/lit/ - Literature

>>19030720
The former, I'm afraid.

He’s good, but don’t make anyone your guru, because he’s wrong plenty of times.
Make time for Bakunin and Stirner sometime

What essays? There are many elements in Marx and there is plenty to be admired. Werner Sombart was a Marxist whom Engels said was the only academic in Germany who had really understood Marx, and he became a National Socialist. Not because he rejected Marx but because he felt that Marxism was right about plenty of things and wrong about some, and that National Socialism was a truer consequence of it.

Paul Piccone criticized lots about Marxism and its historical manifestations while still being fundamentally a Marxian thinker, and tried to fuse Marxist insights with conservative populism. Christopher Lasch was very Marxian in his thinking but effectively conservative. Gramsci is used heavily by the Nouvelle Droite. Mussolini was a very well-read Marxist who left the Italian Socialist Party to found what he thought was a better completion of Marxism in Fascism. Both Mussolini and Gramsci were influenced by Sorel, a voluntarist Marxist who accepted much of what Marx said but rejected other parts of it.

In short, you can be a Marxist Fascist or a Marxist nationalist populist.

>>19030747
>Werner Sombart
>metaphysical mumbo jumbo cope
>However, his 1938 anthropology book, Vom Menschen, is clearly anti-Nazi, and was indeed hindered in publication and distribution by the Nazis.
crazy how that happened haha

>Marx
>ideology
Pick one.

I'm a marxist. You're probably nodding along because you're incapable of evaluating arguments independently.

>>19030741
Bakunin was a vile anti-Semite.

>>19031027
Based, I should read some Bakunin

>>19031027
That is perfectly consistent with his thinking and indeed with all leftist thinking and rational thinking in general.

>>19031027
Mostly against bankers and statists in Marxian circles. Wouldn’t matter if we had anarchocommunism. One man isn’t going to genocide any race. Drrr

>>19031051
Never imagined Butterfly saying Hitler did nothing wrong. Based.

>leftism
Doesn't work.

>>19031060
Hitler used a national alliance to arrange a genocide. He didn’t do that alone.
Bakunin just wanted anarcho communism

>>19031068
elon musk heckin told me so

>>19031071
Did he give the order though?

>>19030720
>Am I replacing one blind ideology with another
yes, everything that isn't scientifically proven to be a valid model of what it is trying to model is an OPINION, and they are always wrong.

>>19031074
Was that when he tweeted out that Evo Morales had no right to keep foreign corporations from stealing his country’s resources?

>>19031085
the worst things about STEMlord is that they try to force empiricism into places where it doesn't belong (eg economics, anthropology) and then when their GDP growth models and race realism completely and utterly fail to produce anything of value and actively start to shit up the entire world they just become fascists

>>19031085
Economics isn’t a science.

Marx's economic analyses are useful for every political persuasion

>>19031098
exactly

>>19030720
Just realize what is being done in his analysis. Don't get absorbed in the ideology and symbolism from people after Marx. Marx himself said he wasn't Marxist, and this can be seen in how he changed over his lifetime. I'm sure you're finding out why he's one of the most significant thinkers of all time. The question is what to do after Marx's analysis, considering how much capitalism has changed and developed since his time. He's still worth returning to, with useful insights still to be found that can open doors to help in thinking about our time.

>>19031094
There ya go. Well said

>>19031087
yep. just after he tweeted out that he is a soclialist (the kind that allocates resources to the PRODUCTIVE elite class and not the LAZY working class)

>>19031071
>>19031080
well?

>>19031085
The answer to this is found in one of the prefaces of Capital. He full well knew you can't put a city or country in a lab. Just read anon it won't hurt. He didn't spend his time in the British Library jerking off.

>>19030720
Marxism is designed as a chapbook to read alongside being a class struggle worker. So if you’re actually enjoying your reading in the sense of living it: join your union.

Otherwise your next step is French structuralism.

>>19031094
>empiricism
I would also accept logical proof, but these philosophers do not provide this either
>STEMlord
you have a monkey brain
>>19031123
I tried reading it but on like the first page he starts saying retarded shit about labor and value and it was so batshit insane that I saw no point in continuing
>inb4 y-you have to read the whole thing he totally explains and justifies it all
yeah sure pal

>>19031133
>French syndicalism
Fixed that for you.

>>19031136
you would find the logical proofs inside the actual books if you have the attention span to read them, you fucking golden retriever

>>19031160
i don't think you know what a logical proof is

>>19031170
I'm going to assume you mean formal proof

natural language ought to be enough when assumptions have to be made, especially if the alternative is "your gut feeling"

>>19031184
>making assumptions
right there is your problem. for example, marx assumes that all commodities must have a third constant value that they are equal, and he just moves on to explaining why this is labor instead of justifying that assumption.

>>19030720
Social conservatism and communism is the only way. I too was a basic bitch rightoid but Marx, Bakunin, Strasser et al enlightened me to the true supreme ideology of national Bolshevism

>>19031113
He’s such a bimbo.

>>19031114
Are you accusing someone of insubordination in the nazi rank and file?

>>19031235
No, I'm asking you if he gave the order, it's a simple question

>>19030720
>Am I replacing one blind ideology with another, or am I really on the right track?

It's time to read The Denial of Death, filter by A Short History of Decay and Straw Dogs by John Gray

>>19031302
>filter by
followed by

These books will cure you of ideology, left or right

>>19030720
Karl Marx was a Jew who's sole purpose for writing the communist manifesto was to propagate Jewish control over Europe. A lot of his essays weren't written solo and in fact it was other fellow Jews that helped him.

He advocated for racial genocide against multiple European ethnic groups, specifically slavic people.

Fortunately, he failed to succeed.


In Europe alone Jewish, Communist Bolsheviks murdered more than 66 million Europeans. - "Without Jews there would never have been Bolshevism. For a Jew nothing is more insulting than the truth. THE BLOODTHIRSTY JEWISH TERRORISTS HAVE MURDERED SIXTY SIX MILLION in Russia from 1918 to 1957." ~ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

>>19031141
>otherwise
Ie if he is a non praxic cunt

>>19031319
Should labor unions be a thing tho.

>>19031080
Read Browning Ordinary Men. There were competing policies. Hitler approves of multiple murderous policies in competition with each other to please him.

Also the order you are looking for is the commissar order which allowed the killing of any Soviet citizen.

Why would anyone bother with Marx? His whole whole political ideology is retarded and just a more idiotic form of liberalism.
>inb4 retarded marxists start denying the geneology of their own thought.

>>19031335
Seems like a hassle and just more imperium in imperio.

>>19031382
not an argument

>>19031401
The state will never wither away.

>>19031411
not an argument

>>19031382
Probably should read Althusser before claiming this.

I think few people are able to just evaluate an argument, measure it against the evidence they know, decide if it has merit or not and just swiftly adhere to it. Most of us are retarded and the ideology we follow is deeply tied to notions of identity, social pressure and expectation of social reward, impulse rationalization, wanting to give our actions and self-interest the illusion of ethical consistency, etc etc

This is why every single political-minded person will be refuted and deboonked several times in their lifetime and exposed to arguments they have no immediate answer for, and what we do is just assume that there's some reasonable explanation for it that we'll encounter later and carry on unchanged, because we're not rational and what we believe in has a lot of subconscious implications for other shit that is difficult to change overnight. So since you're interested in metacognition I think you should ask yourself what made you malleable enough to even be willing to accept something so antagonistic to your worldview and figure out your blind spots through self-reflection. Either that or you're just smarter than average idk

>>19031421
I'm not a fan of solipsism. Also>>19031411

>>19031461
Althussers claim regarding young and old Marx you cretinous fuck.

>>19030729
fpbp

>>19030720
marxists are a type of conservative, akin to christfags. They stick to a single narrow set of orthodox beliefs, and believe they can explain the entire world through them. Further, the set of beliefs they have doesn't change all too much, and is an intellectual relic from the 19th century.

to go from one form of con to another is not surprising in the least

>>19031027
good

>>19031430
THIS

Being a tradcon is not incompatible with reading and admiring Marx. He's too important to be left to the Marxists.

>>19031492
For what? They're both delusional except one is a technocrat

>>19031544
>His whole whole political ideology is retarded and just a more idiotic form of liberalism.
>His whole whole political ideology is retarded and just a more idiotic form of liberalism.

you illiterate, cunt?

I've yet to read Marx but historians of his historical materialism are infinitely more interesting than the histories of individuals

>>19030720

Just dont stop with Marx.Read Kropotkin, Stirner, Emma Goldman, Eugene Debs, and Noam Chomsky.

