>kills all the kulaks and everyone remotely capitalist
>censorship out of the ass
>indoctrinated children with communist propaganda
>literally at least one generation of people born knowing nothing else other than communism
>gets defeated by Coca-Cola and Jeans

If the soviet union didn't managed to bring communism to the world then I can't see why people still believe in this fairy tale

>>17816038 (OP)
>people
commies aren’t people desu

>>17816038 (OP)
>if a deeply dysfunctional dictatorship didn't save you from capitalism, you should give up and accept your position as a slave of the bourgeoisie
how about no?

>>17816052
Didn't he just steal this from the Soviet female sniper?

>>17816038 (OP)
Not like the most powerful country in the world spent billions to sabotage the USSR or something
But yeah, Pizza Hut is why it collapsed

>>17816424
>it was the CIA's fault!!

Everytime

>>17816355
No, she never said it. They rewrote his quote for a fictional portrayal of her in a movie.

>>17817433
Everytime indeed. In fact, the cia proudly admits doing everything it could to prevent the rise of communist movements.

>>17817439
Ukranian hohols aren’t people though

>>17816424
I didnt know the CIA existed in the 1920s and used their gangstalking brain waves to make Stalin kill the kulaks.

>>17817443
Good.

>>17817445
>destroy all your grain stores out of fury
>government takes what’s left so the rest of the country doesn’t starve
>NOOOOO HOW COULD STALIN DO THIS

>>17817445
>Killing kulaks is why the USSR collapsed! Ben shapiro told me so!!!!

>>17817447
The working class will win

>>17817451
>>17817450
Again why did the the soviets independent of the cia not even existing decide to genocide the kulaks. I want a good justification but I know I wont get it because that would also justify the eradication of you useless fucks.

>>17817455
I agree. The workers of the world will slaughter communist oppressors. We will create a global culture of counter revolution.

>>17817467
I don't get why you're fixed on kulaks at all. It's not like socialists pretend that the CIA forced them to eliminate kulaks.
Most socialists rightfully think they were a parasite class and were rightfully eliminated for that reason. No socialists sheds tears over bloodsucking kulaks

>>17817467
Kulaks hated Russia and Russians, just like modern Ukrainians do. It’s not complicated.

>>17817488
>>17817484
Great the next revolution learned from polpot and they know what a waste of walking human fertilizer you academics are. Dont worry we also know the so called communists in the stem fields just want to become technocrats.

>>17817488
Actually what happened was the collective farms were a retarded concept and set impossible quotas for grain production. At the same time Stalin was EXPORTING grain while his country starved to raise capital for industrialization.

Blaming le kulaks is a scapegoat for retards.

>>17817505
Ukranians to this day let trannies and browns take total control of their country because they hate Russia and Russians. They are the slaves of globohomo

>>17816052
This was funny, the first time, ten years ago.

>>17817488
>rich were eating the poor

I'm starting to be convinced that really the commies had a fucking point. Holy shit.

>>17817584
>more refused to reap or sow
>kulaks were proto r/antiwork redditors
Why do you commie faggots hate them?

>>17816424
>country get attack by foreign rivals
riveting take from commies

>>17817511
>slaves of globohomo
>putin's dna leak shows he is descended from North African Jews

most infuriating thing about this whole kulak dialogue is the fact that in all other historical narratives the rising of the middle class was a good thing
The exodus of the English working class to cities after the black plague was good, the fact that Americans and English were able to become more productive and buy consumer products after the industrial revolution was good
When the kulaks were beginning to create surplus grain... absolutely terrible better kill those anti-revolutionaries
Ever think the reason Russia is the White Africa of today was because these dysgenics

>>17816038 (OP)
It got defeated by being the bulk of the casualties for the allies and proceeding to have to recover from that (plus famine that caused stalin to do a lil trolling in ukraine) while being the only global bulwark of socialism and facing 50 years of capitalist aggression until collapsing from mismanagement and bad leadership that made the mistake of trying to offensively combat capitalism by funding proxy wars to try and help other vanguard parties create their own socialist states.
China proven that a defensive approach is needed to combat capitalism and simply invest in yourself while you wait for the capitalist nations to collapse under their contradictions while you grow rapidly through effective socialist policy that is funded by providing a hub of manufacturing by partaking in the global capitalist system.
This "fairy tale" is why in 2025 the average town in america looks like some african shithole that just came out of a civil war while the standard of living in china is so good that the CCP can be openly authoritarian as fuck and still have popular support.

>>17817634
>fascism is fine when the gooks pay lip service to the cccp
I love it when commies go mask off with their retardation

>>17817593
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

>>17817699
Checked but man its sad you werent born with media literacy or reading comprehension. Maybe Marx coukd check God about your shitty genes.

>>17816038 (OP)
You're basically just restating "The Leviathan" by Hobbes but for Communism, and look how that turned out.

The Soviet political project was ruined, but it lasted 70 years. It wasn't completely unviable. We don't have to give up and just agree to give Elon Musk an Epoch's worth of wealth just because the Soviet Union had problems, which are fixable.

>>17816424
As if USSR wasn't trying to sabotage USA and the West. All USSR had to do was become isolationist and/or keep friendly relations with all their neighbors, but USSR in typical yokel russian style wanted to conquer the world and spread communism(russian imperialism) everywhere and they lost because russians are a weak bullies(look at Ukraine war).

>>17817717
What does Musk have to do with Stalin exploiting the labour of soviet states like the stans ukraine and poland.

>>17816038 (OP)
Capitalism will inevitably create conditions even worse than communism did, it only hasn't for now because Private enterprise was balanced out by government power, but they've been slowly eroding that since the 80's. Once the corporate class take over they'll make Stalin look compassionate in comparsion. People like Curtis Yarvvin, who is looked up to by people like Musk and Thiel already laid out the plans for "compassionate genocide" for the "useless eaters" i.e everyone who's going to lose their jobs to AI and automation.
Once they no longer need the plebs the plebs will be disposed of or reduced to neural link combat drones who fight for their corporate overlords as meat shields to act as protective chaff for their more expensive AI weapons.

