/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2443229
Its a solution to every problem facing USSR. Give power to worker councils instead of power hungry psychopath politicians like stalin.

>>2443246
Yes but how would this even function to a population who does not even like or want socialism, like any country in europe today to say, especially balkan and eatern eu

>>2443248
There absolutely needs to be a revolutionary period of confiscating all of property to the working class. But after this its in their material interests to hold on to the collective property they work on and enjoy the full value they produce.

>>2443252
And how would you even keep this on a large scale country ?

and manage everything without parts of the nation being taken over by local countrys or sabotages/reactionarys fighting back/starting a civil war?

>>2443258
>And how would you even keep this on a large scale country
How does a large scale country survive with all these capitalist enterprises? You only change the ownership and same firms producing goods but workers getting 100% of the profits they make with their bloody hands.

>>2443261
ok but how would this function on praxis

>>2443258
>and manage everything without parts of the nation being taken over by local countrys or sabotages/reactionarys fighting back/starting a civil war?
But these enterprises produce no value and die out unless they have political power that has been prevented by worker councils.

>>2443262
Change ownership of every single company that existed to the hands of workers. If the worker rich people owning these assets try to destabilize situation you give them popular courts with death sentences.

>>2443229
Not an anarchist or someone who particularly cares for anarchist ideas, but the basic idea is that any grassroots mass movement able to wield unified armed power to topple a state would also be able and willing to defend that revolution against outside intervention, with the added benefit of the principal issue being external invasion rather than internal class struggle. This idea has merit, and we see it play out to some extent in historic revolutionary struggles. The Russian White Army being backed by foreign empires trying to drag Russia back into World War 1 was a major source of support for the Bolsheviks and Makhnovites.

Coming from a Maoist perspective, external invasion isn't the main problem with the Anarchist conception of revolution and society. The main issue is the internal class struggle which continues after the revolution. From history we know that the exploiting classes don't just up and disappear as soon as their property is confiscated and production is collectivized. Stalin helpfully gave the example of a petty bourgeois shoemaker to illustrate how people's consciousness oftentimes lags behind their objective position in production. The former exploiters will fight tooth and nail to sabotage and undermine the new society being built, while those among the workers who still hold onto bourgeois ideas form the basis for new bourgeoisies to form within the power structure being built (regardless of whether this takes the form of a state or not).

All this being said, stop shopping around for ideologies and deepen your understanding of the world and systems of oppression as it exists in the here and now. Everything else of worth either stems from that investigation or serves to deepen it. "What do anarchists think of X?" and queries like it are worthless to the movement.

>>2443291
How can anyone be peasant maoist in 21th century with 2-5% workforce doing agriculture is beyond me. I guess Mao has such fancy philosophical literature its still relevant in the mind of far left ultras.

>>2443350
You do not know what Maoism is.

>>2443229
Did glowie pussy make you move to anarchism?

>>2443246
>Give power to worker councils
you need a centralized body that makes a plan for all these worker councils (coops) otherwise you'll just redistribute private property and leave a market economy essentially pre-monopoly capitalism and arguably a step backwards compared to state capitalism. the centralized body would also have to take statistics about consumption so it'd have to also go beyond just production. this central body is a state, in a word. i think it's really retarded that most today's anti authoritarians just want a social-democractic ideal (no 'unfair' monopoly capitalism) thinking they've gone beyond Marx or Lenin

>>2443229
the taliban defeated the US empire by simply employing guerrila warfare. to have a society which can protect itself, give every man and woman a gun.
>>2443261
>How does a large scale country survive with all these capitalist enterprises?
the state grows at the rate that industry grows, so allowing industry to fail by market equilibrium would be beneficial.
>>2443578
>pre-capitalist society
yes, as marx affirms in capital vol. 1, ch. 32; the expropriation of the expropriators (negation of negation) means a sublation of pre-capitalist property. capitalism begins by states privatising property (primitive accumulation) and post-capitalism is about reversing this process. capitalist property is theft; so the claims of labour come by affirming its own rightful property. marxists think that this occurs by the state owning everything and doling it out; people with common sense see it differently.