Rember: Socialism without freedom is tyranny.

>>19030720
The former.
Your traditionalism was just an expression of your immense stupidity, and your recently-acquired Marxism will be the same.
Get a bunch of contemporary economics textbook and study maths if you're really honest about learning that stuff. This includes contemporary books which offer criticisms of economics, such as Statistical Consequences of Fat Tails, by N.N. Taleb.
You have as many reasons to read Marx as a biologist has to read Lamarck. It's interesting and some of it is true, but you can employ your time way better.

>>19031805
Rember: Socialism is always chaos and tyranny

>>19031817

Fox news buzzwords: The post

>>19031805
Terrible advice. You're just selling him the reading list of an ideology. He'll end up becoming yet another religious imbecile, an ignorant fanatic, probably just like you.

>>19031094
>GDP growth models and race realism completely
meanwhile in the real world its socialism and wokeness doing the most damage.

>>19031823
Considering OP is swinging from "tradcon" to Marxism, I think it can be assured he will succumb to ideology.

>>19031823

If OP is interested in the leftist side of things then I'm getting him to look at the whole spectrum of the left instead of exclusively through the Marxist lens. Hyperfocusing on one author is what creates fanatics. Expansive research is what evolves the school of thought

>>19031835
Yeah, you're probably right. He is too weak to remain skeptical while reading a text by an authoritative writer. Same goes for most people, of course. They read Kant and become Kantians, they Spinozas and become Spinozans, they read Marx and become Marxists, they read Mises and become Misesians.

> hidden hand pose
The ride never ends.

>>19031430
Holy shit anon.

Marx ripped hegel off whole cloth, substituting his material view into hegels dialectic.
Irony: the man speaking to the workers if the world was too lazy to work hard enough to create something.
Thankfully, even communist countries have rejected Marxism(in all but name).
Pull yourself together OP . there's nothing wrong with entertaining an idea, to better understand it, without accepting it.
T. Tradcon who has read Marx.
Captcha ka4os

>>19031988
what?

>>19032266
Holy shit anonymous user.

>>19030720
No, common sense is not an ideology. People telling you to disagree with what you're reading despite not knowing what parts you are actually agreeing with are the definition of ideological. Ideology stops you from seeing with clarity.

>>19030720
Marx wasn't wrong about identifying problems, it's just that his proposed solutions are dumb and it took 100 million corpses for people to figure that out.

>>19030720
Any sane person would have --most of the time-- the same opinions as Marx, and that doesn't mean you are a communist. Ideology, like socialism or communism is another thing.

>>19030741
I believe people who insult you are mean and idiots, most of the time, but this thing you wrote is absolutely stupid. Bakunin and Stirner have nothing to do with Marx's materialist analysis. I couldn't say Bakunin is worthless compared to Marx, but Stirner surely is. Any stirnerite is always both, ignorant and mentally disabled.

>>19031430
You're a secularist, aren't you?

>>19031136
this nigga literally scared he might learn something lmao

>>19032480
They both have reasonable critiques of him.

>>19032763
side question, how much of marx have you read and what do you actually think of him

>>19032778
Naw, not an economist. I’ve checked several secondary sources, Wolff, Harvey, Cockshott, chiefly. I hear conflicting messages about him, but I don’t trust the Leninists. I’m against vanguardism. I’ve gotten enough out of him so far and I’m looking into other dimensions of this whole wide project. But I do think we need to introduce to communities a non accumulative currency like Cockshott prescribed ages ago. That’ll get the ball rolling

>>19032855
you're an idiot
>I hear conflicting messages about him
no you don't
at least check out Engels, especially Anti-Dühring and Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State

>>19030720
I think young people who get into tradcon stuff like it because it feels weighty and real compared to the fake virtual world they spend more of their time in. I think Marxism is similar since it's all about the real, hard-ass material world and touching grass but it's identified with revolutionary traditions so you're taking the side of the Decembrists against Nicholas I in 1825 or whatever:

https://youtu.be/ILOIVOqJrkg

>>19030747
I think populism is pretty stupid and irrational. It's not conservative at all, either, and I think is mainly a destructive force and a desperate cry for the remnants of the nation-state which is being destroyed and will be destroyed by the societal consequences of a berserko capitalism that cares for nothing but profit. Anyhow, I think populists collect the opinions and ideas of "the people" and simply follow that. But people believe all kinds of stuff. Some of those beliefs are correct, some are incorrect, but unless you have a mechanism to figure out what's correct and what's not, you're going to do stupid stuff.

If you ask me, what I think the left should do is just get jobs at Amazon warehouses and do the long, hard work of organizing actual workers.

But instead the western countries offer two choices: right-wing parties that combine neoliberalism with middle-class / petit-bourgeois social conservatism, and formerly left-wing parties that combine neoliberalism with professional-class social liberalism that elevate privileged individuals from minority groups into high places while the right-wing parties also motivate their voters to "rebel" against that in a fake-clown populist show while the living standards for the majority of people deteriorate, including the majority of the right-wing voters and the majority of people in the minority groups who the liberal parties are providing "representation" for. It's all BBB: Boring Bourgeois Bullshit

>>19030720
>Am I replacing one blind ideology with another, or am I really on the right track?
you are replacing idealism with materialism. only the latter can tell us things about the real world. Marx is very light on what to actually do, so you're not really getting ideology as such

>>19030747
>In short, you can be a Marxist Fascist or a Marxist nationalist populist.
but anon every single fascist party has actively fought things like unions, on behalf of the bourgeoisie

>>19031085
good thing then that Marx and Engels provide us with a materialist, scientific basis on which to understand political economy

>>19031319
t. bakunin

>>19032480
meds

>>19032912
Correctness doesn't matter in the sense you think it does. Your position ends in nihilism if taken to its conclusions: don't do anything unless it's "correct." According to whom? How do we determine it? How do we determine judges to judge the judges of who determines it?

Schmitt answers this question best: at the end of the day there are non-existential decisions and there are existential decisions. There is a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy in what makes something an existential decision or not, in that if someone laid down and allowed themselves to be destroyed, or what is in effect the same thing, allowed the distinctness of their "people" or "polity" to be absorbed into something else or otherwise to dissolve, then evidently the case was not an existential one - i.e., it wasn't perceived as one, so it didn't become one, so it wasn't one. But existential situations arise when peoples or polities, for whatever reasons (literally whatever reasons, since we can't know what all peoples or polities will do in all cases or all possible kinds of constitutions and group-feelings that could theoretically exist, we can only know what the raw actuality of real history presents to us), decide that something is unbearable and choose to resist it. That something could be foreign rule or it could be deracination by capitalism.

Where leftists, and especially smug crypto-bourgeois overeducated leftists, differ from the right wing populist on this note is in obsessing over what is "rational," like a Hegelian Jewish scion of the Enlightenment in 1835. The enlightened Jewish Hegelian in 1835 just can't understand how people could possibly summon the strength to reform the state and overcome the contradictions of civil society by drawing on faith and patriotism, because a priori the enlightened Hegelian Jew knows that faith and patriotism are "irrational." The right wing populist by comparison has a gritty realistic sense that he doesn't, and perhaps can't ever, fully understand the world, but nevertheless the world IS punctuated by forces and faiths of all kinds. These aren't always sufficient, but that's to be expected: no struggle is ever guaranteed a priori, because struggles aren't rational, they are historical. The disconnection between the right and left winger in this situation lies in the different senses of what is and can be guaranteed a priori. The right winger is fundamentally willing to fight, the leftist doesn't want to rely on this.

>>19033122
The left winger makes a valuable critique though: the right wing "just fight!" is often a trick to make the populist act without thinking critically first. So by all means, absorb the best thoughts and critiques from the left to inform your acting and avoid 1848. But have some faith in action as well, or you'll spend another 100 years in stasis. Note the contradiction here:
>two choices: right-wing parties that combine neoliberalism with middle-class / petit-bourgeois social conservatism, and formerly left-wing parties that combine neoliberalism with professional-class social liberalism
>If you ask me, what I think the left should do is just get jobs at Amazon warehouses and do the long, hard work of organizing actual workers.