>>17817734
commies ruined everything by starting the cold war
>hmm the working classes are suffering so what if we put in social nets and promote free-compiti-
>REEEE WE NEED TO EAT THE RICH AND THEN KILL THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THEN KILL EVIL WHITE PPL REEEE

>>17817832
Social nets and free competition, famously things that fix everything.

We have neither of those things now, that previously were there before. This is because the market itself incentivizes removing these things. Sure, in a crises situation like 1930s America you can have exceptional individuals who can thread the needle. But that isn't to be taken for granted and will be eroded over time. Now we live in an era where it doesn't matter who you vote for, they will never do what Roosevelt did. Not in a million years, and they will strip society of every safety net possible until we're basically just animals fighting for survival, if we're not already.

>>17817908
Sweden, west Germany, England and others were part of NATO against the commies
which is funny cuz commies always talk about how much better Europe is compared to America but they never mention its western Europe

eh but now this thread's getting too political

>>17817832
>Soviets tried to join NATO in 1954
>NATO existed in 1949
>Warsaw Pact doesn't even exist until 1955
>Soviets gave eastern Austria to NATO as a gesture of good will

What the ever loving fuck is he talking about

>>17817912

I don't Europe is better than America.

I think America has always had a strong communal trend, but it was always hamstrung by the fact there was always more land not directly controlled by the state to run off to (of course, taken from the natives). Now there is no more land available, America's communal past, a past Europe never had, requires communism but of course the old order will struggle against it to the end. Communism is if anything, natural in America and artificial in Europe, which is a continent heavily wedded to ethnic nationalism, nationalist competition and monarchy.

>>17817919
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxhLkwmSu98
hope this helps

>>17817725
Then you don't understand what communism is.
There is no communism without internationalism, its not nationalist in nature. The goal is to free the global working class of exploitation, not just workers in one specific part of the world.

>>17817625
>When the kulaks were beginning to create surplus grain... absolutely terrible better kill those anti-revolutionaries
Well what they were really doing is squeezing them to fund the industrialization in the cities by taking advantage of a difference in the balance of trade between agriculture in industry, so it wasn't that different from the enclosure of the commons in England (just more violent and compressed on a shorter time scale). But they also didn't want an independently wealthy peasantry which would threaten the party's power base.

>>17817634
>China proven that a defensive approach is needed to combat capitalism and simply invest in yourself while you wait for the capitalist nations to collapse under their contradictions
This is self-contradictory because other capitalist nations collapsing means China won't have buyers for their goods.

>This "fairy tale" is why in 2025 the average town in america looks like some african shithole that just came out of a civil war while the standard of living in china is so good that the CCP can be openly authoritarian as fuck and still have popular support.
You have no idea what it's really like there. You get a select image of China from the most developed cities while around 80% of the population makes under $5,000/year, and half of that number is under $2,000/year. That is relatively good though and a huge improvement compared to where they were.

>>17817468
As the bourgeois class rejoice? Yeah

>>17818371
I understand communism very well, but I also understand, which you fail, that communism can be changed, Leninism and Stalinism is not Marxism, same with Maoism and look at China now, anything can be changed. Don't you people say "real communism hasn't been tried"? Should've ditched your internationalism, or if you wanted to keep it then Trotsky would've done a better job than Stalin, done internationalism correctly instead of tanks and force. Either way idgaf, USSR is dead, not my problem.

>>17818846
>Don't you people say "real communism hasn't been tried"?
Only succdems and leftcoms say that to save face because they don't like how it was implemented in ussr/china/cuba/Vietnam/whatever. Marxist leninists don't and they have been the majority of communists forever.
>Trotsky
Stalin disliked his interpretation of internationalism (permanent revolution), USSR under him too was internationalist. He just prioritised establishment of socialism in his country first.

Lack of economic reforms, severe lack of pragmatism and slavish devotion to ideological orthodoxy. The problems were already visible during the last years of Stalin's rule, but nothing was actually done to address them. Sure, Khrushchev reined in the secret police and for the most part stopped the genocidal reign of terror, but the economic model stayed untouched. The problems festered and pilled up, but the leadership refused to change deathly afraid of losing power. The whole Brezhnev era is one long stretch of old men thinking "maybe if we don't change anything major things will naturally fix themselves somehow". When the reforms finally happened it was Gorbachev...while the state really needed was a Soviet equivalent of Deng Xiaoping.

>>17816424
>it's the CIA's fault that smuggled western shit became it's weight in gold for soviet citizens!

>>17818552
You're either a naïve child or an extremely stupid person. You look at shit posted on tik tok and twitter and take it on face value. Dumbass.

>>17819632
>I AM A HECKING NIGGER
Okay? Good for you I guess

>>17820169
Mad commie is mad

>>17821799
It's natural to get mad arguing with low IQ midwit subhumans.

>>17816424
And america doesn't even use an actually completely free market. They won with a mixed lobby system. What does that tell you about using a completely controlled market?
>spoiler it fucking sucks

>>17821807
Free market is myth, no country actually has one. Capitalism would self destruct without at least some control.
And socialism isn't when "goverment control stuff", read a book.

>>17816057
Why does literally every single and each time you have ever tried and are trying it ends up with:
>Deeply dysfunctional dictatorship
Often with a side of child rape or murder?
Have you ever thought that your murder theft ideology based on contradictons might possibly be wrong on explaining the world?

>>17817484
>I don't get why you're fixed on innocents at all. Socialists already always pretend that the CIA forced them to eliminate women and children so it's actually the wests fault
>Most socialists think non party members were a parasite class and were of course retardedly eliminated for that reason. No socialist sheds tears over innocent peasants!

