I am trying to write a paper for my history paper on why our communism is the best solution to modern economic woes. what do you think of it so far, am I accurate could I have argued anything better. Are any of you doing socialist related papers you would like to get critiqued on.

Other urls found in this thread:


Eh, is leninism really the method you're talking about, or more generally marxism?
Besides that, there are quite a few grammatical errors I'd recommend you go about fixing. I'm not gonna spell out each one cus I'm on a image board and I dont have time for that shit, but their there and should be easy to catch if you carefully read it.

Jesus christ I meant they're
kinda ironic tho, I kek'd

I started with socialism but I wanted to mention Leninism to make the opening statement more interesting.
the paper isn't finished yet so i'm going back on the grammar soon. thx

I see what you're saying. The issue I find with it is that if you are going to make a claim in your thesis, it needs to be substantiated later in the writing. To just passingly mention it, while attracting attention to the piece, simultaneously makes it confusing. You go on to discuss things completely unrelated to Leninism in itself.

That's not to say you shouldn't mention Leninism at all. However, because it doesn't appear to be the focus of the paper, I'd recommend you replace it with the word "socialism," being more pertinent.

like you said in your first post Marxism would probably be more accurate and interesting instead of just socialism

You know Marx wrote like 50,000 pages on this subject? how many pages are you planning your paper to be?

4 pages. new leon trotsky comin through boys

You know the original reason for leaving England was that royals controlled most of the wealth in england I'm sure you could find something on google to site. In other words may be worth a mention maybe not thought I would mention it in hopes of being helpful. Unmanageable is the correct spelling on the red under lined part btws.

your writing is really juvenile. not something you can fix by the time you turn in your paper, but people work on becoming a better writer
next: you're too bogged down by this drawn out historical parallel you're making, and it's not so convincing. it feels too clinical, you definitely need more passion. Consult some old commie punditry for inspiration.

with no favoritism:

really good writing will have you laughing at just how fierce and poignant an attack they can make.

didn't mean to include the 2nd link.

I don't think there is anything I can do about that. the point of the project is that I am comparing the modern day and the gilded age. I have to talk about the problems of the gilded age, show how it was fixed back then, and how I think it could be solved today.
I tried to include jokes but one of my english major friends told me it didn't flow well in the paragraph and I changed it.

user, this is a bad idea. You should always hide your power level.

at least define communism correctly
you don't have your definitions right.
from memory define communism then socialism please you will fuck it up like the soviet union smh

where did I define communism incorrectly in the second page of the essay I only say that automation will bring us closer to FALC not create it.

I will gladly rewrite your paper for you. Here you go.

It isn't.

Your first paragraph needs some work. The very first sentence is kind of malformed: "the United States' massive income inequality threatens… the amount of crime"? That would not make sense. You should start a new line of thought here: something like, "it will also increase the amount of crime".

You then used the word tycoon wrong. A tycoon is a single person, so maybe replace it with "tycoons" or "the rich owned an overwhelming amount of […]"

Then you have the weird shift in tone to anti immigrant rhetoric that borders on ethnic nationalism (not a good look if you're looking to get a good grade).

"temporally" should be "temporarily".

I think, you should reconsider the thesis altogether tbh. Maybe start with "we fixed these problems albeit temporarily back then… we can do it again today using the same methods" or something. Your teacher doesn't want to read your edgy defense of "Leninism". Know your audience.

In the second picture, in line four, you have a period after the exclamation point. Also unmanageble? like wtf user it's unmanageable: un - manage - able

Mentioning Gilded Age req. may hap benn helpful from the beginning I'll do some reading see if I can come up with anything that may help.

God myself typo much?

me too

Time for me to go to bed or maybe I've lost the capability to form a coherent thought from reading /b too much.

You never had the capability, or you wouldn't have written a paper on communism being a viable economic system in any circumstance.

Good dubs though.

I can't stress enough how off-putting the anti-immigrant stuff comes off. I think you really should re-read what you wrote in those first two paragraphs and ask yourself:

1. Would any leftist actually say those things?
2. Is it really relevant to the thesis statement at all?
3. How will your teacher react to it?

I can fix the first paragraph
my intention was just to show that it is in the interests of the bourgeois to keep the job market competitive with cheap labor I didn't mean to make it sound like the issue was with the immigrants' race.
well the paper is due tomorrow so it's too late now. I know hes against communism because he criticizes it often.

the exclamation marks are used to mark places I want to change or add a citation to.

he isnt op

in my experience, it never hurts to get on your teacher's good side.

I'm guessing you're in high school?

This is a thread about helping some random kid write a paper about communism for school. No one cares about your opinion on the matter. What the fuck are you even doing here?

I'm in my freshmen year of college. I talk to my teacher after class often so I know he doesn't dislike me, but I don't think he knows about my political preferences.

Can i ask what class?
I had a history professor freshmen year who liked me cus I spoke in class and actually tried to learn some of the material (U.S. history stuff). It was only after I revealed my power level that he started trying to avoid me.
Not that I mind. When it "happened", he was teaching the class that anarchists don't believe in any organization whatsoever, that they're entirely opposed to it. I'm not even an anarchist, I just called him out on his bullshit and he got upset with me. He also teaches Reagan as being a great president, so nothing of value lost i guess

coincidentally, US history. I corrected him on the labor theory of value and gave a very limp wristed explanation of communism in class before, so he might have caught on to me by now but i'm not sure. He really loves to talk about Marx/Lenin and mentions them at least once a class.

I am helping him write his paper.

Heh, phrased like that it sounds as if you are sad expecting that the amount of crime might drop. Better to end with "is likely to lead to more crime" or something like that. There is a book called The Spirit Level that shows all sorts of correlations between high income inequality and other bad shit. Might be useful here.
What is meant here is surely: outsource labor.

The way you talk about immigration sounds very one-sided. It is true that immigration increases competition for jobs. But an immigrant is not a machine, an immigrant (even an illegal one) is a human being. Likewise, complaining about the capitalist going elsewhere to employ people might fall on deaf ears, if your audience doesn't haven the philosophy of Americans first, fuck everybody else. They might ask you, "Should people outside of the US be all unemployed or what?"

It's better to make an argument against mass immigration and outsourcing in a more general way, so that you don't sound like a bigot: Take the issue of pollution. Having regulations that limit pollution makes sense. Compliance with these regulations comes at a cost. If corporations are free to go produce wherever it is the cheapest, we can figure out what the outcome of that is: a race to the bottom in terms of these barriers against pollution. You don't hate immigrants for their skin color, but it's a huge problem if people don't even share the same language at a workplace. People who don't speak the language of a country often don't know what rights they have as employees, and employers know this and systematically break the law as long as they expect to get away with it. Not having a language in common makes it much harder to organize in unions.