What has 100 years of feckless thinking about thinking about thinking about organising workers actually gotten you? The exact neoliberalism you're describing. We have Amazon warehouses in the first place because people have so little faith in man that they spent a hundred years pish-poshing the idea of relying on man himself to liberate himself.
>Jefferson thought the formal features of the American system would work, and they did work till the time of general Grant but the condition of their working was that inside them there should be a de facto government composed of sincere men willing the national good. When the men of their understanding, and when the nucleus of the national mind hasn’t the moral force to translate knowledge into action I don’t believe it matters a damn what legal forms or what administrative forms there are in a government. The nation will get the staggers.
>And any means are the right means which will remagnetize the will and the knowledge.
>I think the American system de jure is probably quite good enough, if there were only 500 men with guts and the sense to USE it, or even with the capacity for answering letters, or printing a paper.
Ezra Pound, "Jefferson and/or Mussolini"

Take up the best theoretical element of Marxism, the materialist critique of idealism and ideology, and start having some faith in praxis. Marxists are unconsciously so scared that they're actually wrong about everything, that they want to talk about theory in college and vaguely plan to "organise" for another thousand years, where organise is defined as anything that works within the confines of the neoliberal state rather than rejecting it totally. Nothing can happen until "formal communism" is perfectly planned and perfectly packed into a neat little clockwork mechanism that can unfurl itself and replace the bourgeoisie. It doesn't work that way. It didn't work that way in 1848, 1905, 1916, 1924, 1929, 1945, 1956, 1968. It will never work that way. You have concrete enemies who are concretely embedded in concrete positions and their way of life is concretely in control of a concrete state. There is nothing more material than that.

>>19033122
>>19033125
stfu

>>19032867
Yeah, I do. He’s either portrayed as Lenin’s other brain or someone who would sympathize with anarchists of today.
Idiot.

No, seriously. Not biting the idiot statists can defeat statism canard

>>19030720
If you identified as a tradcon, then yes, you are replacing one for another. You're the gullible type that Marxists and conservatives prey upon.

>>19031343
This sounds like fiction to me, we know there was no order given by him

>>19030720
>Am I replacing one blind ideology with another, or am I really on the right track?
Only way to know, read Das Kapital, all 3 volumes, and german ideology.
Traditionalists are stupid people who think they can tame Capitalism. Obviously, they do not tame Capitalism, Capitalism tame them. There are no traditions, in Capitalism. Only commodity, money, capital accumulation, wage labor, exploitation.

>>19030720
see
>>19030729

>>19033221
hmm, i'd say he was a revolutionary social republican, and largely indifferent to anarchism, in his time
i think his critique of political economy is useful for realizing capitalism as a mediative social structure that deserves to be regarded as a beast of its own, rather than going on about markets or finance or debt or money or whatever as abstract concepts
also communism was still central to his project, his activity in the first international aside

>>19032478
>muh
>100
>gorillion

>>19032140
kek marx has whole essays refuting hegelianism, wrote entire tomes on a single subject and is literally the most influential figure in history. what have you done?
>T. Tradcon who has read the manifesto (if even that)

>>19033304
>kek marx has whole essays refuting hegelianism
A "whole essay" cannot refute Hegel. I'm guessing it's akin to Marx's 600 page rant against Stirner, if you consider a rant to be a "refutation."

>>19033320
hegel is deboonked by the simple fact that he's an idealist

>>19033320
so you've gone from
>dialectical materialism = hegelian dialectics
to
>THAT'S NOT ENOUGH WORDS TO REFUTE HIM
I'll be generous and assume that you've read hegel. I'll be even more generous and assume you've read more than just the communist manifesto of marx. Please summarise marx's position and refutation of hegelianism and then explain to me why it's incorrect. If you can't do this then please vacate this thread, close the tab, and turn your head back to your primary monitor for your twitch streams.

>>19033006
>unions are Marxist
Read some of SEP’s perspective and read the WSWS. Unions are neoliberal.

>>19033325
No, that's Marx by virtue of being a materialist. But even calling Hegel an idealist is a simplification.
>>19033352
I never said they were the same thing. I'm a different person, my only point is that Marx isn't intelligent enough to understand Hegel or proper philosophy. He was just smart enough to try his hand at a massively verbose pseudo-science, and get away with convincing enough useful idiots to think he was deep, when he couldn't even secure his epistemological foundations in a way that anyone capable of genuine (non-ideological) thought would accept.
>Please summarise marx's position and refutation of hegelianism and then explain to me why it's incorrect.
I haven't read Marx's "refutation" of Hegel. I'm relying on you to spell it out for me, because Hegel has also written "tomes on a single subject", and I very, very strongly doubt Marx had the intellectual capability to refute it in a single essay, or even a few essays.

>>19033361
The SEP and WSWS aren't good indicators of the general line. Even Socialisme ou Barbarie have a line on the Unions being Fucked. Even the KAPD. Even Lenin.

>>19033366
>The SEP and WSWS aren't good indicators of the general line.
Provide an argument for why instead of dismissing it with the view that other Marxists came to a similar conclusion.

>>19033362
>I've read the communist manifesto, a pamphlet designed for blue collar factory workers to read on their 10 minute lunch break, and have concluded that marx is a dumb dumb
dogshits I scrape off my shoe are more provocative and have more integrity than you

>>19030720
You really are on the right track
He gets a bit orthodox towards the end
Be sure you try the left anarchists

>>19031817

>>19033413
That's not what I said though. I said I haven't read Marx's "refutation" of Hegel.

>>19033440
what have you read then? if you haven't read the theses on feurbach or the german ideology then it's very unlikely you've read much at all or care to understand marxism. in which case you have no place discussing it. furthermore, it isn't a refutation of hegel, nor did I say it was. It's a refutation of hegelianism.

>>19033361
unions aren't great, but they're not horrible

>>19030741
>Stirner
>telling people to read proto-fascist literature

>>19031087
Evoa morales literally sponsored the state to beat up trade unionists he doesn't like he is literally everything you hate

>>19031242
The answer is no but his rhetoric fueld the fire.

>>19033006
>but anon every single fascist party has actively fought things like unions, on behalf of the bourgeoisie
No every fascist party (there was only ever one and it was the one musso was head of) has fought against non-state unions, aka doing something that every state socialist (latter almost a misnomer) state ever has done.

>>19033458
Pseud larpers like you aren't good enough to eat their own shit in a kwanliso

>>19032651
There is literally nothing to learn from Marx. Marxists are all just powerhungry psychopaths fueled by rhetorics of "liberation" i.e ultraliberals

>>19033516
>ideological purity policing

Run back under your mother's skirt now, shitbitch

>>19031582
Yes that is what I said. Are you autistic?

>>19033601
Stirner is literally proto-fascist literature. Arguably the "proto" is not even necessary.
If you don't understand why Stirner is protofascist literature then this demonstrates a failure to understand either Stirner or Fascism as both a philosophy and a political movement.

>>19033631
And so what? The point is . . .

>>19033549
"unions" under fascism amount to yellow unions, so of course fashoids fight for that. it's the same kind of "class peace" cuckery that is the basis for social democracy

>>19033631
Expressivism strikes again

>>19033691
The "class peace" of Fascism can be interpreted through a multitude of perspectives. The Marxist one being that it is essential for a society to reach a necessary level of development for socialism to take hold.

Revolutionary phrase mongerers deserve the boot.

>>19033696
>Expressivism strikes again
What do you mean by this?

>>19033681
My point is that the reply I made to Butters is tongue in cheek, herself being the Anarchist– myself being the Fascist. I always tell her that every anarchist is a baffled dictator and that the main problem with anarkiddies is that they haven't read the Genealogy of Morals and take on a moral system which devalues whatever has power over them. It's a slave morality.

>>19031103
>The question is what to do after Marx's analysis, considering how much capitalism has changed and developed since his time. He's still worth returning to, with useful insights still to be found that can open doors to help in thinking about our time.
Honestly NML is the only even slightly legitimate post-Marxist development, as it is the only one that actually engages with bourgeoisie economics, world systems theory and isn't just inundated with schizos that either think it's still 1920 or technoautists that think every problem will go away if you just throw enough computers at it.

>>19033528
critical support for the oppressors of the proletariat as long as they're not white and hate America

>>19033549
state unions are the negation of the independent proletarian movement, i.e. of socialism. the capitalist state swallows independent unions in order to keep the workers on a leash and facilitate their exploitation.

>>19033599
it's the opposite of liberalism, because it's not about abstract individual liberation but about the denial of it as a fully bourgeois outgrowth. liberals see a communist society of free _social_ individuals as a totalitarian regime in which the abstract freedom-yearning individual is completely subjugated to society. that's because they start out with a metaphysical assumption of an individual human atom, a soul that exists prior to society. this is the basis of the liberal ideology and communism represents its thorough negation.

