/lit/ - Literature

>>18544779
Marxists generally believe there is no intrinsic human nature so I don't think questions of "good" or "evil" really factor into the equation other than to maybe say human beings are "both." They also believe that "politics" as such generally exists because of conflicts between classes. If there is no sustained, general antagonism between people then their conflicts don't necessarily become political. Conflicts will still exist, but they will be mostly the problems of those people directly involved, and not social problems. Marxists also believe that there is a process we must undertake to move from class society to classlessness.

This is a revolution in which the working classes repress old class elements. And to be practical about it, this means that a socialist government can exclude and repress people who oppose socialism. Of course, doing this creates all sorts of controversies. The fact is that there is no easy answer to this. And, well, that's true for every political regime including liberalism, and the liberals actively repress forces threatening their monopoly / hegemony over the political system and economy. Americans have two political parties in the United States but they hold a monopoly of political power, and you could argue they're more like representatives of business associations which actually set the policies.

In short, this is how I view it:

>People make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.

So, we have to study our surrounding in a historical, materialist, parametric deterministic way. The world has a set of existing parameters that makes it function (social, natural, ideological etc.) and this limits significantly the various changes possible. Historical change is tortuous and lengthy. There are a lot of twists and turns. It doesn't move in a linear direction. That also means we have to constantly reevaluate economic development. Maybe that means central planning will be postponed for now, but this discussion exists and can come into fruition. Maybe capitalists should be thought of as more like soldiers. They're not desirable, but ones that have talents and skills at actually making things or innovating should be allowed to operate for now because of the parameters I just laid out, while just "making money from money" without benefiting the society should be repressed where it's feasible. But that requires the status quo institutions be subjugated to a progressive governing apparatus.

Bougie states otoh are driven by status quo sclerosis because they function as end of history instruments. There is no intellectual or conceptual capacity to act, to do these things I've described, because there is no understanding that there is somewhere to go. I think that's why liberalism seems increasingly moribund.

https://youtu.be/ACA774bm9wU