>>2443692
>capitalist property is theft
who's stealing property from whom? have you read the poverty of philosophy? marx explictly argues against this negative negation (making everyone petty-bourgeois) in the paris manuscripts. i think you're severly confused.
>common sense
ah so you are retarded

>>2443248
Don't call it socialism then. Nobody is going to say no to getting more political and economic power.

>>2443894
if only you read the source i gave you;
>The expropriation of the immediate producers was accomplished with merciless Vandalism, and under the stimulus of passions the most infamous, the most sordid, the pettiest, the most meanly odious. Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent labouring individual with the conditions of his labour, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labour of others, i.e., on wage labour […] The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the FIRST NEGATION of individual private property, as founded on the labour of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own NEGATION. It is the NEGATION OF NEGATION. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production. The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labour, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialised production, into socialised property. In the former case, we had the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm
so marx sees how self-earned private property becomes capitalist private property, then returns to the "individual property" from the acquisition his stolen product by a direct negation of negation. so you werent just wrong, but were disastrously wrong.
>common sense
common sense only appears to be insufficient for arrogant idiots such as yourself.

>>2443498
It’s kind of a misleading label because as an umbrella you could be referring to the Chinese Communist Party line right now or Sendero Luminoso

>>2443262
You do not believe that people are capable of communism. You are OK with the status quo.

>>2443948
>>2443692
Wrong. Capitalism already has a social character compared to the previous individualized properties that are separate from the market. The only problem is that everything produced goes to the capitalist as profit to produce for the market, as it is private property. Therefore, the solution is to eliminate what is private to the individual, so that it belongs to the entire society, which will produce according to an economic plan without competition and without anarchy of production, to meet the needs of the working population.

If you don't believe what I wrote, insisting on following petty-bourgeois fantasies, then I will give you quotes proving my point about what socialism is:

<Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

<From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

<These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

<There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

<Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

<Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

<The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.

<Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.

<Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

<What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, (1875)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Critque_of_the_Gotha_Programme.pdf

The Critique of the Gotha Programme was written after the paris commune and Capital volume 1, any fanciful interpretation that contradicts this text with fear of planning the economy must be discarded.

Marx was not in favor of any decentralization:

<The Communal Constitution has been mistaken for an attempt to break up into the federation of small states, as dreamed of by Montesquieu and the Girondins, that unity of great nations which, if originally brought about by political force, has now become a powerful coefficient of social production. The antagonism of the Commune against the state power has been mistaken for an exaggerated form of the ancient struggle against over-centralization.

<In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it clearly states that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris , each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally missed, but were to be discharged by Communal and subsequently responsible agents.

<Karl Marx, The Civil War in France.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/civil_war_france.pdf

Now, a quote for the petty-bourgeois opportunists and market socialists who fear "authoritarianism" and try to erase the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat to deceive other workers with lies:

<The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

<Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

<These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

<Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

<Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

<A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

<Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

<Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

<Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

<Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

<Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

<Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

<Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

<Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

<When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

<In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm>>2443692

>>2444111
*I misplaced the final quote with something extra written, so here's the corrected link:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

>>2444111
>Therefore, the solution is to eliminate what is private to the individual, so that it belongs to the entire society
right, so "freedom" is the government owning my toothbrush
>critique of the gotha programme
<you have to pay taxes and you will receive what you are worth after the fact by de facto wages
>civil war in france
<the government has "few but important functions"
lets quote from that same chapter of the manifesto:
>We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
>When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.
he maintains that personal property entails a social character but is still retained as personally owned. in all these examples you fail to demonstrate that "freedom" means the government owning everything, or that this is what marx communicates, while i have directly communicated marx's meaning, as a negation of capitalist private property by a sublation of pre-capitalist property.