>>19033703
simply denouncing proletarian subservience to the bourgeois state is not revolutionary phrase mongering. calling for independent unions is actually the opposite of that, because unions aren't immediately political and revolutionary and because of that revolutionary phrasemongers tend to reject them

>>19033856
>critical support for the oppressors of the proletariat as long as they're not white and hate America
Trade unions under Morales are not independent.
>state unions are the negation of the independent proletarian movement, i.e. of socialism. the capitalist state swallows independent unions in order to keep the workers on a leash and facilitate their exploitation.
This is what I was saying, and this was the case in every "socialist state"
>simply denouncing proletarian subservience to the bourgeois state is not revolutionary phrase mongering. calling for independent unions is actually the opposite of that, because unions aren't immediately political and revolutionary and because of that revolutionary phrasemongers tend to reject them
Unions were a means of revolution during the red years in Italy and productivity was was hurt and further industrialisation would be halted

>>19031188
Because all commodities can be traded with each other. And if they can be traded then they must have something in common, some similar in all of them. And he concludes that this is labour

>>19030741
I'm surprised someone who urges everyone to be kind would be urging people to read someone as hateful as Bakunin.

>>19033916
>And if they can be traded then they must have something in common
i'd explain why this is a complete non sequitur, but that's not the point, the point is that the fact that there is even room for debate here shows that Marx's theory is a failure. Combined with its number of highly contentious claims (failure on a theoretical basis) and its failure to be demonstrated meaningfully in the real world (failure on empirical basis) the theory is completely useless and the only reason people would ever buy into it is because they are midwits who lack the critical thinking skills to search for problems and are instead persuaded by rhetoric.

>>19033947
Then explain why its not a valid argument. Only like things can be traded, that's literally the basis of trade

>>19033856
>that's because they start out with a metaphysical assumption of an individual human atom, a soul that exists prior to society
As do marxists except with more mental gymnastics. Marx's cencept of the state is absolutely delusional and everything marxists do is just an automatic devaluing of anything that lords over them, in other words: slave morality. Ofc communism isn't really about liberation, it's about a bunch of psychopathic vanguardists seizing power to satisfy their will

>>19033961
The fact that all commodities can be traded with each other only shows that some people value certain commodities more than others, not that they are equal to a third nebulous constant that people don't even think about when they buy something.

>>19033961
>Only like things can be traded
What is it with marxists and being aggressively retarded?

>>19033423
>NOOO NOT THE HECKIN IMPERIALISTS
lol
I bet your other face is the one where you mock the US for losing Vietnam

socialist countries collapse just fine by themselves without outside intervention, as history amply demonstrates and ideologues endlessly rationalize

>>19033967
That's one way of looking at trade. But you wouldn't trade with someone unless you were getting something of equal value back . I value happiness far more than any commodity but I can't trade my commodities for happiness as happiness is not a physical thing. Only like things can be traded

>>19033979
Marxists are solipsistic conspiracy theorists, what do you expect? That they'd concede their determinism and admit that America was on the right side of history for dismantling the soviets or that the USSR fell because communism is a meme(or in the case of the USSR, not real)?

>>19034001
>But you wouldn't trade with someone unless you were getting something of equal value back
yes. the subjective value judged by each individual separately is equal and it has nothing to do with any property of the commodity (though labor isn't even a real property of commodities that has the power to give them value at all)

>>19030720
>or am I really on the right track?
Depends, what are your intentions?
If you want to actually produce some kind of tangible product, improvement, or change in the world...you are completely and hilariously wayward. If you want to become a career academic or accumulate political clout or something and root further in the rotting corpse of modern society, yes you are absolutely on the right track. You could even be the next Chomsky, where you do absolutely nothing and be admired the world over as an 'intellectual' by millions of effete indolents who do nothing but sample the brume of their own exhalations.
>>19033419 quite right!

>>19033691
Social democracy in the vein of Scandinavian countries fully debunks Marxoid revolution fantasies. Sorry sweaty, the answer is fascism with a smilely face on it.

>>19034013
OK sure, let's assume you're right. But why can't I trade my shoes for happiness? Not indirectly mind you, but instantly and directly

>>19034026
I literally don't even know what you're trying to argue at this point as this seems completely unrelated to everything else but ok, you can't trade your shoes for happiness because nobody is able to give you happiness, if they were able to sell it they would, and people like prostitutes, self help gurus, yoga instructors, candy manufacturers certainly try. I don't see what happiness not being a "like good" (whatever that means) with shoes is the reason you can't trade them.

>>19034023
except social democracy is crumbling and cucking hard to neoliberism. source: I live in a succdem scandinavian country

>>19031080
No. A fuhrer order has NEVER been discovered.

>>19034035
So the reason you can't trade them is because happiness is not a physical good that can be produced? In other words, not a commodity. The fact that I value happiness more than shoes does not mean I can trade them, as the basis of trade is similar commodities. That means items of a similar nature, and a similar value

>>19034003
no-one expects anything of Marxists, least of all the actual Marxists
the whole thing is one big word game to them where the winner is the most dishonest argument

>>19034067
what, so all you're saying is that you can't trade a commodity with something that isn't a commodity? ok, i never said you couldn't trade things that couldn't be traded
>The fact that I value happiness more than shoes does not mean I can trade them
literally how does this change anything I said? you sound like an insane person

>>19034073
Lmao I misread what you typed originally

>>19034073
Wait no, the fact that I can't trade something physical for something non physical means that commodities must be physical to be traded. Therefore it is not that person A values person B's commodity more than their own that allows trade to occur, but that two commodities be of a like nature

>>19034072
>the winner is the most dishonest argument

>>19034103
the fact that commodities have to be physically able to be traded doesn't change at all the fact that each person has to find the other commodity more valuable than their own. this is a complete non sequitur. "I can't trade you for dark matter therefore the conditions required for a normal trade when we each actually have a commodity we can trade are completely different."

I can just say there are two requirements
1. that the commodities can be physically traded
2. that each person values the other person's commodity more than their own.

>>19034103
As in they must both be physical? Ok? The rest is just a non sequitur. The very fact that a person would give away something in exchange for something else means that he values the offer more than what he currently is in possession of. People don't just trade things just because they are physical.

>>19034072
>tfw even Lenin would get ridiculed and outcast by Marxists today the entire school has degenerated so far
Sort of reminds me of how people say if Jesus came back the first thing the Church would do is kill him again.

>>19034121
But the fact that they have to be physical implies an inherent quality other than what ones values it as

>>19034148
HOW?!?!?!?

>>19034136
That's a pretty based take.

>>19034148
That is something you yourself have put there. Either way it's unfalsifable

>>19034136
>Lenin was an incel
wtf I love Bolshevism now!

>>19034153
>all that is required for commodities to be traded is that one person values the other person commodity more than their own
But the fact that you can't trade a physical commodity for a non physical one implies that there is more to trade than value. Commodities must be similar in nature, i.e they must both be physical. And from here I could make the argument that the fact they are physical means that some Labour has gone into them, but that's not what I'm saying

>>19034192
>But the fact that you can't trade a physical commodity for a non physical one implies that there is more to trade than value
you just keep saying that but I literally cannot see how the first part "implies" the second part at all

>>19034037
Capitalism isn't done growing yet. All peoples must be made into polysexual goyfarms being shoveled marvel movies. But what I'm contending specifically is that social democracy made better outcomes for people than Soviet style socialism ever did, and without tens of millions dead to get there.

>>19034200
Okay. The fact that I can't trade something physical for something non physical implies that both commodities onvolved in a trade must be physical. Which means that before value even comes into the equation, there is something that connects both items. Which is their physicality

>>19034226
No, it implies that you can't trade something that's physically impossible to trade lol

>>19034230
Which means that before value enters the equation, there is a condition that must be met. Which is that both items are physical

>>19034241
> before value enters the equation
so then how are you using this to say that there is a constant value that both are equal to? all you have said is that both items have to be physical

>>19034209
>But what I'm contending specifically is that social democracy made better outcomes for people than Soviet style socialism ever did
not starting as an agrarian shithole helps. not that say Sweden was terribly well off, and much of its success was due to staying neutral in WW2. it's been able to put off an intensified class conflict by exporting its exploitation to the third world. also
>muh gorillions

>>19034249
I'll answer in a minute, got shit to do

>>19033631
wait I GET IT because like machiavelli you have to read stirner IRONICALLY because he criticizes liberty by taking it to its logical conclusion

>>19034263
No because Fascism is the egoism of the leader, and the philosophy of Fascism: actual idealism, was then often occused of solipism by it's critics. The egoist can only reject Fascist philosophy when Gentile incorporates the object, see: "spooks" into his philosophy. Yet the object is obviously not a spook to the non-reified, uniquely lived experience of Gentile.

