/lit/ - Literature

>>19074219
Given that Marx's schtick was to take the Greek play, Assemblywomen, and use it as the basis for how the world should be run, I don't know why anyone would take the man seriously.

>>19074219
Read Marx and read Nietzsche.
The thing you are looking for is called Fascism. You might also be interested in Baudrillard who was a Maoist and a Nietzschean.
Read the collected works of Mussolini and the people who hung around with him.

Reminder that in order for a nation to be great, the people who belong to that nation ought to not be slaves themselves.

>>19074219

>>19074251
>>19074265
As lulzy as it sounds, this is spot on accurate.

>>19074219
Marx specifically names Bonapartism as a great corruptive evil which is not too dissimilar from the existing ruling order. Leninism and the type of undemocratic centralism he practised is pretty similar to what you’re describing tho. You’re looking for national socialism / national Bolshevism, so try the Strassers or Mussolini

>>19074278
Hitler was not a "Fascist" in the way Mussolini was and the latter was most likely lol'ing his ass off when the former was raving about international Jewisb conspiracies.

Hitler, was just very angry for German capitulation in the The Great War and he cast his blame on the instigators of the 1918-19 revolution. Reminder that the Nazis took the majority of their base from the SPD. Even Stalin realized this, which is how the term "social fascism" was realized.
>>19074280
Marx doesn't call anything"evil", historical materialism has nothing to do with moral judgments. His whole point is that it was the bourgeoisie who were the base of the Napoleons.

>>19074251
>>19074265
>>19074278
>>19074280
Thanks, but i dont necissarily just mean fascim, though, not necissarily against, just not necessarily nation focused.

I know its silly, but something like Platos rebublic with a philosopher king. or something.
IDK, some socialists today have this real disgust for vitailty. idk how to put it. I can apreciate the burg calipha as a monument to human achievement, though also understand it as a waste of resources in a city that really doesnt need it. the necessity for some level of democratic and distributive wealth that isnt a constraint on excellence.

I just don't know how to synthesis a democracy with a dynamic individualism.

>>19074332
>Thanks, but i dont necissarily just mean fascim, though, not necissarily against, just not necessarily nation focused.
Fascism doesn't have to be nation focused. The nation was just a myth that was used in uniting people. Read Sorel's work.

Again, you're thinking of Fascism.

>>19074332
>for some level of democratic and distributive wealth that isnt a constraint on excellence
Given that the vast majority people aren't all that excellent, you can see how their impact on decisions tends to constrain excellence. You aren't gonna be making things better by diverting resources from the excellent to the subpar either, outside of essentially bribing them to not zerg rush those on top.

>>19074332
Also, scientific socialism, the Marxist type isn't distributive.

>>19074322
>the latter was most likely lol'ing his ass off when the former was raving about international Jewisb conspiracies.
Not really, Mussolini was aware of the globalists but they were less of a problem in Italy than Germany.
>>19074332
You should read him anyway because there's a lot of overlap and he's still very relevant.

Weird how the Marxist powers all embalmed and put on public display the corpses of those mere "Marionettes of History": Lenin, Mao, Kim Il Sung. I once read a funny Chinese book about Mao rising from the dead and going around Dengist China, turns out he was really happy about the new direction the country took.

>>19074219
>>19074332
Every single sentence you write is a string of memes and cliches, non-thoughts that were drilled into your head by the internet. Your posts are like a sludgy mix of garbage collected everywhere from discord to 4channel™. "Can someone combine these two edgy and idiotic ideologies from the 19th century for me, pretty please? Can I have both chocolate ice cream AND vanilla ice cream, mommy??? Pleeeeese"
No honest intellectual commitment, just "sympathy", just memes instead of neurons. Suicide yourself, you faggot cunt.

>>19074485
>Not really, Mussolini was aware of the globalists but they were less of a problem in Italy than Germany.
He called them "plutocracies" and "international capital" and he knew good and well it wasn't Jewish or Marxist. In fact the whole reason why Marxism is international is because capital is.

>>19074219
What you want has absolutely nothing to do with socialism.

>>19074728
What is socialism?
Is ensuring that workers live dignified fulfilling lives not socialism?

>>19074669
I dont think I used Meme terminology. Sorry If I didnt get to the core point: How would one consolidate the power and freedom of the individual with the general equity of the population. as the furthering of one directly impacts the others. The protection from a level of exploitation, but also the freedom to exploit.
>>19074369
ill look into

>>19074710
>He called them "plutocracies" and "international capital" and he knew good and well it wasn't Jewish or Marxist.
It was Jewish, not necessarily Marxist. But both Mussolini and Hitler criticized all globalists, left and right. Mussolini's take on them was oddly enough similar to Evola's, who also was aware yet didn't assign it as much importance as did Hitler.
>In fact the whole reason why Marxism is international is because capital is.
Of course, two sides of the shame shekel.

>>19074769
>It was Jewish,
No it was and isn't. Jews are overrepresented but many goys are also part of the international banking cartel.
Like I said, Mussolini himself said and is quoted on saying he doesn't buy into any international jewish conspiracy.
>Of course, two sides of the shame shekel.
No it isn't and if you actually think this you never read a book by Marxists of the period in your life.
By the way, the first and second international had many anti-semites and the JQ was always subject for debate.
Even Marx wrote about it. To him eliminating the abuse of capital would also eliminate "Jewishness"

Bakunin eternally BTFO'd Marx, he saw thru him perfectly.

>>19074812
No he didn't. He was right that opportunists will abuse centralization, but neither Bakunin or his followers was were able to achieve anything. All talk, no action.

>>19074332
Please explain how fascism is nation focused but socialism isn't. They are both extremely nationalistic.

>>19074219
Gramsci:

>The modern prince, the myth-prince, cannot be a real person, a concrete individual. It can only be an organism, a complex element of society in which a collective will, which has already been recognised and has to some extent asserted itself in action, begins to take concrete form. History has already provided this organism, and it is the political party -- the first cell in which there come together germs of a collective will tending to become universal and total. In the modern world, only those historico-political actions which are immediate and imminent, characterised by the necessity for lightning speed, can be incarnated mythically by a concrete individual.

The prince is the party:

https://youtu.be/9wPq0M_T8JQ?t=79

So anyways, Gramsci is talking about Machiavelli, who was a product of his time, but his historical task was the unification of the Italian state, the revolutionary task of the nationalist bourgeoisie at that time. Of course this took the form of the state, but Machiavelli was not talking to statesmen in The Prince (who he assumed knew all this already), but writing a guide for society.

There are also genuine economic and historical forces that act on and outside of individuals (Marx). Men make their own history, but not as they please, they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already. Events don't move in accordance with the individual human will, and "great men" are only individually important insofar that they resist (if you borrow from Nietzsche) the decadence of liberalism and Christianity, see beyond the limits of morality, and fulfill their role as historical agent when "historico-political actions ... are immediate and imminent." To me, that's Stalin, not Hitler.

Fascism was the opposite of this, and failed in its historic mission. Goebbels said upon the Nazi assumption of power that 1789 (the French Revolution) would be ERASED from history. But him and other fascist leaders left their nations in ruin. Hitler in Mein Kampf says the state is not sovereign and has no interest in a specific economic concept, it's entirely relative and merely an organ to preserve unchanging "primordial racial elements ... bound in conformity with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior and weaker." Even better, "race" is defined (by top Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg) as a "constitution of a mystical synthesis, a spiritual activity that cannot be explained by logical reasoning."

It's based entirely on their subjective whims -- even the Nuremberg Laws did not expressly state who should be considered a citizen by blood, that was by individual examination.

It's total cynicism. Total absurdity. They don't care what is real history or not. That's why they fascists lie. And you can expect no mercy from them.

>>19074878
>Fascism was
>Starts talking about the Nazis
You know good and well the difference between the role of the state in the PNF and the NSDAP.

>>19074897
Not only that, not even the Nazis understood what Fascists meant by the "state" [a spiritual creation of it's constituents]. Whereas to the Nazis it was just "government" and thus superfluous.

And just as the Fascist state was a wholly spiritual creation so too are the democracies today: a spiritual creation of those completely LACKING in spirit which reflects why everyone in democracy is complacent with all the lies in their form of government. I.E, people know democracy is one big lie where money rules, but no one gives enough of a damn to do anything about it.

For Fascism you are obligated to the state, the state belongs to you, because YOU are the one who creates it.

>>19074897
Yeah. Well, Mussolini's version didn't go that far. But it contained the same mix of pragmatism and "the person leader is guided by irrational intuition" stuff but pulled from different sources.

>>19074941
Instinct is rational, not irrational. The Greeks have shown us that wars do not decide the validity of ideas. Fascism lost the battle, but not the war.

>>19074939
>For Fascism you are obligated to the state, the state belongs to you, because YOU are the one who creates it.
A "spiritual creation" is woo woo divorced from any real economic system -- or promises -- and the desire for that is like trying to create a society without an economy. It doesn't make sense, but it's perfect if you want to hand the state over to a gang of criminals in which all authority is directed downwards and all responsibility is directed upwards. YOU are obligated to the guys at the top, and it's YOUR fault if it goes to hell.

>Socialism is against great man theory guys, it disapproves of hero worship
>Meanwhile in China

>>19074878
Hmm interesting. When you really think about it: what is a German?

>>19074219
Not books but the "Lore" of the socialist movement is very great man-ish. It's more than that i guess, as they try to stay with a materialist analysis but there's still a lot of great characters in it. So yeah, the lore is even better.

Great Man Theory goes against the core Marxist idea of historical materialism so its unlikely

>>19075016

>>19074976
>A "spiritual creation" is woo woo divorced from any real economic system -- or promises -- and the desire for that is like trying to create a society without an economy.
Where do economies come from? They don't come from thin air. The economy is an expression of people who belong to the state.
>it's perfect if you want to hand the state over to a gang of criminals in which all authority is directed downwards
You are saying basically "I am not responsible for the state, I am powerless, it js not my fault". This is defection.
For example, do you think the German people are not responsible for Hitler in any way? Did they not enable him?
>YOU are obligated to the guys at the top, and it's YOUR fault if it goes to hell.
You are not OBLIGATED to a physical tangible entity, your are OBLIGATED to your ideals, your principles.

>>19075030
In Marxist theory at least, strictly speaking Marxism considers the masses as the true actors in history, so there's no place for the Great Man Theory of history in it in a fundamental sense. The traditional analysis would say that the material conditions are what drive historical change and they would occur with or without the individual leaders involvement.

