Er, no. Considering Hitler openly spoke of expanding Germany's borders, war was inevitable.

Probably not, aggressive imperialism is a feature of fascism, which means wars with non-fascist neighbouring countries would be imminent, and other more distant countries could see this as a threat and fight against Germany.

Hard to say. Definitely not with Hitler in charge. He was a sociopathic madman, though there were Nazis who were more even tempered and could keep the peace well. I would definitely say that had Germany won the war, the nazi state would cease to exist because the end of war would destroy Nazi Germany's economy. However if there was no war... Germans are a stable and strong culture, not like South Americans or Africans or Arabs who change governments more than I can count. At least we wouldn't have had the Iron Curtain.

When you place it in the full context, you might get a different understanding to what he meant.
"This is the message of the doctrine I announced at Guam--the "Nixon Doctrine." Its central thesis is that the United States will participate in the defense and development of allies and friends, but that America cannot--and will not--conceive all the plans, design all the programs, execute all the decisions and undertake all the defense of the free nations of the world. We will help where it makes a real difference and is considered in our interest."
www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2835

More or less, the statement was something for a compromise that was to present he wouldn't be one for the Imperialistic tendencies, but the last sentence still shows he wasn't going to leave out the possibility for intervention in the nations whose issues had enough value for the States to feel the need to intervene in.
But that could just be my interpretation of it.

Couldn't agree more. Actually I could. But I still agree a lot.

Like Oxan said, variety is great. Although I like to find people that share similar views to mine, this would be boring without people with different views, and I generally also like the right-wingers on this board aswell, I just don't like it when people are intolerant, condescending, hostile, mean, etc., but I don't think people in here are like that.

I'd really prefer not having an extreme at all.
I remember seeing this board have a bit more variety, and then once the 2012 election came by it gradually filled up with extreme right-wingers/anti-obama people, those of which had the same exact circlejerk tendencies as r/politics' leftwingers.

There was only a few people who were weren't posting anti-obama/pro-romney post after anti-obama/pro-romney post and actually managing a typical discussion, most of those few I don't even see in this board right now.

It wasn't really until after the election and we had all those people storm this board to troll the Romney supporters away that it started to balance a bit, but then it gradually became a circlejerk again just a week later.

A political discussion forum that's ruled by extremists is no political discussion at all; it's a fan club.

I suppose a better way to put it is "Which one do you mind the least".

I loathe them all for the same reason; when not met with opposition, they post less factual statements and more straw-man arguments and generic propaganda.

Sorry if this sounds cliche, but the only extreme I could ever find an appeal to is extreme centrism, as if that was even a thing.

I love the variety - fascists, social democrats, conservatives, libertarians, anarchists (left or right wing). It'd be boring if it was just communists.

Although, we could simply argue sectarian nonsense.

Provided they can get their views across coherently I don't mind... Except new left, I don't like the new left.

I'm not very fond of the new left either, but at least they're not fascists. At least not yet.

Now I got the song stuck in my head.

It's incredibly addictive I've been listening to it since I found it...

It gets even better. Have you heard 2 and 3?

And today I was meant to be studying for university work..

Sometimes, you just have to focus on what really matters. Duck songs.

I think that's every song and parody covered... I'm... Free?

Even this one?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSuSSk0rS-E

I don't think I could do that, I can barely listen to the 15 minutes heyeyaeahyehayehyahyeaheyae song.

I only made it until about 3 minutes.

*He was eaten by the kulaks, and I can't say I get any of this, is it meant to be a song a story what am I reading?

Have you every heard of the Duck Song?

Nope, I'm googling it..

k

It now makes a lot more sense.

What's it over?

Syria, or something? Need more info, levchenko.

Haha well i'm still reading it,

It's just Russia and the US trying to patch things up,
Being from Russia makes it more well interesting...

Well, here's my stock answer: two capitalist states are working on relations that have no reason to be bad other than imperialism.

"Imperialist"

>global revolution
That's the catch there, mate.

Why is that a catch? You speak as if capitalism never overthrew feudalism.

Not on a worldwide scale, and not under a single banner. Assuming that a communistic movement occurred (which in itself is unlikely considering it's unpopular past), it would not happen all over the world at once. It would be about one country at a time, and it still wouldn't affect the whole world entirely (As is the case with capitalism). Even assuming again that the whole world turns to communism (I hate assuming shit like this), how are we to assume that every country left standing would want to conglomerate? You might hope to get a majority in this highly theoretical situation and then somehow annex them (Or something to that effect), but that's imperialism again, isn't it?

Indeed, thus Marx said that the struggle would take place on the national stage, but would remain internationalist. Remember, when revolution failed to succeed in Germany, Lenin and the Bolsheviks postponed developing socialism (remaining in a workers' state [this is where Trotsky's analysis of the USSR as a degenerated workers' state comes from]).

