Was he right?

Was he right?

Other urls found in this thread:



All enemies must fall



worker control of the means of production is basis of communism vlad

No that's socialism


Wouldn't be surprised if that's another sick nasty le gommunism quote taken out of context.

Neither, but it seems plausible that he would say this.

Fake quote. Originates, translated, from this Russian neo-Nazi website: zarubezhom.com/podigom.htm (article translates to "the USSR under Jewish yoke") which, surprise surprise, has no proper sources whatsoever.

For the sake of comedy, cite us where Marx defined communism as "worker control of the means of production".

"The main problem of internet quotes that people immediately believe them"

Was he right?

for the sake of comedy, cite us where the idea of communism was conceived of solely by Karl Marx, for the sake of comedy, site me ANY far left movement, which is not based on worker control of the means of production, be that through democratic centralism or devolved soviets


I swear to god I've seen that quote attributed to various Frankfurt guys as well.

I cringe every time when I recall the times when I considered such quotes are real enough not to proofcheck them

Why should I? You're calling in Lenin's supposed improper knowledge of what communism is while knowing he's a Marxist, ergo a believer in (Marxist) scientific socialism and all of its accompanying theory and definitions.

Nope, no moving goalposts now. Cite me a proper historical example of any at least somewhat relevant communist movement that defined communism as "worker control of the means of production." I'll be waiting.

Every time.

was he right?

this is frank furtschool
the inventor of cultural marxism
he killed 90 million people in his gulags
still think bernie is cool?

My sides you devil.

Why is Holla Forums always fucking wrong?

and? Exactly what I am saying is, these notions are not the only thing that contributes to the idea of communism, so asking me to cite Marx saying what the basis of communism is, in this context, does not provide enough information to give us what truly is 'the basis of communism' He is one big voice, hes not the only one. I don't have to quote Marx to talk about what makes communism.

None, because that isn't the definition of communism. Like I said though, before you twisted it, almost every far left movement that I can think of was involved in making the workers control the means of production, whether through democratic centralism (or any variant thereof) or devolved soviets (or any variant thereof). These are both two different ways to place control of the means of production in the hands of workers. The USSR being one example, which flirted with both, but ended up in the former. Revolutionary Catalonia was controlled by the latter.


what would stefan say?


top kek

It's important because, if we truly are to entertain the idea that concepts like communism have several definitions or meanings, then we should know to stick to Marx's because that is the one Lenin would follow (as a Marxist). Unless of course, you invoked your joke of a definition "worker control of the means of production" to waste our time here.

Assuming you could just ignore the most vetted and influential man on the communist movement to talk about communism, refer to the above again.

Giving up already? You could have made it look cleaner without deflecting, buddy, but good on you.

lolno. That would make them mutualists or market "socialists". And those two tendencies never had even the smallest of revolutions ever. Communism is the abolition of the law of value and the free association of labor, not just this reductionist and flawed idea of "giving dem means to dem workers".

You are here talking not about modes of production but, governmental and political forms, in the case of democratic centralism about the internal seating and working of a communist party.

Same story: governmental form. Has nothing to do with productive forces.


not that user, but Marx and many others, clearly saw the Proletariat becoming the ruling class as the means to establish communism. The ruling class here defined as those who have control over the material forces of production.

Kids must hate their parents because parents are representation of capitalistic police state who refuse them their freedom and tell them how to live their lives

It is correct to say that communism is that movement which seeks to bring about a society dictated by the working class, but it is incorrect to say that this means it is worker ownership of production because communism is the direct abolition of (exclusionary) property.

It should be quite clear what I mean if you look at Marx's commentaries on Proudhon's idea of socialism, which would involve a "worker ownership" (and markets, money, a central bank, etc., but I disgress), e.g.:
>[…]Proudhon, only transforms the relationship of the present-day worker to his labor into the relationship of all men to labor. Society would then be conceived as an abstract capitalist.
This is here important because "worker ownership" simply implies giving each employee of a firm equal shareholding. Communism (that is, the higher phase of socialism) goes much further than simply shuffling around levels of gerrymandering around production for exchange: it seeks to abolish them altogether.

Worker Control of the means of production is the basis for communism in the sense that it is what is required to achieve communism.

You dismiss governmental form and yet the governmental form is what doomed so many revolutions. Much like the marxists who came before you, you run the risk of disregarding the non-marxist scholarship of the state at your own peril. The state is more than a reflection of the ruling class, it has its own structure and logic, and must be understood in its own right.

what's the context?

because not only did Lenin love children the USSR did the exact opposite of the quote.


