Lol

When did I say that? I just wanted to show you that I'm not interested in arguing with you. Please leave me alone and this will be my last post now. Socdems and other muh pragmatism dipshits are just as bad as Holla Forums anyway.

That reasoning is why your ideology is never going to gain any political power.

Sure you can

Status Quo could be fighting an insurrection

I'm an anarchist so I don't want it to. Now please leave me alone this will be my LAST post.

Literally no actual communist organisation says such a thing.

Like we care about the elections.

Well your form of anarchy will never be achieved in any palpable form.
Go back to Holla Forums, /lewd/, /imouto/, Reddit or whatever other circlejerk you crawled out of.

...

...

I don't use any of those boards, just clearing that up and saying that this will be my last post in the thread.

...

what the fuck is going on itt

...

I don't know user but one thing that I do know is that this post will be my last ITT.

...

Insurrectionism is a disease in any revolutionary movement, you all should read more Lenin. I seriously dont understand the hatre for M-L in this place.

That man already wrote about most, if not all the deviations and ills a revolutionary movement can have. He wrote the methodology to create serious revolutionary movement and you all go arround shitting on him, its incredible.

I only find two explanations to this behaviour: eiher you all havent read enough about his work ad you swallowed liberal and left-com lies about him, or you are those liberal and left-com who dont have a real interest in creating a revolutionary movement with serious potential.

I don't know what this means but I do know that I won't be posting any more after this.

Insurrectionism is pretty good you should read Wolfi.

I never responded to these, but in accordance with proper manners one's last post in a thread should tie up all loose ends.

...

Because I saw this disgusting image I will no longer participate in this quality discussion. You ruined a good thread bucko.

The way I see it, neither Insurrectionism nor M-L are vialable options, both of these require the masses, and like the pic in OP say people are getting more right wing nowadays. Also by the time we convince enough people, civilization will collapse due to an ecological catastrophe. I think we should try to implement small left-wing survivalist bunkers/communes in order to be prepared when it happens. After the apocalypse we may have a shot at creating large-scale socialism.

ftfy

Just dropping by (before leaving the thread) to tell you that this is stupid.

Yeah I get it, you guys don't care about anything. This is why I'm not afraid of commies at all. the Stalin'a of the world are dead and all that's left is a bunch of flabby numales LARPING about a revolution while saying

gold luck converting the army of bernouts that make up the modern day left to do anything but smoke pot and shove dildos up each other's asses

>>>Holla Forums7664561

Hmm… really activate the thinking organ of your body…

...

Just to clarify, these were all my posts and this will be the last one.

I think you failed to read:

Can't argue with quads.
/thread

I hope you aren't talking about Italian leftcoms? They have literally been claiming for the last 100 years that Lenin did nothing wrong.

Are you retarded? I literally quoted this post.

This is my 14th and last post in the thread. I couldn't leave it as an unlucky number. It was fun having intellectual discussions with you anons and that one tripfag.

This is not possible.

Holla Forums doesn't have ID's and you never quoted that post in any direct chain of the discussion.
To spell it out to you since it's clear that you don't understand: you aren't going to get another 1917 before the time that the right will almost completely dominate Europe and America if all you do is sit on your ass all day, and by that point it will be practically impossible to reverse it. Unless the left changes, enjoy your ideology becoming just another miniscule fragment of history.

Man, this has been the case for 80 years now.

Leftist social and cultural ideas are the status quo in both regions and have been for decades. (e.g. 31 gender identities in New York City)
The Brexit outcome and the (likely soon to be) Trump victory are demonstrations that this will all begin to shift, which will mark the death of leftism in the west.

kek

Top-kek

You are the only one who gives a shit about this kind of "leftist ideas" here. So why don't you go back to Holla Forums where you belong, and let the adults talk about serious business?

...

Nope, the social progressivism and leftist movements totally have absolutely no connection at all.
Those are the only leftist ideas that actually still have power. Do you really think most people agree with Marxian economics?
>If you disagree with me, you are from !