>>19034226
>Okay. The fact that I can't trade something physical for something non physical implies that both commodities onvolved in a trade must be physical.
No it doesn't, people trade for agreements and understandings for example all of the time. Mutual adherence to the law is one such exchange.

>>19033884
>Trade unions under Morales are not independent.
yes, I was being ironic

>>19033916
that's not how he comes to the conclusion or how he justifies it at all

>>19033963
>As do marxists except with more mental gymnastics
every random idiot can call himself a "Marxist", so I can't definitely disprove what you said. I can only affirm that Marx himself very explicitly denounces the liberal metaphysical individualist assumption as a reification of a historically contingent circumstance that can be overcome:
>It is of course easy to imagine a powerful, physically superior person, who first captures animals and them captures men in order to make them catch animals for him; in brief, one who uses man as a naturally occurring condition for his reproduction like any other living natural thing; his own labor being exhausted in the act of domination. But such a view is stupid, though it may be correct from the point of view of a given tribal or communal entity, ___for it takes the isolated man as its starting-point. But man is only individualized through the process of history. He originally appears as a generic being, a tribal being, a herd animal___ — though by no means as a “political animal” in the political sense. Exchange itself is a major agent of this individualization. It makes the herd animal superfluous and dissolves it.

>>19033967
do you lack a brain? you say yourself that people reduce different commodities to a third thing, what you call value, and then immediately after you say that this doesn't prove than any such third thing exists.

>>19034249
Physicality is the constant value. It is inseparable from the LTV. The fact that I am holding a physical object to trade means that some Labour (past or present) has gone into producing it. Even if I was holding a piece of raw, unaltered iron, there would have been some labour that went into obtaining it. HOWEVER Marx does not talk in terms of individual value, but only of the average value of an item. We need to keep that in mind when talking about individual cases of trade

>>19034255
>>muh gorillions
If your goal is get better material conditions for the people than capitalism presently provides, that would be contrary to killing the same people you are trying to benefit

>>19034420
what supposed killings are you talking about exactly?

>>19033516
>>19033631
This new meme of yours isn’t going anywhere. Fascism is about totalitarianism, not everyone becoming Jack Sparrow, which is much closer to egoism

>>19033528
I don’t like statists of any kind. This is a weak defense of Mr Grimes

>>19033942
>Hi, I don’t know what anarcho-communism is
>I’ve only read that one infograph of Bakunin and I’m sure this is all there is to the man
Dippy.

>>19033979
You need to see the list

>>19034401
>that's not how comes to the conclusion
> Instead of one exchange value, the wheat has, therefore, a great many. But since X blacking, Y silk, or Z gold, etc. each represents the exchange value of one quarter of wheat, X blacking, Y silk, Z gold, etc. must, as exchange-values, be replaceable by each other, or equal to each other. Therefore, first: the valid exchange-values of a given commodity represents something equal; secondly, exchange-value, generally, is only the mode of expression, the phenomenonal form, of something contained in it, yet distinguishable from it.

And this is the Labour put into it

>>19034434
In the case of the soviets, Kulaks killed for (understandably) resisting the expropriation of their land for farm collectivization schemes. Now cope and tell me how the big mean peasants were actually the bad guys and deserved starvation.

It doesn't work.

>>19034475
>nooo not the hecking kulaks
I knew it

>>19034401
>He originally appears as a generic being, a tribal being, a herd animal
This is pure retardation. It implies that society is just the product of spontaneous order which just poofs into existence without any signifiers. Every tribe had a leader and either way differences had to be settled by force or mediation. A society can not exist without a state.

>>19034506
>Offered example of how ideology is nonsensical
>No counter argument besides he knew what the example was before it was said
Revolutionfags only revolt against common sense and principles of sound government

>>19034407
>Physicality is the constant value
That value is something that you have put there. It might matter to you but if no one wants it your retarded analysis becomes worthless

>>19034420
the goal of the communists is aiding the independent association of the proletariat, not "getting" "better" "material conditions" for "the people"
>A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of [bourgeois] Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.

>>19034457
yes, I've read Capital. I repeat that this is not how he comes to the conclusion or how he justifies it. what you quote is merely a presentation of the final result in a simple form and from an abstract standpoint. if you want to grasp the actual argument you should focus on section 2. rather than 1.

>>19034475
Stalin has enshrined peasant private property in the 1936 constitution

>>19034532
I never said I could prove the LTV, only that personal value is not what makes trade possible. There is no conclusive theory of value that does not have flaws, so to try and put one against the other seems pointless, so I'm not gonna argue about why marginalism isnt correct

>>19034537
>I repeat that this is not how he comes to the conclusion or how he justifies it.
Its been a while since I've read them so I'll take your word for it

>>19034549
>only that personal value is not what makes trade possible
And that is pure retardation as I have and others have stated before. In order for there to be trade someone must find personal value in that which is being offered. Forcing people to exchange products that don't have any personal value to them and calling it trade just seems to redefine the term.
>There is no conclusive theory of value that does not have flaws
Sure, and the LTV is the worst offender and I am surprised larpers still harp on about it.

>>19034530
>Offered example of how ideology is nonsensical
the fact that the petty bourgeoisie has opposite material interests to the working class is a Marxist prediction born out in reality. you don't even deny that they resisted. resistance that included burning much-needed grain and cattle, exacerbating the already bad harvests of '32-'33
Trotsky was right here for once. the CPSU should have liquidated the kulaks earlier and more forcibly instead of cucking to Stalin's moderate line
>sound government
like what? the fucking karensky government?

>>19034582
Marx acknowledges personal value but calls it a different name: use value. We only trade in useful things. But what makes those things useful is the labour put into them. That is how Marxists see value

>>19034596
The kerensky government: so sound it had to enlist the bolsheviks to protect it!

>>19034596
Well, yeah the Kulaks were against being exterminated so naturally they resisted. What communists find reprehensible about that is simply that they were denying them an easy access to domination which is ultimately why communists become communists to begin with. They're just demented psychopaths trying to rationalize their psychopathy. But many do naturally believe in Marx's retarded concept of the state and thereby believe that it's not totalitarian tyranny when they do it.

>>19034305
>egoism of the leader,
Stirner was explicitly writing about a union of egoists, not egoism of the leader. I can see how Stirner is related to fascism, but calling him fascist is a bit much,

>>19034604
>But what makes those things useful is the labour put into them
no. this is the mud pie argument. it's the other way around - a thing has to be useful to be a commodity

>>19034612
kek

>>19034614
cry more

>>19034596
A brief history of Marxist-Leninism
>Tell someone you are going to uplift them from stage X to stage Y
>take out knife and start stabbing them
>claim their very rational resistance to being stabbed is proof that they're still in stage X
>after you realize that the stabbing was actually harmful, promise you won't stab them anymore (but everything else is still on the table)
>years later maintain that the stabbing was necessary for getting to stage Y even though you didn't get to stage Y
>>19034537
>the goal of the communists is aiding the independent association of the proletariat
To what ends?

>>19034509
lmao at the epic anti-individualist not being able to contain himself and having to immediately posit great individuals as a natural necessity as well as characterize primitive tribes as defined by a necessary conflict between individuals. consider signifier-ing yourself, if you know what I mean

>>19034582
you quoted that anon claiming that "personal value" is not a sufficient condition for trade. and you respond that this is wrong because "personal value" is a necessary condition for trade. as I said, I suggest you find some personal value in having a brain so that you can finally go out and buy one

>>19034604
>That is how Marxists see value
I know, and it's retarded. What makes those things valuable is the value which people put on it not the inherent labor that goes into it. It's based on how much people are willing to pay for it.

>>19034632
My mistake, should've proof read that

>>19034634
>To what ends?
to the ends of the proletariat being able to assert its own interest properly

>>19034639
how much people are willing to pay for something depends on prices of other things they need as well as on their wage, i.e. the price of their labour-power. and explaining price by price is tautological

>>19030720
you're on the right track. just don't forget that Marx was not a Marxist and he explicitly said so himself.

>>19034634
are you stupid or some shit? workers and porkies have opposing material interests. find me one example of anyone in the CPSU saying they intended to "uplift" the kulaks. both parties knew full well that they were enemies, which is why the kulaks burned shit purely out of spite when it came down to

>>19034673
next read William B. Greene and get into math

>>19034635
I'm not an anti-individualist. I just whole heartedly reject Marx's retarded concept of the state as something outside society and acknowledge that a society is inhabited by human beings. Also determinism is for gay edgelords. This belief in spontaneous disorder is ironically a liberal notion. Marxists are just ultraliberals. I suggest you stop reading Marx's retarded analysis and, idk, get a job or something.