It should be clear from what I posted above that marx believed that a society dictated by the working class was how the abolition of property would come about.

but here you are getting ahead of yourself! I would certainly agree that Mutualism is not communism, but it, and similar systems of market socialism, can certainly be declared worker ownership, can they not? you seem to think you can achieve communism /without/ worker ownership of the means of production, that is your problem.

here, I depart from Marx, who declared it possible for the worker's to institute socialism through despotism. Yes, the workers can become the ruling class through despotism, but this despotism must immediately be dissolved if communism is to come about, for the material interests involved in a despotic state will eventually turn away from its stated goal of communism, as these interests rather compel them to sustain the state and their own power. resistance to the state, even under socialism (that is the transition to communism) is absolutely essential for the successful creation of communism. Indeed, this state must be designed with this very resistance in mind. take the case of the dissolution of yugoslavia, for example, it was the nomenklatura system which essentially precipitated the rise of the right wing from its ashes, as they saw it as a means to sustain their power. when a socialist state collapses, it must yield to communism, not capitalism, and so a socialist society is one that must be suspicious of state power, but proud of its non-market economic coordination, thus, even when the state takes steps of economic planning and coordination, these must been seen as being forced by the people, and resisted by the state. similarly, what economic planning occurs centrally should not be directly controlled by the state in normal circumstances, lest the state's existence be ensured in communism (a self defeating proposition).

requesting the leftypol_at_starbucks.webm

Yes, but this not mean "worker ownership" in any sense of the term… It means creating the basis for the free association of labor, and for Marx this process should be undergone with a dictatorship of labor's class: the proletariat.

My point by citing concepts like them was to explain that only to systems explicitly reigned by capital and the law of value (e.g. Proudhon's mutualism) we can speak of "worker ownership". So yes, these can be declared worker ownership, but that is all (because it is all they propose and thus limit us to). They are still capitalistic; still producing for exchange, still investing surpluses into effective demand, still responding to the law of value.

What was contested at the beginning of this thread, need I remind you, was that supposedly, communism is predicated on the idea of worker ownership, which is false.

How is that my problem? Where are you going with this?

The much more pressing question is not: do we or do we not usurp a proper tool for control. I think the fact that you allude to anarchistic sentiments afterwards while painstakingly ignoring the fact that anarchism has been wholly incapable of not creating a state where there was none every time it tried its hand at revolution should be enough to remind you of that: that proper, strong organization becomes an inevitable hurdle to overcome should one desire even a modicum of chances at success. That is, of course, if arguments for scientific socialism weren't enough.

No, the much more pressing question is: how do we erect structures that both do not shy away from pragmatism, yet do not either fall into the opportune trap of half-measures or the creation of power voids that will ruin us should they inevitably ever encounter a snag.

Whats the name of the edgy webm?

It's from a really edgy movie called Rampage: Capital Punishment.

What did he mean by that?

I can't believe I didn't think of it sooner.

I'm telling you guys, if we dropped that part of the name more people would like us.

Wrong. Marx has previously defined the ruling class as those who have both control of the material forces of production, and the consciousness of society. The dictatorship of the proletariat must thus be the proletariat becoming the new ruling class, and, in this process, destroy the class nature of society through the creation of communism. The dictatorship of the proletariat must thus mean workers having control over the state, the means of production, and mass consciousness. see this section of the german ideology.

All systems have rules, sure, but here you are suddenly discarding class character all together. For you must suddenly forsake the idea that the bourgeoisie are the ruling class in capitalism if you simply say with the wave of a hand that "no, the logic of capital and markets is the ruling class of capitalism". This is highly illogical, for capital and markets are not classes at all, they cannot own things (even if they sometimes appear to), and it is through the dialectic of class relations that capitalism will be overthrown.

Then how on earth do you think you can achieve communism without worker ownership? They are the only ones who can actually have a vested interest in the creation of communism. Lest you think you can rest your success on the will of ideologues and nothing more. a fool's errand if I've ever seen one.

See above.

You are quite mistaken if you think that's the question I'm posing.

And yet, I'm not an anarchist, as I've made painfully clear. I'm perfectly fine with using the state to achieve communism. But anarchist analysis does yield some insight, as as do several other schools of thought. You, on the other hand, seem to be blatantly ignoring the fact that every time a "communist" dictatorship (whether of one man or a whole party) has taken power, it has failed at every point to create communism.

Organization needed to take power, sure. But what of the day after?

You haven't been very convincing thus far.

you act as though whatever structures you create will exist in a vacuum. That is, you fall into the fundamental trap of power, thinking that it will be through sheer strength communism will be created. But what of resistance? Here, you have created a situation where all resistance to your power is a resistance to the creation of communism, a Manichean world the communist party and the state it controls is now the only savior of the proletariat. Yet somehow, the party and the state must also destroy themselves to achieve their goal, even though their internal logic in their constant operation is self preservation! This is simply not workable. No, the real (and most dialectical) question we should be asking is: how do we create structures which at once make communism a material possibility, and at the same time, create resistance to themselves which wishes to see communism realized?

This is some Stefan Molyneaux de-fooing shit

not sure if its real but yeah, capitalism is just as bad if not worse of a mindset than racism, sexism, homophobia.

we should make it socially unacceptable to be a capitalist

it took me like five minutes before i noticed Bordiga was wearing a bib in that first pic