I wrote this to introduce communism to people new to the ideology. It's not completely finished, I need some help improving the definitions of the specific ideologies.
Anyway, what do you think so far?
And before anyone asks, of course fucking 'Geoffery Gimpboi' is a pseudonym.
Could you add Deleonism and other libertarian socialist ideologies to the sub-ideologies?
Other than that I think its pretty good
I'll have a look
you should make it into a pamphlet format
if he does he should remove the pseudonym
I think it's pretty good (if a bit simplistic, but I guess that is kind of te point in a way). I think you should highlight the role of the (bourgeois) state in enforcing private property rights in capitalism though.
Other than that; breddy gud.
The*
This. I think we should stress how the government and the corporations/rich/whatever have always been intertwined
Where's LeftCommunism?
in his armchair
bump
bump
It looks like Holla Forums pretending to be Communist.
Read older thread on the same topic: archive.is
It's hardly complete, but it does contain useful stuff.
Wrong. Ideology is Marxism (usually, Marxism-Leninism).
Wrong. How the hell Proletariat (which is an "economic class") can own anything, if it doesn't exist? Also, terms don't mean anything, unless you define them. Finally, the defining feature (development of productive forces) is non-existent.
Then don't.
Anarchists in 19th century were considered Socialists. And many were borderline AnCap.
Wrong. See the archived thread i linked.
Wrong. Are you telling me Communists intend to abolish tools, land, and buildings? Private property is a set of rights that manage property - and it is inherent to Capitalist mode of production. It has nothing to do with anything in particular. Intellectual "Property" is also private property, for example.
Wrong. Bourgeoisie is defined neither by "rulership" (Feudals also were ruling class), nor by percentage.
Wrong. How the hell labour could be exploited? It is Proletariat that is exploited.
Wrong. Petit-Bourgeois also work. And slaves/serfs also work. None are Proletariat.
And why do they do it?
Wrong. Anything that is part of production cycle can be MoP.
Reading further might give me cancer.
...
lmao what a fucking brainlet
nigga wat
Elaborate
holy shit you're stupid. 'The one percent' is simply a term used to refer to the wealthy capitalist class
he said this
Wrong. See the archived thread i linked.
when the definition op provided was Marx's definition
Source?
read books and try again
Bad description, because it removes Communism from a key feature of most modern Communist movements: the historicity of it. In short, Communism is not this imagined society that we reduce to a set of fixed policies, because that would put us on the side of early 19th century socialists/communists (the "utopians") who believed it was necessary to create a blueprint for a better society and implement it.
Nowadays, we're more inclined to the idea these societies fall and arise "naturally" according to the the development of productive forces in a society. One mode of production becomes the dominant one because it better suits the available productive forces, with it so does an economic class, and once it develops them further they open the ways for a new arrangement. In the meantime, new techniques and tools of production and distribution are developed, and so are political institutions of management, and this is where things like money and the state come into being, and Communism would simply replace them, gradually and historically, with different mechanics. The way you phrase it makes it sound like we want to abolish those by decree, which is enough to make anyone roll an eye and walk away.
You should add something the transitory period to Communism, since after the beginning of the 20th century Marxist literature discusses "Socialism" mostly refering to a lower stage of Communism.
This is kind of wrong. "State" has a political and class character, "government" doesn't. When you put it like that, it makes it sound like we want to do away with the government in principle, get rid of any means of public management, public coordination, laws, etc.
Refering to commodities that you own as "personal property" will only bring further confusion, because Marx occasionally used the term to describe a type of private property. IMO there is absolutely no need to call private property (in the sense of things you own) something else, just say that this is not what we're talking about when we say Private Property in the context of economics and social science.
Bad descriptions that, again, say nothing of the historical character of class society. By that description, Proletariat and Bourgeoisie could have existed thousands of years ago, and they're as class divisions themselves, instead of as old as capitalism.
Your response is okay, but you need to make it clear that most of the "deaths under communist regimes"
are attributed to famines and things like that, because most people still think they refer to deliberate killings through executions. Then you explain why, by the same token, capitalism still kills millions a year and so on.
Oh and btw "Ideology" means something different to many schools of philosophy than it does in common lexicon, and some of those schools are the foundations of modern socialist thinking, so we ourselves often use "ideology" in a sense very different from the one you used in the pdf. I recommend that, in order to avoid more confusion later, you replace "ideology" with "political philosophy", "political platform", "idea", etc.
correction:
and if you want to learn what proletariat and bourgeoisie really are, Hal Draper's Marx's Theory of Revolution, Vol, 2, chapter 1.2. has a decent and short definition. You can find it on gen.lib.rus.ec
Should be 'anarcho-mutualism'
Books section is sparse. Should at Goldman and Proudhon.
oh OP also read this
marxists.org
It pretty much does what you're trying to do in general.
And to explain the distinction between bourgeoisie and other ruling classes, keep in mind that the bourgeoisie owns not merely private property but because of their position in the social relation of capital, which is historical. The distinction is clearer here:
If you want to get technical. The definition should be: industries, factories, farms, mines and machinery which produce capital. As not to exclude service or tech industries, which make up a majority of industry in developed countries.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think these things don't produce capital. Capital is the social relation in which they're inserted.
Yes. Though, I'd use the term "economic relation". And MoP can be anything that is necessary to create final product.
For example, wages can also be Capital (since payments are usually made before the product is sold).
Neck yourself comrade
10/10 gud shit
this really opened my eyes.
I used to be a simple Aryan Brotherhood member, and antifa rapist and serial killer before I read this. But now I am a genocidal revolutionary and have killed 2381 cops, bombed 52 police stations, and 192 post offices. I have also killed several members of the Rothschild family.
...