>>17821811
Socialism literally is
>when gooberment does stuff
At it's core
it has no other method of gaining power because socialists are too economically illiterate to actually compete with anything.
Mostly because they can't even attain a barely functional state without parasitically feeding off capitalist systems like how commies used to go to hong kong to knock off prices for their wartime ration tier monopoly stores

>>17823406
These commie retards show their ass every time. They don't even know about Marx's theory of "Dictatorship of the Government"

>>17823834
>Dictatorship of the government
Made me lol

>>17823379
Idgi

>>17823379
shittiest straw man ever

>>17823360
Communism is an end goal. The dictatorships are what is required to get there. The road to heaven is paved in famine and genocide

>>17824810
Do you have any proof or even a logical argument not based on contradictons to determine if that is "heaven", or to actually reach there without genocide or famine of innocent people?
>>17824785
Pick one thing commies don't actually say from that post

>>17816424
The USSR was the most powerful country in the world in 1945. Why did they lose pole position?

>>17816038 (OP)
>>gets defeated by Coca-Cola and Jeans
Skill issue

>>17825744
>communism is supposed to be a worker's paradise
>China has shitty worker conditions

??? I'm starting to think that maybe China isn't communist..

>>17826586
China operated under a Command Economy, of course it's communist

>>17826592
So communism is just shit?

>>17825226
Venezuela has higher growth.

>>17816038 (OP)
corporatism, not corpotocracy, is undeniably the better system. you cant force people to work their best, even for the greater good, so they need a stake in the success of their employers. something strong unions and states can give

my personal blackmail on communism was the east german car. this thing was objectively a piece of shit. loud, inefficient, uncomfortable, it stunk to high heaven because of the shit engine it used. just bad. all the while there were buses, and trams and trains everywhere. public transportation that was cheap, ubiquitous, clean and timely.

east germans still bought them. they got on years long waiting lists for this piece of shit. because no matter how much better you make public transportation, human nature still craves the private option. cant find the quote but there was some communist part functionary deapairing about this too

>>17817701
You're really not terrific at expressing yourself.

>>17823360
The Leninist model, although skilled at acquiring power, was deeply flawed in exercising it; Marxists need to move towards other types of organization which do not have the potential to be turned against the workers.

>>17816038 (OP)
Its not really cola and jeans, it's just a superior mode of production in general

>>17816038 (OP)
Its not a real thing. Communist regimes which last long always devolve into quasi-aristocratic cliques sitting on top of a bloated bureaucracy.
In Bulgaria for example, members of Politburo and their families were given 60,000 bgn per month allowance from the state, while the average wage was like 200. The party elite was essentially a privileged class living of the work of everyone else which is peak irony.
Same was in Romania where caucescu built himself a palace bigger than most European kings, and as some anon mentioned above, in China today where there are whole dynasties within the CCP.
Communism is a joke - its easy to take the means of production, but none of them have so far given them back to "the people".

>>17827291
this sounds fucking baller imagine you're some fucking dirty ass peasant and then you join the party, pretend to have read some retarded books and become one of the wealthiest fucks in the country

>>17827313
Pretty much how it worked, yeah

>>17826699
With the oil or with the runescape miners?
>>17827092
You will always have the same outcome.
You would have completely disband the party and the bureaucracy to avoid the fondness for legal monopolies and centralization ultimately taking hold to the end of a technocratic dictatorship.
I suppose you can summarize this as the inherent palace economics of leftism

>>17827313
Expect you get rich by robbing the peasants who actually work and think for a living.
ie in constant fear of ass rape by horde of incel peasants desu

I sleep like a baby when I realize that communism is never gonna happen never ever

>>17817450
>>17817488
Sounds like the government shouldnt have taken their property then?

>>17816424
Dude their own leader was creaming himself when he saw a pack of eggo waffles

>>17829348
The leader you're talking about came in at the end, was a westaboo and hated communism just like Gorbachev and wanted to move away from it.
Retarded fucking example.

>>17816038 (OP)
Imo the idea that socialism (and subsequently communism) must come from a revolution or from workers seizing the means of production is simply incompatible with the complexity of the modern world.
Marx saw history as movement in which the material dialectic took place. Capitalism came from feudalism, which came from slave-systems etc. But if you actually looked at these movements, none of them were spontaneous revolutions but rather slow and gradual movements birthed from the contradictions within these systems (like the bourgeoisie rising to power through free-trade towns progressively).
If socialism does happen, it will be over a very long and gradual process by which the state slowly comes about in replacing private production. Who knows, maybe the social democracies in the West and Singapore-style governments will be the precursors to socialism.

>>17825226
>Do you have any proof or even a logical argument not based on contradictons to determine if that is "heaven"
Humans in marxist thought are defined by their humanity, a set of values founded on their consciousness and social relations (their species-being). Accordingly, "inhumanity" would be, in opposition, defined as antinomic to humans. In essence, a human acting in opposite to his "species-being" would go against his own humanity. Hegelian thought believes in a dialectic movement in history, in which the "Geist" will eventually find itself; i.e. that the subjective will join the objective (that humans rejoin with their humanity). This is because, there is a fundamental drive for the subjective to rejoin the objective, because not doing so could only come from subversion (why would a human decide to be a tool or a machine if he could be a human).
It's not that this is "heaven", but simply that this is humans acting in accordance with their nature.
The funny thing is, despite all of your "epic based libertarian" post, you have genuinely no clue what you're talking about.

>>17829916
>I'm Dialecticing
I specifically stated
>Not based on contradictons
Contradictons by their nature imply that at least one statement involved is false, it's inherently anti-logic
>Epic based libertarian post
Yes, Hegel is Mises's bitch
>My favorite kraut mind fucks yours

>>17830532
>Contradictons by their nature imply that at least one statement involved is false, it's inherently anti-logic
Why are you even attempting to debate if you don't understand the fundamentals ?

>Yes, Hegel is Mises's bitch
>Hegel
>Mises
the absolute state of /his/. No wonder this board is so shit when retards like you can say the dumbest shit one can concieve.