Committed and exceptional revolutionaries are often used as role models and inspiring figures, but theory reminds everyone that true change can only be the act of the masses in action and we must be careful in not being over-reliant on the presence of this or that person in the political arena.

>>19074669
All words are memes, anon.

>>19075040
in practice most socialist regimes end up having personality cults venerating the leader. how are they able to reconcile that with marx's historical materialism?

>>19075075
Deng didn't.
Anyway this is why Gregor calls socialist regimes "fascist". Their departure from Marxism.

>>19074997
It's a memetic construct/template of a person that wears pointy hats, eats lots of sausage, and has humor dryer than a mummy's cock

>>19075078
That makes no sense

>>19075093
What don't make sense? Every "communist regime" departed from Marx's theories and adopted Fascist tactics.

You could look into Kojeve, but in general the nature of marxism makes any sort of big guy a conduit for other forces like the example of >>19074878

>>19075100
Adopting fascist tactics doesn't make them fascist

This sort of national romanticism and emphasis on vitality, conquest, grandiosity synthesized with a vague "socialism" does indeed sound similar to what the Fascists and National Socialists were going for, however they broke from socialists by advocating for "class collaboration" and retaining private property/aristocratic wealth, rather than focusing on class struggle or labor rights.

The fascist/natsoc idea of "socialism" seems to refer more to a sort of collectivism or promoting authoritarian statism while justifying it as being representative of the people. It did not address any inequality or liberate the workers, but instead subordinates them to the state further.

The idea of nationalist/socialist hybrid is much too tainted by Hitler's actions for it to be considered more than a fringe ideology in the West unfortunately, but theoretically there was some potential there for it to develop into an intriguing system and political theory, had the Nazi regime not been so reliant on genocide and ethnic cleansing. If Hitler did not go overboard with the Lebensraum and Holocaust, maybe we would have seen more development of nationalist/socialist 3rd positionist ideas in post war Western thought.

>>19075137
Rejecting scientific socialism, as all communist regimes have done is explicitly contra marx.

Mussolini did the same, except he also decided to change his branding.

>>19075169
They did not all change in the same way though, fascism is a specific brand. Insisting anything that deviates from "scientific socialism" is equal to fascism is just not correct.

>>19075137
Actions speak more about a person than words.

History happens when The Masses do stuff, this is Science, we're all in agreement. But we also know the Masses can be bewitched by False Consciousness (wrong ideas, Prager U). They need to be programmed with the right ideas in order to be herded in the right direction and convinced that they're the ones willing what they've been told they want into existence. Doesn't this mean ideas drive the masses which drives history? Isn't the Great Man the one with the best ideas?

>Is there any Christian literature that is pro-atheism?
Gee I dunno.

>>19075164
Uninformed post. There was no "class collaboration" in Germany because the Nazis were not in power to even institute proper economic reform. The war was coming and they knew that. To the Nazis there could be no socialism without land, which is why they wanted to take the lands from the Soviets.

"Class collaboration" in Italy was a veneer to further industrialize Italy so the propertied classes can fulfill their historical role. Mussolini was a trained Marxist, and even his critics accepted that Mussolini ultimately acted as a progressive force for the Italian Economy.

>Some still ask of us: what do you want? We answer with three words that summon up our entire program. Here they are…Italy, Republic, Socialization. . . Socialization is no other than the implantation of Italian Socialism…

>>19075177
If it's not scientific socialism it's not Marxism. Simple as that. Sure you don't have to call it "Fascism", but calling something like Juche either Marxist or anything of the sort is dishonest.

The fact of the matter is the Regimes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and many others have more in common with "Italian Fascism" than Marx. Left-coms think Lenin and vanguardism is rightism for a reason. I don't want to call it Fascism either, because I don't want to be associated with those regimes and their crimes.

>>19075230
By the way, saying Lenin and Bolsheviks were "anti-war" is disingenuous.
Lenin wanted to get out of the first world war because he was too busy fighting his own and didn't want to have another front to worry about.

Retards actually think Lenin was anti-war because of muh "peace, land, and bread" slogans.

It was the bloodshed in Russia which directly lead to many leftists severing their ties with the third international. Mussolini was one of them.

>>19074219
>the nameless laborer rather than the Ceaser
History is made up of the nameless laborers, anon.
You're fetishizing one man over the many who held up the structure he stood on.

>>19075230
>Fascism
Okay, I don't disagree, then why does Gregor call all of them fascism?

>The worker who fulfills his social duty with no other hope than a piece of bread and the health of his family repeats, on a daily basis, an act of heroism. Labourers are infinitely superior to all false prophets who pretend to represent them. These false prophets have an easy time due to the insensitivity of those who have the sacrosanct duty of taking care of labourers. It is for this reason that I was, and am, a socialist.
-Mussolini in 1945

>>19075370
He doesn't tho, actually. He is just a liberal. His thesis is that it makes no sense to call one fascism, thus right wing and bad- while calling the other communism, thus left wing and good. He categorized all of these regimes as "developmental dictatorships", and their "ideologies" as flavoring.

Gregor being an Italian, obviously had more sympathies for Mussolini's regime than the ones to the east.
Number for numbers, blood for blood, Mussolini's rule was argubly the less bloody, anyway.

>>19075207
I would say the great man is the one with the most powerful (causes an effect) ides, which depending on your definition of "best" would be correct.

>leftism
Doesn't work.

Another meme which I don't understand is how Fascism is considered to be socially conservative, when all the state did was mirror the social values present in the Italian people at the time.

The Fascist state shared republican ideals, so everyone had to participate in the creation of the state.

To Fascism, the role of the Italian women was that of a mother. Liberal Democracy today views this as "degrading and misogynyst". This to me bespeaks more of what people in Liberal Democracies think about the institution of motherhood, not very highly.

Another thing is the widespread persecution of Homosexuals, which existed in say, Maoist China but not present in Fascist Italy. Pic related. Reactionary social values were really just not present at all, imo.

>>19075460
Caesar was leftist.

>>19075472
so was Trump.

>>19074265
this unironically

>>19075475
All politicians were rightists. Trump never appealed to his base, (white people), thus rightist scum.

>what is marxism-leninism
>spouts idealist nonsense
really makes u think
https://youtu.be/fT0xh2Xlo7k

>>19074219
>That such and such a man and precisely that man arises at that particular time in that given country is of course pure accident. But cut him out and there will be a demand for a substitute, and this substitute will be found, good or bad, but in the long run he will be found. That Napoleon, just that particular Corsican, should have been the military dictator whom the French Republic, exhausted by its own war, had rendered necessary, was an accident; but that, if a Napoleon had been lacking, another would have filled the place, is proved by the fact that the man has always been found as soon as he became necessary: Caesar, Augustus, Cromwell, etc. While Marx discovered the materialist conception of history, Thierry, Mignet, Guizot, and all the English historians up to 1850 are the proof that it was being striven for, and the discovery of the same conception by Morgan proves that the time was ripe for it and that indeed it had to be discovered.

>>19075600
Who would have filled Lenin's place, Mr. Engels?

>>19075600
This is complete bs...

>>19075600
yes, but the thing is, I dont think the one can be seperated from the other. A bonapartist france would have been different from a Talleyrand empire or a lafayette empire (or a reinstated monarch)

And ceaser especially was not an inevitability. he very actively got into the position he did.

The indivigual is distinct, but never completely seperated from society just as a society can be seen on its own, but it is necessitively made up of its individuals. I honestly think compatibilism is necessary here. The indivigual forms the nature of the act even when precipitated by the wider material.

>>19075465
People can only think in binaries

Great Men theory is bullshit
Historical materialism is bullshit
White history is bullshit
Strong men weak men is bullshit

>>19075768
what's not bullshit then.

>>19075768

>>19075716
contingent aspects would've been different, but the general development would've followed the same path. but this can be only understood when one accepts the materialist conception of history and knows how to separate what is historically relevant in the long run from what isn't.

>>19075600
Whats marx earliest writing on materialist concept of history?

Can anyone clue me in to what Fascists actually believe because this is just confusing.

>>19075959
Each "Fascist" is different because everyone has a unique conception of their idealist society. You will find people of widely different beliefs who can all fall and label themselves under "fascist".

Essentially the theme of Fascism is that of the great dynamic individual using his powers to shape a better, more "just" society in his vision.

That is very general, but if I were to get any more specific than that it would just be projecting my own views of what I want Fascism to be.

Mussolini is THE Fascist, and the writers who were most influential to him were Marx and Nietzsche, so that should give you an idea of the "essence" of Fascism.

>>19075934
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.

>>19075786
Proper study of history.

>>19076268
No such thing.

>>19076268
Define proper

>>19076274
Actual history books written by good historians. If you can't figure out who's a good historian I can't help you

>>19076679
>Actual ___books written by good___. If you can't figure out who's a good ___ I can't help you.

apply this statement to anything. Its almost nothing. Not that I cannot intuite what you are trying to get at, but your statement is a nothing statement. WHat I think you are saying is that looking at histories that follow a particular (and insightful, dont get me wrong, stuff like the history of the british working class is good stuff) theory of material development (not even the only one).

>>19075959
it's often adjusted to the specific nation, but generally they are nationalists, reactionary, militarist, authoritarian

>>19077249
Wrong.
t. fascist
see>>19075983

>>19075082
>has humor dryer than a mummy's cock
Joerg Sprave of Slingshot channel is funny though

>>19075230
>If it's not scientific socialism it's not Marxism. Simple as that. Sure you don't have to call it "Fascism", but calling something like Juche either Marxist or anything of the sort is dishonest.
Juche is not Marxism, but USSR, Cuba or Vietnam didn't have Juche

>>19077502
>Marxism, but USSR, Cuba or Vietnam
did they have Marx?
where?

>>19074219
I would also like to know how they can possibly refute the Great Man theory when Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Ghengis Khan, and Napoleon prove them wrong.

>>19077249
Reactionaries are monarchists

>>19075934
The German Ideology
>>19075959
they believe that capitalism can be saved from its own contradictions, ultimately from proletarian revolt, by pushing a certain aspect of bourgeois ideology to its conclusion, namely elevating the state or the nation to a supreme rank, and using this false community to erase any possibility of independent proletarian class movement by positing a unity of interests of the exploiters and the exploited in a single national/state/racial interest.
the same instrument is to be used to subject particular bourgeois to the long-term interest of national capital as a whole. in exchange for what they need to give up, they receive a disciplined workforce controlled by regime trade unions.
but since this movement has its roots in a crisis of capitalism and in an actual or potential workers' revolt, it accordingly dresses itself up as anti-capitalist.
>>19076274
>All history must be studied afresh, the conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined individually before the attempt is made to deduce them from the political, civil law, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc., views corresponding to them.... instead of this too many of the younger Germans simply make use of the phrase historical materialism (and everything can be turned into a phrase) only in order to get their own relatively scanty historical knowledge — for economic history is still as yet in its swaddling clothes! — constructed into a neat system as quickly as possible, and they then deem themselves something very tremendous.