>>19034682
spontaneous order*

>>19033263
>his activity in the first international aside
you mean included? he ruined basically every other promising strain of socialism or mutualism in the international by having proudhon expelled and encouraging the syndicalists to expel the social democrats.

>>19034675
>both parties knew full well that they were enemies
Yes, because the bolsheviks made them their enemies. The only rationalization you can give is their retarded solipsistic propaganda

>>19034663
>to the ends of the proletariat being able to assert its own interest properly
What are the proletariat's interests and why should they be asserted?

>>19034663
>to the ends of the proletariat being able to assert its own interest properly
they wouldn't be the proletariat by then. Marxism is simply about recycling the elite for a new set of managers who ultimately become their own class with their own interests.

>>19034720
>Marxism is simply about recycling the elite for a new set of managers who ultimately become their own class with their own interests.
Not to mention, this exact scenario has been borne out by _every_ attempt at it, thus far. I find claims of "not real communism :^)" to be extremely dubious.

>>19034702
solipsism derives from idealism, which is the fucking opposite of materialism you cretin

>>19034767
>Not to mention, this exact scenario has been borne out by _every_ attempt at it
That's because that's how society works. Marxists are just too delusional to understand that a stateless, classless society is an oxymoron. That's why leninists have to go through constant mental gymnastics as they liquidate their libertarian brothers while the libleft can just say "not real lol"

>>19034788
And i was using that term to describe marxism as an ideology that makes shit and ignores reality you autist

>>19034439
>This new meme of yours isn’t going anywhere. Fascism is about totalitarianism, not everyone becoming Jack Sparrow, which is much closer to egoism
Has it occurred to you that different egos like to do different things?
The Fascists were was far closer in spirit to Jack Sparrow thank you are by the way. There were LITERAL pirates during the Fiume escapade– so wtf are you trying to say.

Also, what is "totalitarianism"?

>>19034809
I.e. marxists can't see pass their own nose

>>19034618
>he thinks there is an ideology to stirner
I don't think you understand him

>>19034809
t. has never read marx

>>19034682
Marx doesn't consider state as something outside society. on the contrary, he considers it as thoroughly rooted in it, being as it is an organ of the bourgeoisie.

>>19034697
based

>>19034702
it flows directly from their class interest. it was in the interest of the petty-bourgeoisie to maintain millions of islands of petty property and in the interest of the proletarian dictatorship to centralize agriculture as much as possible in order to be able to modernize and control it to be able to feed the industrializing cities. this had nothing whatsoever to do with the particularity of the Bolsheviks.

>>19034718
>What are the proletariat's interests
the immediate ones are the likes of fighting for higher wages and better working conditions. then the most important further one is the constitution of an independent class party, because the immediate fights will always end in defeat sooner of later, unless the proletariat seizes political power in order to establish its dictatorship and abolish its own existence.
>and why should they be asserted
who says they "should"? people will tend to assert their perceived interests because that's just what humans are by nature. and they will likewise always strive to align their perceived interests with their actual interests, and so they'll strive to assert their actual interests. asking why they "should" do that is like asking why gravity should cause things to fall down.

>>19034720
by when? obviously its ultimate class interest is in its own abolition, but there's also the immediate interests, both in satisfying immediate needs and in satisfying the conditions for one day being capable of asserting the ultimate interest. until then, they're still the proletariat.
and "managers" are never a class but paid functionaries of the ruling class.

>>19034767
no, it hasn't been borne out. but as for the fact that a communist revolution has never succeeded yet, you're correct. that's a very insightful observation

>>19034792
if you're seriously interested in identifying the reasons for the victory of the counterrevolution, then you need to tackle history books. I know it's nice to think that you have a ready-made one-sentence answer already, but that's just an illusion of a lazy ignorant.

>>19034844
>no, it hasn't been borne out. but as for the fact that a communist revolution has never succeeded yet, you're correct.
How utterly predictable. I shall say the N word now.

>>19034812
>Also, what is "totalitarianism"?
Scareword used to ward off the fascist boogeyman. They use it to insinuate that structure and regimentation is bad.

>>19034844
>Marx doesn't consider state as something outside society. on the contrary, he considers it as thoroughly rooted in it, being as it is an organ of the bourgeoisie.
Wow. What an amateur. Why can’t he just stick to economics. Dude thought he was the only one who understood every fucking thing. Hubris

>>19034900
Butterfly, you might enjoy Lysander Spooner.

>>19034844
> he considers it as thoroughly rooted in it
yes,yes and that it is solely used as a tool of oppression by the bourg to oppress the workers with absolutely no nuance as Marx doesn't understand how humans operate. You can not get rid of this thing as revolutions have always showed themselves to in truth just be a recycling of elites.
>this had nothing whatsoever to do with the particularity of the Bolsheviks.
It did, as they were the driving force of the whole procedure as it was their interest because they wanted to satisfy their desire for power and dominion which is why they'd ruthlessly kill anyone.
>it was in the interest of the petty-bourgeoisie to maintain millions of islands of petty property
It was first and foremost much more in their interest to not be murdered or left in destitution.
>a communist revolution has never succeeded
Fucking hell, self-described liberals are less retarded than you guys. You are psychotic.
Also, the state will never wither away

why we gotta do this shit to each other man. plenty of wealth around so why we fighting

>>19034899
Musso used totalitarianism as a way to say a state which is concerned with all aspects of a citizen's life

>>19034788
>Materialism isn’t idealism
Fucking worthless philosophy terms then.

>>19034812
>Has it occurred to you that different egos like to do different things?
This is what scares some control freaks (tankies AND fashies included)
>State dictatorships at war are lidderly pirates
Jack Sparrow to my knowledge was usually by himself. It is true the state is nothing more than a pack of murdering thieves, but I was trying to evoke the film’s portrayal I guess. They’re shown as a kind of family with loose unwritten rules who went off on their own more often than not.
This was the Muss’ mind, and why he switched. He was just a murderous thieving thug who joined the wrong club

Totalitarianism is when the leader, usually taking or being being elected by his equally thuggish peers, takes absolute control. As opposed to authoritarianism, which is a similar person who concedes somewhat to written laws. The latter is usually what fascism does actually. They have to please their financiers after all.

>>19034989
>Fucking worthless philosophy terms then
no maybe you and >>19034702 shouldn't be using words you don't understand
read Engels' "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific"
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Engels_Socialism_Utopian_and_Scientific.pdf

>>19034962
Sure, but now we're splitting hairs over translations and meanings. There's a modern connotation (in English) of complete control, rather than government investment in all domains.

>>19035038
Pure idealism

>>19035047
ffffffffffff

>>19034954
>yes,yes and that it is solely used as a tool of oppression by the bourg to oppress the workers with absolutely no nuance
nope, there's plenty of nuance. the state didn't arise because some people decided to start oppressing others and needed the means for that, but because it was necessary at a certain point of development so that social disintegration was prevented. Engels:
>The state is therefore by no means a power imposed on society from without; just as little is it “the reality of the moral idea,” “the image and the reality of reason,” as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a particular stage of development; it is the admission that this society has involved itself in insoluble self-contradiction and is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to exorcise. But in order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, shall not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, a power, apparently standing above society, has become necessary to moderate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of “order”; and this power, arisen out of society, but placing itself above it and increasingly alienating itself from it, is the state.

>It did, as they were the driving force of the whole procedure
they were only the driving force in their capacity of a political class party asserting a determinate class interest, and not as Bolsheviks in particular.
>It was first and foremost much more in their interest to not be murdered or left in destitution.
irrelevant

>>19034954
>>19035220
>It was first and foremost much more in their interest to not be murdered or left in destitution.
and besides, the petty-bourgeois conceives losing his pathetic property as pretty much the equivalent of dying or being left in destitution, so this at most only confirms what I said.

>>19031816
Stock market and banking is not economics.
It's gambling and parasitism.

>>19035220
Oppression in the marxist sense is just a necessity in any society. Have fun constantly whining about people who are better than you I guess. Talking with marxists is a waste of time.

>>19035376
Yeah whatever, retard.

>>19030720
Eclecticism is the only right track because you will only know yourself by seeing what out of all the various ideologies actually sticks with you and what you don't need from them

>>19035391
cope piggie. Economics is sociology with some extra numbers. Its as legitimate as freudian psychoanalysis

>>19033292
Yes, Karl Marx was king of USSR and all of Communists.