>>17830587
contradictions are false anon
>Mises defamation
/biz/ is too tech bro, Hegels gets beaten up by Mises by proxy, you will bow before my favourite kraut like your decrepit, disgusting kraut's ideas once did
>There are no stages of humanity in a dialectic sense, neither do collectives have a will or consciousness.
You legitimately cannot make an argument that isn't either fantastical collective gods or illogical contradictions

>>17816038 (OP)
>gets defeated by Coca-Cola and jean
>still chastised by the west and treated as pre-cold war soviet union in 2025.

>>17830650
>contradictions are false anon
I'll bite the bait, elaborate.

>There are no stages of humanity in a dialectic sense
Do you have an argument or ?

>neither do collectives have a will or consciousness.
I don't think you understand what consciousness means here

>>17830650
>you will bow before my favourite kraut like your decrepit, disgusting kraut's ideas once did
Retard did you think they were some pokemon cards ?

>>17818709
As everyone rejoices.

>>17818709
Bourgeois and Workers will eliminate the parasites to society spewing debunked victorian sociohistorical fairytales.

>>17830668
A contradiction means at least one proposition involved is false. A proposition doesn't necessarily imply its opposite by itself.
Dialectics are useful in clarifying things that you already know are true, not actually reaching a conclusion solely by dilacting
>No dialectic stages of humanity
You can't exactly determine how humanity will regress or progress, especially with a method that is anti-logical. Any contradictions in society are simply falsehoods.
>?????
Force every member of government to take a holiday, does the government have a ''consciousness '' or ''will'' during said holiday? I say it does not since it's ''consciousness'' and ''will'' are nothing more than the result of interactions between every will included in the group. Thus, it has no true will or consciousness of its own.

>>17830683
Yes, they are krauts, obviously

>>17816038 (OP)
What a hopelessly pedestrian take on the USSR

>>17830705
>A contradiction means at least one proposition involved is false
Not in the way Hegel meant it or any philosopher really. It loosely means something "in opposition". E.g. Feudalism is in opposition to capitalism. One isn't false, they just oppose each other due to innate elements.

>A proposition doesn't necessarily imply its opposite by itself.
It does. Even with the most basic elements, there is something that "opposes" it otherwise it wouldn't exist. How can you define yourself without negating and differentiating others from yourself. Again, I don't think you truly understand what you're talking about.

>You can't exactly determine how humanity will regress or progress
I would agree with you, but it's really not for the reasons you think.

>Any contradictions in society are simply falsehoods
Feudalism enslaving man to a hierarchy is "falsehood" ? Again, you need to have some argument to assert something.

>Force every member of government to take a holiday, does the government have a ''consciousness '' or ''will'' during said holiday? I say it does not since it's ''consciousness'' and ''will'' are nothing more than the result of interactions between every will included in the group. Thus, it has no true will or consciousness of its own.
You're saying that if every person in that government were to go on vacation, they wouldn't have consciousness of being on vacation ? And you think that their will or desires wouldn't be affected at all by this newfound condition ? Again, if you want to critique hegel or marxism, at least read the basics.

>>17829625
It wasn't just Yeltsin. The issue is when the government isolated people from the West, the more they were attracted to it. The higher the wall, the more you want to peek over. This was a paradoxical and counter-productive thing that communists governments did. If you had a candy wrapper from the West, that was like an ultra-rare Pepe meme and you would be the coolest kid at your school. There was enormous attraction and weird fandoms that developed over that stuff:
https://youtu.be/-1rxg0YrPRE

Flip it around. It's not that different from liberal bureaucrats in Western countries being like RUSSIA BAD. Don't listen to Russian propaganda! Well, whaddya mean I can't listen to Russian propaganda? I WANT to listen to Russian propaganda!!! But in reality, it's not like Russia is all that it's cracked up to be either, or people are getting a very selective image of it, or what they want to see. Back in the 1980s, there were Soviet dissidents (although they didn't like to call themselves "dissidents" because that's a negative term) who'd move to Brighton Beach in NYC and they'd become disillusioned with American-style freedom. It was just too chaotic and wild and you're just on your own.

>>17830724
>nuh-uh
Contradictions are false, this is why dialectics is anti-logical, you don't actually know something opposes something else because of dialectics, you have to know it beforehand to even apply it to dialectics, not everything has to negate itself
>Nuh-uh
I am, at my core, myself without others, and others are, at their core, themselves without me. Our interactions may influence me, but that influence does not and cannot exist without me already existing.
>Esotericism
Okay
>Feudalism enslaving man to a hierarchy is "falsehood" ?
Yes, but not for the reasons you think. My argument is that every contradiction is people being retarded and to digress, hierarchy is actually good, and you're retarded for thinking otherwise.
>You're saying that if every person in that government were to go on vacation, they wouldn't have consciousness of being on vacation ? And you think that their will or desires wouldn't be affected at all by this newfound condition?
I'm saying that there is no ''Their'' will, they each individually have wills alone, ''Their Will'' and ''Their Consciousness'' is literally nothing more than said wills and consciousnesses interacting with each other, likely within a hierarchy.
Groups by themselves cannot exist as they are social constructs, people can. Same with collective will, it's a social construct to call the interactions between people's individual wills.

>>17830751
>you don't actually know something opposes something else because of dialectics
Correct, you have to know the thing you're usually discussing to make an analysis of its attributes. This goes for quite literally everything but congrats, you're getting there ! You still haven't made an argument as to why contradictions imply falsehood or are anti-logical but I'm sure you can do this !

>I am, at my core, myself without others, and others are, at their core, themselves without me
So the "you" is opposed by the "not you". At least you seemed to have understood this.

>My argument is that every contradiction is people being retarded
>my argument is that the topic at hand is retarded
the absolute state of /his/

>I'm saying that there is no ''Their'' will, they each individually have wills alone,
And what do you think influences will (hint : it might be their material context)

> Groups by themselves cannot exist as they are social constructs, people can. Same with collective will, it's a social construct to call the interactions between people's individual wills.
Yes this isn't news anon. A group is a collection of individuals sharing similar traits. Collective wills is that group sharing the same material conditions which may or may not influence their will. You're ironically getting very close to the marxist analysis.