Now, countries don't exist in communism - it's stateless. Socialist - or workers' state - would likely continue to arm revolutionaries in other states, and the proletariat gradually overthrews the bourgeoisie of their own country. Once the world is comprised of entirely socialist states, the state begins to wither away, as it's no longer necessary. The state is simply a tool one class uses to control another. When the world is classless - that is, when the bourgeoisie is completely destroyed - the state is no longer needed.

I'm not holding out faith that anything like that will happen any time soon (It probably won't happen like that in our lifetimes). Hell, I'm not even sure I want that to happen. Tell me, do you plan on propagating this yourself?

I don't expect communism to exist in my life time. Socialism, maybe. But primitive communism, slave society and feudalism lasted for thousands of years. It's not something that'll happen overnight.

You sound like you think it's a universal truth. For every ounce of reassurance that your truth is right, you will be met with a pound of an opposing truth.

What, are you expecting capitalism to remain eternal? Is this it, is this as far as we come? Living for no purpose other than earning wages to buy back the goods we produce?

Maybe. Maybe not. There will be thousands of people trying to change the world, bring it to that next step. Who's to say that something with such a bad reputation as your ideology will come out on top in the end? Then again, who's to say that it won't? Point is, the thing that makes or breaks a movement isn't it's contents. It's who's behind it. Tell me once and for all, do you plan to be one of those people behind it? If not, everything else is just petty debate.

Of course I plan to be behind it.

Good on you, I suppose. Would be a shame if you were just saying that (Would be a break from the daily grind), but still, good on you.

Imperialism doesn't necessarily mean territorial expansion.

The history of Russian-US relations consisted primarily of imperialism.

I wasabout to say something witty in response, until I looked up the definition of the word.

im·pe·ri·al·ism
/imˈpi(ə)rēəˌlizəm/
Noun
A policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

The way I see it, callng countries like the US imperilistic is a tad redundant considering this development. Tell me, what world power doesn't fit under this discription? More importantly, what country on this planet doesnt to some extent seek to be considered to fit under this description? Especially that diplomacy bit.

Switzerland comes to mind.

Of course, countries try to achieve something that benefits them through diplomacy, but looking for a result that benefits you is a little different than extending power and influence.

Switzerland tries to extend it's power and influence dramatically through diplomacy (Which of course includes ecenomics), it's practically the only reason why it's still a country. Face it, the only way countries stay countries is by either being powerful or being useful. Strange how man mimics beast, isn't it? This is (Rather unfortunately) the basis on which society is run.

/shrug. I just said Switzerland came to mind, but I'm not expert on Swiss foreign policy.

Indeed, the world is more or less imperialist in nature. But the basis of society is its mode of production. That is, capitalism.

Strange how everything comes back to economics.

Honestly, I would be communist in a perfect world. But here and now, I guess I have little choice but to be imperialist.

Er, not at all.

Communism will see the abolishment of capitalism, and with it imperialism.

Unless that communism permanently got rid of all external forces including other countries, the Google definition of imperialism will still be a requirment. It's kinda how countries push at each other. If you don't push back hard enough, then the next thing you know you're jacking it in San Diego.

Considering communism is stateless, then yes, it will get rid of external factors - including countries - that spawn imperialism.

Get back to me when your plan on world domination lands you in some kind of prison starts taking off.

>World domination

Sigh...

>Claims to want to get rid of all other countries
>Sighs when others call it world domination
wut

Who are we dominating? When we're in a classless society, who exists to be dominated?

How exactly are you going to make such a country? As long as another country exists you're going to have to roll with the punches and throw something of your own back, which means that we're right back to imperialism. All I was implying was that the only way that you could make a country that didn't have to push back is to make it so that it has nothing to be pushed by in the first place, which would require some kind of world domination.

Communism is stateless. It requires a global revolution. Without states, without class, conflict will be on a personal level, if any.

>global revolution
That's the catch there, mate.

If you don't mind me asking where are you from?

Australia.

See there are less and less East Euro "Communist" users on this site because of the US/RUS head bashing,

I was wondering if you were one of the last of us.

Valeriya is russian I think.

Citizenship wise yes, ethnically no (Half Ukrainian), residency no (I live in the UK to study at uni)

Aside from the fact that economically, fascists are keyenesian/centre-right, communism and fascism are polar opposites.

I look at it as left=more government and right=less government. So the extremes of the left wold be communism/fascism and the true far right would be anarchy.

Fascism isnt really a right wing ideology,its more of a radicalized centralism,although the modern left love to categorize it as a "far right" movement just because it was anti communist.Fascism is also anti individual,anti capitalism,pro interventionism,pro protectionism and generally pro big government,but thats not talked about anymore by the left.

The "more v less government" view of the left-right is the worst way of looking at it, considering communists actually want to see the state gone. By your logic, communists are right wing.

Left-right is more about those who see inequality as dysfunctional (on the left) and those who see it as desirable (on the right). Essentially conflict theory v functionalist theory. But this itself is a simplification.