>>19035383
Talking to marxists is a waste of time for you because you clearly have no clue what marxism is. Enjoy the cagie, wagie :)

>>19035575
>implying he's not a NEET or a student like every other larper

>>19034989
>This is what scares some control freaks (tankies AND fashies included)
you are the one who is scared of muh authoritarian boogy man.
>Jack Sparrow to my knowledge was usually by himself.
He is a literal ship captain. He is il duce of the ship.
> They’re shown as a kind of family with loose unwritten rules
That is what a government is, but it doesn't look like that for you looking from the bottom up.
>This was the Muss’ mind, and why he switched. He was just a murderous thieving thug who joined the wrong club
Musso objectively had one of the least bloody reigns, even less bloody than some democratically elected presidents

>>19035376
You can believe this and not be a retarded Marxist btw.

>>19035560
marxism is sociology with more ontological mysticism

I went from conservative to libertarian to fascist to strasserist to communist to… where I am now. My political views are best summed up as using 1984’s IngSoc as a transitionary state, where we take cues from Pol Pot by working to death a majority of the world’s population (80-90%) in labor camps while we keep the Inner and Outer Party mostly focused on developing science and technology. The aim during this time is to achieve exponential growth, by mass mobilizing segments of the population that would be otherwise useless, parasitic, and / or problematic in the society to come, forcing them to work on infrastructure projects and the creation of more and more automated factories / production facilities.

Society at this point would be a particracy, lead by people who were fit, intelligent, compliant, and loyal to their brand of IngSoc. As time progressed and the rest of the human population dwindled and automation increased in tandem, these chosen party people would enter a post-scarcity society. No more illness, no more political talk, curated history, no more gray areas. We’d base morality on what was beneficial to the majority of people, we’d proceduralize thought and discourse step-by-step to reflect scientific principles, and Dialectical Materialism would be taught and revered as the religion of reality. We’d practice Artitheism, where we would strive to create our own god that could calculate the future of the material universe, in order to steer our society on the correct path time and time again.

This god would operate as a singleton, an evolved form of our fictional Big Brother that functioned as a machine superintelligence. It’d know all, see all, predict all.

My point is: you’re not red pilled. Yet.

>>19030720
>now reading his various essays and finding myself nodding along

Yes, the "that is how it should be" part of you is nodding.

But deep inside you know it is not actually that way.

You had it right by accepting reality before, read all you want but don't forget that any system that denies the natural order is just bullshit.

There is a lot of valuable knowledge one can gather from Marx without being a communist.
Class wasn't terribly relevant in our countries because post WWII we had massive booms labour was valued highly. Now that this era is coming to a close we're seeing major gulfs between..

a) The working class (those that earn their income from labour)
b) The middle class (those that earn their income from management)
c) The bourgeoisie (those that earn their income from capital)

This class stratification will only increase. I recommend people read Marx in order to understand what is happening and use it to help develop strategies for dealing with the potential problems. I personally am a nationalist but still believe that he's an interesting man that wrote some very intriguing theories and ideas that we can continue to learn from. National Socialists, the main movement against communism in the first half of the 20th century, required Marx's capital to be studied by their leadership. Today China has their youth study Marx in schools.

>>19035842

The gulf is simply between those who can and those who cannot.

Yes those who cannot numbers are increasing all the time due to dysgenic breeding and mutations.

>>19035691
That is so.
It produces nothing and is of no practical value in the real world. Only those with the ability to swindle others into lending their wealth for money shuffling schemes, profit by shuffling money one way or the other manipulating the entire "market" to their benefit with the mass of cash that they have or even worse in modern economics with "virtual money".
If you still believe that stock market is of any value past the whole GME debacle you are actually retarded. It is a clear example that the "stock price" has absolutely zilch to do with the real company and it's performance. It's all a stupid game in a dignified dressing, like this very post.

>>19035856
Those who cannot what?
Beguile folks and kneepad their way into management positions?
Be born into generational wealth?

>>19035890
There is no point in engaging with you when your reality tunnel is so tainted with leftist bullshit.

>>19035842
>b) The middle class (those that earn their income from management)
this is not a class in Marx' sense

>>19035903
Tell me honestly how is sucking cock for higher ups and making fake friends/ networking better than the Chinese system of giving everyone a standardized test to determine their employment, and then evaluating their performance at the workplace based strictly on results achieved?
90% of Chinas leadership are STEMfags.
You claim "meritocracy" and then go on and espouse western capitalism.

>>19031027
so was Marx, literally called people jewish niggers

>>19033304
>literally the most influential figure in history
you don't know much history, do you?

>>19035928
>not being able to distinguish between private bants and public writing

>>19030720
I have thought the same and it's an unfair judgment to make of yourself. You're simply realizing that the "other side" can have perfectly valid arguments and critiques while also holding opposing beliefs. Don't be so hard on yourself and don't worry about changing your mind on things.

>>19035940
if it was a private bant then it reveals more about his true opinions (which are Problematic)
anyone with half a brain has the tact to not make a total fool of themself in their public opinions, so those with half a brain or more must be judged by their private ones

One of my critiques of Marxism is this attempt at revolutionary optimism by touting dialectical materialism and historical materialism. I think just looking at class is silly and it isn’t the driving force of history as Marx says in the manifesto. They seem to think that it is an inevitability and every historical question can be answered by material relations. I think things like spiritual inclinations, racial tension, ideas, and institutions drive history as well. If marxists just called it one of many lenses you could use, it’s be fine, but many seem not to do that. They treat it like an ultimate truth or a science.

Another critique is labor vouchers . I feel like abolishing money or private enterprise will just lead to a black market like it did in the USSR. Labor vouchers are what socialism is actually supposed to be according to Marx’s critique of the Gotha Programme, and it seem ridiculous and problematic. It just seems to utopian rather than practical.

>>19036002
>Another critique is labor vouchers . I feel like abolishing money or private enterprise will just lead to a black market like it did in the USSR. Labor vouchers are what socialism is actually supposed to be according to Marx’s critique of the Gotha Programme, and it seem ridiculous and problematic. It just seems to utopian rather than practical.
this is a fair critique I think. one thing that can happen is that some good takes the form of currency. historically and also in many places today (rural Finland for example) vodka plays this role
but on the other hand you can make labour vouchers be part of the deal to get access to the socialist economy. if it leads by example then it should be popular enough that people spontaneously want to use it, rather than imposing it from above

>>19036002
>>19036038
>oh noes, they’re using vodka instead of the labor coupon
So? Just means there’s a drunkard in their midst. Is he going to stockpile it? Weird.
Switch to gold. How is it of value when no one needs it? It’s used as a heavy collectible you can trade with? Weird, but okay.
Getting everyone into a shared economy and establishing themselves as the ones responsible for their own governance is the goal. Hold onto this and no elites can raise an army that needs feeding. That’s the mindset we need to break. A commodity hoarder is only dangerous in the midst of a famine, and the masses always deal with that logically, in their own frantic way

>>19035908
yes it is, except Marx certainly doesn't limit it to those who earn their income from "management". that's just a single stratum within it (which itself doesn't form a unity, since e.g. managers from corporations are going to often have irreconcilably opposite interests from state bureaucrats)
>>19035928
anti-semitism is not when you use a no-no word, contrary to what one could read on VICE
>>19036002
>They seem to think that it is an inevitability and every historical question can be answered by material relations. I think things like spiritual inclinations, racial tension, ideas, and institutions drive history as well.
see:
>Political, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, etc., development is based on economic development. But all these react upon one another and also upon the economic base. It is not that the economic position is the cause and alone active, while everything else only has a passive effect. There is, rather, interaction on the basis of the economic necessity, which ultimately always asserts itself. The state, for instance, exercises an influence by tariffs, free trade, good or bad fiscal system; and even the deadly inanition and impotence of the German petty bourgeois, arising from the miserable economic position of Germany from 1640 to 1830 and expressing itself at first in pietism, then in sentimentality and cringing servility to princes and nobles, was not without economic effect. It was one of the greatest hindrances to recovery and was not shaken until the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars made the chronic misery an acute one. So it is not, as people try here and there conveniently to imagine, that the economic position produces an automatic effect. Men make their history themselves, only in given surroundings which condition it and on the basis of actual relations already existing, among which the economic relations, however much they may be influenced by the other political and ideological ones, are still ultimately the decisive ones, forming the red thread which runs through them and alone leads to understanding.