>>19075768
t.frankfurt school

>>19078921
>they believe that capitalism can be saved from its own contradictions
No. Stopped reading right there. Stop talking about shit you don't know anything about. There is no "they". There is no "Fascism". Dummy.

Worst poster in this thread.

>>19078921
>but since this movement has its roots in a crisis of capitalism
What was the "crisis of capitalism" in 1910s Italy you historically illiterate retard.

>>19074752
>Is ensuring that workers live dignified fulfilling lives not socialism?
You should honestly read the Gulag Archipelago or Applebaum's Red Famine instead regurgitating shit you got from twitter.
>>19078921
Communists are these wonderful sophists who are cunning blabbers with no practical solutions to the problems people face. You only people play the blame game, and funny enough, you have someone else to blame for your philistinism instead of the source - yourself.

>>19079705
>You should honestly read the Gulag Archipelago or Applebaum's Red Famine instead regurgitating shit you got from twitter.
I don't use Twitter, and your post is clearly implying that I am in some way related to Vanguardist Communism.

If you could actually read, the subtext of my post is clearly a criticism of "scientific socialism" and that socialism can only mean one thing.

Psued.

>>19075600
>>19078921
There's a huge contradiction here. Why do Marxists argue for revolution when their own theory posits that revolutions are a product of material conditions?

You can not be a Marxist, and organize for revolution, when you believe material conditions determine when revolution happens. Your voluntarism clashes with your fucking theory - do you not realize that? The materialist conception of history denies humans have agency, but you then argue that Communists must proselytize them? If Marx's theories were true, and therefore history is materialist, then it can be quantified. Then, that would mean his theories would be testable. So, if that is the case, things like the immersation thesis or the tendency rate of profit to fall would have came true. But, none of these claims turned out to be true. Nor did his arguments that revolution would happen in Europe and West because of these things. Nor did the United States collapse when slavery was abolished like Marx said. Nor did capitalism have to be abolished for child labor to disappear like he argued in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Nor were the Russian Obshchina the basis of "socialism" in Russia like he argued too in the Manifesto because they operated on the norms of private property. Even shit like "primitive communism" is non-sense when we have evidence to demonstrate the ownership of private property was common in even indigenous or pre-historical societies. When you really understand the arguments being made, by Marxists, you began to understand they're playing rhetorical tricks with ontology to make the a priori assumption their interpretation of history is factual when its just a nominalist conception of events they sophistically argue for political proselytization.

>>19074322
>Hitler, was just very angry for German capitulation
I'm not sure Hitler was anything except hungry for power at first, and then later heavily addicted to drugs and constantly inebriated out of his mind. I think it's a really naive thing to take powerful men at their word for their motivations. The degree of power accumulated is without exception commensurate with nothing short of the desire for power. I believe this is true for all "great men," whose actions tend always to lead more towards the accumulation of power and prestige rather than towards the accomplishment of any particular goal. I think it's naive to take Hitler at his word for anything written in Mein Kampf.

>>19079775
>Vanguardist Communism.
Kid, it doesn't what kind of autistic label you call yourself. You all share the same goals. You're just being a sophist attempting play language games to set up a mirage to distance yourself from communism. It doesn't work, You're a snake regardless of what conception of communism you have in that small brain of yours. Envy is the driver of socialism, and all utopian political goals. Its not about helping people; its a Machiavellian ploy for power. Always has been. Always will be. One must be vigilant to your non-sense.

>>19079794
I never said my views you stupid fucking cretin. My post you responded to was a question as to what socialism was. I literally asked "what is socialism" I don't have any labels you stupid fucking faggot. You are the one who charged me with the label when you told me to read solzhenitsyn.

I never said anything at all, you are just arguing with yourself. Mentally disabled idiot. Should be illegal for people of your ilk to have opinions.

>>19079820
You need to shut the fuck up, rat. We know what kind of socialist fucking subhuman you are. You know exactly what socialism is you fucking degenerate. You leftypol trannies come here all the time making these bait threats to get attention here and to shill communism. Fucking subhuman parasite, get off my board.

>>19079793
>The degree of power accumulated is without exception commensurate with nothing short of the desire for power.
Just to elaborate a little, I see this as analogous to the way you can read body language in self defense situations. A balled fist probably means a punch is possible. In reverse, the accumulation of a vast amount of power signifies that the goal was to do so. Hitler didn't write MK and just happen into his position – it's far more likely looking at the results that he was much more strongman IN INTENT than philosopher.

>>19079793
I disagree completely. If all he cared about was his own ego he would not have been a dictator.

Egomania people are found in democracies. Everything Hitler did was to achieve his vision of Germany. "Power hungry people" don't get into power and destroy themselves in one decade.

Hitler was clearly blinded by his vision.

>>19079832
WHERE DID I SAY I WAS A SOCIALIST, RETARD? I ASKED ANON WHAT SOCIALISM WAS AND YOU JUST COME SPEWING YOUR GARBAGE AT ME.

>>19079839
I may not be a Hitlerite, but I will never believe he was a power hungry maniac.

Look at him and tell me all he cares about is power
https://youtu.be/FJ3N_2r6R-o

He is clearly a man consumed by his vision, and only his vision.

>>19079864
You see consumption. That much is plain to see. I think you're making a misattribution of the cause of that consumption. You could find a similar fervor in anyone with a similar amount of charisma when they're really letting it rip. I believe that when you look at the actions – when you "watch the hands" – all the evidence points to little more than the drive for power and greatness, to which all else was ultimately partially or wholly subservient.

>>19079887
You cannot convince me. I look at Hitler and I see someone who is entirely convinced that they will save the world.

I don't much mind his power grabs. Everything is will to power. If you think you can save the world obviously you will kill people to save it.

If he was a power hungry maniac he not only fooled me, but himself.

>>19079897
>he not only fooled me, but himself
He also fooled an entire country, so you're in good company. This really gets into the nuance of the issue, where things become a lot murkier, but I do believe it is at the very least possible that Hitler was fooling himself as well. To some extent, at least. I also believe he was just caught up in the romance of the whole thing. It must have been incredibly seductive emotionally to find that you had this superpower of charisma to dictate the movements of entire nations. I believe these are all components of the man, and I believe further that they all lead thematically back to a hunger for personal power.

>>19079915
I just can't buy that man. That "charisma" does not come from nowhere.

The only reason why we see this "charisma" is because he is talking about something which he is absolutely passionate in. His speeches have to do with his entire livelihood. He was a German Nationalist since he was a school boy. It was his entire life. Hitler's personality was literally German Nationalism and that is it.

This is why I refuse to believe it was just for "power". If he only cared about power would he go to war? Would he send the people he loved so much to die? He was literally in the trenches too, he has seen it.

After Kursk I don't even think he was even functional as a person. I think he was just a dead man walking by that point. The war against Russia mentally destroyed him.

>>19079963
>Hitler's personality was literally German Nationalism and that is it.
I think 'Prussian Socialism' applies better to him.

>>19079974
To Hitler "socialism" and "nationalism" meant the same thing. He did not care about "prussia", to him it was GERMANY GERMANY GERMANY. Prussian wouldn't annex austria, me thinks. Also Hitler imo did not bring back prussian culture really. Aestheticically they were quite modern for their time.

>>19074219
Question is why you believe in great meme theory in the first place.

>>19079998
Because I am one of them.

>>19079963
>That "charisma" does not come from nowhere.
Is it really that hard to believe that for Hitler, his charisma was just an innate trait, and that he simply used it for his own gain. In the same way that Einstein's discoveries in physics were simply a natural extension of his inherent genius, I would argue that Hitler's accomplishment was the natural extension of his inherent charisma. Consider what charisma even is for a second. Like, take a step back from what you believe about Hitler and his motivations and just ask yourself what charisma even does. What effects does it have? In what way can great charisma influence the perception of people? Consider the possibility that you are being influenced by it even now.

>>19080029
>Is it really that hard to believe that for Hitler, his charisma was just an innate trait
No it wasn't. Jung met him personally and did not take him for a charismatic man. He was an awkward boy.

Again, "charisma" expresses itself in different ways. Just as Genius does. If Einstein was born a couple centuries ago he would have been seen as a heretic and burned.

The reason why Hitler was "Charismatic" is because he was sharing his passions.
Have you ever seen a presentation in school? Is it not clear to you when someone really cares about what they're presenting? Is it not the ones who care so much the ones you are most drawn too? Same with Hitler.

>>19080049
>Jung met him personally
Sorry this was wrong.

>>19080029
>>19080049
>>19080061
My point is that I have a knack for spotting fakers. He just does not seem like he is faking it to me. If he was hypnotized by himself, then that mean he believed in himself.

>>19079619
>What was the "crisis of capitalism" in 1910s Italy you historically illiterate retard
first the Great Imperialist War and then the Biennio Rosso

>>19079779
>You can not be a Marxist, and organize for revolution, when you believe material conditions determine when revolution happens.
what? material forces condition the general direction of human action, including the formation of the proletarian movement, and hence the formation of its vanguard, the communists. where's the contradiction?
>The materialist conception of history denies humans have agency, but you then argue that Communists must proselytize them?
no, it doesn't deny agency, i.e. that men make their own history. it only denies that they "make it as they please and under self-selected circumstances".
>If Marx's theories were true, and therefore history is materialist, then it can be quantified.
it sounds like you're unaware of what the materialist conception of history is, which leads you to equivocate between it and some other vague idea of "materialism" you might have. if this is so, then here's some helpful clarification:
>What we understand by the economic conditions, which we regard as the determining basis of the history of society, are the methods by which human beings in a given society produce their means of subsistence and exchange the products among themselves (in so far as division of labour exists). Thus the entire technique of production and transport is here included. According to our conception this technique also determines the method of exchange and, further, the division of products, and with it, after the dissolution of tribal society, the division into classes also and hence the relations of lordship and servitude and with them the state, politics, law, etc. Under economic conditions are further included the geographical basis on which they operate and those remnants of earlier stages of economic development which have actually been transmitted and have survived — often only through tradition or the force of inertia; also of course the external milieu which surrounds this form of society.