>>17830751
But to give you room for argument since you don't really seem to understand the topic :
Every idea (cat-ness) can be defined by its opposition (everything that isn't a cat). Otherwise, everything would be one without division.
Humans can be defined by their humanity (which hegel calls spirit). However, humans aren't predisposed to a natural behavior because humans are conscious. This consciousness allows them for freedom.
Thus, humans will accomplish their humanity once they are free, as in, when individuals are free.
However, there currently is something which ties human's humanity (freedom) down : their irrational behavior. These are things, which, in contradiction with humanity, tie man to not-man. Stuff like traditions, hierarchies prevent man from being free as he finds himself obeying not to his freedom (his humanity) but to some irrational rules in which his freedom can't be found. In hegelian thought, these are all very abstract things which don't really tie to the real.
In marxist thought, these contradictions exist under the form of their material element : the social conditions of workers, peasants etc which are all reduced to less-then-humans, to their function of production. They aren't free, so not-humans.

>>17830684
>>17830688
I FUCKING <3 CLASS COLLABORATION

>>17830773
> This goes for quite literally everything
Yes, that would be logic, which dialectics oppose by proposing everything inherently supposes its own opposite
>So the "you" is opposed by the "not you"
no retard, I'm trying to say the two have nothing inherently opposing each other
>My argument is that every contradiction is people being retarded
yes, that is my argument, in this case you being false in the contradiction instead of me being false or us being both false and being irrelevant to the topic at hand
>And what do you think influences will (hint : it might be their material context)
Their being in totality, not everything is material, neither is everything environmental, they exist on to themselves without opposition
and you avoided the question that if it's solely their individual wills that exist or not
>Collective wills is that group sharing the same material conditions
No, no such thing actually exists, this brutalization is purely to avoid a contradiction(falsehood) for retards who fail to account for every single and each person as they should.
This concept is to solely help them understand that better with the superficial similarities in between group members, as it would be extremely hard to categorize people to even the crude and half wrong extent that we barely manage to in the first place if we wouldn't stereotype after all
I suppose this ties to intersectionality as one's categorizations improve vastly in proportion to however smaller he makes the target group for the same reason as why group will doesn't really exist desu.
I have to individually regard each nigger as its own nigger to be correctly racist to the entire group of niggers for example. If i don't properly sociologially be racist, how will i look her in the eye

>>17830797
i don't see how
>difference=opposition
anything that isn't a cat isn't necessarily a cat, neither does everything have an inherent opposite
also man is free with hierarchies, it's in the nature of man to form hierarchies without which he actually would be in opposition to his own nature and thus not free to achieve his next step in Maslow's hierarchy. Man without anything will naturally form hierarchies and societies, Rousseau was a mistake. Adam and Eve started with nothing and built civilization alongside their descendants instead of being essentially niggers

>>17830839
>which dialectics oppose by proposing everything inherently supposes its own opposite
defining something means defining it from the rest, aka, singling it out.

>no retard, I'm trying to say the two have nothing inherently opposing each other
Let's remain calm ! I understand that this can be hard to understand because you don't know what you're talking about or because you lack the intellectual capacities, but again, something "in opposition" simply means something that is antinomic in attribute. A cat has cat-ness, something else other than a cat doesn't have that.

>individuals have different wills and condition
No one is denying that. But formally, if you make a group, it has to have a common characteristics. In marxist thought, since the modes of production determine culture, art etc (the superstructure), proletariat will end up more or less with the same lives, creating similar wills. It's on that basis that people say 'class consciousness', because there are similar events and experiences with people with similar attributes (required to make a group btw)

>long rambling
You seem to believe that marxists or hegelians believe that material condition form an ontological division in which people are grouped. This isn't the case. Again, read the wiki page at least.
There isn't a ontological essence in the proles, just similar living conditions leading to similar experiences *in general*.
This is also something that people don't understand about marxism. A prole isn't ontologically one, but only materially one.

>also man is free with hierarchies, it's in the nature of man to form hierarchies without which he actually would be in opposition to his own nature and thus not free to achieve his next step in Maslow's hierarchy
Maybe, but as long as irrational beliefs point him to otherwise, he won't satisfy his own essence. This is the dialectical process, man satisfying his own nature. Your definition of man's essence is simply different than Hegel

>>17830839
>anime picture
>usage of "nigger"
>libertarian
>popfunk notion of philosophers without understanding their work
>"hierarchies are le good"
Yup, checks out. You're a young-adult who was socially recluse, which lead you to adopt every contrarian thought based on the premise that it opposed the norm (which you implicitly viewed as bad due to your experience).
Ironic that you critique the notion of groups and collective consciousness despite being very similar to the concept of proles but in a different form

>>17830909
>Cat-ness
Cat as opposed to everything else/=/ cat as opposed to something else
You are only stating that cats are their own thing
>Group will doesn't exist but it does for practicality
I just explained why that leads to retarded results as wildy differing from reality as large of a group you target
>Long rambling
Hah
>Man contradicts himself and uses these to rise above the contradictions
Is that what you're saying? If so then it is simply man either delving further into falsehood by dialectics or mistakenly solving the contradiction via logic, completely irreverent to dialectics
>>17830917
Thank you for making my point, as one can clearly see from your comment you use multiple stereotypes to semi accurately describe me while also failing to actually describe me as you don't actually know who i am but are going off generalizations from others
Nigger

>>17816038 (OP)
>If the soviet union didn't managed to bring communism to the world then I can't see why people still believe in this fairy tale
Gramchi essentially came to the conclusion that materialism was bullshit ideas DO infact play a huge role in the trajector of society and not only did he remain a Marxist his work became the basis of the entire wester Marxist tradition.
lt should have been obvious to people THEN that none of this actually how leftists thought the world worked and all about how they wanted the world work but when you have a society run by atheist naturalists who somehow still believe genetics plays no role in human intelligence this sort incongruenc and hypocrisy is honestly mundane.