>>19036002
>I feel like abolishing money or private enterprise will just lead to a black market like it did in the USSR.
1) the USSR had money and private enterprise
2) black market is only possible as long as there's private property. whereas labour vouchers are an example distribution mechanism for a lower phase of communism, where there's no longer private property
>Labor vouchers are what socialism is actually supposed to be
just no
>It just seems to utopian rather than practical.
what's utopian about it? it's a practical solution to a concrete problem than an incompletely communist society will have by the virtue of what it will have been born out of

>>19036038
>one thing that can happen is that some good takes the form of currency. historically and also in many places today (rural Finland for example) vodka plays this role
rural Finland has private property and hence trade

>>19036196
the point is that if you have currency then you will have markets, with all the problems that entails

>>19036257
there is no "middle class". you have workers who earn more than usual, or you have petty porkies
>rural Finland has private property and hence trade
I know, but this stuff happened in the USSR as well based on what I've read

>>19036325
Non accumulative currency can lead to more (actual) free markets. Like here’s the food. Take what you need. Here’s the cobbler, order up a new pair of shoes. Free.

>>19036325
>there is no "middle class"
yes, there is. there are people who aren't bourgeois but have a privileged position in society due to things like petty property, education, bourgeois connections, etc., and their interest lies in maintaining this privileged position and by consequence the current social structure it depends on. and then there are propertyless proletarians who have nothing to lose in this society but their chains. those are two separate classes with diametrically opposite interests, the former literally standing in the middle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, hence its name.
>I know, but this stuff happened in the USSR as well based on what I've read
USSR had private property and trade too

>>19036495
>yes, there is. there are people who aren't bourgeois but have a privileged position in society due to things like petty property, education, bourgeois connections, etc.,
sounds like the petty bourgeoisie to me

There is no coherent ideology of 'Marxism' that follows from his writings.

>>19036529
sure, they can be called that as well

>>19036556
so then use the established term so people know that you know what you're talking about

>>19036638
I was using a very established term. but even if someone somehow isn't familiar with it, it shouldn't take them more than two brain cells to figure out which class is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

>>19035575
Just take responsability in your life. It's not that hard. The state won't wither away

>>19037077
We've lived in stateless social structures before :^)

>>19037119
we're not fucking cavemen anymore

>>19037181
>Its either or!

>Don’t speak of the Noble Savage my again!
>it hurts my ears

>>19037119
>He unironically believes that strong grug didn't have more power whitin the tribe that manlet grug

>>19037188
Tribes had leaders and would listen to them.

>>19037119
No we didn't. Even tribes usually centered around a shaman, elder or patriarch to mediate inner-conflict and serve as authority.

>>19037200
>He actually thinks slave labor started in prehistory
>Indians had slave!
After, well after the settlers invaded them.

>>19037205
You ever see how wolf packs operate?

>>19037212
You don’t understand what you’re talking about. Okay? Step away from the keyboard

>>19037214
>You ever see how wolf packs operate?
Have you?
>A wolf pack has a definite social structure and rules of conduct. The pack leaders are the alpha male and female. These two animals are dominant over all the other wolves in the pack. The alpha male and female are the only wolves that breed and produce pups in the pack, and they also get to eat first at kills.

>>19037222
Whatever butters. But do you still wanna be my housewife?

Here’s a talk during the construction of the book, if you haven’t seen it.
https://youtu.be/EvUzdJSK4x8

If anything it will help the dunces in their stupid opposition to knowledge

>>19037236
Being the alpha is a severe burden. They lead from behind.
1. Native Americans had all sorts of setups they moved into and out of. Some resembling what the Kurds are doing.
2. And I repeat. Anarchism is a challenging of all unjustifiable hierarchies, not no hierarchies at all.

>>19037251
Ha!
Forgot what thread I was in. Pardon.

Just remember, the labor theory of value is bunk, there never has been and never will be a human society not organized into hierarchies, and equality of economic ourtomes is a pipe dream. Which is not to say that what passes for capitalism in the USA isn't unsustainable shit.

>>19037270
>Being the alpha is a severe burden. They lead from behind.
So is being a dictator????
>Native Americans had all sorts of setups they moved into and out of. Some resembling what the Kurds are doing.
Ok
>And I repeat. Anarchism is a challenging of all unjustifiable hierarchies, not no hierarchies at all.
A lá hierarchies I don't like.

>>19037400
>So is being a dictator???
No.
>ok
Glad you’ve come around
>a lá —
We. Hierarchies we don’t need.

>>19033597
>everyone is a dumb pseud except for me
KEK you're out of your depth and now you're angry for being called out on it. sorry for doing that to you baby, that was mean of me

>>19037270
>>19037400
Stalin led from behind speaking in favour of the line with greatest support.

>>19037419
>we

>>19037440
WE’RE going to have to stop working (so much)
https://youtu.be/7WcwXdGsyh8

>>19037465
Oh Butters. You're so cute. One day you will see that I am right and we will joyously skip merrily through the flower fields together.

Baffled dictator!!!

>>19030720
Communists are evil. I want to fight communists, but I have my work cut out because my fellow right wingers are either deplatformed or not as well read so they get tripped up by communist pilpul. I encourage my brothers of Europe to become informed on leftist tactics and talking points in order to properly dismantle them.

>>19037674
good luck with that. rightists have little understanding of marx.

>>19037674
Just point out that they work for Jews. Most modern day commies are employed by various (((nonprofit))) orgs.

>>19037674
>my brothers of europe

cringe. kys

>>19030720
I think you are on the right track, but... there are many schools of thought, that do take a critical if still positive view of Marx. Not many people today are orthodox Marxists (if you want to hear some, I recommend Richard Wolff on YouTube). But, there is Neo-Marxism, famously, and all that. Even the more traditional versions of Leninism or Stalinism (that I don't agree with) are distinct. So, know that it could just be a beginning of a journey, really. But that is true for many ideologies and schools of thought.

>>19037674
fight me brah cmon brah u mad brah that's right i thought not brah little bitch brah

>>19030720
Excellent bait my friend. You will go a long way in this business.

I want a united communist europe but only for white people and to invade shitty subhuman countries where civilization is not capable

There will be no need for money and we live happily ever after without negros, arabs, or indigenous americans.

The higher asian races may join us

>>19037783
is this nazbol?

>>19037119
Those were some of the most brutal and barbaric times in human history. Do you really want to use that to represent stateless socialism?

>>19037807
is that really your takeaway? you sound like a dumb twitter liberal

>>19037816
No they're right.

>>19037950
No. He’s wrong. Holy shit. Like how did we ever survive all those millennia without slave drivers and debt and tv dinners? Holy shit, what an empty head you have.

>>19037960
If you think those groups did not enslave their enemies then you are out of your mind

>>19037987
You’re the one out of your mind.
You probably think they lugged around shells to use as money.

>>19038004
No but they may have traded shells for the heck of it.

I don't understand how you think people didn't enslave one another and go to war with them. Literal ANTS enslave one another.

Out of your mind.

>>19038021
>ants have language and culture
Jesus fuck

>>19038026
Actually they do! Maybe you would understand that if you had an ounce of empathy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave-making_ant

If you are an anarchist and you are not vegan you are a hypocrite of the highest possible degree.

>oh i'm against unjust hierarchies
>but only in human societys!
>eats chicken

>>19038021
>ants
Ants?

And bees too? They take other species and make them work do they? And how are they situated on the evolutionary tree to primates again?
To apes keep slaves?

No, let’s get back to it though. What evidence is there for pre-“civilizational” man waging wars and taking captives to — what? To what? Wash the laundry? Pick berries? Help on hunting expeditions?

If they ever took any “slaves” it sounds more like they took a wife, a forceful adoption? Perhaps acceptable behavior among some, but jokes aside, that’s not slave labor. That is tribal adoption.

>thinkmeme.png

>>19038042
Time to do linguistics you useless fuck.

>>19030720
Read his economic theses seriously, then read 'Communism and Nationalism: Karl Marx versus Friedrich List' by Roman Szporluk. The result: you will become a developmental nationalist / nazbol.

>>19038073
Retard

>>19037119
>>19038070
>Appeal to nature

>>19038070
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-0137-4_1
Sci hub it

>>19038070
You really do live in a fantasy world.

>>19038101
He is (you are) the appealing to nature

>>19038123
> the second half of the 18th century
…. You really do live in a fantasy world. That’s the modern age dipshit.

>>19032478
Read Marx, he offers no solutions. He simply states how things should be. The fact that he offers no actual ways to achieve what he says should prove the ridiculous nature of what he proposes.

Class Collaboration is far superior, by every metric than everything he proposed.

>>19037236
Are you actually this stupid.
https://youtu.be/tNtFgdwTsbU

>>19030720
You will never win.

>>19037674
>he thinks we like burgers
you guys exist as a warning to everyone else

>>19038412
>Marx simply states how things should be
not even that, just how things are and how they potentially could be
>Class Collaboration
kys succdem