Really, left-right is nonsense. Calling Republicans fascists is just as fucking retarded as calling democrats communists or socialists.

Ya,I always hear about communists wanting to abolish the state after making it as huge as possible. The problem with that is it has never happened,like many things communism is supposed to do. Besides,the main goal that they want to achieve is expanding the gov "right now" so for right now they would be on the more government side. When the leaders of this utopian communist state decide to throw away their means of power by abolishing the state,then i would call them right wing.

That definitely is a simplification. I would say my definition of more or less government not only makes sense but it is also unbiased,as either side could be preferable on that scale depending on your political persuasion . Your definition seems to only focus on the class struggle and the inequality there of,a center in the far left ideology,which would favor left wing beliefs.

left right wing is a simple way of defining the two major forces in politics. The existence of these two does not mean that any party or movement that somewhat falls in line with said extremes is one with the extreme,such as democrats being communists,but it shows exactly which side they more or less lean too.

>Ya,I always hear about communists wanting to abolish the state after making it as huge as possible

Well, to be blunt, you're wrong. The bureaucratic twist of the Russian SFSR was something Lenin continued to warn the Communist Party of. More importantly, why would we want to expand the government 'right now'? We oppose the state, because its the manifestation of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

> I would say my definition of more or less government not only makes sense

Well, not really. It may be more or less 'unbiased', but it doesn't make sense. You're putting anarcho-communists, for example, on the same end as anarcho-capitalists. That doesn't make sense.

See, this why the political compass chart is preferable to left-right.

>he inequality there of,a center in the far left ideology,which would favor left wing beliefs.

I'm afraid I don't understand that.

>left right wing is a simple way of defining the two major forces in politics. The existence of these two does not mean that any party or movement that somewhat falls in line with said extremes is one with the extreme,such as democrats being communists,but it shows exactly which side they more or less lean too.

Well, that's the idea. But the simple left-right scale doesn't suffice. That's why the PC chart, which includes authoritarian/libertarian, is a good development.

Because, like I said, fascism is just a bastardisation of socialist ideas merged with a nonsense nation of extreme nationalism. Fascism is demagoguery at its best - Hitler and the NSDAP is testament to that.

And it was hardly an argument. It became nothing more than me answering questions.

A few months ago this place was full of libertarians discussing the merits of free trade capitalism.

They left. They probably have fucking jobs or school to do. And as for me - I've always been here. Voicing my opinion every now and then with a sharp tongue.

And I'm sure in a few months things will go back to 'normal'.

even if this place was a conservative circle jerk it doesn't make reddit any less of a liberal circle jerk.

I haven't seen many liberals here. It's still very much a conservative circle jerk. The only difference is leftists are posting more frequently.

I dont see it.

I've been comparing the amount of thumbs that you,commiejewnazi,levchenko,and the other leftists get to what me,pebar,and other "right wing" people get and I dont see a sizable difference.

But, it's hardly a left wing circle jerk.

Arisaka, levchenko, valeriya, commiejewnazi and myself differ in opinion a lot. Ah, maybe levchenko and valeriya are more alike. But really, we're all different, and do argue every now and then - especially arisaka and myself.

Ah, but I find I generally get a couple of thumbs up, before getting pushed right back down to 0 again.

Could explain it.

But at the same time all of you correspond to a general left wing ideology.

And even if you did get pushed backed down to zero thats not clear evidence of a circle jerk on par with reddit,as there have been plenty of times when the people who you argue with on the right wing side have got a good amount of red thumbs,not buried or anything,but around 2-5.

And its not like everyone of my posts gets showered in green thumbs either,there was a time when there were a lot of libertarians here but i think some blew it out of proportion.

Then I hope it stings, motherfucker. Cause around election time I was fuckin' drowning in thumbs and I didn't bitch ONCE about goddamn circlejerk.

(don't take my cussing as rage, kind sir. It's not. c: )

cool

Perhaps the explanation is in arisaka's post. Maybe they've gone to exams or something.

The only real additions to the left wing of late is levchenko and valeriya, and I think levchenko may have been around for quite a while, actually.

Lenin should have gotten hanged during the July days by patriotic Russians but through his cowardice fled and hid in haystacks from duck hunters hahaha

One can only dream

Well he lived that's what matters, went on to lie the foundations for a superpower made by Stalin who really kicked the world in the arse, all those buffer-states filled with lumpen scum will never appreciate what we did for them.

Occupation was terrible

Hoards of Russian barbarians were bursting into our cities

Leaving behind raped women, emptied grain surpluses, and an enriching new minority.

You clearly have never been to eastern europe

I am Polish and have been around.

Lenin had no right, after over a decade in Western Europe, to lead the largest country in the world of which he was largely ignorant in its perplexity. The fact that the Bolsheviks, as the most radical socialist group, took power, was the worst possible scenario of replacement for the crumbling Provisional Government. This is seen by how Russia turned out under the April Theses; the socialist dream was a farce, at least in the Bolshevist form.