>>19080368
>>19079779
>things like the immersation thesis or the tendency rate of profit to fall would have came true
except they have. the rate of profit has fallen and the proletariat's relative wealth has decreased.
>Nor did his arguments that revolution would happen in Europe and West because of these things.
except he literally wrote that it could begin in Russia? you simply aren't familiar with what you're... let's be generous and say "criticizing" here
>Nor did the United States collapse when slavery was abolished like Marx said.
it would've collapsed if slavery been abolished in the 1840s, just like he said. and that's why slavery didn't fall in the 1840s, but only once the US has developed its industry enough to transition.
>Nor did capitalism have to be abolished for child labor to disappear
that's funny, because the latest edition of The Economist has two articles on how child labour has been rising in the world lol
>Nor were the Russian Obshchina the basis of "socialism" in Russia like he argued too in the Manifesto
they could've been at the time he wrote that. later this ceased to be the case, because they became undermined by the capitalist development in Russia.
>When you really understand the arguments being made, by Marxists, you began to understand they're playing rhetorical tricks with ontology to make the a priori assumption their interpretation of history is factual when its just a nominalist conception of events they sophistically argue for political proselytization.
haha jesus christ. you should save this, you'll have a good laugh at your old self's expense in 10 years when you turn 25

>>19080368
>first the Great Imperialist War and then the Biennio Rosso
>The Great Imperialist
Capitalist war against old regimes. Arguably progressive from materialist viewpoint.
>Bienno Rosso
Urban phenomenon. Was not created out of capitalist contradiction. Italian economy was primarily agricultural.

>>19074800
"jewishness" is materialism
capitalism and communism are both philosophically materialist
spiritually, internationalist "goys" are 'jewish'

>>19080450
No.
Codreanu may be a decent writer, but he as philosophically illiterate. Mussolini was hung together with one of the founders of the communist party of Italy.

>>19080458
how does that change anything? fascism isn't idealist? marxism isn't materialist?

>>19080382
>Capitalist war against old regimes. Arguably progressive from materialist viewpoint.
not at all. it was an imperialist war of capitalist states for the division of the world. see https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch06.htm
>Urban phenomenon.
nope, it was both urban and rural. besides, cities already had significantly more weight than the countryside by that time.
>Was not created out of capitalist contradiction.
it was literally created by a capitalist imperialist war and expressed itself in a revolt of wage workers against their bosses. telling yourself that this isn't due to capitalism is an extremely poor cope

>>19080466
What does that have to do with communism and capitalism being two sides of the same coin. Capitalism is not "materialist", capitalism does not have a philosophy. It's a mode of economic organization. For someone who does not like Marx you seem to like using Marxist language.

"Marxism" was a social science. It dealt with economic and relationships between people. Saying Marxism is incompatible with Fascism is like saying Math is incompatible with Fascism.
You are comparing two completely different things.

Fascism as a political movement was BORN out of Marxist criticism of the capitalist mode of production.

>>19080496
first, you're talking to someone else
second, liberalism is a philosophy
i don't dispute the relationship between marxism and fascism
as marxism is materialist, it cannot effectively solve the problems of capitalism

>>19080496
what a load of nonsense. fascism was a political movement born out of the need to preserve capitalism and suppress a proletarian revolt. it's incompatible with Marxism because Marxism is the theory of the proletariat's movement for its own emancipation, whereas fascism is the movement towards sustaining the proletariat's oppression by binding it into a national unity with its own oppressors and setting it against the proletariat of other nations.

>>19080470
>not at all. it was an imperialist war of capitalist states for the division of the world. see
No it was capitalist war to spread capitalist ideology. Capitalism is imperialist yes, but capitalism > monarchism from materialist critique of history.
>nope, it was both urban and rural. besides
Nope, no besides. It was urban phenomenon created out of labor agitators who wanted to mimic Lenin's experiment in Russia. You cannot go on "strike" in a farm.
Thank goodness the Fascists punched those idiots in the face and prevented a bloody Civil War.
>it was literally created by a capitalist imperialist war and expressed itself in a revolt of wage workers against their bosses
It was literally created out of labor agitators who want to become the new political commissars in Revolutionary Italy. They were asking for bloodshed, and through their strikes they were hurting other citizens who relied on railways and factory work to live.

Yes it wasn't "due to capitalism", Italy was not in capitalist mode of production. It was Rural shithole like Russia.

Why should I listen to you when you are clearly a Leninist?

>>19080533
Shut up leninist. The only thing your ilk is responsible for is bloodshed and oppression. It was the work of the Fascists who turned Italy into a modern economy. Go spread your propaganda elsewhere.

>>19080526
Marxism is not about solving the problem, but describing it.
It's like saying Math cannot solve the problem of capitalism.

Of course, people do. The fact that you even use words like "capitalism", shows how much Marx's work has done to fight capital.

>>19080470
>besides, cities already had significantly more weight than the countryside by that time.
Wrong, both economically and demographically. Stop talking about Italy you illiterate mutt.
>it was an imperialist war of capitalist states for the division of the world
It was about geopolitics. Most of the land being fought over were shitholes and financial black holes, with the only exceptions being Alsace and the city of Trieste, where the war could simply be explained by nationalism.

>>19080573
I recognize you. Was your grandpa part of the squadristi?

>>19080533
literally 100 year old cope
>>19080556
are you saying Marxists had no solution for the problems they described?

>>19080593
Yes, that's me. It was great grandfather though, who then proceeded to partecipate in the March on Rome.

>>19080597
>are you saying Marxists had no solution for the problems they described?
No I'm saying the solution is not obvious from reading Kapital. However his political works and activities from the time are worth reading and emulating.

"""Marxists""" on the other hand, as they say–
>ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas marxiste

>>19080538
>No it was capitalist war to spread capitalist ideology. Capitalism is imperialist yes, but capitalism > monarchism from materialist critique of history.
monarchism isn't a mode of production. the states that retained a monarch before the war were already capitalist. this was true _even_ in the backwards Russia and _even_ 20 years before the war when Engels was still alive to tell it:
>The Russian bourgeoisie’s first victory lay in the railway concessions, which guaranteed the share-holders all future profits while loading all future losses on the state. Then came the subsidies and premiums for industrial enterprises, and the protective tariffs favouring domestic industry which eventually made it virtually impossible to import many articles. With its colossal indebtedness and its credit in almost total ruins abroad, the Russian state has a direct fiscal interest in forcing the development of domestic industry. It constantly needs gold to pay off the interest on its foreign debts. But there is no gold in Russia; all that circulates there is paper... the greater part of it is supposed to come from the surplus in the export of Russian raw materials over the import of foreign industrial products; the bills of exchange drawn on foreign banks for this surplus are bought by the government at home for paper money and in return it receives gold. So if the government wishes to meet the payment of interest to foreign countries by some other method than new foreign loans, it must ensure that Russian industry rapidly expands to the point where it is able to meet domestic demand in full. Hence the requirement that Russia must become an industrial nation that is self-sufficient and independent of other countries...
>One thing is clear: in these circumstances the fledgling Russian bourgeoisie has the state completely in its power. In all economic matters of importance the state must do its bidding. If for the time being the bourgeoisie continues to put up with the despotic autocracy of the Tsar and his officials, it is only because this autocracy, mitigated as it is by the venality of the bureaucracy offers it more guarantees than would changes even of a bourgeois-liberal nature, whose consequences no one could foresee, given the present internal situation in Russia.

>You cannot go on "strike" in a farm.
ok, so you're simply fucking retarded
>It was literally created out of labor agitators who want to become the new political commissars in Revolutionary Italy.
"labour agitators" can't just create shit out of nothing, out of mere will. if they could, I wouldn't be posting on lit right now but putting fascist against the wall (real ones, mind you, not larpers like yourself)
>Why should I listen to you when you are clearly a Leninist?
I don't even expect that you listen and take account of what I say. after all, ought implies can, and you clearly have severe brain atrophy

>>19080602
Very awesome greatgramps.

>>19080573
>Stop talking about Italy you illiterate mutt.
lol stop talking about anything
>Most of the land being fought over were shitholes and financial black holes
you think it was about land?
>where the war could simply be explained by nationalism
and nationalism is explained by the interests of the national bourgeoisie

>>19080624
>monarchism isn't a mode of production
Feudalism is. The vast majority of people in those countries worked on land which was owned by someone else. The same was true in Russia. Don't get coy with me. Neither in Germany or Italy was the economy run on the sale of factory produced commodities.
https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1894/01/russia.html
>The revolution sought by modern Socialism is, briefly, the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie and the reorganisation of society by the abolition of all class distinctions.

>Only when the social forces of production have reached a very high degree of development does it become possible to increase production to such an extent that the abolition of classes represents a real and durable progress without causing stagnation, or even a regression in the mode of social production. This has only been reached by the productive forces when in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Consequently, the existence of the bourgeoisie is from this point of view also as necessary a condition for the Socialist revolution as the proletariat. A person who maintains that this revolution could be carried out more easily in his country because it neither has proletariat nor bourgeoisie, proves by his statement that he has understood nothing of Socialism

>ok, so you're simply fucking retarded
STRIKING IS A TACTIC FOR FACTORIES IN DEVELOPED CAPITALIST COUNTRIES YOU BUFFOON.
>"labour agitators" can't just create shit out of nothing, out of mere will.
You are projecting your own weakness
>I wouldn't be posting on lit right now but putting fascist against the wall (real ones, mind you, not larpers like yourself)
You are the fucking larper.
>I don't even expect that you listen and take account of what I say. after all, ought implies can, and you clearly have severe brain atrophy
Why don't you stop posting on /lit/ and read marx and engels, bolshevik.