>>17830935
>Cat as opposed to everything else/=/ cat as opposed to something else
Why make the distinction, something else is included in *everything* else

>You are only stating that cats are their own thing
They are indeed. And those things which aren't cats are antinomic to the attribute which makes a cat a cat : catness.

> I just explained why that leads to retarded results as wildy differing from reality as large of a group you target
Might be an IQ problem if you genuinely don't see how. But the general idea is that the trait used to form the group "proles" is antinomic to the notion of humanity because it's fundamentally used for production rather than "humanity".

>Man contradicts himself and uses these to rise above the contradictions
Reality makes apparent these contradictions to man. Contradictions are only an analysis, not some prescriptive movement or tool, it's only a description of the real.

>If so then it is simply man either delving further into falsehood by dialectics or mistakenly solving the contradiction via logic, completely irreverent to dialectics
Dialectics isn't prescriptive. Some marxists have tried making it prescriptive by saying we needed "x" system to solve the contradictions but in essence no, the contradictions in hegelian thought naturally grow out due to the innate problems they have.

>Thank you for making my point, as one can clearly see from your comment you use multiple stereotypes to semi accurately describe me while also failing to actually describe me as you don't actually know who i am but are going off generalizations from others
If the description I made is accurate to an extent, shouldn't I also derive consequences of that assessment ? My description might not individually describe you, but it's enough to call you for who you are : a social failure. Ironically similar to the proles : they might live different individual lives but share a common trait with consequences to that trait...

>>17830935
You could've attacked the idea of marxism, the notion of historicism or the premise of "humanity = rational freedom" being used as a common denominator for man.
But you chose the most retarded thing to debate on : that groups have a trait which suppose consequences and that contradictions can be used as a description of the real. It's disappointing desu, it's kinda retarded to debate evidence.
The whole
>"dude hegel is le wrong because ideas don't have their opposite... like a cat doesn't have an opposite man"
and
>"bro marx is so dumb because like, different proles have different lives man... so like, you can't group them man"
is the dumbest and most uninformed take you could actually make.
It's grim but true; the word "marxism" as a trigger really does manifest the most unsound stupidity in man.

>>17830917
You are either a basedjak who enjoys cuckold porn or a tranny
t. financially and socially successful libertarian with a high bodycount

>>17817450
Have you ever looked into what the functional definition of kulak was on the ground at the time? It typically wasn’t some massively wealthy landlord. Just being better off than your neighbors or having a few more acres of land, or even just not being well liked was enough to get you classified as a kulak. Beyond that, these peasants had, until recently been serfs. They’d been allowed to work and thus buy their land though through earlier imperial era reforms. Having these plots of land was the fruition of centuries of dreaming and decades of work. Then being forced back onto a lord’s estate (party collective farm) was just a return to slavery. Having someone come in and say ‘this isn’t yours anymore, it’s part of the collective as is all your livestock’ was both destructive and capricious. Do you know how much outrage you have to incite in people to get them to destroy something they treasure? They were being returned to serfdom. Why wouldn’t they just destroy everything?

>>17831081
>Babble babble
>Rational actor
No, that would be boring, I'm fundementally against dialectics which you base your ideology on
>Hegel and his dialectic are anti logical arguments based on unscientific, subjective nonsense that a proposition necessarily negates itself
Yes
>No one can share a will and thus however much you group them you will likely be wrong as much
Yes
>>17831055
>Something else is included in everything else
Each thing is a thing on to itself in the first place, not inherently opposed to anything else
You don't need anything else than a cat to know a cat
>Cats are cats as opposed to not cats
No, cats ar cats regardless of anything else, cat-ness is a meaningless term that doesn't describe anything that you already don't know
>I don't understand generalizations being basically as wrong as generalized they are
Of course, im saying you're fundementally wrong, it's just that you tolerate your wrong assesments about a group by the fact that you have correct assessments as well, regardless of the fact that by nature of having wrong statement you contradictthat this is an actual description of the person who you deem is the same as another by nature of being wrong about that person.
>Dialectics are real
No, they are specifically fantasy.
Contradictions state falsehood, there can be no contradiction that doesn't state falsehood
>Commies tried to disassociate their ideology from its core without actually changing their core ideology
Lol, give more details
>I'm accurate enough
No really you're not, this is in essence why voluntarism results in high trust societies and civilization while your wrong assesments bring down civilizations. You have to be correct at all times to derive your specific ideology and thus you need only one wrong doer/shirker to destroy your order, while voluntarism needs one good doer/entrepreneur to build theirs
>You're a chud
Thanks, i try
>>17831616
>High bodycount
Read Hoppe

>>17816052
>eastern european is cool
>his family is descended from tatars
every time

>>17816038 (OP)
>If the soviet union didn't managed to bring communism to the world then I can't see why people still believe in this fairy tale
Now apply the same logic to the powerful Catholic church of the Middle Ages

>>17832673
>Each thing is a thing on to itself in the first place, not inherently opposed to anything else
You don't know what "opposed" here means.

>No, cats ar cats regardless of anything else
Definition implies division

>cat-ness is a meaningless term that doesn't describe anything that you already don't know
Words are founded on a common trait

>blah blah proles aren't a real group
People can have common material conditions

> Contradictions state falsehood, there can be no contradiction that doesn't state falsehood
Contradictions don't imply falsehood, simply different perspective

>Commies tried to disassociate their ideology from its core without actually changing their core ideology
Hegel isn't marxist

>No really you're not
What are you arguing here ? That you can't group people with similar forms of labor ?

>You have to be correct at all times to derive your specific ideology and thus you need only one wrong doer/shirker to destroy your order
You know it could be useful if you wanted to debate to actually know the stuff you're talking about right ?

From the 2 things I understand, you're arguing that :
>definition doesn't imply opposites
Which it does. You can't have a definition without a division. And "opposite" only means antinomic in attribute, not as in directly opposing.