Lenin himself was quite a bad speaker despite what you might assume through portraits of him (he talked as if he was speaking to kindergarten children), and an indecisive coward whose only real propellent to power was luck. He could have taken power early during July and his inability to either disperse the angry mobs or rally them is what almost (unfortunately) killed him.

>Bolsheviks
>Most radical socialist group

Have you ever heard about the Kronstadt sailors, for example? Bolshevism is regarded as a right-wing deviation from communism.

This fool has never heard of the situationists or any other council communist groups

ha

Edgy groups don't count, I was speaking of viable movements.

The Bolsheviks were the one group that was meant to not take power. It all went wrong. Kerensky was a better representative of the people than Lenin.

"Edgy groups don't count. I'm talking about real movements"

I guess 11 million people rioting through the streets isn't a movement then. The situationists produced a much better framework of analysis than the soviets did.

But I'd agree bolsheviks were the most notorious.

You could've posted that right below you.

Reply limit reached.

>How important is the Military industrial complex?
Not important. We oppose militarism.

>Is Curency its value based on resources (gold,silver) or amount of production?
In communism, there is no money.

>How are epidemics be solved?
Depends on the epidemic, really.

>is public transportation free?
Indeed.

>How mutch investment and resource is put into Science and research?
A lot. Technological development is of high priority. Even a state such as the USSR and their socialist rhetoric put great emphasis on science.

>what is your stand on Political correctnis btw?
Depends on the specific issue.

oh btw a thread for you is on
boards.4chan.org/pol/res/14327846

-Does the nation provide any protection from foreign invasion?
-if there is no money then what do you get from working harder?
more food,water maybe a exta things like a tv?
-What happens if a group agrees to disciminate someone?
-what happens to crime?

Sorry, I went to sleep earlier.

-Does the nation provide any protection from foreign invasion?
The general arming of the proletariat and the organisation of them into a militia does. But, like I said, I support a small standing army to supplement. Something like the Swiss military might be a good example (but it's been a while since I've studied the Swiss military, so it might be vastly different from the way I recall).

-if there is no money then what do you get from working harder?
Self satisfaction, among other things. It's important to remember than communism exist when work is no longer work. As Marx said:

“Let us review the various factors as seen in our supposition: My work would be a free manifestation of life, hence an enjoyment of life. Presupposing private property, my work is an alienation of life, for I work in order to live, in order to obtain for myself the means of life. My work is not my life.”

-What happens if a group agrees to disciminate someone?
They'd be ostracised, or something. They'd probably be lumpen and already ostracised anyway. Class consciousness and solidarity prevails against prejudices.

-what happens to crime?
It doesn't exist, in communism, at least. In socialism, it might exist a little bit, but at decreased levels. When everyone has a job, why would they commit crimes? Definitely not for material gains, since they'd be provided (in communism) or readily accessible (jn socialism). The other reason to commit crime is a mental deficiency. Healthcare includes mental healthcare, and will more or less be dealt with. But in the end, the proletariat is policing themselves. Much more effective than the police.

''-What happens if a group agrees to disciminate someone?
They'd be ostracised, or something. They'd probably be lumpen and already ostracised anyway. Class consciousness and solidarity prevails against prejudices.''

-isnt freedom of speech and thought renderd by Class consciousness?

-Do you mean put out of the country or get rid of?

oh btw think your allready on this one buttt
boards.4chan.org/pol/res/14343417

I'm afraid I didn't understand either of those questions.

As for /pol/, I'm not in the thread. Besides, why bother arguing with people on a board that exists solely as a containment board for stormfags?

-Is criticize of Class consciousness allowd?
-What happens to people who dont acknowledge Class consciousness?

Its not only them but also a good amount of oppisition if you see in the thread

Well, once class consciousness has been achieved, you can't criticise it. Today, you can perhaps criticise it, in the sense of suggesting it's a non-existent phenomena, but once it has been achieved, how would you even criticise it?

Those that don't develop class consciousness are considered part of the lumpenproletariat. They're merely tolerated, so long as they're not being parasitic.

It seems so that Free speech is dangerouse for hurting other people theire feelings

to true gays now a day cry so mutch about discrimination and shit
they should be happy that they arnt being hanged or stoned

>Fascist
>Concerned over political correctness

You're trolling, aren't you?

i want a Discusion free off >Muh feelings

Fascists pls.

Daily reminder that fascism serves only the elite.

So is Communism..
so is Capitalism..
so is Socialism..

>What is class?

Fascism is nothing but a bastardisation of socialist ideas.

>What is Nationalism
back to discusion before this gets into a name calling

What relevance does your picture even have?