>>19080624
>"labour agitators" can't just create shit out of nothing, out of mere will. if they could, I wouldn't be posting on lit right now but putting fascist against the wall (real ones, mind you, not larpers like yourself)
you are 17 years old

>>19080721
Dead link, here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/04/21.htm

>>19080721
>The vast majority of people in those countries worked on land which was owned by someone else.
why would you even say this? do you realize that this is true of both capitalist and feudal agriculture?
but more to the point: what matters is not what most people were doing, but the interests of which class were predominant and able to dictate war policy. and in that case it was the bourgeoisie. I've already provided you with a clear explanation from Engels of how that could be even in a country in which peasantry engaged in pre-capitalist agriculture outnumbers the urban and rural proletariat, such as Russia.
>Neither in Germany or Italy was the economy run on the sale of factory produced commodities.
Germany began rapidly industrializing in the fucking 1850s, for God's sake, and it was the leading steel producer in Europe by the end of the century. by the world war industry was already crucial to the politics of the both states. and especially to war, which had changed immensely from the time of the Franco-Prussian War and now required a large industrial capacity.
industry was less relatively developed in Italy, but in Germany this isn't even a question, because already in 1913 60% of its GNP was came it.
>quote
yes. your point? both Germany and Italy had a proletariat and a bourgeoisie by that point.
>STRIKING IS A TACTIC FOR FACTORIES
striking is not exclusive for factories. are you trolling me dude? what prevents nurses or people who pick apples on a farm from going on strike against their boss?
>You are projecting your own weakness
no, I'm stating the truth about daft voluntarism
>You are the fucking larper.
I'm not the one claiming that people can start mass strikes with a sheer force of will
>Why don't you stop posting on /lit/ and read marx and engels, bolshevik.
I've read more of them in a year that all of you high school morons taken together will throughout your entire lives

>>19074219
no Marxism is inherently anti great men as you all must be crushed down and be equal

>>19080721
>>19081529
>The vast majority of people in those countries worked on land which was owned by someone else.
and btw, the labour share in agriculture in Germany had fallen below 50% already by 1882

>>19074964
is it possible to be misguided in life?

Bump

If your political beliefs are based on aesthetics you should kill yourself

>>19074219
>Its not just about the amount of labor spent
Unfortunately for you, this is literally the entire basis of Marxism.

>>19082166
everything is based on aesthetics.

>>19082475

>>19075036
>They don't come from thin air. The economy is an expression of people who belong to the state.
Saying the economy is just an "expression" of people might as well be saying it comes from thin air, as if you can just "express" a factory into existence or a railroad network or pray to an wizard in a castle to make the number do gooder.

>For example, do you think the German people are not responsible for Hitler in any way? Did they not enable him?
There were Germans who enabled him, but what do you mean by the German people? A wise man once said that Hitlers come and go but the German people and the German state remain. Well, not every German state...

https://youtu.be/UvEzFW_pH1g

>>19075100
Gregor is a classic example of how far-right weirdos who wanted to suck Italian fascist dick and drink the come from the dick were redeployed by the U.S. security state during the Cold War to explain to bleary-eyed students that Marxist-Leninism was "fascist" to students at UC Berkeley where he conveniently landed a job in 1967 during the height of the Vietnam War (which he supported).

>>19075164
A weird twist is that the Nazis didn't believe -- ideologically anyways -- that the state was ultimately sovereign, but subordinate to their spiritual conception of race (which they explicitly stated could only be defined through intuition).

>>19075230
Left-coms are the dialectical twin of juvenile anarchists, but instead of diving into dumpsters for smashed vegan garbage cake they write unreadable pseudo-grad school essays. If you're 19 years old and are going to pick one, go with the smashed vegan cake.

>>19075287
Lenin opposed WWI from the beginning and one of his most famous works was all about it.

>>19075465
Social values are kind of relative. So, for example, if there are marauding gangs of Red Guards who are persecuting homosexuals because they associate the behavior with feudal (and upper-class) decadence, whether rightly or wrongly, that would end up badly for gays. But I don't know if that's "reactionary" in the context of the situation. It could be messed up or wrong, depending on your point of view, but I wouldn't say Maoist China was a reactionary regime. I think there are also different intellectual origins, how they thought about the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, which Mussolini was ambivalent about, wasn't he? The Nazis were uncompromisingly hostile. But I think a highly charismatic, expressive leader guided by "intuition" and other abstract, metaphysical concepts was very important to fascism. I don't think there exists an Italian fascism without Mussolini, or a Nazism without Hitler.

>>19079779
Capitalism creates the conditions for revolution and those forces exist independently of the will of man -- but only up to a certain point. Eventually the ruling classes become the "insuperable obstacle" for the further development of the productive forces, and evolution turns into revolution.

>>19079832
>>19079851
Amazing. I can't believe this website is free.

>>19079915
Hitler was a bad man but I think that's right. Nietzsche died before the Nazis came around but it's kind of the Ubermensch / will to power thing right? I think it's kinda like the Al Pacino speech in "Any Given Sunday" where he's hyping up the football team when they're down at halftime:

https://youtu.be/f1yWSePMqsk

"Life is for living" and "it's a struggle between living and dying" and you gotta be willing to die to live. But this ridiculous hype stuff is combined with an insane racial holy war. Yeah. Not good. I've made it clear where I stand on this, but this was wildly popular with a lot of people in Germany and they weren't all "crazy," although I think it is crazy. Or they're really base animal instincts like a predatory wolf pack. Humans are at the top of the food chain and humans did struggle to get there but Hitler turned that predation on other humans, which is why it was necessary to render them subhuman. But who were the real subhumans? The Nazis or their victims? Makes you think.

>>19080368
>what? material forces condition the general direction of human action, including the formation of the proletarian movement, and hence the formation of its vanguard, the communists. where's the contradiction?
Are you illiterate? That's not the case because that did not happen. Instead, Marxists propagate communism because their materialistic conception of history did not lead to communism as they said it would.
>no, it doesn't deny agency, i.e. that men make their own history. it only denies that they "make it as they please and under self-selected circumstances".
So, again, just sophistry. You want to have it both ways. Either you admit that humans have agency, and so that the production relations do not determine history as a result of that. Or you admit that they don't because production relations eliminate it. Your theory is no longer scientific, or even valid, if you have to admit agency isn't deterministic on product exchange.
> sounds like you're unaware of what the materialist conception of history is
No, it just sounds like you're dishonest and you're being evasive when that contradiction is pointed out. Its just that Marxist just play word games to hide the fact they are not consistent. When someone points out you're wrong.
>except they have. the rate of profit has fallen and the proletariat's relative wealth has decreased.
Not true. Working hours have decreased, people are living longer and have a higher consumption per capita than any time in human history thanks to the productivity gains under capitalism. Your view is not supported by the empirical evidence.
>except he literally wrote that it could begin in Russia?
He argued it would happen in industrialized countries first, you idiot, and the Russian Revolution's success would be dependent on that.
>that's funny, because the latest edition of The Economist has two articles
Its funny how this is a bullshit claim, and a dodge, but go ahead with.
>they became undermined
No, he was just an idiot, like yourself, who doesn't know what you're talking about.

>>19083283
>Capitalism creates the conditions for revolution and those forces exist independently of the will of man -- but only up to a certain point. Eventually the ruling classes become the "insuperable obstacle" for the further development of the productive forces, and evolution turns into revolution.
You're admitting, with this statement, that there is no materialistic conception of history. By saying that humans have agency; you can not argue production relations determine their actions because clearly their acting in ways outside of what the productive forces would lead them to doing - like supporting your retardation. More so, history, in itself, could never be materialist. History is literally a ontological, mental construction filtered through human emotions and a priori reasoning. There is no "objective" history; its a rhetorical method of classifying ideas. When Marxists speak of "history" ; you're just propagating a world view that reflects your side as a good light. You're just shilling. You people are just full of shit.

>>19083283
>Gregor is a classic example of how far-right weirdos who wanted to suck Italian fascist dick and drink the come from the dick were redeployed by the U.S. security state during the Cold War to explain to bleary-eyed students that Marxist-Leninism was "fascist" to students at UC Berkeley where he conveniently landed a job in 1967 during the height of the Vietnam War (which he supported).
Gregor wasn't a Fascist though. He was a Liberal. Conflating ML to Fascism to get the youth to oppose it is exactly what a liberal would do.
He's a good scholar.
His wife was Asian btw

>>19083283
I don't agree with his politics (save for his eugenics) but his scholarship is very good. However his interpretation that Gentile was the Marx of Fascism is incorrect.

>>19083367
>His wife was Asian btw
He was an Italian too and changed his surname to an anglo one.
That is all the evidence you need to show that he wasn't a Fascist.

>>19083367
>Gregor wasn't a Fascist though. He was a Fascist

>>19074219
The reason why the modern world feels limp is because it came up with the twin ideas of "capitalism" and liberalism.

Effectively the historical truth is not that it is "good" when people are left alone to innovate and "pursue happiness." The truth is that the intelligent people are just good at gaming the system; in other words it doesn't matter that you grant the right to innovate to stupid people. Stupid people don't know how to turn these rights into anything meaningful, and most people are stupid.

Napoleon is a great example; when he went to the ecole militare in Paris, he was the poor, nerdy guy from Corsica, with seemingly no future, since top army jobs were given to the well-connected. Did that matter? Absolutely not; in fact, the thing that made Napoleon want to conquer and rule was in fact mainly because he had a massive chip on his shoulder.

So the main thing that liberal capitalism has done is diffuse the very kinds of tension that make men want to succeed. This has been really good for the political longevity of the system, since there are fewer challengers, since fewer people are as pissed off as Napoleon, but trying to provide a no-hardships scenario has made the entire West flaccid and inactive.

>>19083306
>>material forces condition the general direction of human action, including the formation of the proletarian movement, and hence the formation of its vanguard, the communists
>That's not the case because that did not happen.
really? the formation of the proletarian movement and hence its vanguard, the communists didn't happen?
>Marxists propagate communism because their materialistic conception of history did not lead to communism as they said it would.
communists don't say a particular conception or idea would change history. in fact that's the exact opposite of what they say. in a word, you're clueless.
>You want to have it both ways.
I can, you're just too stupid to conceive human agency properly. which is especially funny because even people lowest in the intellectual hierarchy of being, i.e. anglo academic philosophers can somewhat get it.
people can act according to their own desires. they can rationally respond to information relevant to the relation between their choices and their desires, and modify their choices accordingly. but their desires can't be chosen independently of the situation they find themselves in. this is the only coherent conception of human agency.
>Your theory is no longer scientific, or even valid, if you have to admit agency isn't deterministic on product exchange.
what the fuck does "agency isn't deterministic on product exchange" mean? god, being dumb is one thing, but why do you also have to try hard to sound as such a fucking pseud who mindlessly repeats random keywords he has overheard, in the hope that it will hide his incompetence?
>No, it just sounds like you're dishonest and you're being evasive when that contradiction is pointed out
no, I was right the first time around: you don't understand the materialist conception of history beyond what you've overheard when some random people used the word "materialist" in different contexts. you brought up "quantification" of the materialist conception of history, as if the latter meant that history can be understood by movement of simple atoms, or some similar stupidity.