>>2443951
The Communist Party of China doesn't call itself or their line Maoist. The only people who refer to it that way are Western liberals. Maoism can either presently refer to the ideological tendency rooted in the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (1984-2012) or historically refer to the Chinese line within the Great Debate that eventually produced modern Maoism. This is not confusing or misleading. It just takes a modicum of reading. Again, you do not know what Maoism is.

>>2444161
The property of the bourgeois and petty bourgeois will be abolished because the sale and purchase is linked to bourgeois private property, only what you use is personal property and this is not something to be sold, the housing is only yours in your personal relationship of use, if a building is used by several or its use exists only for a period of time then the personal property will not be yours but society's. Scientific socialism does not tolerate Proudhon's petty-bourgeois fantasies, which alienate society with a petty individualism that suffers all the problems of capitalism, following the logic of profit, production crises, creating regional inequality, contradictions between the unemployed of cooperatives that went bankrupt competing in the market and the cooperatives that succeeded through luck and resources in a geographical position that leads them to enter into conflict, attempting to coerce society and its consumers because property does not belong to the whole society and there is no equalization between expenses and surpluses among the other means of production that are under the control of the petty-bourgeoisie and the workers of the privileged cooperatives with their bosses who follow the logic of selling to profit in the market and coerce the victims of circumstances to recreate private capitalism. Worse still, this competition will recreate the nationalism and chauvinism that destroyed Yugoslavia when it was no longer useful to deceive fools as propaganda to co-opt the naive against scientific socialism.

>>2444161
>you fail to demonstrate that "freedom" means the government owning everything, or that this is what marx communicates, while i have directly communicated marx's meaning
Don't even bother with these people. They cover up their surface-level understanding of Marxism with lazy quotations and zero analysis. You will not get a good answer out of them or convince them, because they can't put a single thought into their own words in the first place. They will just lob one misunderstood quotation after another until you get tired of correcting their obvious misunderstandings, and then declare victory.

>>2444214
>The property of the bourgeois and petty bourgeois will be abolished
we are talking about pre-capitalist property, dont forget; you know - before the ascendancy of the bourgeoisie - what marx calls "self-earned property".
>Proudhon's petty-bourgeois fantasies
proudhon was never mentioned in all this
>if the government doesnt control everything in the world we will have chaos
isnt socialism supposed to be about freedom?
>>2444233
im all too familiar with it, unfortunately.

>>2444161
Property does not lose its class character if it belongs only to a group of people in a cooperative competing in the market, or if the workers in it receive what is produced by competing in the market, extorting other workers from their needs. Property in a communist society belongs to the entire society, and in communism, in its low stage, the worker will only receive their labor with a consumption certificate after all deductions, with everything produced equalizing with other properties, which will also be public. However, in cooperatives, there will be no competition, but rather an exclusive relationship with the socialist state, which equalizes expenses and income with other properties.

This is why your toothbrush exists for your use as yours only as personal property. Housing also has a social character, but it is personal property only by its use. If there is a summer house for vacations, it will be kept by society until there is an occupant who has a social responsibility and will eventually leave to return to its public maintenance. Personal property does not give you the right to sell, buy, or enrich yourself with it.

Let's take the excerpt from the quote that you are distorting with Lassale's lie of individualistic petty-bourgeois fantasy that the worker receives all the profits from a cooperative, ignoring his social relationship that should belong to the whole society to serve the needs of the workers and ignoring that the worker only offers his work and this does not give him the right to receive more than another worker if there is something in nature belonging to this property that he works on to have greater productivity:

<The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

<In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

<We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

<Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

<Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

<But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

<To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

<Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

<When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

<Let us now take wage-labour.

<The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

<In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

<In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

<And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

<By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

<But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

<You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

<In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

<From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

<You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

<Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

>>2444233
The person you're responding to is the one distorting with intentional misunderstandings that don't fit with anything else Marx wrote. He never tolerated the existence of petty-bourgeois socialism, which wants workers to compete in the market with a utopia of everyone being a petty-bourgeois isolated from society, wanting to return to the individualism of medieval property rather than advancing private property to its logical conclusion of ending all private relationships and becoming the common property of all workers by belonging to society.