The picture explains The flaw with Marx's theory is that he did not understand human nature. He envisioned the lower classes rising up and over throwing their rich and then settling down to live in this utopian society in which there would be not religion, no government, and no private ownership of anything. The problem with this vision is that it goes contrary to human nature. Despite what Marx thought about it, the need for some kind of religion seems to be hardwired into our psyches. The various communist governments of the world have actively tried to stamp out religion in their countries, sometimes ruthlessly so. However they have all failed. People, by and large, just won't give it up. Without some level of central control (government) there is too much disorder for a society's resources to be efficiently allocated. So, you get too much of some things one place and not enough of others elsewhere. (This can also happen if there is too much central control as the USSR found out.)

Finally, when no one owns anything and cannot see any personal benefit to working harder, they usually won't. This point needs a bit more attention. So, let me give you an example. Let's say that I am a laze bum who does not want to work. If there are know private possessions, then I am free to just go and take whatever I need with out doing anything to earn it. On the other hand we have Karl who is working hard to contribute to society. However, he sees me not doing any work but still the reward of Karl's hard work. So, Karl begins to think, "Why should I put in so much effort if Glenn isn't? He's not contributing anything, but is still getting all of the reward. Why should I work so hard to support him?" The end result is that people don't work as hard if they don't see any personal profit from the work. So, the economy stagnates.

I don't think you've ever heard of the dictatorship of the proletariat have you, because you don't go capitalism -> communism you go capitalism -> authoritarian socialist state -> communism, during the stage of socialism you pretty much destroy the old society and culture, and what you've described as "human nature" and replace it with a more I can't describe it well in English but basically you make childlike citizens who have the want to help their fellow man/countrymen, and if Glen isn't working then he's outcast, you don't support the lumpen you line them up and shoot them or make them work at gun point.

More like: Capitalism -> Authoritarian socialist state -> Authoritarian capitalist/feudal state.

Authoritarianism makes the revolution go to shit and ruining the reputation of the left by associating their miserable tyrannies with the left. At least in the majority of the cases. Those tyrannies make the social democraps look revolutionary.

Authoritarianism is something we want to avoid.

And I'm not sure if you really intended to say you make citizens 'childlike'.

I can't explain it in English very well, like you know when you're a child you want to grow up to be a doctor or a nurse or usually something that revolves around helping people, you don't think much about the money or the power, can't really explain it much better then that.

I understand what you're saying now. I had a feeling that's what you were getting at.

Indeed, when did, 'I want to be a doctor to help people!' become, 'I want to be a doctor because I'll make lots of money'? Of course, people have a right to the fruits of their labour, but speaking ethically... there's something wrong with that change.

Motivation?

Indeed, but he was distinguishing the profit motive with community and brotherhood.

*She, and how's teaching the lumpen going?

A female Stalinist on FJ. Never thought I'd see the day.

Is that directed to me?

Nope it was directed at Oxan who was basically explaining how things would be done in his ideal socialistic system, to frisia

Howw.. am i a ''lumpen'' when im open for other idealogy's instead of shutting people up with curse words or calling them a cummi..?

Lumpen basically means a person or a group who/which is unlikely to ever achieve class consciousness. It's more of a statement then an insult in this instance.

oh allight thank you i think ive think i revieved a wrong translation for that at a site

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat

Oh, alright.

I thought you were calling me lumpen.

No you're the revisionist scum.

That's a funny name to call someone who doesn't want the whole world to get nuked.

Eh maybe the world getting nuked is just one big cultural revolution waiting to happen, it might just be needed to save the world from itself.

Just incase you didn't realize this is sarcasm.

Too bad the picture has no understanding of Marxism. Neither do you.

First, let's address the picture.

>We're not attempting to legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealth out of prosperity. We're attempting to remove the oppression of capital. We're attempting to emancipate the proletariat.
>Indeed, that is the problem with surplus.
>Indeed, the state is just a tool of repression. That's why it's fades away over time.
>Yes, of course. What relevance does this have?
>Indeed. Still, what relevance does this have?

What a stupid picture.

Anyway.

Human nature isn't something concrete. Human instincts, human nature, it changes.

As for the crackdown on religion, I find it strange that a fascist is seemingly condemning an action. Anyway, some states may have, some didn't. Like the USSR: "This, deliberately deceptive assertion has been refuted a thousand times by completely indisputable facts, proofs, and testimony of witnesses. Why does it always come up anew? Because the church considers itself persecuted when it is not supported by the budget and the police force and when its opponents are not subject to the reprisals of persecution." http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/xx/family.htm, question 13: Is it true that Bolshevism penalises religion and outlaws religious worship?

As for your last points, you need to realise the distinction between private property and personal property. But again, your example has no connection to Marxism, and is nothing but a strawman argument.

''Human nature isn't something concrete. Human instincts, human nature, it changes.''
Proof please

Are you a Marxist–Leninist authoritarian btw?

The fact that we've transitioned from primitive communism, slave society, feudalism, and to capitalism is proof enough human nature/instincts change.