>>19083306
>>19084244
>Not true.
yes true. the rate of profit is falling and the proletariat's relative wealth is decreasing.
>Working hours have decreased
1) so what? does that prove that the profit rate hasn't fallen or something?
2) you're clearly forgetting places such as China or Vietnam that manufacture for the entire West. look up "996" for example
3) decreasing working hours can be compensated by increased intensity, which was already described in Capital
>people are living longer and have a higher consumption per capita than any time in human history thanks to the productivity gains under capitalism
true. and?
>Your view is not supported by the empirical evidence.
which view? I'd almost say it's supported by the fact that you instantly deflected and talked about everything else but the rate of profit and the relative wealth of the proletariat.
>He argued it would happen in industrialized countries first, you idiot, and the Russian Revolution's success would be dependent on that.
no, he explicitly said that the Russian revolution could give a signal to the revolution in the West, i.e. that it could precede it
>No, he was just an idiot, like yourself, who doesn't know what you're talking about
good argument mate. in actuality, the obshchina was finally undermined by the Stolypin reforms aimed at dismantling communal ownership and creating small private proprietors.

>>19074219
>. Who cares if someone toils in muck for 30 years. Its not just about the amount of labor spent, but the vision through which it is spent. In a conquest of Gaul, in the creation of a monument,
It's actually exactly the opposite. There is no Caesar. The Caesar is just a schmuck who is the emanation of the development of productive forces. When Capital needs to restructure itself. Napoleon didn't appeared in 1720. Nor did he appeared in the 1960s. The "Caesar", is also perfectly interchangeable. Any smart asshole could be Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler etc...

It appears to me than this all-powerful Capital fella may be the Great Man of History.

>>19079793
If you've read Mein Kampf you wouldn't have doubts about his belief in his vision. They come off as the ravings of a well-read asocial sperg.

>>19080029
What charisma? He was an eccentric. He got into constant arguments with colleagues at his jobs and nobody took him seriously (during his loserdom). He was the sperg archetype that shuts down every single distraction in his life for the sake of his obsessive passion. Many such types, and all of them awe-inspiring in their ways. It's just that his passion was the wellbeing of a nation caught in a bad spot. Sure he must've had a pretty high IQ, a romantic disposition and a knack for verbal eloquence, but those were merely the tools at the disposal of his obsession, which was the central part and without which there wouldn't have been a Hitler.

I do believe over time he must've gained a perspective and a sort of pride over his abilities with the crowds, and so probably learned to consciously tap into that insanity, rendering it arguably more instrumental than idealistic. There's only so much power one can wield before they become self conscious about it. But I wouldn't attribute that to power-hungryness anymore than, say, a well intentioned Kennedy giving a speech in Berlin, conscious and confident of his abilities and charming effect on the crowds.

Bump

>>19074219
Marxists cannot be pro Great Man Theory by definition. They wouldn't be Marxists if they did.

>>19074219
>but most of them come off as defeatist trash who talk about the nameless laborer rather than the Ceaser.
The historical materialist position would be to support someone like Caesar because he is advancing dialectic.
I'll let you in on a little sad irony within Marxism. Past figures like Spartacus are widely celebrated, but the actual political position of Marxists is that our heroes of the past should have been ground into dust by the empires of their day. Despite all their genocide and conquest, our view is that the states like Rome were bastions of progress, and that the ends justified the means when carrying the baton of history.

>>19086506
also Ceasar was a populare, a reformer, an enemy of the arch-conservatives among the Roman elite. His political agenda was primarily dabbing on the wealthy and redistributing their massive tracts of land to impoverished veterans and the urban poor. He wasn't a revolutionary, but he was certainly Leninesque.
I don't know where this idea comes from that Marxists don't like Caesar. The people who have historically maligned Caesar are the aristocratic gentlemen historians who identify with the arch-conservative optimates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IO_Ldn2H4o

>>19084244
>really? the formation of the proletarian movement and hence its vanguard, the communists didn't happen?
Yes, communism didn't happen, retard. Instead, you just created one of the most repressive dictatorships in world history. Yes, you completely failed and discredited your ideology. The proletariat was not abolished in the USSR; men were slaves to the state. Communism is very definition of slavery.
>communists don't say a particular conception or idea would change history. i
No, you literally spread leads and propaganda to argue that communism is necessary or inevitable. Neither is the case because your theories do not hold up.
>I can,
You can not without contradicting yourself. By admitting agency exist indepnedent of production relations; the materialistic conception of history is a farce. See >>19083352 for a further refutation of your argument.
>what the fuck does "agency isn't deterministic on product exchange" mean?
Do you not know what agency means you fucking retard? It means that production does not determine the behavior, or the fate, of a person. Economic systems are not deterministic if individuals have agency. This would mean you that have control of the fate of your life outside of communism. It was not necessary for a worker become a communist, or support, a communist cause because of capitalism. Again, its pointing your world view is nothing but sophistry. You are a moralist attempting to mask your political intentions using pseudo-scientific arguments you moron. Keep up with the conversation, you downie.
>no, I was right the first time around: you don't understand the materialist conception of history
No, I absolutely do. You just don't accept the consequences your stupidity. You just want to be evasive when its pointed out your view of the world is non-sensical. You are not a critical thinker; you are a shew, blabbering rhetorician and a psued.
>>19084255
>yes true. the rate of profit is falling and the proletariat's relative wealth is decreasing.
False, there's no empirical evidence to support this when people are living longer and are richer than they were since Marx's time. You are an idiot. You really don't understand basic economics, do you? This means humans are doing much better than they were, their conditions have not worsened under capitalism Marx said you fucking idiot. You have a dumbass, or solipsism. This is why nobody takes you retarded Marxists seriously, and why you will never have any political power. People realize capitalism actually provides results that beneficial for humanity - unlike yourself.

>>19084244
>really? the formation of the proletarian movement and hence its vanguard, the communists didn't happen?
Communism wouldn't require a vanguard if the materialistic conception of history was true, retard, because the contradictions of capitalism would naturally lead to communism being overthrown by the workers themselves because of the conditions they face. By saying there has to be a vanguard; you admit Marxism is essentially an idealistic cult. Communism is something you wish to will into existence because the productive forces are not leading to abolition of wage labor. People run vanguards because they covet power; their moral agents with egotistic intentions. Its essentially blanquist non-sense.

>>19086751
but blanqui was right

>>19086777
I don't put any value into the morality of communists.

>>19086817

>>19086837
increase of productivity is due to the advent of the computer which are doing all the real work.

>>19086713
>Yes, communism didn't happen, retard. Instead, you just created one of the most repressive dictatorships in world history. Yes, you completely failed and discredited your ideology. The proletariat was not abolished in the USSR; men were slaves to the state. Communism is very definition of slavery.
on the orthodox-Leninist view, upper stage socialism (the abolition of class, the abolition of money, the withering of the state), or what Marx called communism, does not and cannot occur until world revolution is complete. The conversation about this is confused by Stalinist heterodoxy regarding "Socialism in one country".

>>19086862
>computers do labor
cringe!

>>19086872
cringe moar you glorified button pusher. If you're not careful someone smarter than you will automate your job next

>>19086892
communists want automation

>>19086892
when capital investment removes human labor from the production of goods and services, they drop in market price
computers don't do labor. humans do labor. Humans create all economic value.

>>19086713
>Yes, communism didn't happen
communism is the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and it's happening continually throughout the entire history of capitalism
>Instead, you just created one of the most repressive dictatorships in world history.
again with the magical thinking. whatever you have in mind was created by the operation of the capitalist mode of production, not by some dude who really, really wanted it.
>Yes, you completely failed and discredited your ideology.
I don't even have an ideology
>The proletariat was not abolished in the USSR
true, which is pretty expected in a capitalist state
>men were slaves to the state
and the state was slave to capital. you're starting to get, it seems
>No, you literally spread leads and propaganda to argue that communism is necessary or inevitable
yes, that's exactly how the world works. that's why now I'm spreading propaganda to argue that I'm the richest person on the planet and it has already turned me into a multimillionaire. I'm gonna be giving Bezos a run for it soon enough
>By admitting agency exist indepnedent of production relations; the materialistic conception of history is a farce.
agency can't exist independent of production relations because people don't exist independent of that, floating freely in an ethereal realm. agency exists, but is obviously constrained by the social and natural environment.
>See >>19083352 for a further refutation of your argument.
>There is no "objective" history
is this postmodern neo-Marxist garbage is supposed to be the refutation, bucko?
>Do you not know what agency means you fucking retard? It means that production does not determine the behavior, or the fate, of a person.
yes, the materialist conception of history posits neither fate nor a complete determination of behaviour of single individuals by the relations of production. these are just another two of your fantasies that play for you the role of a substitute for actual understanding of the object of your attempted "critique"
>Economic systems are not deterministic if individuals have agency.
why not? agency doesn't mean that you can cause literally everything to happen, otherwise the particular conception of agency is nonsensical. the fact that I can't decide to jump up and start flying doesn't undermine the fact that I have agency.

>>19086713
>>19087141
>It was not necessary for a worker become a communist, or support, a communist cause because of capitalism.
true, the materialist conception of history concerns general processes, not individuals, who can behave in a myriad of different, personal ways. time for another lesson from Engels:
>[H]istory is so made that the end-result always arises out of the conflict of many individual wills, in which every will is itself the product of a host of special conditions of life. Consequently there exist innumerable intersecting forces, an infinite group of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant product—the historical event. This again may itself be viewed as the product of a force acting as a whole without consciousness or volition. For what every individual wills separately is frustrated by what every one else wills and the general upshot is something which no one willed. And so the course of history has run along like a natural process; it also is subject essentially to the same laws of motion. But from the fact that the wills of individuals — who desire what the constitution of their body as well as external circumstances, in the last instance economic (either personal or social) impel them to desire—do not get what they wish, but fuse into an average or common resultant, from all that one has no right to conclude that they equal zero. On the contrary, every will contributes to the resultant and is in so far included within it.

