or the battle field.

Oh my fucking god. Know what kind of decision making is faster than having an authority call the shots? Letting the fucking grunts have the authority to make their own fucking decisions in the moment instead of waiting for orders.

The people under industry are by default on the lower ladder of things.

Public Education is a mess but enjoy getting shot I guess.

Someone has to make and maintain that standard of living. I also don't know how you define high standard of living, but old Germany had the highest ever.

Coordination is faster.


They are going to act of their own ability and will, but they are still going to be as coordinated as possible. Of course a commie does not understand coordination.

Is fascism people in general don't act out of their own will, that's kind of the point.

Attached: porky says.png (700x566, 383.48K)

Yes, instead of having a couple guys look at a map of topography and enemy positions, and telling troops what points to defend, what bridges to demolish, let's have all the guerillas meet in the same place once a day and decide democratically how to proceed.

Fucking mongoloid

The point is you don't have to refer to a commander for almost anything in practice. The right thing to do is usually apparent to the people who would do it. Having someone to coordinate positions is different from someone issuing orders if they exist to facilitate communication and make sure everyone knows where everyone is.

If the entire squad is involved in planning an operation they
A) can have input and see things that only a couple people might miss
B) understand the plans from top to bottom and don't need to be briefed later
C) are much less likely to cause "discipline" problems because they are part of the planning process

anarchists are so fucking dumb, even the syndies in catalonia realized that militias stepping on each others toes is completely inefficient.

unironically read trotsky

This kind of stuff isn't because of anarchy. It's because of people being fucking stupid. You don't need hierarchy to understand the importance of fucking training and organization.
That's a question of degree, time, and place, not the core concept.
You can delegate someone to make certain calls and hold them for review at other times. And if they were making orders according to popular approval, why would people refuse to comply? That doesn't add up.

Just because specific people are clueless dipshits doesn't mean that the basic organizational principles are bad. Catalonia is pretty famously an example of people not adhering to anarchist organization. This is an incredibly shitty take. The concept of anarchy presented here is liberal bullshit that's allergic to any structure not merely authoritarian structure.

Because popular approval doesnt mean unilateral approval.

e.g The anarchist platoon goes to the meeting and they disagree with the popular notion. They can very easily claim "authoritarianism" and simply not follow the decision.

This is complete ideology, I've heard of ancoms dismissing catalonia as authoritarianism but i've yet to actually talk to one.

Please tell me one example of an anarchist organization that fits your ice cream flavour of anarchism?

You actually hit the nail on the head without knowing it.

Hierarchies found within the "Law of the Jungle" are quitely literally founded on "might makes right", which is to say that if you kill (or beat into submission) your superior, you take their place. This is obviously not how human hierarchy works, it's a completely socially invented system. The claim that it's somehow rooted in nature is a bunk claim.

Attached: ideology.jpg (1280x720, 47.42K)

A hierarchy implies ranks of authority. It is possible to have specific roles without being given authority over others. (This is why the U.S. Navy & Marines separate rank, a position of authority - from billet, a specific assignment, job or position.)

Bakunin explained it like this,
"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me."

I don't understand you. What does it mean to be "under industry"?
Again, I don't even know what you're talking about.
Yeah, they're called workers.
I have no idea what you mean by "old Germany." Even in the 19th century people commented on the fact that in many ways the standard of living in the U.S. was far higher than that of Europe. In the Weimar Republic & Nazi Germany the living standard was pretty low due to war reparations and later a policy of military buildup which siphoned massive resources into armaments.

Again, modern technology changes this situation. There is less need for a managerial or officer class to direct people since the ability to learn and gain skills is much more diffused.

This has actually happened.

That quote is fucking stupid. In the early days of the Spanish Civil War it was largely the spontaneous action of the militias and trade unions which prevented the fascists from taking the entire country. The old army was suspect and the new Popular Army didn't even exist yet.

Do anarchists even believe in democracy or do they just decry it as "tyranny of the many? Here we have somewhat socialised healthcare, however people upper class started complaining about how they are being oppressed and everyone should be free to choose etc, so the government made it non-mandatory. Freedom Achieved!!!
The result of course is that 10% of the population, which pretty much completely overlap with the richest 10%, freely choose to not participate, as the cost is a percentage of income whcih means that they can get more for less money from private insurance, leaving the rest increasingly underfunded and creating a two-class medical system. But hey - at least nobody is being forced to do something they do not want to!

Hunter-gatherer societies were not class societies, they were not based in an individual that does no labor ruling over others and extracting a surplus.

So no heirarchy in a way that is relevant to a Marxist.

Is there even a single line of value in this crap?

Not only that, but humans obviously aren't adapted for the type of violent physical confrontation you'd find in very hierarchical primate species, and we lost those adaptations long before the first member of the genus Homo even evolved.

Humans, instead, have adaptations specifically for social life and cooperation.

Yes, actually. He talks about true Democracy as opposed to the Democracy that the west claims to practice, and his form of Socialism perfectly aligns with traditionalist methods of government and thought, meanwhile affording people expanded rights and privileges despite the issue of Muslim orthodoxy and the dogmatism practiced by theocrats in the same country.

just forget the word hierarchy. it has nothing to do with communism.

there's still heirarchy in communism. just imagine no exploitation when you work. not worrying about starving to death or being broke as shit just so some faggot can have 80 yachts when we can easily build a post abundance society

Attached: communism.jpg (640x760, 120.46K)

Only anarkiddies oppose hierarchy, as for exploitation, first I need to know how you define it compared to how we do.

It was a major fail tho. The Spanish anarchists during the Civil War used to do this. By the time they finished deciding, the fascists already encircled them. They also voted to avoid the frontlines and instead expropriated/killed priests, landlords, businessmen, etc, which was another fail b/c those troops could have made a difference on the frontlines against Franco

isn't the whole point of the state to ease people into communism over some generations and then disappear entirely? Actually scratch that, what would full communism look like in your view?

Are you sure we lost them because of lack of "hierarchy" or that we developed bigger brains that allowed us to make tools of violence that were more effective than our own bodies? I might not have big teeth but I can mow down a dozen of my fellow man with a gun from a distance.

All primates live socially and humans tend to be very violent towards outsiders of our social groups. Obviously we are much better at it than any other primate, but to pretend that human [pre-]history isn't filled with violence is ridiculous. This kind of rhetoric borders on noble savage level of stupidity.

I find it weird how so many marxists try to argue against "human nature" because if it were to exist it'd somehow nullify communism. We need communism for the exact reason that humans are naturally exploitative of others. You teach your kid to share and be kind, because otherwise they'll be selfish assholes. We need a society set up to foil natural human tendencies to be self-destructive for short term gain, human nature existing should be one of the primary pillars of why we need to end capitalism.

Attached: chimbu tribe new guinea.jpg (962x769, 223.45K)

How did an anprim become an commie? based post btw.

like mutualism with central planning instead of investment banking

Evidence? Proof? Facts?
In Homage to Catalonia the militias on the front lines were described as functioning on a democratic basis. They did not lack volunteers for dangerous missions.

Well, there is still management in socialism, not hierarchy in the sense of capitalism/fascism

There will always be rape and murder. Does that mean we shouldn't try to stop rape and murder?

There will always be an elite. Does that mean we shouldn't try to stop the formation of an elite?

No. Stupid thread.