seize the means of production
do it
now
>>76730316
ill seize your moms ass
>>76730316
Kill yourself and back to /b/
For what lol? Communism is interesting in theory but even if it were implanted properly my quality of life wouldn't change all that much. As long as the proles are well fed and can afford cheap distractions communism is never gonna happen.
what does this even mean?
>>76730316
you mean hold my cock?
>>76730316
Leftypol is a few clicks away.
Fags complaining about spooks can go there too.
>>76730316
>>76730709
SEIZE THE MEMES
CHAN WAR NOW!
>>76730619
>As long as the proles are well fed and can afford cheap distractions communism is never gonna happen.
Capitalism will crumble under its own weight, like feudalism. Supplanted by a superior system.
>>76730316
>a marxist fingol
kek sad
>>76730316
Does this mean grab my dick?
>>76731139
Except it didn't. Marx was wrong. He did not predict the social democratic movement.
>>76731139
Kind of a wild assumption, given capitalism has only grown stronger and stronger over the years since Marx's death.
>>76731139
Like mega-capitalism?
The only difference between winner takes all super-capitalism and global communism is that communism assumes post scarcity. For the average person, things would be the same under both systems. That is to say you will never own your property, you'll have state mandated work (called welfare by the capitalists, public work programme by the commies). The communistic ideals of worklplace democracy will never work, simply cause many people aren't that engaged, nor do they want to be.
Both systems ultimately boil down to self appointed 'philosopher kings', the left gaining their position by having the best/purest theory and positioning themselves as protector of the working class, the right will be a case of whoever wins all the money ruling over shit.
>>76731468
He was around at the time of Lassalle, he was critical of social democracy. Ultimately it just papers over the cracks of capitalism, it doesn't solve its contradictions. Social democracy will always capitulate to capital, like in the German Revolution and the Weimar Republic.
>>76731570
Sure, it's become a global system, which is the natural course of capitalism, always seeking to expand to new markets. Marx didn't put a time frame on capitalism, it will last for a while yet in any case, the world needs to industrialise more. Capitalism provides the technological base for socialism, as feudalism did for capitalism.
>
>>76730316
Question
The "means of production" is the result of capitalists investing great sums of money into heavy machinery
Without investors, where does this so called means of production come from? In other words, what will you commie peasants do when those machines break down?
>>76733598
Under socialism or communism people are the means of production, that end up being owned and controlled by the state to further the collective. Individuals are worthless under communism, which is the reason it will inevitably wind up in totalitarianism.
>where does this so called means of production come from? In other words, what will you commie peasants do when those machines break down?
There's a reason collective farming and 'volunteering' to harvest was so popular in Communist systems, anon...
>>76730316
Take everything from the goyim and give it all to us chosen people to distribute however we see fit.
Obviously we need the best of the best if we're to be able to govern all you goys, so it makes sense that we take the best of your labor and production while you wait in bread lines for your weekly rations.
>>76731139
If capitalism actually crashes hard, as in millions of people in industrialized first world cities starving hard, things will devolve into a mad Max tier level of affairs. The best armed local warlords stratified by race/ethnicity will control everything. An all encompassing international revolution united by abstract ideas like class solidarity is a pipe dream given human history.
>>76733772
>Under socialism or communism people are the means of production, that end up being owned and controlled by the state to further the collective. Individuals are worthless under communism, which is the reason it will inevitably wind up in totalitarianism.
This. As I said above, the end game if either the commies or capitalists are allowed full control will be much the same for the workers. Under communism the entire earths resources are to be split essentially evenly. There's only so much shit on the planet though. In fact there's currently not enough for everyone to enjoy the European standard of living. So it'll be poverty. But at least all equally poor.
Under capitalism taken to its logical conclusion, a handful of people will own everything. So instead of living in a house given you by the state, you'll live in a house given you by your boss.
>>76733851
>Take everything from the goyim and give it all to us chosen people to distribute however we see fit.
That's funny. Sounds a whole lot like the way capitalism works now.
>>76731139
yeah
>>76734184
Thats only true if you're a goy who's given in to the credit meme and are paying monthly interest to the merchants.
>>76730625
It's asking for revolution
>>76730316
>Seize the memes of production
no
>>76730625
It's a law of economics/business.
I competitive advantage/monopoly on a particular process/resource guarantees a monopoly-and since it's forced by law the only method of change is by law (not innovation).
Therefore, it can only be voted out.
The deal is that bureaucracy is like a parasite on its people. The people within bureaucracy have a vested interest in growing their control so that they can increase their profits to keep up with inflation/decrease in purchasing power.
Because of this more regulations come into place at each level, more middle-men are needed, and shit just gets more and more weighed down with regulations until there is a violent revolution to cleanse the bureaucracy
>>76730316
obongo already implemented that law
>>76730316
You mean the factories in China etc?
What does seizing the means of production mean in a mdoern economy where 70+% of workers are employed in service sector jobs?
Does it literally mean enslaving the people who provide the services?
>>76730316
Already have.
>>76731139
Soviet Russia
North Korea
Vietnam
Cuba
etc.