>No, I absolutely do.
no, you've just shown again that you don't and that I need to keep feeding you 101 reading material, because you aren't arguing against the actual conception but about a poor and vague caricature of it
>You just want to be evasive when its pointed out your view of the world is non-sensical.
but you haven't made a single cogent point yet that would show it to be so
>False, there's no empirical evidence to support this when people are living longer and are richer than they were since Marx's time.
It's only makes it obvious you don't even understand the terms "rate of profit" and "relative wealth" if you think the answers you keep throwing at me are relevant to any of them. I have briefly forgotten that you're just retarded and no amount of 101 material or explanations will amount to anything.
>This means humans are doing much better than they were, their conditions have not worsened under capitalism Marx said you fucking idiot.
He said that the relative standing of the proletariat would worsen, which has proven true and shouldn't be controversial.
>People realize capitalism actually provides results that beneficial for humanity
great. and the more shrewd of them realize that capitalism isn't forever, and that the private form of appropriation of social labor only hampers the benefits that humanity could reap from its productive forces; and that this contradiction will sooner or later resolve itself in favor of the productive forces, not in favor of its constraints.

>>19086751
>Communism wouldn't require a vanguard if the materialistic conception of history was true, retard, because the contradictions of capitalism would naturally lead to communism being overthrown by the workers themselves because of the conditions they face
you're very close, except this proves exactly the reverse: that the workers would have to develop a vanguard. after all, every mass political movement that gets anywhere inevitably develops a most advanced section that leads it, a section which develops a consciousness of the ultimate direction of the movement as well as it's conditions, and is thus able to work out the correct tactics for dealing with obstacles and crossroads.
>By saying there has to be a vanguard; you admit Marxism is essentially an idealistic cult.
no, because I'm not saying there has to be a vanguard in the sense that I want to impose a vanguard as something I thought up. I'm simply saying that there was and will be one because of the very nature of political movements.

>Communism is something you wish to will into existence
you're utterly misrepresenting my view. that's how some other anon said things happen, and it's what I explicitly denied. see >>19080624
>>It was literally created out of labor agitators who want to become the new political commissars in Revolutionary Italy.
>"labour agitators" can't just create shit out of nothing, out of mere will.

>because the productive forces are not leading to abolition of wage labor
sure they are
>People run vanguards because they covet power
no, it's because they see the movement as aligned with their own interest and want to see it succeed
>they're... agents with egotistic intentions.
exactly. Engels:
>[I]t is certainly true that we must first make a cause our own, egoistic cause, before we can do anything to further it — and hence that in this sense, irrespective of any eventual material aspirations, we are communists out of egoism also, and it is out of egoism that we wish to be human beings, not mere individuals.

>>19074219
>If that's not the case, people might as well be cattle mindlessly producing labor
Congratulation, that must have been one of the best descriptions of what is so wrong about marxism/socialism. They are not about "freeing" the worker, but about turning humans into a recource to bleed dry for the party leaders. Thats also why you dont find the great men theory in their ideas. Everything is about the nameless mass of human cattle that has to be led into the direction the party wants.

Honestly, dont bother with the socialist, they are disproven by reality already. Go study the greeks and romans. There you will find the value you are searching for.

>>19087193
>They are not about "freeing" the worker, but about turning humans into a recource to bleed dry for the party leaders
why would we be interested in your quips about a body of knowledge you are totally unfamiliar with. Do you also give lectures on Gnosticism?

>>19087293
Well, thats what happened in every single communist country. And please be more creative in replying than "hurr durr, thats no real communism"

Open your eyes, see what this ideology did wherever it took root.

>>19087315
ruling parties supervising the exploitation of the proletariat by domestic and foreign capital have nothing to do with communism

>>19074265
How do Marxists even explain a man like Hitler that was a nobody that basically willed himself into power?

>>19087802
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Meeting_of_20_February_1933
Would you like a book recommendation on the subject?

>>19087802
He took advantage of nationalist and reactionary sentiments that already existed in the population during an economic collapse. They were experiencing deprived material conditions and turning their backs on the liberal Weimar system. The Nazis did compete with the pro-Stalin KPD for disaffected voters and utilized revolutionary rhetoric to attract a portion of working class voters (many SA members and Strasserists). If Hitler didn't do it another radical party would have, perhaps the KPD or Anton Drexler's movement that the Nazis replaced.

The Nazis base was primarily middle class rather than worker based, and they eventually purged the working class factions. The Nazis base was largely a political response of the German middle class consisting of small businessmen, independent artisans, small shopkeepers and the self-employed, to the threats coming from international finance, trade unions, the SPD, the KPD, paramilitary street violence, and from increased government interference in the market and taxes to pay for Weimar's burgeoning welfare state. The lower middle class of Germany's Protestant towns and rural areas constituted hard-core of Nazi support and were over-represented in the membership of the NSDAP. Voters in large urban centres were less supportive.

Although large numbers of workers did vote Nazi, these were not in the main from the classic socialist or communist base of industrial/factory/urban workers and laborers. The rise in the Nazi vote made only a relatively small dent in the size of support of the SPD and KPD vote taken together. It is not unreasonable to look at the combined SPD and KPD vote; for, although there was some defection of former SPD voters to the Nazis, there was little desertion from the KPD.

Other kinds of workers attracted to Nazism included Germany's equivalent of `working-class Tories': workers with a tradition of support for non-socialist politics, who had voted National Liberals under the Empire and DNVP in the early years of Weimar, but turned to the NSDAP in the Depression.

Thus a combination of variables produced the working-class Nazi. The NSDAP was very different to the parties of the Left, which were dominated by factory workers in the large towns, did not possess substantial middle-class support; and were less attractive to females but much more attractive to the unemployed than the NSDAP.

>>19087864
The likes of Anton Drexler would not have had the charismatic power or charm of Hitler to rise to power and seduce the population to the same extent. Even if Drexler believed similar ideology, he clearly was not nearly as effective of a leader or inspiring to the masses as Hitler. Hitler had the ability to mesmerize a crowd and get people transfixed, which is what put the Nazis over the top instead of being a fringe party or having another nationalist party take control.

>>19087864
>The Nazis base was primarily middle class
horse shit
>eventually purged the working class factions
he purged all the parties

this is just a propaganda post

>>19088276
>horse shit
nah he's completely right on that front. Their primary base of social support was the middle class. They were the earliest adopters, they voted for the nazis in 1933, they composed the SS, etc.
>>eventually purged the working class factions
>he purged all the parties
How do nazis know so little about the history of nazism? Hitler's industrialist patrons requested he get rid of the SA and the Strasserists, so he obliged them.
There was a Left faction of the nazi party. They wanted to fulfill their campaign promises of land reform, more worker control, etc, and they were murdered for it.

>>19088328
>nah he's completely right on that front. Their primary base of social support was the middle class. They were the earliest adopters, they voted for the nazis in 1933, they composed the SS, etc.
no their primary base was the SPD.
>How do nazis
not a nazi
>Hitler's industrialist patrons requested he get rid of the SA and the Strasserists, so he obliged them.
no
>There was a Left faction of the nazi party. They wanted to fulfill their campaign promises of land reform, more worker control, etc, and they were murdered for it.
not why they were murdered.

>>19088389
>the SPD
??
their leadership was middle class, but their base of support was workers.

>not why they were murdered.
No, that is precisely why they were murdered. More specifically, they were murdered because they were agitating for (previously promised) economic reform which was spooking Hitler's industrialist patrons. In a series of meeting prior to the purge, Hitler was pressured by Industrialists and the aristocracy to do something about them. So he had them all killed. This is all a matter of historical record.

>>19088424
>their leadership was middle class, but their base of support was workers.
look at the election results by region. nsdap would suck up spd support.
>No, that is precisely why they were murdered. More specifically, they were murdered because they were agitating for (previously promised) economic reform which was spooking Hitler's industrialist patrons. In a series of meeting prior to the purge, Hitler was pressured by Industrialists and the aristocracy to do something about them. So he had them all killed. This is all a matter of historical record.
that's not the reason. rohm and the SA were trying to replace the army and hitler who wanted to consolidate power and support from the heer could not have that.

pls read bok

>>19086837
That's been debunked multiple times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdA9ZK0Hpho
You're such a retarded argument. That graph doesn't measure compensation of productivity per worker at all. Its industry specific, and it makes perfect sense, since productivity is not correlated to compensation. Manufacturing is extremely productive, but compensation is low because of market saturation. You people are just fucking economically illiterate.

>>19087141
>communism is the revolutionary movement of the proletariat
This is fictitious non-sense. This is not a positive claim, but a normative moral claim. You people will change communism means when it suits your political interests, but the reality is that practice socialism nothing more than a dictatorship of the few. That is what the real evidence of socialism has shown us. Don't be an idiot; nobody is falling for the theatrics here.
>again with the magical thinking.
See >>19086817
Nothing you say is backed by empirical evidence. Its just apriori moral posturing ad naesum and propagnada.

>>19087141
>History
>Objective
Nothing in sociology is objective, that includes history. Its a pseudo-science shaped by cultural and moral biases. You don't have any way to reproduce or test historical claims. Its just shit you make up on the spot for a specific political purpose.

>>19088993
>This is not a positive claim, but a normative moral claim.
no, it's a positively positive claim.
>You people will change communism means when it suits your political interests
this has already been established by Marx in the 1840. you're just projecting your confusion outwards
>That is what the real evidence of socialism has shown us
where?
>See >>19086817
what is there for me to see?

>>19089004
>Nothing in sociology is objective
I'm not talking about sociology.
>You don't have any way to reproduce or test historical claims.
you can't grow a society in a lab ergo there are no facts of the matter about history? you're a moron

>>19088993
>>19090104
*the fact that communism is the movement of the proletariat and not an idea in someone head was already established by Marx in the 1840s

>>19087802
he got to power because he managed to find a way to fulfill a stabilizing function for German capital that was needed to escape the crisis. you think people just randomly will themselves into power? do you believe in santa claus too?

>>19090121
>you think people just randomly will themselves into power?
Yes

>>19075230
>If it's not scientific socialism it's not Marxism
>I don't want to be associated with those regimes and their crimes.
You can't conjure of the specter of scientific socialism and then go on to moralize your politics dumdum

>>19090716
why would i want to associate myself with something that wasn't marxist?

>>19074219
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Kojève
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Tarle
Soviet literature (1917-1982)

>>19087824
do americans still think that this was some secret plot?

>>19088328
>There was a Left faction of the nazi party
go on, tell me what glorious policies Röhm would have implemented if he got his way

Why do pseuds feel the need to ornament their narcissism with ideology that they can never meaningfully express? Can barking like a dog really be that satisfying?

>>19090825
>go on, tell me what glorious policies Röhm would have implemented if he got his way
Not go to war with USSR

>>19090890
go on

>>19090895
Socialization of private property

>>19087824
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Meeting_of_20_February_1933
kek, I didn't realize this shit was so well documented. not that it matters, because it's very obvious even in abstraction from any such direct evidence

>>19090930
If nazis can lie to the people about being socialists why can't they like to industrialists about being capitalists?

