Are you man enough to debunk this image?

That's actually Holla Forums's wet dream.
Also the part about two families of hobos is highly unlikely considering at the moment there are about five times more empty houses than the homeless in the US.

well it's really retarded when you have 5 million homeless people in the EU and 11 million vacant houses

this is not tsarist russia, where most of the population had to live in shacks made of mud and hay

I mean it's absolutely retarded even on the face of it.

WHO'S money? Who said anything about money? Creating a new central bank and a printing press is so easy a child could do it (If they had sufficient legislative authority), that's really easy.

Meanwhile the other elements of wealth - like, oh, I dunno factories? Yeah, something tells me porky hasn't put the factory inside his private jet while he was fleeing the red guards.

It's not even a good account of 1917, so whatever. (Also, the US isn't really a net importer of food: It imports porky foods, it's self sufficient in staples.)

Not an argument and the rest is just a bunch of strawmen and ad homs. Shit tier argument and shit tier post.

le ebin btfo

He clearly doesn't understand the means with which we get to Communism in fairly basic to understand classical Marxist terms.

wtf i hate communism now

...

We should really just create a copypasta for this, since its reposted once a month.

This post reeks of american. That guy can pretend to be a soviet all he wants, if he was born into the USSR education system he wouldn't have such a bad understanding of history and theory, especially not of the revolution.

what's the problem here?

Russian here. I was born in USSR, my grandpa was a KGB official and my dad was a KGB foreign advisor.

I have a message for you commietards. The "communism" you dream about will never happen.

I will tell you what will happen if a socialist revolution aka wealth redistribution will occur.

Who do you think this proletariat and "oppressed" people are? You? No. You hipster cunts are the harmful bourjois element. The true ones are the rednecks, white trash and hood rats. You hipsters may lead the revolution at the initial stages but they will be the revolutionaries and they will hate you with the strongest class-hate with all your fancy college education and ipods. Southern rednecks are more likely to form a common bond with ghetto gangs than with "intellectuals." It has been proven many times in many lands where communism was forced, that when class warfar begins, the races and nations forget the hate and unite.

So that's what's gonna happen: Someone will knock at the door of your house in your nice middle class gated community. When you will open the door, you will find comissar Jamal and Comissar Cletus who will tell you that having such a big house to yourself is not what a true communist does and 2 families of hobos are moving in with you. You will be allowed to have one room, one bed and neccessary personal belongings. Everything else in the house will be shared.

The rich guys who's money were you going to redistribute? They left the country and suddenly you realize that their money in their swiss bank accounts are unreacheable and there's nothing to redistribute. The corporations go bankrupt, collapsing the DOW index, which makes the currency just fancy green paper worth nothing. Then you realize the US was importing food, because there wasn't enough produced to support 300 millions of people. Important by paying with $, which is now worth nothing. Then there's hunger. To suppress the hungry angry mob, who doesn't give a fuck about high marxist ideals and just wants to make everything like it was before, Red Terror starts, with new NKVD and purges. Eventually, Comissar Jamal will put you on your knees and shoot you at the back of your stupid head for not being dedicated enough.

Welcome to 1917!

He's sort of got a point, Jamal and Cletus should unite, and Cletus really hates university types more than the ruling class. Other than that it's just memes about money and capital flight and trying to apply the conditions of revolutionary Russia to modern burgerland which is stupid

my family also lived under socialism and died to defend it and i disagree so i guess i win

American here, I was born in the USA, my granpa was a CIA official and my dad was on the house unamerican activities committee.

I have a message for you capitards. The "capitalism" you dream about will never happen.

Who do you think this white race and "oppressed" people are? You? No. You hipster cunts are the harmful bourgeoisie element. The true ones are the red necks, the white trash and the hood rats. You hipsters may lead the revolution at the initial state, but they will be revolutionaries and they will hate you with the strongest class hate with all your elitism and your muh iphones. Southern red necks are more likely to form a bong with ghetto gangs than with "the alt right". It has been proven many times in many lands where capitalism was forced, that when class warfare begins the races and nations forget the hate and unite.

So thats whats gonna happen: Someone will knock at the door of your house in your nice middle class gated community. When you will open the door you will find Obergruppenfuhrer Tad and Obergruppenfuhrer Gunner, who will tell you that having such a big house for yourself was brought with jewish tricks, and two families of white refugees from the anuddah shoah are moving in with you. You will be able afford to have 1 room, 1 bed and necessary personal belongings. Everything else in the house will be sold to the oppergruppenfuhrers cheap.

The Jews whose money you were about to redistribute left the country and suddenly you realise that their money in their swiss accounts is unreachable and theres nothing to redistribute. The corporations go bankrupt collapsing the DOW index, which makes the currency just a fancy green paper worth nothing (MEFO BILLS). Then you realise the Reich was importing food, because their wasn't enough produced to support 60 million people, importing is by paying $ which now worth nothing. and then theres hunger. And the suppress the hungry angry mob, who doesn't give a fuck about high fascist ideals and just wants to make everything like was before, cops are unleashed, with new Pinochet and disappearances. Eventually Obergruppenfuhrer Gunner will put you on your knees and shoot you in the back of your head for being a fucking mexican who posts on Holla Forums about how other people aren't white enough

welcome to 2027

They're wrong about celetus and Jamal.