If by Marxist-Leninist, you mean the fancy way of saying Stalinist, then no. If by M-L, you mean simply combining the teachings of Lenin with Marxism, then more or less yes. I think of myself as a Marxist, really.

could perhaps share me a link to how Marxasism its economics and social aspects would work and how diffrint it is from Stalinist Communism?
or is it in the Communist manifesto?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/index.htm

Alternatively, you can ask me specific questions, if you'd like.

As for Stalinist 'communism'. The biggest contradiction is 'socialism in one country'. Note that Lenin spent his final days warning against Stalin, and the bureaucracy.

Communist Manifesto is a good start, of course: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

What is the goverment theire job exacly?
Do people that not work still recieve money?
what happens if someone doesnt agree with the working class equallity?
with perhaps the thought that the people who work harder should gain more and the people who work lesser should get more

The state is the tool one class uses to subject another class to its will. Today, the bourgeoisie state oppresses the proletariat.

No. There is equal obligation to work during socialism.

Then they are counterrevolutionary, and if they persist, they will be purged for all I care.

Indeed, socialism is based upon 'to each according to his contribution'.

if you got loads of people then you need controle in seperated groups like in the military of going from brigade to platoon to group youknow
How mutch do the leaders of those workers get paid?
Does marxism support freedom to bear arms?
So hard harder you work how better you get paid?
and if you dont work at all then you get nothing at all

>if you got loads of people then you need controle in seperated groups like in the military of going from brigade to platoon to group youknow
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to say.

>How mutch do the leaders of those workers get paid?
Depends. There's no real specifics. For the most part, members of local soviets would be paid equal to their coworkers. But there's nothing really clear.

>Does marxism support freedom to bear arms
Indeed:

"The arming of the whole proletariat with rifles, guns, and ammunition should be carried out at once [and] the workers must ... organize themselves into an independent guard, with their own chiefs and general staff. ... [The aim is] that the bourgeois democratic Government not only immediately loses all backing among the workers, but from the commencement finds itself under the supervision and threats of authorities behind whom stands the entire mass of the working class. ...As soon as the new Government is established they will commence to fight the workers. In order that this party (i.e., the democrats) whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the first hour of victory, should be frustrated in its nefarious work, it is necessary to organize and arm the proletariat." - Karl Marx, Address to the Communist League (1850)

>So hard harder you work how better you get paid?
Indeed. And without the fruits of your labour being appropriate by the parasitic capitalist class, you'll earn more than you ever would under capitalism.

>and if you dont work at all then you get nothing at all
There is, of course, an obligation to work.

i mean ranking system of leadeship so that overal managment is thighty managed
[url deleted]

Nice awnsers i have to say i have a vew more questions
-Is there an army or is it the population itself?
-Who does the foreign trade and who managers it or does marxism support an isloation state?
-Is Cultural marxism The main idealogy for society in marxism?
-What are the family values and Moral?
-is there a police force to provide security?
-Are the Govermental managers elected by population or selected by goverment theire best skills?

Ah, well. It's meant to be open and democratic, from the bottom up, not the top down. So it's a little different that the military.

-Is there an army or is it the population itself?
The standing army should be replaced by the arming of the proletariat. I, myself, think that a small standing army should exist to supplement militias.

-Who does the foreign trade and who managers it or does marxism support an isloation state?
Foreign trade is done by the state. Isolationism is not an aspect of Marxism.

-Is Cultural marxism The main idealogy for society in marxism?
No, not at all. "Cultural Marxism refers to a school or offshoot of Marxism that analyses culture as the deciding factor in posited oppression, rather than the economic factors that Karl Marx emphasized."

-What are the family values and Moral?
Family values, as in conservatism? Then, no. It is progressive.

-is there a police force to provide security?
The proletariat should police itself. Again, I'm in favour of a small police force to aid communities policing themselves.

-Are the Govermental managers elected by population or selected by goverment theire best skills?
Democratically elected by the workers.

-Is nationalism supported?
-What prevents the population from creating an offspring off idealogy or thoughts?
(like perhaps miners looking down to other form of work for the fact of it bieng less harsh)
-Is every thing (race,sexuality,gender) considert pure equal and not a single oen should get any special laws or rights or perhaps money?
-What happens to the disabeld?
-Is there a pension?

How mutch times do you have a civil and open discusion with a facist?

-Is nationalism supported?
No. Communism is internationalist.

-What prevents the population from creating an offspring off idealogy or thoughts?
Class consciousness and solidarity.

-Is every thing (race,sexuality,gender) considert pure equal and not a single oen should get any special laws or rights or perhaps money?
Yes. No special treatment.

-What happens to the disabeld?
They are taken care of; healthcare is free and comprehensive.

-Is there a pension?
Indeed there is.

And I speak with fascists occasionally. Mostly on /pol/.