>>2444455
>we are talking about pre-capitalist property, dont forget; you know - before the ascendancy of the bourgeoisie - what marx calls "self-earned property".
Both private property, small production, and other backward means of production will be abolished and extinguished for public property and cooperatives that will prepare collective work with state capitalism so as not to compete with each other in collectivization. However, in current times, this is not necessary because capitalism has already spread and developed throughout the world with technology. Therefore, immediate expropriation, with confiscations, occupations, nationalizations without compensation, and socializations are required to initiate the socialist economy in the dictatorship of the proletariat, using the market to be flooded with cheap products from state-owned companies to bankrupt all private companies within the country so that they can be expropriated more easily and pursued to extinction, taking away the rights of all capitalists, speculators, landowners, and counterrevolutionaries who deny the supremacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Eventually, the entire petty bourgeoisie will be transitioned to collective work, with punishment for those who do not recognize the domination of the proletarian class. However, these petty bourgeoisie will eventually go bankrupt due to their inferiority in the face of large-scale production using State-owned enterprises.
>proudhon was never mentioned in all this
Your arguments are an attempt to distort scientific socialism into the bourgeois or petty-bourgeois socialism found in Proudhon and Lassalle, who fantasize about the petty-bourgeoisie and cooperatives instead of the political domination of the proletariat to abolish private property and the anarchy of production.
>isnt socialism supposed to be about freedom?
Scientific socialism or communism isn't about any petty-bourgeois or bourgeois fantasy of freedom, but rather about recognizing your common class interests with the political supremacy of the proletarian class to then abolish private property, the anarchy of production, and social classes.

Let's start with three quotes that prove my point:

<The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

<The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

<The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

[…]

<In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Now let's go with a definition of communism by Friedrich Engels:

<1. What is Communism?
<Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.

[…]

<14. What will this new social order have to be like?
<Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.

<It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association.

<Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.

<In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.

<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Now let's see with Engels the concept of "freedom" compared to that of you, which is contaminated by liberal abstractions of the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie:

<Hegel was the first to state correctly the relation between freedom and necessity. To him, freedom is the insight into necessity (die Einsicht in die Notwendigheit).

<"Necessity is blind only in so far as it is not understood [begriffen]."

<Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental existence of men themselves — two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought but not in reality. Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with knowledge of the subject. Therefore the freer a man’s judgment is in relation to a definite question, the greater is the necessity with which the content of this judgment will be determined; while the uncertainty, founded on ignorance, which seems to make an arbitrary choice among many different and conflicting possible decisions, shows precisely by this that it is not free, that it is controlled by the very object it should itself control. Freedom therefore consists in the control over ourselves and over external nature, a control founded on knowledge of natural necessity; it is therefore necessarily a product of historical development. The first men who separated themselves from the animal kingdom were in all essentials as unfree as the animals themselves, but each step forward in the field of culture was a step towards freedom.

<Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels, 1877, Part I: Philosophy, XI. Morality and Law. Freedom and Necessity

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch09.htm

>>2444475
What's hilarious in all this is that you are completely incapable of actually engaging with what's being argued, instead bringing up figures like Proudhon or tendencies like "market socialism" to lob quotes at instead, because you are the exact kind of dogmatic "Marxist" who would make a patently absurd statement like:
>if the government doesnt control everything in the world we will have chaos
and seemingly justify the equally incorrect statement that >>2443692 makes:
>marxists think that [the negation of capitalist property relations] occurs by the state owning everything and doling it out
Marxists do not believe this, but you do. Both of you fall into the trap of essentially saying "socialism is when the government does/owns stuff" which ignores what socialism and central planning historically has been as opposed to the nationalization of certain industries in a capitalist market system.