That will never happen in the US unless Cetetus unequivocally denounces white supremacy convincingly in huge pluralities.

About as likely to happen as Trump becoming a commie.

Tippity top hehe

Indeed, the lumpenproletariat is in my opinion revolutionary and black and white should unite to fight the capitalists. You sound a lot like Fred Hampton friendo

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Coalition_(Fred_Hampton)

On top of the revolutionary potential, the subversive potential of the downtrodden in the US is huge IMO. Since the draft ended, the armed forces mostly recruit among the poor. It won't be possible to send the US Army against a large-scale uprising without many of its soldiers joining the other side.

It does kind of touch into the glaring narcissism that somehow all the predecessors were incapable, but that, under my specific flavour of leadership, all will go as planned and perfect cohesion will be expected: youtube.com/watch?v=xZ7YlgzW1jQ. Not really a rational stance to take as there is no large-scale/nation-wide implementation that has stood the test of time to be used as evidence for the claim.
Other than that, it does tie into the contradiction in pushing for bans on certain things in society, such as barter/currency, yet advocating for a stateless society. As if the masses will, out of the goodness of their heart, cease using, say, product 'x' just because you make an appeal to emotion. You require force to limit the capacity of the people to operate in ways that your political philosophy does not allow, and that requires a state.
It's why the majority of the advocacy comes from white kids who have not actually experienced life under the systems they advocate for. It's as if I speak highly of riding a unicorn. Sounds really great, but when you actually get to ride one, you realize it isn't actually a unicorn, but the idea of one.

someone screencap a response to this so when the next Holla Forums brainlet comes sauntering in with the same image (for the 100001st time), someone can just post that and end the thread.

Hi, I'm the son of Karl the Marx and let me tell you something about my dad: he was a rapist!

lmfao

That guy has no idea what he's talking about, anyone who thinks Hegelian dialectic is about thesis-antithesis-synthesis is a clueless idiot who has only read Hegel's wikipedia article

He doesn't even realize the commiefesto was a propaganda pamphlet and set of demands for the 1848 revolutions, that dialectical materialism is largely a USSR invention and the rest of his post is feels > reals

...

damn, Holla Forums btfo

That's fine, but that isn't actually a real point.
The manifesto isn't just propaganda, it's an analytical piece citing the problems of capitalism. To the second point, I don't see any reference to the fact that the two are equivalent/dependent (I don't think that was the central point). The third isn't a real argument, you just made an assertion.

I love how the Holla Forums user
a)thinks Marx invented dialectics
b) only uses the manifesto as a point of reference for what communism is

Do you trade? Then you require a market. You can't assert that the price of 'x' is what you claim without some basis to arrive at that conclusion, especially when there are no prices. And when you advocate for a stateless society where there is no redistribution.
Corporations have management is not equivalent to a state having management. The corporation does not tax you, nobody is forcing you to buy their product, you choose to purchase it in the market if you wish.
You do need to incentivize work. People will not work for free. You are advocating for slavery. This will relate to the "no actual substantive evidence for the hypothesis" point I'll relate to below.
The "can't do this under socialism", is that related to the incentive point? So on one hand, you state "lol implying you have to incentivize work", but on the other, you assert (with plentiful evidence) that socialism is beneficial because it can incentivize work? Internal inconsistency isn't really a strong point if you're trying to make an argument.
Nobody actually made the argument/comparison that dialectical materialism is equivalent to shit. Could you please cite that? There were pretty specific points raised. Also, the "no arguments" point is just shifting the burden of proof. You're assuming that it is beneficial to begin with and that others have to disprove your claim. That's not how evidence works.
The point wasn't where its origin came from, though. Otherwise it would have claimed "The origin of the term came from 'x'".

Economically deterministic insofar as the proles will revolt against the upper class as a direct consequence of the system they are operating under.
How do you intend to have the means of production publicly owned without seizing them from the private owners? Will it be voluntary? I'm sure they will just relinquish their entire assets voluntarily.
Ironic that he loves evolution but dismisses hierarchies as illegitimate when they form in varying classes.
Not really a point.
The concept of "don't make empty claims without evidence to back it up" did not originate after Marx. You don't write of a utopia if you cannot produce an ounce of evidence to back it up, let alone introduce the analysis prior to examining the actual evidence first.
This doesn't really make a better case for the forgone conclusion point earlier if he developed everything knowing the conclusion would be the communist utopia. That's why it was stated to begin with.
Well, the issue is who is defining the specific "social condition" that is to be attributed to the "economic condition". On their own, they are very vague terms and can be misconstrued quite easily.

>xD technically nobody forced you to buy this food, the threat of starvation is just nature lmao this was a voluntary transaction btw the cost is a blowjob.
if i ever meet you i'm going to force you to drink a gallon of petrol.