Precisely, no.

How do you expect leftists to gain any further position of powers then when:
1. The only leftist position of power (social progressivism) is dying and the right is overtaking it.
2. You sit on your ass waiting all day for an unrealistic revolution.
3. Even with a successful revolution in an unlikely circumstance, your country is going to get treated like the Islamic State where you are alienated and always on the verge of collapse, if it is after the west getting fully converted to right-wing ideals (which will be in the next few decades unless the left changes).

You still don't get it, do you? The West has been full "right-wing" for the last 8 or 9 decades. I don't give a shit about your "social progressivism".

As for the revolution, I am not "waiting for it"; I am preparing it, so me, my children or my grandchildren can actually make it when the opportunity comes.

So Holla Forums also allows underage attention whores to run wild.

What is unrealistic is the idea that capitalism will survive its contradictions forever.

RIP despair man. I miss you skeletal comrade =(

So let's wait for it then?

Good luck with your 5 man team.

Holla Forums has basically 0 active tripfags, unlike this place.
Also if you think liking anime = being underaged:
>>>/somethingawful/

Well it's lasted for over 500 years while it seems that Communism is going to end before it reaches 200.
Don't worry though, I'm sure that if you wait for a revolution it will totally happen in your lifetime.

Nein, capitalism has existed ever money exists.

Holla Forums just doesn't count antiquity merchant as bourgeois for some reasons.

...

...

Good luck with your ever-self-contradicting mode of production.

No it has lasted less than that. Anyway, even 500 years would be half the time feudalism lasted. Societies are tough to kill.

Are you stupid? Communism hasn't fucking started.

I'm sure it won't. Your point being?

You have to pick one fam.

Which is the starting year of capitalism?

that capitalism might not survive indefinitely doesn't mean it's going to be replaced by something better. if capitalism collapses, the rulers and owners will probably just move onto another tyrannical system

Capitalism is a whole society based on trade, not "any society with a bit of trade inside".

Oh but they were. Only not in a capitalist society.

I mean as in anything than a completely dead ideology being buried in a small fragment of history, maybe only getting revived centuries in the future in small circles.
The point being the thread's original purpose.

* anything other than

Every societies that have existed are based on trade.
So capitalists exist back then, but capitalism does not?

Well you can trace its development back to 500 years ago indeed, with enclosures in England or the Atlantic trade.
But it only became a proper type of society, that is, it only became dominant in a significant part of the world (namely: in Europe), with the corresponding state superstructure, in the beginning of the 19th century.
So it depends on what "starting year" you are looking for.

For me, capitalism has existed ever since the first hunter killed more than necessary so he can trade for some fruits.

Indeed. But in the case of capitalism, it will. Because only the proletariat can solve its contradictions, and it can do it in only one way: by socialising the production.

But we could indeed all die before that happens.

Let's not be prophetic.

Nobody can predict what happens in 50 years, let alone 100.

what's going to keep the state from using violence to crush the proletariat's attempts?

"Communism" can refer to two different things.

First, it is the movement to get rid of capitalism; it will exist as long as capitalism exists, and it's strength depends on the state of the class struggle. For now the communist movement is weak, because the proletariat is weak.

Then, "communism" also refers to the type of society that will come after capitalism. This communism has of course never existed yet.

OP claims that communists see the revolution happening "any time now". We don't.

I guess you can put it that way, yes. Capitalism starts when capitalists not only exist, but are the dominant class of the society, that is, when the relation of production between the proletariat and them is the distinctive trait of the society.

Well you are wrong.

But capitalists have always been the dominant class of society?

The have have always dominate the have-not, be it in classical antiquity, to feudalism, to modern industrial republic/country.

Well, OK?

And yet scientists are able to predict the end of our sun, in several billions of years from now.
Predicting the future based on history and material conditions is the whole point of Marxism, as opposed to utopian socialism.

The proletarian state and its own violence.

Well, they aren't there to see if their predictions are accurate.