How important is the Military industrial complex?
Is Curency its value based on resources (gold,silver) or amount of production?
How are epidemics be solved?
is public transportation free?
How mutch investment and resource is put into Science and research?
what is your stand on Political correctnis btw?

This is the link wich i mean 'Commandhierarchy'
[url deleted] wiki/Commandhierarchy

Well I think everything is now covered...

yes, the democratic party of the 19th century was pro-slavery. but over the last 90 years the democrats and republicans have essentially swapped values. the parties of the 1850's are not the parties of today

You are not a clever person are you, if I make a party that is pro-free market and name it a communist party does that make it communist, no it doesn't, it's to get lumpen like yourself who can't look beyond the name voting for them.

More recently, the Republicans were introducing gun control. Things change. It's nothing to really take not of, unless your argument consists of, 'oh yeah? Well look at what your party did x amount of years ago!'

Parties 'flipped' about 50 years ago when the liberal chunk of the Democratic party effectively drove the ultra-conservative out, who then latched onto the Republican party.

1. Testing on animals keeps products at lesser prices, though it should have a level of regulation to ensure it isn't done in excess.

2. Our need for oil has grown to something so large that we may just need to drill; however, there should be a level of regulation that prevents unsupervised drilling as well as complete banishment of methods such as frakking, which do complete devastation to the environment that isn't quite worth the output of oil.

3. Taxing the rich simply because they're rich isn't fair reasoning - however, it should be recognized that at the current moment, numerous tax loopholes exist for corporate entities so much so that they end up paying less than the fair share of the average citizen such as one who would be in the middle class in terms of proportion. A need for tax regulation is prevalent, especially when the argument that the "rich create jobs" isn't quite as prevalent, due in part that a majority of jobs have been outsourced to other nations.
Because of this, a 'one tax for all" system wouldn't work as well as people would think it to.

do you think it would be fair and possible to adapt the wages of workers/employees to the business volume of concerns?

My apologies, but I'm not quite sure if I understand; could you expound a little?

i'm sorry, you need to excuse me, because i'm not sober and english is not my mother language, so it is very difficult for me

Understandable,

I assume what you mean is if it's fair to approximate someone's salary, or how much they're paid, to the extent of importance their work is to the overall business structure they work with.
Like how a generic employee at a fast food restaurant will get paid minimum wage and a manager gets paid a much greater amount, only, I'm assuming your statement would have it so the wages would be adapted depending on the need the business has for that specific worker.
If you need time to sober up or whatever, it's fine.

sounds good, but i think a manager has far more responsibilities, so it wouldn't be that fair.
i think that guys like managers and office guys coud get paid a constant amount of money, depending on their responsibilities,
and all actual workers could share like a 5% of the total monthly income of the corporation added to their salary.

but maybe this sounds stupid and i need to sober out.

5% of the total monthly income for the entire corporation is way too much, but some jobs, more specifically in the departments of sales and retail, offer a salary is fixed + a percentage of whatever the sales for the individual business they were working for the hours they put in.
The drawback is that those types of jobs will usually give you a smaller fixed income, so you're in a sense at risk if it's just a slow time for the business.
Higher-tiered jobs such as managing positions and even accounting positions do require much more responsibilities, and get rewarded with more salary as a result, and in most cases their own variation of a percentage of sales is getting paid in stocks of the respective company they work for - which means if the company succeeds, they can make a nice pay day, and if it enters a rough patch, well, not much of a good pay.

>Implying progression is always a good thing.

They should be taxed the same as everyone else with a flat tax on individual income.

A progressive tax on firms could be beneficial because it would promote competition. If shareholders want to take equity out of the business due to excessive greed, it'd be their own fault if another company surpasses them.

The private sector creates jobs, not the government. People working for government agencies are funded by tax payers so they drain money out of the economy. This does not mean they should all be eliminated, but it does mean the money should be spent wisely. Just like any business, society also has expenses it must pay to operate at maximum efficiency; it's called government.
Libtards think the bigger the government the better because more government means more order. While this is true, it is also very foolish. There comes a point when it is no longer profitable to keep investing in such a huge government. This point has been passed long ago. It's time to cut back on government spending to a more reasonable level (like 10% of what it is now).

woah,i read that as "they are gods creatures" so i went off on a rant.

Still,who do you think actually hires people?People making less than 250,000 a year?

Of fucking course they're job creators.

what oxan said

or maybe a impartial comparison campaign for all parties.

Arguably, such a ban would hurt even the smaller parties.

A cap on campaign spending would be more suitable, perhaps.

It'd do very little to help the lobbying issue.
Digital ads are just a fraction of what politicians would funnel funds into for campaigning, and they could just as easily focus those excess funds into material ads, like bumper stickers, signs, and whatever else they've been doing, only making them more graphic and noticeable. And I'm pretty sure most non-presidential candidates relied on the latter kinds of advertisements anyway.
Plus the banning of advertisement would be a violation of freedom of speech - and whoever goes to bring that idea for a bill up will be countered by accusations of attempting to censor other candidates, taking their already established fame as an in-position politician to be a large enough platform for people to know of them, so no one would ever want to do it.
Besides, biased new sources like Fox and MSNBC are all that one would need to conquer the digital medium anyway; most people don't really pay attention to the ads as much as they'd pay attention to the headlines.