>The proletariat isn't a real division
Which it is, it simply is people alienated from their labor through wages

You don't actually know what dialectics are, nor what hegel believed. So why are you trying to argue on that ?

>>17832710
Yes i do

No it doesn't

You can learn something you don't already know, you can't know them before learning them

Contradictions absolutely state falsehood and you have to correct at least on proposition to actually advance any argument, there is objective truth

Marx is a Hegelian

I'm arguing no one can truly know and group people correctly, your margin of error rises with the size of the group

You know your ideology is based on falsehood right?

Definitions depend on the thing, not not the thing

Proles are a sociologically meaningless term, the term underclass was and is better at its job even though it itself falls for the same pitfalls any stereotyping does. Sociology isn't an empirical science, you have to adhere to logic fully. who would have thunk.

The people who invented the term proletariat in the modern world are specifically using proletariat and labor nonsense because they believe in the bunk labor theory of value and dialectics.
Since you have to already actually know the result in dialectics(LTV) to be able to do it, they simply reframe their argument for gibs(natural result of LTV) in a more "inclusive" manner. This is Hegel's fault and is retarded

>>17832727
For the sake of the argument, tell me, what are you even arguing for and about ?

>>17832739
Dialectics are retarded and anti logical, commies use it for semantics and their ideology is so horribly atrocious they have to base their ideology on said semantics.

>>17832755
>>17832727
>Dialectics are retarded and anti logical

>ideas don't imply their opposites.
For something to exist there needs to be a distinction between that things and the rest. You're alive so we can infer you're not dead or whatever other status, you're a human so we can infer you're not a cat etc

>contradictions imply something being 'wrong' or 'false'
Contradictions imply 2 different truth claims (thesis and antithesis) to achieve a result from both (synthesis). There isn't a "wrong" statement, simply 2 different forms containing issues.

>commies & semantics

>proles are not a real category
People living under wages are in effect a real category. Based on whatever analysis you can derive different things from that but it's undeniably true that grouping people based on their forms of labor, their wages etc is a thing which can be done.

>>17832755
forgot to add:

>dialectics are illogical since you can't know the opposite
dialectics is the movement by which men rejoin their humanity (freedom). They're not logical or illogical but simply descriptive of the state of man towards his freedom.

>>17832757
This is simply repetition of previous posts desu.
I'll only add
>2 different truth claims
This means at least one is false, you do not need to achieve a result from both because that would lead to a wrong result.
1+0=1
since it might be a good simplification
>>17832759
>religious dogma
Gnostic-sama please, not in front of the proles who are yet to achieve inner enlightenment through a falsehood gymnastics which justify their want for the eternal gibs.

>>17832764
>This means at least one is false, you do not need to achieve a result from both because that would lead to a wrong result.
both have some inner contradictions

are you the guy I was talking too ?

>>17832765
Then both would be false, with a potential to reach truth if they solve their contradictions through logic
Would've posted
>Nta
if i weren't the same anon

>>17832776
>Then both would be false, with a potential to reach truth if they solve their contradictions through logic
Yeah that's essentially what happens. Congrats on figuring out dialectics !

now you just have to understand that groups imply a common trait, which implies a common experience and we're good to go !

>>17832781
>Through logic
Not dialectics which is anti-logic, again
1+0=1, the 1 carries over and the 0 is meaningless because it is false
>Groups are 100% true
No, the larger the group, the more meaningless it is;
It cannot ever reach actual truth as you would have to be omnipotent .

>>17832810
>retard doesn't understand what an observation or descriptive process is
If I see a child solving mathematical observation, is my observation logical or illogical ?

>1=0=1
Wait until you discover fractional parts of numbers in school, fun stuff !

>No, the larger the group, the more meaningless it is;
>groups can't have a common denominator
okay buddy

Checks out, you're the retard from the christian threads that uses this >>17832764 image. This might be why you're libertarian, I've heard sub 90 iq have a hard time with abstraction.

>>17832825
>observing a child solving a mathematical observation
Well, as long as you don't try to pretend contradictions in there are correct or true
>1=0
Even in your quote, quite a Freudian slip lol
No it would be a simplification to think of logic in binary, you have to use integers.
>common denominator
People aren't exactly the same, a common denominator is always ignoring the differences for the sake of practicality, since one is not omnipotent.
This doesn't scale well and you base your entire ideology on the basis that it does and falsehoods.
>The dialectic dilator is appalled and afraid of christian imagery
Are you really that afraid of a Jew?

>>17832855
>Well, as long as you don't try to pretend contradictions in there are correct or true
Thank you for your concession. Took quite some time but you finally admit that contradictions and dialectics are an observation.

> No it would be a simplification to think of logic in binary, you have to use integers.
In dialectics both thesis and antithesis include some shortcomings. Both are "false" and "true" because they aren't a singular entity, but a complex system with certain irrational elements.
As you said yourself : " both would be false, with a potential to reach truth if they solve their contradictions through logic"

>a common denominator is always ignoring the differences for the sake of practicality
At least you concede that a common denominator exists.

> This doesn't scale well and you base your entire ideology on the basis that it does and falsehoods.
In traditional marxism, that common denominator is ontologically problematic to the condition of these people.
To make an analogy with libertarianism, if the individuals making up society get robbed every year through taxes, you could safely make a group calling them "taxpayers", and could infer that, on the premise that taxation is theft and that theft is wrong, they have an ontologic problem with their status.