You especially fall into this trap because, rather than look to the instances of socialist states actually negating capitalist property relations in practice, you dogmatically quote Marx and Engels, two men who never had the chance to study a socialist state in practice. This is not to minimize the contributions of Marx and Engels or call them irrelevant. However they were writing in a context without nearly two centuries of working class revolutionary experience and before the modern age of imperialism began. You are not accounting for this even a little bit, and so despite their mistakes the other Anon has repeatedly demonstrated a better understanding of the essence of what Marx and Engels said, and has done a better job of actually responding to what you've said than you have for them.

>>2444475
>>2444710
>socialism is when the government controls everything
yes, we heard you the first time. just ignore marx's comments on individual property being returned to people and you can begin to make sense. you have made no comment on this after first contradicting marx with your own presumptions.
>>2444739
>socialism isnt when the government controls everything yet i agree with the person saying thats what socialism is
get your story straight, faggots. you want a global revolution but cant even explain what you believe.

>>2444739
The big reactionary joke is you, because state capitalism and radical reforms that lead to intensified class struggle in the bourgeois state and wage equalization do not contradict the revolutionary strategy for communists to sabotage the bourgeois state by lowering the rate of profit so that a revolutionary situation arises. Then, the proletariat, organized collectively as a class, can use dual power with the Red Guard to overthrow the bourgeois state and initiate all the actions I mentioned to socialize the economy by expropriating all capitalists.

Let's see more quotes from Marx and Engels' programs that demonstrate my correctness:

<Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:

<(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.

<(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.

<(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.

<(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.

<(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

<(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

<(vii) Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.

<(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.

<(ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.

<(x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.

<(xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.

<(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.

<It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.

<Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Now let's look at two other quotes that demonstrate that Marx and Engels favor radical reforms to collapse bourgeois democracy so that the dictatorship of the proletariat can be established in a revolutionary situation. You have a false, fanciful view of the separate state as an instrument of oppression of one class against another. This is why state capitalism is not contradictory in its use to expropriate the property of the bourgeoisie and bankrupt the petty bourgeoisie for socialist economic planning.

<1. The whole of Germany shall be declared a united, indivisible republic.

<2. Every German who is 21 years old shall be a voter and be eligible for election, assuming he has not been sentenced for a criminal offence.

<3. Representatives of the people shall be paid so that workers may also sit in the parliament of the German people.

<4. Universal arming of the people. In future armies shall at the same time be workers’ armies so that the armed forces will not only consume, as in the past, but produce even more than it costs to maintain them.

<In addition, these shall be a means of organising work

<5. Maintenance of justice shall be free of charge.

<6. All feudal burdens, all fees, labour services, tithes etc. which have previously oppressed the peasantry shall be abolished without any compensation.

<7. All baronial and other feudal estates, all mines, pits etc. shall be converted into state property. On these estates agriculture shall be practised on a large scale and with the most modern scientific tools for the benefit of all.

<8. The mortgages on peasant farms shall be declared state property. The interest for these mortgages shall be paid by the peasants to the state.

<9. In the areas where leasing has developed the ground rent or lease payment shall be paid to the state as a tax.

<All these measures specified under 6, 7, 8 and 9 will be composed in order to minimise public and other burdens of the peasants and small leaseholders without reducing the means necessary to cover public expenses and without endangering production itself.

<10. All private banks will be replaced by a state bank whose bonds will have the character of legal tender.

<This measure will make it possible to regulate credit in the interests of the whole people and will thus undermine the dominance of the large financiers. By gradually replacing gold and silver by paper money, it will cheapen the indispensable instrument of bourgeois trade, the universal means of exchange, and will allow the gold and silver to have an outward effect. Ultimately, this measure is necessary to link the interests of the conservative bourgeoisie to the revolution.

<11. All means of transport: railways, canals, steamships, roads, posts etc. shall be taken in hand by the state. They shall be converted into state property and made available free of charge to the class without financial resources.

<12. In the remuneration of all civil servants there shall be no difference except that those with a family, i.e. with greater needs, shall also receive a larger salary than the others.

<13. Complete separation of church and state. The clergy of all denominations shall only be paid by their own voluntary congregations.

