You must log in or # to comment.
My favorite type of person is the kind who thinks the Communist Manifesto is, like, Marx’s main work.
This describes around 90% of Americans
I wish it was only 90%
They will tell you that Marx didn’t consider human nature, though.
It’s pretty much a pamphlet.
With next to no theory in it
I read it while drinking 2 cups of coffee and smoking 3 cigarettes.
With Тёмная ночь in the background… wait no that crime and punishment
The Manifesto is great, but it’s absurd that it gets far more attention than more relevant and important works, to the point that I think it’s deliberate.
I understand the feeling, but I think it’s just because it made waves historically more than Marx’s other, more useful, works. That and it being easier to get a class of undergrads to read than Capital.
It’s pretty much a “baby’s first communism” pamphlet, so is it really that surprising it would be the only thing libs are familiar with?
I’d still say Principles of Communism does a better job as a “baby’s first communism pamphlet.” The Manifesto is a great call to action and has some banger lines, but isn’t the most effective if you want to radicalize most libs these days.
Image you have zero yards of linen (I need to stop rehashing this fucking joke lol)
I wish I had some hash right now
🥔
Fun fact: Here in Norway “bønne” is a slang word for 1 gram of hash. And “bønne” literally means “bean” lmao
It goes deep.
hell yeah, now i know the norwegian word for perc 30
Once again the presumption that most people I see with a cutesy cartoon version of their face as an avatar is likely a fucking ghoul continues to be reinforced.
EDIT: I intended, but failed to convey, that that meant “out in the internet wild.” Pretty much everyone on Hexbear that actually sticks around is a comrade.
FD Signifier has a similar avatar, and besides a qualified endorsement of Kdolf he’s pretty good.
qualified endorsement of Kdolf
That was so cringe. “This isn’t an endorsement, but I’m voting for Kamala, and I think you should, too”
That’s an endorsement 😩
Yeah lol. He’s a little cringe about a lot of things. Still, I genuinely think his heart’s in the right place, and I wish more libs were like him.
He’s one of the ones who would be onboard with a better option if it existed. It’s up to us to create a landing spot for him and folks like him.
He seems at least anti-capitalist. I don’t think he’s ever described himself as any type of socialist. He at least understands intersectionality and introduces it to his audience. His video on black male sexuality was really good.
I just stopped watching him because they’re dense videos about a lot of stressful topics and I felt like I should be using my time to read actual theory instead of gathering my views from YouTube.
For sure, for sure
I didn’t know many exceptions and that was one I also didn’t know. Most of the ones I see are
gate chuds or the like.
The problem with the Internet is, thirty years ago I’d assume this was a human who simply had a childish understanding of the root philosophy. And maybe this would be a troll. Maybe this would be a real person. But I wouldn’t feel annoyed at the prospect of engaging.
Now, I look at a post like this, and my brain just screams “It’s Steven Crowder or a bot.”
This is @Angel@hexbear.net slander and an SRBM is en route to you right now
Your avatar pic is stylish and full of character, though. Nothing like the Twitter avatar of
gate chud and “Firefall” grifter “Grummz.”deleted by creator
I’ll edit and clarify “out in the internet wild.”
deleted by creator
glad this person can point out Marx’s failings.
Das Capital didn’t need to be written. We just needed this person to Cliff’s Notes that shit.
deleted by creator
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.
All of this functionally exists in the context of currency. Rents are traditionally paid in currency. Taxes are collected as currency. Inheritance involves transfer of currency as an asset.
These three reforms drastically reduce the access bourgeois capitalists have to currency as a consequence of implementation. And they would be deflationary as a policy, reducing the cost of goods and services by eliminating the costs associated with the middlemen that gatekeep their transfer.
You misinterpreted that quote. The quote is prefaced with “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;” and “These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.” The list that you posted is a list of conditions recommended by Marx to happen before communism. It is not a list of political aims of communism. It is a description of conditions needed to facilitate a revolution to do communism. Then afterward it says,“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.” It says that these conditions would allow the proletariat to do a revolution to become the supreme class. It is a list of recommended prerequisites, not descriptors of political aims of communism.
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.
This is a different quote from the Manifesto. Currency is money. Marx defines money in Capital as a commodity which can be broken up to represent values of other commodities. Private property is property that you don’t use, property that is used to extract profits. Commodities are objects which are created by labor for the purpose of being exchanged for as part of extracting profit. Commodities are a form of private property. Currency is a form of private property. Private property must be abolished.
The OP is correct to say that communism has a goal to abolish currency, but incorrect in the means. The capitalist class will be abolished. The exploitative wage labor mode of production will be abolished. Goods will be made based on need rather than being made for the purpose of exchange.
In a really really round about way, he’s right, but its also because housing is free, food is free etc etc. so what would you seriously be using money for? Hoarders get the wall, obviously
I feel it prudent to point out there’s a reason many scientific discipiles discern whether something has a value of zero or null
Source: The Cummunist Manifesto - Brazzers
no, the point of communism is to abolish the other kind of currency - ban all news and discussion so people are forced to look to the past or future and nobody is living in the moment
“Communism = abolish currency” is a common belief among Americans in my experience. It’s because they think capitalism is when you’ve moved past the barter system. And because their only understanding of communism is that it’s opposed to capitalism, they arrive at “Communism is when no money”.
Sabine Hossenfelder, a presumably well educated person, had an incredibly dumb video titled something like, “Capitalism is actually good”, where almost the whole thing was equating capitalism with having currency as a means of exchange.
Sabine Hossenfelder, a presumably well educated person, had an incredibly dumb video titled something like, “Capitalism is actually good”, where almost the whole thing was equating capitalism with having currency as a means of exchange.
Smart people who have a high degree of eductation in one field, often wrongly think they have a strong understanding of subjects they haven’t or barely have studied. I noticed the same thing with Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Sabine Hossenfelder, a presumably well educated person, had an incredibly dumb video titled something like, “Capitalism is actually good”
Which is ironic considering the many other videos where she critisises academia for things can be boiled down to capitalism
My favourite is one of her videos criticising academia, where she says “I, as a woman who got into science due to positive discrimination, am against positive discrimination”. Like, removed, you wouldn’t have been hired as a scientist if it weren’t for that
Communism = abolish currency is not an incorrect way of viewing communism. It’s just incomplete.
Quick, we need to pay this person less and less until he starves to death before he exposes our plan to the world!
True I want everyone, including me, to suffer.
piss off. i looked over your posts and it’s all crap to rile people up.