Depends who the minority is.

The bourgeoisie, for example, should have no political say.

Did you really expect me to say anything else?

Democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

Its best that we each accept that were individuals who each mind our own business in the political area instead of trying to control each other.

My home state has 700,000 people
California has 38,000,000 people

Yes, I do think the minority should have at least a chance to give their opinions, even if their votes (in the house anyway) are negligible in a democratic process.

No, not all. Labor are horrid social democrats. The Liberals won't make anything better.

Once again, people think that the opposition provides a real change.

well i'm little disappointed in them, you can't make good government with 6 party

It's too late nothing important will ever get done ever now.

in three years may happen something when new congress will be voted and new government will start it's work

As an American, nope.
Lobbying's a severe issue where we have far too many politicians in the pocket of companies. Call me edgy for that statement because it sounds like it's overused, but it's the truth.
The power of the nation is in the hands of extremists; Very few, if any at all, are moderates in the political parties that have taken hold of the Senate and Congress, and as a result we've been witnessing a back and forth conflict of filibusters and stagnation.
Moderates of the Republican party are especially threatened; Keep an eye on John McCain, he requested for his party to not filibuster, but instead debate a bill that was voted on for the recent issue of gun control, and even voted for that same bill. Don't be surprised (if it hasn't happened already) if he gets circumvented in the next few weeks.
Corruption with town leaders and even gross negligence are also prevalent (at least, here in New Jersey); The arsenic levels in our water reached a level that would merit warning for the townspeople; we were given no such thing.
Not to mention, our recent town election was between a former cop who had pulled a gun on a co-worker in a heated argument, and a pawn shop owner who had tampered with an electronic scale used to weigh gold so he would be able to buy at a lower price.
Satisfied, I am not.

which one you are talking about? George W. Bush? Richard M. Nixon? Barack Obama?

As an American... sure. I may not like what my government is doing right now in any subject, but I am alive and healthy..ish so I can't complain.

Agreed, but there is a difference from then and now is, people are actually informed and ahve a voice on what is going on. America will never turn into what germany turned into in the 30s. People are just too connected, plus we have the checks and balances to make sure that doesnt happen. Things always change so maybe in a couple decades things will be different but for now, I am content on what is happening.

Don't you mean the 40s?

Can we be adults here?

No he is right, Hitler came to power during the 30s, with the blind ignorance and the people being tired of their situation lead to Hitler coming to power. The 40s was when he already established his power and was at war. I think he ment when people just didnt care what was going on or happy that something was happening then a dictator took to power and fuck over his country.

Dutchfag here, i'm right now satisfied with this goverment and think it's the best option right now with the crisis and the fuckery of the european union.

High five, me too. VVD voter here.

Er, right.

Well, constructive criticism is good.

I am completely neutral towards this because I can't read it.

You should practice your english.

Boy that was incredibly painfull to read.

Either way when it comes to free speech in a totalitarian goverment it relies on how the people are treated, you have to take in the fact how intimidating and effective fear and authority is, even if people could easily start a revolution and win the chance they would do it is small because they are stuck in a mental barrier of fear.

also if you want to be a consetration camp gaurd then you can apply here
www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/legal-an d-law-enforcement/internment-resettlement-specialist.html

Land of the free, home of the brave.

'Mericuh needs to stand up.

But this won't make the news, and everyone can continue their comfortable consumerist lives.

All the speak of time periods, from people likely to criticise Lenin for measures that were a direct response to the time he was in. Yessss.

lol, they lived in entirely different time periods.

I missed you fascist anon, shitstorms are more interesting than circlejerks.

so is anyone who is anti communist a fascist now?

Or am i missing something?

I think he's the same guy who said communists should be killed and who keeps insulting black people. He picks a lot on Oxan, especially. But at least he keeps the board less boring. Usually when he shows up, many comments get red thumbs, and they did after being thumbed back up, so I just assumed this was him, but I could be wrong.

Sorry then.

I like how Washington points his arm at Lenin like he's saying: "It was that guy!" and Lenin is just like: "Can you believe this guy?".

Lenin is fabulous. His style. His facial hair.

And his hat is so fancy in a totally-not-burgeois way that it influenced the style of many revolutionaries. Not many people can be fancy without looking a little burgeois, but he pulled it off nicely.

I have a similar hat, myself. Cheap, on sale. But I like it.

Indeed, clothes - and specifically ties - are a personal interest of mine.

I used to like hats, now I don't care much about clothing in general as long as it looks alright. I like polos and black coats, I guess.