<14. Limitation of inheritance.

<15. Introduction of strongly progressive taxes and abolition of taxes on consumption.

<16. Establishment of national workshops. The state shall guarantee the livelihood of all workers and provide for those unable to work.

<17. Universal free education of the people.

<It is in the interests of the German proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry to work with all their might to implement the above measures. Because it is only through the realisation of these that the millions who have until now been exploited by a small number in Germany and whose exploiters will attempt keep them in subjection will attain their rights and that power owed to them as the creators of all wealth.

<Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels March, 1848, Demands of the Communist Party in Germany

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm

The funny thing is that again, there isn't the fantasy you imagine, that you see Marx and Engels being against using state-owned enterprises again, and realize that their program exists to be implemented before socializing the economy as a useful tool at the time.

Let's go with another quote that calls for the use of state-owned enterprises that you deny with a program in a bourgeois democracy:

<A. Political Section[NB2]
<1. Abolition of all laws over the press, meetings and associations and above all the law against the International Working Men's Association. Removal of the livret, [6] that administrative control over the working class, and of all the articles of the Code [7] establishing the inferiority of the worker in relation to the boss, and of woman in relation to man;
<2. Removal of the budget of the religious orders and the return to the nation of the 'goods said to be mortmain, movable and immovable' (decree by the Commune of 2 April 1871), including all the industrial and commercial annexes of these corporations;
<3. Suppression of the public debt;
<4. Abolition of standing armies and the general arming of the people;
<5. The Commune to be master of its administration and its police.
<B. Economic Section
<1. One rest day each week or legal ban on employers imposing work more than six days out of seven. - Legal reduction of the working day to eight hours for adults. - A ban on children under fourteen years working in private workshops; and, between fourteen and sixteen years, reduction of the working day from eight to six hours;
<2. Protective supervision of apprentices by the workers' organizations;
<3. Legal minimum wage, determined each year according to the local price of food, by a workers' statistical commission;
<4. Legal prohibition of bosses employing foreign workers at a wage less than that of French workers;
<5. Equal pay for equal work, for workers of both sexes;
<6. Scientific and professional instruction of all children, with their maintenance the responsibility of society, represented by the state and the Commune;
<7. Responsibility of society for the old and the disabled;
<8. Prohibition of all interference by employers in the administration of workers' friendly societies, provident societies, etc., which are returned to the exclusive control of the workers;
<9. Responsibility of the bosses in the matter of accidents, guaranteed by a security paid by the employer into the workers' funds, and in proportion to the number of workers employed and the danger that the industry presents;
<10. Intervention by the workers in the special regulations of the various workshops; an end to the right usurped by the bosses to impose any penalty on their workers in the form of fines or withholding of wages (decree by the Commune of 27 April 1871);
<11. Annulment of all the contracts that have alienated public property (banks, railways, mines, etc.), and the exploitation of all state-owned workshops to be entrusted to the workers who work there;
<12. Abolition of all indirect taxes and transformation of all direct taxes into a progressive tax on incomes over 3,000 francs. 13. Suppression of all inheritance on a collateral line [8] and of all direct inheritance over 20,000 francs.

<Karl Marx and Jules Guesde, 1880, The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier

<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

Now with a quote from Lenin demonstrating the superiority of using state capitalism:

<For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

[…]

<…no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are ripe—but because state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs.

<Lenin, “The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat it” (1917), Can We Go Forward If We Fear To Advance Towards Socialism?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm#v25zz99h-360

>>2445126
The same text says that the petty bourgeoisie will become impossible to exist and these are workers with their own means of production selling in the market, your interpretation goes against Marx's own program in the Manifesto and in the text itself it is extremely written that the sale and purchase of products that go against what you fantasize for yourself will be prohibited and even against you it is written that all bourgeois individualism and bourgeois freedom will be abolished, Marxism does not tolerate anti-social narcissists who fantasize about themselves as isolated from collective society and who do not accept the domination of the proletarian class.