No. They weren't, for example, the dominant class of feudal society: landlords were. The capitalists became dominant through revolution (e.g.: the French Revolution).

You confuse capital with propriety. Capital is more specific than that. I suggest you to read Marx's Capital if you're really interested in the question.

Indeed, and nor will we, but that's not a reason for considering them inaccurate either. The only criterion we have is their demonstration, as wether we find it convincing or not.

but that doesn't exist

That's easy, the left has shifted it's focus more towards culture and importation of voters from the third world since the USSR lost the cold war.

If getting a few issues passed in your favor, and having a couple of parties elected that aren't really your ideology but tip their hat to you, then the left is also gaining "massive ground". More than that since we've got actual revolutions going on and full blown leftist political parties in power, while the right can only jerk off to le day of le roap and imagine to themselves that anti-immigrant parties are secretly full-fascist.

Landlords are capitalists, heck they own private properties and thus capitals.
Yeah, no, I don't think I need to read Marx to know what is capitalism or not. Marx does not coin capitalism.

So again, prophecy.

… yet. It's up to us to build it like a wall, brick after brick, sometimes slowly and sometimes quite fast, sometimes well and sometimes so badly that we must start again (see: 1917 → present). Not seeing the wall finished in our lifetime doesn't mean we can't put some bricks in the right place.

You obviously do.

It is your right not to of course, but then do not expect to be taken seriously when you engage in a discussion with a Marxist.

how do you plan to do that in a society whose population and state are actively and violently opposed to such a wall?

...

^This idiocy is what happens when you fail to analyze your oen economic system.

Five-hundred years is about right if you count the Italian city-states like Florence and Venice as capitalist.

Current landlords are capitalists. Feudal landlords were aristocrats. The distinction lies in how each group relates to their respective tenants. The capitalist landlord collects rent and kicks his tenants out when they do not pay. The aristocratic landlord uses the threat of violence to compel his tenants to give him the surplus that they produce on his land. Aristocratic landholdings are simultaneously places where tenants live and produce goods.

Florence and Venice weren't capitalist.

The merchants didn't own the property that the artisans work on, and wage labor didn't exist as we knew it on a grand scale.

In a way, Venice and Florence were corporatist in that different classes were given a seat of power. Venice was ruled by patricians and merchants who competed for power with a few democratic institutions that the craftsmen were members of. Florence constantly shifted between rule by patricians and rule by guilds, with the latter actually being a proto-syndicalist system.

Basically, medieval republics were more like corporatism and syndicalism economically than capitalist and had economies based mostly on self-employed craftsmen and merchants who were organized into guilds representing their professions. The patricians often lacked real economic power aside from their wealth and often were overthrown by guilds and merchants who became wealthy enough to compete with said patricians.

That being said, Florence almost became capitalist, but the state quickly collapsed and became a monarchy before that happened. There were primitive textile factories and even worker's strikes, but again, that was near the end of the Republic's lifespan. Now, I lack information as to whether those factories survived the fall of the republic, but, considering that the rest of Europe didn't experience this until the late 18th and 19th centuries, I honestly am leaning towards a no.

absolutely BTFO

FPBP, Holla ForumsYPS ON SUICIDE WATCH

Not at all. Anyone who lets arabs, turks, and africans flood into white countries is not right wing.

Globalist-capitalism is globalist and thus left wing on a fundamental level. They will swing from nooses alongside the commies.

Yes, yes, and anuddah shoah is happening

more like

Really stimulated my neurons, Holla Forumsyp

threadly reminder that Holla Forumsyp pseudo eds are the laughing stock of Holla Forums

...

damn that came in handy real fast

I know the actual Democratic Party/liberals aren't at all the left (really right now they're pretty authoritarian, in a bad way) but they call themselves the left, so it's easier to just call them the left.

What would you like me to call them?

Liberals?

lelm8

Liberals

Cool beans bruh, call me if you'[re still relevant when the migrants are gone.

It's sad that your shitty redraw looks better than the original. Who remembers when Drumpf said he loves Israel?