>Are you really that afraid of a Jew?
I don't think the jew would've been very proud of you calling your brethrens "niggers"

>>17832888
You would have not be making a contradiction nor accepting contradictions are true or are worthwhile though
>Not binary
They are false and true otherwise it wouldn't be a contradiction, also, through logic, not anti logic. You can't use false statements to reach the truth without knowing the truth beforehand, the dialectic is pretty much worthless as a method of reaching truth. Also
>irrational elements
please define these, I'm genuinely curious
>Ontologically problematic
Your generalization works on such things as your given example, since your sample size is rather small and generalization simple. You still can't get into people's heads, and I'm getting too tired to think of a situation. Feel free to dig in to this opening while i play vidya
It might be that i will have to concede this point to the extent that your proles as a group being t, and it unfortunately might fail in the premise and society part, as it's being used instead of the term lower class which has no ontological argument for a revolution.
I would apologize to Jesus, Hoppe and Mises for this failing if I were to be fully convinced, likely after reread this post tomorrow, good day commie-kun
>Let me patronize you on your religion
No

>>17833008
>You would have not be making a contradiction nor accepting contradictions are true or are worthwhile though
Yes, the dialectic is an observation about the gradual path of man towards his humanity. Not a layed-out map or reasoning to follow.

>please define these, I'm genuinely curious
For example, the old nobility keeping their status under liberalism would be an irrational element since its "truth" would be founded on the idea of hierarchical societies, this element would find itself incompatible with liberal societies.

>i will have to concede this point to the extent that your proles as a group being t, and it unfortunately might fail in the premise and society part, as it's being used instead of the term lower class which has no ontological argument for a revolution.
Yeah that depends ultimately on the justification you attach to said-status. I'm not a commie for instance because I don't believe that wage-labor is theft, or is alienating to the individual who performs it.

>good day commie-kun
I'm not a commie but good day paleo-libertarian

>>17817455
And it did happen, in Poland, for example commie ideology was eventually destroyed by the trade union.
Quite ironic, getting mogged out of power by people you were supposed to represent

>>17833491
The problem wasn't communism, it was the USSR imposing itself on Poland. There's nothing poles hate more than being subordinates to Russians.

And don't worry, when the capitalists finally suck the working class dry, they WILL turn towards communism again. They're currently in the "fuck around" phase of liberalism.

the majority of russians lived in shitty hamlets with no electricity or indoor plumbing before the rapid construction of new infrastructure made possible by soviet central planning. the stupid nigger mutts who wine about communism the loudest don't actually give a fuck about how it affected the ordinary eurasian peasant's quality of life

>>17833677
so the Russian empire was slow to industrialize
the western countries never needed communism to reach the wealth they are today

To be fair, Russia is a third world shithole, and Marx explicitly believed third world shitholes SHOULD'NT run headfirst into communism, since communism was meant to succeed Classical Liberalism, and third world shitholes usually lack the Liberal foundation and culture needed to transition to a Communist society

>>17833678
that's because they were western bro
how else are you going to justify wreaking havoc and overworking your populace to death just to catch up to the west if not by utopian slogans

>>17833678
sure, soviet-style communism wasn't suited to every country. that said, the people who deny how much your typical east euro villager benefitted from it are either lying, poorly read, or both. pre-bolshevik russia had close to zero rural electrification (despite 85%+ of the population living there), a literacy rate of less than 25%, and awful sanitation. yes, central planning was bad for creating consumer goods, but it alleviated so much human suffering by allowing a shithole like russia to build hydroelectric dams, power plants, modern housing, and educational institutions quickly. yes, prefab apartments are ugly but they also gave tens of millions of people access to running water in their homes for the first time. yes, russia could have developed its economy without communism, but it would've taken far longer for the benefits of growth to reach ordinary people.

I'm not a communist, I just hate that amateur history fags see the past in terms of maps and buildings instead of the ordinary people who lived through it.

>>17826999
It's kinda funny how the modern day yurocucks achieved what the USSR failed to do: get its populace to actually be happy to not have cars and brag about their "great" public transit and "walkable cities". I guess yuros would rather get pickpocketed by gypsies and stabbed by mohanmads just to own the americans online

>>17833681
By that same logic, even the richest western countries like america are still not ready for communism yet and the retards constantly agitating for soicualism are getting in the way of it

>>17833850
you're statistically far less likely to be robbed or killed in europe than america despite your garbage transit infrastructure and gunko pops

>>17833880
Youre statistically more likely to die of heatstroke in europe due to nannystate AC bans

>>17816038 (OP)
Instead of Perestroika and Glasnost, Gorbachev should have killed everyone at Gosplan for failing to execute the 5-year-plans, and also killed almost every factory manager in the country for corruption, in fact kill every single one of them just to be safe. Replace the factory managers and the economic planners and tell them all when they're assigned that if they fail the next plan they will meet the same fate. The Soviet economy ultimately failed because nobody was willing to do what was necessary to make anything work, bringing back Stalinesque purges and fear would have solved the problem.

>>17833885
you're statistically more likely to die of a tooth infection or any other treatable medical ailment because niggers bullied you out of having accessible healthcare

>>17816038 (OP)
None of this really has anything to do with socialism or communism.

>kulaks
This is really just down to how a country industrializes. You can go the Bukharin route or the Stalin/Trotsky route. Not anything to do with socialism.

>censorship
There's censorship in capitalist countries. Censorship really has to do with how robust of a culture there is around free speech. Obviously, Russia had none and continued to have none. Not really anything to do with economics.

>indoctrination
Every country indoctrinates people with nationalist propaganda.

>>17833850
My point wasnt the numbers, it's about what the anon >>17826999 said, the human desire for privacy and freedom and unrestricted travel, the modern day neoliberal EU was able to do what the USSR could never do, suppress that desire and somehow convince the populace it's a good thing, as you can see from the sheer vitriol yuropoors like >>17833901 have to defend it

>>17833901
My company gives me dental and vision, and it's a good thing my taxes arent jacked up to give it to unemployed gypsies

>>17833907
>neoliberal
do you know what that word means you stupid mutt? I'll give you a clue: it has nothing to do with culture, and it describes every post-1970s western economy. type that word into google and maybe you'll learn what you should've in high school

>>17833915
doesnt refute my point, unless you are trying to somehow claim the EU is communist? (last I checked even scandinavia is still capitalist)

>>17833909
there's a whole world wide web of information right at your fingertips are you choose to be an ignorant retard instead, shame.

>>17816038 (OP)
Still makes burgers seethe to this day.
>>17816052
You think the ones killed were genuine commies? Think again.