Thread 17894713

I don't know shit about history and I'm too old not to know. Think I want to start with Communism and the Bolsheviks. I watched a documentary recently on how "great" Communism was, Australian origin. Any good docs or films on communism from the other side of the bar, or even the middle? Thanks for helping out the local village idiot, /his/

>>17894713 (OP)
talmud 2.0

>>17894713 (OP)
not really possible as anti-communism is seen as antisemitic kind of. most hardline anti-communists tend to be monarchists or hardcore fascists or libertarians into a "leave me the hell alone" kind of philosophy which isn't good for PR. but they ought to.

>>17894724
>I don't know what communism is so I'll call it the talmud because I don't know what that is either

you should read hegel and realize that all leftism based on him is the equivalent of this

>>17894905
the two are interrelated but not the same. certain strands were more jewish aligned than others. Stalinism and mutualist anarchism were less than council communism, Trotskyism and anarcho communism.

>>17894713 (OP)
You can actually read the Communist Manifesto:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm
It's short, and will put you a notch above everyone from anti-communists to self-professed Marxists who haven't ever read it.

>>17894948
yeah read the communist manifesto and be mesmerized by his entry level knowledge of finance and claims that people that live in cities are the devil (somehow connected to the slavers of ancient rome) and the peasants and workers must rise up and kill them despite technically unionists being the citizens of a city

>>17894963
>(somehow connected to the slavers of ancient rome)
>The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.
He also talks about why the bourgeoise aren't just literally "people who live in cities." Don't think you got to that paragraph either.

>>17894905
both commies and talmudists hate Christ
both are scheming selfish degenerates with no moral compass
both started by jews goes without saying
so you can draw your own conclusions

>>17895029
His historical theory is bogus. His philosophy is a lie

>>17895055
Okay. Do you have any literature for these views? OP did say he was open to dissenting views on Communism.

>>17895087
Marx used "bourgeoisie" to sound intelligent to Germans, they were burghers. He had no idea how a townsperson would become a "bourgeoisie" or this new invented class of his apparently above a burgher (they're the same). Engles goes on to use language like "big bourgeoisie" almost as if communism was a shonen anime.

He doesn't name the banks though because they wanted control of a central bank.

>>17895033
>both commies and talmudists hate Christ
Nigga you're a scampitalist who worships mammon. That's as jewish and Godless as it gets.

>>17895216
my point stands regardless of what I do for a living

>>17895145
One major thing missing from Marx's historical theory is how capitalism actually globalizes the economy.

He names capitalism but does not go into any real depth. The main enemy this entire time is England, why doesn't he refer to England as the Great Satan? No it's always Capitalism

He never dissects England, not once, to inform the reader why industrialization was happening and how it created globalization.

See England industrialized out of a relationship between guilds moving labor to the rural village (and the collapse of guilds), being conquered by the French who then bled the country dry through usury, and a new sense of national finance. Before every country seemed to have its niche but with industrialization England could quickly monopolize any industry it wanted. What this did was force feudal countries on the mainland to also adopt the technology, which put farmers out of work.

You can see how history unfolds organically, cause and effect right after one another. Marx doesn't talk about this probably because it reveals that "capitalism" and industrialization isn't some conspiracy. Humans were pushed to industrialize through their environment factors

>>17896091
he also misses its connection to warfare. He doesn't actually arrive at any real conclusions

during his time only 15% of people were actually employed in heavy industry in the cities, which were according to him, slave labor.

I can't help but notice the massive disconnect between the factory workers and the peasants of old being employed by guilds, or even the people he was supposedly addressing at the time. Or the massive disconnection between roman slaves.

His connection of the evolution of the "factory" with slave labor is questionable at best.

Maybe its his understanding of labor that's wrong

>>17894713 (OP)
checkout the CGTN documentary channel on YouTube. it's published by the CPC and has a 26 part series on the history of the Chinese communist movement. really cool stuff

>>17894713 (OP)
You are starting near the end, so you will miss and missunderstand many thing. For understanding communism, first you ought to understand the french revolution. To understand that, first you gotta understand the american revolution. For that, you need to know the english revolution. For that, you need to understand the reform...
What I mean to say, is Start With the Greeks

>>17895145
Again, do you have any actual writing with these critiques? Or is this just pure conjecture on your part?

>>17896091
>One major thing missing from Marx's historical theory is how capitalism actually globalizes the economy.
>The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
Pray tell. What did you think he was getting at here?

>He never dissects England, not once, to inform the reader why industrialization was happening and how it created globalization.
Did you miss all the other passages where he talks about how this is a global system that transcends national lines?

>Marx doesn't talk about this probably because it reveals that "capitalism" and industrialization isn't some conspiracy.
>Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.
Does this passage suggest "conspiracy" or "system that nobody can fully control anymore?"

>Humans were pushed to industrialize through their environment factors
In other words, their material conditions?

>>17896158
>he also misses its connection to warfare. He doesn't actually arrive at any real conclusions
>the cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate.
He considers it a form of warfare in its own right. On a more literal level, why do you think the Perry Expedition was undertaken?

>during his time only 15% of people were actually employed in heavy industry in the cities, which were according to him, slave labor.
"Wage slavery" was not a novel concept, even in the 1840s. Cicero wrote about it.

>I can't help but notice the massive disconnect between the factory workers and the peasants of old being employed by guilds, or even the people he was supposedly addressing at the time. Or the massive disconnection between roman slaves.
If only he talked about this disconnect and how these ancient classes got subsumed into the proletariat.

>>17896394
Well etymology is pretty concrete. There's factually no difference between a burgher and a bourgeois, the only reason he uses different language is to imply there's a system that only he knows about in the laziest way possible.
>The need of a constantly expanding market
This is factually not what caused industrialization
>literally talking about wild magic in reference to industrialization
uh
>>17896432
>colonization is capitalism
nah

>>17896537
>the only reason he uses different language is to imply there's a system that only he knows about in the laziest way possible.
Yeah, I wish he would explained this system in detail. Oh well.

>literally talking about wild magic in reference to industrialization
All that handwringing about burghers vs. bourgeoise and you don't know what a simile is?

>nah
Damn. You got me. I guess it isn't. Don't look up what flag this is btw

>>17896632
And why were western europeans propelled into the seas?

Communism is bad, anon. That's the long and short of it. Fact: Communist states have the highest death rates.