If communism was considered inevitable in the 19th century, why isn't it here yet? Is it hiding?

You will have to find it inside yourself.

Capitalism and civil rights are not mutually inclusive. The former can be mediocre or horrible, and in China it's horrible.

...

The only counterrevolutionaries were the bolsheviks.Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

Tanks think socialism = state capitalism. The fact that Chinese and pan national corporations essentially use slave labour does not bother them in the slightest.

Historically inevitable. "Plus-minus a few centuries" kind of historically inevitable.

Example: first burgeois revolution happened in England in mid-17th century, while people started referring to England (and only England) as "industrialized" only in mid-19th century. I.e. 2 centuries time lag.

As for Communism - even one century didn't pass since the first Socialist revolution. I say we are very lucky if we manage to pull it off in the next two decades at least in one state.

That's what Lenin wrote, you uneducated peon.

OH IF THAT'S WHAT LENIN WROTE THEN SURE

State capitalism is necessary for creation of the transitional state to socialism, and to keeping the vanguard(along the revolution) alive.

Suppression of bourgeois liberties is necessary to secure revolutionary base and ideological dominance for socialism.

Thanks to the Soviet Union, the Capitalists got spooked enough that they created welfare state and pushed wages high to keep the workers from revolting. They're taking all that stuff away so that's why we see capitalism collapsing again. 10 years tops until we hit full luxury space communism.

State socialism only useful feature is the survival of the country in a capitalism infested world, temporarily.

This is why Historical Materialism is fundamentally unfalsifiable. If Communism emerges then it's true! If Communism doesn't emerge then we just need to wait a little longer, and a little longer… and a little longer. The Marxist will never be convinced of the falsehood of his historical model due to this basic fallacy in logic. It's more of a faith than a rational belief.

These threads are dumb but holy shit some of the replies make you lose whatever hope for the Left you might have.

Yes, it is hiding in the People's Secret Revolutionary Bunker, waiting for the collapse of Capitalism.
Any day now…

That gorilla is a deep thinker

I give up. I no longer care what this "tanks" could mean. Apparently it's "anything I don't like".

Marx was tankie too.

Popper's fallacy is not actually scientific. You know that, right?

DiaMat is not (formal) logic. It's a philosophy.

The word is "ethics". Making Communism happen is a right thing to do.

a) We might get extinct.
b) We might go medieval.
c) We might go communist.

Choosing option C-Communism has nothing to do with belief. Rational or irrational. It is a choice. And a rational one, in my opinion. Why would anyone sane willingly go for other options?

Well actually I'm a Traditionalist and a Reactionary so I would be quite happy with option B.

Lenin's ideas about freedom are fucking awful, only tankies could fool themselves into believing them. Lenin is not safe.

Marx's positive strategy was pretty stupid, yeah. Great theory, absolutely 0 regard for execution. C+.

NO
Socialism OR barbarism. Barbarism remains a very real possibility.

Historical materialism simply means that history and the choices men make is largely a result of how production is handled and who has the monopoly of power on that production. That's it, nothing more.

Whoops, wrong flag

Just so you know, I do not consider this a refutal.

This is get dangerously intellectual.

Brain damage from reading this thread accrues, I think.

...

Read Evola. Then you will see the truth my son.

read zizek.

I'm sorry, was there some sort of point that I could've argued with?

Some blanket statements is all I see.

holy fuck

You could've tried to defend Lenin lol

I have. I can't take him seriously when so much of his philosophy is based upon the psychology of Lacan, and on Freud's psychoanalysis in general. It's like building your house on a pile of bullshit.

Lenin is … not bad?

I'm mildly confused. Is this how it goes here? Shouldn't there be somthing about vanguardism or "weak link" theory?

Well, vanguardism is part of it. But Democratic Centralism is literally the worst idea anyone has ever heard of. I'd be intrigued to hear you defend it.

Well, if you can actually say why it is the worst idea, I might be able to defend it. Or not. Depends on what you say.

Because its insistence on dissent occurring only within a small (usually captive) portion of a decision-making party means popular dissent can be instantly quashed by the inevitable oligarchy.

Is this satire? I legitimately cannot tell.

Things I hate: democratic centralism

Things I hate even more: when other people that hate it are terrible at articulating their points and fucking stalinstacheposter is the only one who seems to know what he's talking about

What do you think is bad about my criticism?

otherwise concern troll please go

...

Trotskyist faction was hardly captive, if that's what you are talking about.

Furthermore, how can you get oligarchy if "popular protest" will lead to oligarchy not getting elected for being the source of protest? Granted, unpopular decisions will be obeyed, but this would mean the end of support for the leaders and new people getting elected next time.

Either way, what better alternative would be?

It's ambiguous and hard to decipher.

It's beautiful.

checkmate mortalists. yr stupid theory of "death" is more of a faith than a rational belief :^)

Thanks and nice trips

Historical materialism only means that historical societies built on a progressively larger pile of existing conditions. It doesn't imply clairvoyance.

This is a little different though. Having a society follow a specific moral system or code has real concrete and intimidate benefits. If everybody agrees that a specific group of actions is "good" or "bad" order can be maintained within society. Historical Materialism is entirely different because its benefits, its justification isn't immediately evident, in fact its predictions haven't come true in the centuries since Marx proclaimed them.

If everybody agrees that murder is wrong I can very clearly see how this is a benefit to society. If people begin to agree that Historical Materialism is true I fail to see how this is beneficial to society, especially if that theory turns out to be false.

But doesn't Historical Materialism make predictions about the future of Capitalist societies i.e. that an economic transition into Socialism and then into Communism is an inevitability?

Also, by progressive you don't mean cumulative, right?

No. It's all serious.

At least, I think it is. Otherwise we must accept that US of A has been deliberately pretending to be retarded for decades. Occasionally I suspect this might be true. I had to stop reading Facebook because of it.

If politics are on the right path, but communists don't think it can't be impeded by people who worship the dire circumstances that the left wants to abate. This is why there are radical politics.

Not literally, but where a society starts influences where it ends.

It makes some predictions. Keep in mind the progress from one system to another is a long and bloody progress.

see

What is critical thinking?

The question is not about truth, but about the label of "tankie" that gets applied indiscriminately.

u completely misread/missed the point of that post tbh fam

Is gorilla poster always the same person?
Also, the increasing organic composition of capital is starting to destroy the profit rate
Marx predicted it too early, but he wasn't wrong.

yu and your vanguard

the reason most people hate comunism is cause of milions of tankie caused deaths

so will we see you working in factories for shitty pay