Yes, nobody is putting a gun to your head, removing all other options, and making you have no choice BUT to spend your money on 'x'. If they were "forcing" you as you claim, then they would just take your money, like a state.

Your point is just "people need food to survive". You are welcome to plant your own garden if you wish. Seeds are available in the wild, if you desire.
Which ones. Specifically speaking. There are no bylaws that prohibit farming your own land.
Sounds like a personal problem, like your own inability as opposed to somebody "forcing you to be shit".
My point wasn't that 'people don't need to eat'. It was that people don't force you to buy their shit. Otherwise they would just take your cash.

Lmao my fucking sides

Top fucking kek

someone save this as a future refutation to OP's shitpost

Yeah, and prior to the liberal revolutions of Europe, there was no "large-scale/nation-wide implementation that has stood the test of time to be used as evidence for the claim" either, and their theorists proceeded from various a priori arguments as well instead of this wonky "x state of affairs has empirically existed and therefore it is desirable and we should implement it" that you seem to be endorsing and requiring any ideology, except those that align with the status quo, to provide as a precondition to their changing anything.
It "does kind of touch into the glaring narcissism" that you demand a by-design-unreasonable standard of proof as a disingenuous rhetorical device for dismissing certain, specific arguments tbh
Mate. It's "make barter, currency, wage labor, and the state obsolete through understanding and changing the fundamental historical conditions which give rise to them" not "use the state to forcibly impose a ban on them against the dispassionate rational self-interest of the people, while expecting people to, and assuming they will, cultivate a mindset so hostile to their own rational self-interest that they cease to respond altogether to obvious economic incentives." If you do the latter, you haven't actually solved any problems, merely artificially forced people to respond to the same problems in less advantageous ways. Yes, you can't use the state to ban the state. That's nonsensical. That's also not something communist thought relies upon or reduces to. And clearly, assuming that society can be substantially changed through making emotional appeals for the negation of one's self interest is a direct repudiation of historical materialism. But hell, if you actually understood that, chances are you'd be a Marxist.
X can exist without being "product X." The formation of X into the commodity "product X" is a specific social process
Gee, I'll have to remember that the next time some people decide to "operate" by seizing their workplace and retaining the product of their labor, and le ebin men with guns ecksdee show up to stop them. Liberalism, feudalism, and slave society all refuted, return to pre-civilization society when?
Wait, i'm sure that what the state does in that case isn't the use of force, because "muh property rights" say that the workers are using force, and so the people who stop them aren't, and so capitalism doesn't require the use of force to preserve itself, my mistake. Even though "none has ever existed without a state alongside it to initiate force," to apply that interesting standard of yours to something else.
As opposed to all the black, asian, and arab people who have experienced communism, I bet? Again, insisting on this standard is a means of begging the question which provides only the illusion of rigor.

Consider a Markov process such as the Gambler's Ruin. Clearly the process is stochastic, but it still tends with certainty to the absorbing state at $0. So stochastic processes are "deterministic insofar as" we can make any rigorous analysis of them whatsoever, I guess
How do you intend to have surplus labor value extracted by the bourgeoisie? Will it be voluntary? I'm sure the proles will just relinquish a large fragment of the product of their labor voluntarily.
Popper's falsifiability criterion, the framework for dealing with and defining evidence he was talking about, did originate after Marx. You know, "frameworks for dealing with evidence," as in, the type of thing presupposed by any invocation of evidence as a well-defined concept. The physical science of Marx's day was based on induction, not falsifiability.
I agree that inductive science lacks rigor in comparison to falsifiable science, but unfalsifiability is a complaint that properly applies to essentially all social science - especially including bourgeois macroeconomics, which seems to be refuted every 8-10 years or so with the next major crisis, only not, because [ad hoc hypothesis]
Plus, empirical and analytical Marxists have since redeveloped the theory with falsifiability in mind and recovered the same conclusions, so…

Lel
Say for the sake of argument I own all the potable water in the world and charge $50/gal for it. Nobody is putting a gun to your head, removing all other options, and making you have no choice BUT to spend your money on my water. Nobody's forcing you to be so shit that you don't know how to collect and burn hydrogen, and it sounds like a personal problem if you can't afford the $25/gal in royalty fees for my intellectual property rights over that process. Ocean water desalination? Too bad I own rights over all those processes too, and don't let anybody use them. We can't have you initiating force on me like that.

...

I'm enjoying this more than I should.
What if we exclusively adopted Holla Forums tactics and argumentation styles, and ended up winning because of it?

So if you don't like borscht State Capitalism you must be advocating for laderhosen totally Not not State Socialism.

I'm not concluding he's Holla Forums from his being against stalinist and post-stalinist bureaucratic "socialism in one country," I'm getting that more from all the other evidence in the post.

Yeah, it's so weird that he appreciated the idea of a population's cumulative heritable characteristics changing nondeterministically but predictably in response to various selective pressures determined by the material conditions of its existence, and advanced an analogous notion for society and history, without thinking hierarchy was the bomb, isn't it? Like where did he get off lmao
How can you even DO onw without the other amirite