>>19090825
redistribution of feudal estates was a major one

>>19090945
here's why:
>The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
actual socialists can't "sneak their way" into a revolution by pretending to be something else. this is the kind of retardation that only a leftist or a fascist would believe. socialists are openly partisan for the proletariat.
bourgeois parties, on the other hand, have it in their essence that they claim to be representatives of the entire "nation", of citizens of all classes. hence it's natural for them to pretend to be the friends of all classes, while ultimately they too are friends of just one.

>>19090945
I suppose it's possible they could have, but they never had an analogous betrayal of the industrialists, like the betrayal their left faction, so it seems they weren't lying. The manufacturing executives seem like they genuinely
were /theirguys/.
>>19090930
yeah it's funny that this is even debated

>>19086837
I'd have to find it, but I'm pretty sure I saw somewhere that pretty much all productivity gains were from skilled jobs or from tech. for skilled jobs pay has kept up with productivity. being a slightly more efficient burger flipper due to tech doesn't justify you getting paid more.

>>19091031
>being more efficient burger flipper due to tech doesn't justify you getting paid more.
The point is that this is how wages worked pre 1970

>>19086817
wow 1.9 dollars per day, capitalism truly has solved poverty, hunger and unemployment

>>19091125
As opposed to leftism where you wouldn't be poor, hungry or unemployed because your corpse would be decaying in a ditch.

Kill yourself you worthless leftist.

>>19090967
>>19090899
you both are wording the entire "kill anyone who tries to stop my plan of turning the Wehrmacht into a peasent army" plan he had very nicely

>>19091006
>actual socialists can't "sneak their way" into a revolution by pretending to be something else. this is the kind of retardation that only a leftist or a fascist would believe. socialists are openly partisan for the proletariat.
Marxist socialists*
>bourgeois parties, on the other hand, have it in their essence that they claim to be representatives of the entire "nation", of citizens of all classes. hence it's natural for them to pretend to be the friends of all classes, while ultimately they too are friends of just one.
I think the nazis were only friends with themselves.
Bourgeoisie doesn't like when pic related happens to their property

>>19087698
>communist countries
>have nothing to do with communism

Genius. Didn't I tell you to put in more effort than "hurr dats no real communism"? Kek.

>>19092221
>Marxist socialists*
yes, same thing
>Bourgeoisie doesn't like when pic related happens to their property
it doesn't? without doubt, the bourgeois in construction or material supply businesses must've been delighted. but it doesn't end there. the profit rates were astronomical following the war overall

>>19092347
>>communist countries
>>have nothing to do with communism
countries where a ruling party simply supervises the exploitation of the proletariat by domestic and foreign capital aren't communist
>Didn't I tell you to put in more effort than "hurr dats no real communism"?
why would I have to put in effort? you're yet to establish that such countries are communist.

it wouldnt be marxist if it were pro great man theory. if you want individualist dreck making mortal men into gods look into ayn rand, or perhaps dc and marvel

>>19092567
>it doesn't? without doubt, the bourgeois in construction or material supply businesses must've been delighted. but it doesn't end there. the profit rates were astronomical following the war overall
Marxists are saying that hitler was a client of the German national bourgeoisie who had all their capital destroyed and depleted, not a client of the international bourgeoise

>>19092567
>you're yet to establish that such countries are communist.
Do you really expect me to explain, in detail, why countries like the USSR, Cuba and some (also) failed states like venezuela in south america are communist, which you can read in every grade school level book, on wikipedia and in every normal textbook? Whats next, should I explain to you that fire is hot?

>>19092567
>>19092873
USSR post 1929ish, PRC, DPRK, etc are degenerated workers states. They have a nationalized economies, but are ruled bureaucratic cliques.
USSR pre 1929ish, and Cuba are genuine workers states, not subjugated a bureaucratic clique.
We can tell the difference by investigating their foreign policy, and seeing how they behave.
In a sense, all of them are communist, in that they are to some degree socialist/proletarian in orientation. In another sense, none of them are communist, because they have not reached Marx's upper stage of communism (which according to Marx, can be achieved only after the global overthrow of capitalism).

The anon you are talking to is some sort of cucky leftcom, not an orthodox marxist.

Marxist (Left) socialism and National (Right) Socialism are "antipodal zeitgeists engaged in dialectic". That's a fancy way to say they're opposite ideologies designed to clash, like Yin and Yang. It is extremely vulgar to imply that they are similar or adjacent on the political spectrum.

NatSoc was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while Marxist socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on racial identity. Socialism, in contrast, was a class war between workers, bosses, and owners (Capitalists), aiming to build a workers state in which race was insignificant. Socialists, especially Marxist socialists, were anti-religious atheists who believed in gender equality, whereas NatSoc were traditionalists who placed great importance on the family, gender roles, and strict moral code.

The differences go on and on: Marxist socialism was internationalist, NatSoc was nationalist. Marxist socialism was egalitarian, whereas NatSoc believed that nature was unequal and required competition. Marxist socialism wanted to nationalize all private industry, while NatSoc privatized every major industry except the railroads (it considered these a military asset). In fact, Hitler once joked "they didn't need to nationalize property because they nationalized people". NatSoc drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class-focused socialism as a non-German ideology.

>>19093141
decent post, except you fail to mention that National Socialism was itself just the particular German manifestation of the greater phenomenon of fascism

>>19093141
>while NatSoc privatized every major industry except the railroads
Nope, if you read books like "The Vampire Economy" about Hitlers economic policy you will see that he put everything he could under state control.

NatSoc and Marxism mainly differ in the idea whether the goal should be national or international. And both had a class system, just with the difference of adding a racial component. In Marxism its about killing the rich, in Natsoc its about killing the jews(which are, according to Natsoc propaganda also the rich)

>>19092982
I understand your point, but following that logic would also mean there is no real democracy, no real Tyranny, no real facism. Because all systems have an idealised state of existance that neither system ever achieves in reality.
In democracies the rich still have more power, in a Tyranny there are always other powerfull people that rule besides the ruler and so on.

Its like with Platos Republic. It is simply not achievable. Therefore we have to judge the systems not by their ideal, but by their reality. And that means all communists endeavors will eventually lead to a USSR type regime.

>>19092866
1) the German bourgeoisie didn't have all its capital destroyed
2) they lost the war, so no shit some of them got fucked. that's how it works. that Hitler was acting in their particular interest doesn't mean that he always or ultimately succeeded.
3) he was acting for the benefit of international bourgeoisie too. that's inevitably what every guardian of capital accumulation does.

>>19092873
>Do you really expect me to explain, in detail, why countries like the USSR, Cuba and some (also) failed states like venezuela in south america are communist
I don't, because that's impossible and you can't do it
>which you can read in every grade school level book, on wikipedia and in every normal textbook
I bet those bourgeois materials about communism are completely factual!

>>19092982
>USSR post 1929ish, PRC, DPRK, etc are degenerated workers states
no, they're capitalist states.
>They have a nationalized economies
they have partially nationalized economies, like just about every other state on the earth
>but are ruled bureaucratic cliques.
they're ruled by bourgeois parties, just like every other state on earth
>USSR pre 1929ish, and Cuba are genuine workers states, not subjugated a bureaucratic clique.
Cuba is capitalist. USSR initially being a workers state had nothing to do with "bueraucratic cliques". bureaucrats don't subjugate anything by themselves, they're always paid functionaries of the ruling class. the USSR was a workers state because it was ruled by a proletarian party.
>In a sense, all of them are communist, in that they are to some degree socialist/proletarian in orientation.
no, they are entirely anti-proletarian in orientation.
>The anon you are talking to is some sort of cucky leftcom, not an orthodox marxist.
you're a leftist masquerading as a Marxist and you spout nonsense that has nothing to do with Marx like a complete retard

>>19093437
> USSR was a workers state because it was ruled by a proletarian party
I've never understood what this even means. Dont they stop being proles and start being something else once they become the ruling class?

>>19093456
no, they stop being proles once wage labour and classes are abolished, but that doesn't happen from one day to the next.

>>19093410
>I understand your point, but following that logic would also mean there is no real democracy, no real Tyranny, no real facism. Because all systems have an idealised state of existance that neither system ever achieves in reality.
We shouldn't define platonic ideals of forms of government based on their rhetoric and official propaganda, we should understand them based on how they function in concrete reality. Using this approach we can come up with very useful concepts of liberal democracy, fascism, socialism, degenerated bureaucratic socialism, etc.

>And that means all communists endeavors will eventually lead to a USSR type regime.
I would argue the kafkaesque degeneration of the USSR was not inevitable, but that's a separate conversation.

>>19093437
>bureaucrats don't subjugate anything by themselves, they're always paid functionaries of the ruling class.
Nah, the soviet bureaucrat had interests which did not precisely align with their the proletariat, particularly with respect to foreign policy. After the death of Lenin, Stalin (the godfather of the soviet Bureaucracy) along with Zinoviev and Kamenev threw open the gates of the Russian communist party, allowing the stock of the vanguard to be blunted with legions of petty officials, managers, clerks, etc. This fundamentally altered the composition and politics of the CPSU going forward.. Subsequently the dogged revolutionary internationalism which defined Soviet foreign policy during the early 20s was replaced with a defensive collaborationist posture, which above all guarded the gains of the revolution in Russia, (and thus the petty privilege of soviet bureaucrats).
So yeah, the political ascendancy of the soviet bureaucracy was a discrete event. We can see exactly how and why it happened, and what effects it had.

>>19093635
>Nah, the soviet bureaucrat had interests which did not precisely align with their the proletariat
his interests didn't matter was as long as he was a functionary of the proletarian state concerned with the international revolution and they likewise didn't matter when he became a functionary of a state concerned with national capitalist development and with compromising with the peasantry.
through what particular means has the mortal weakness of the proletariat and the relative strength of world capital and the peasants reflected itself in the ruling party is secondary, beyond the fact that the party became transformed from one representing the interest of the world proletariat into one representing the interest of the world bourgeoisie.

>>19093768
>his interests didn't matter was as long as he was a functionary of the proletarian state concerned with the international revolution and they likewise didn't matter when he became a functionary of a state concerned with national capitalist development and with compromising with the peasantry.
Now you are just reciting dogma. You are committed to the notion that a petty bureaucrat has precisely the same revolutionary potential and political sensibilities as an industrial worker, provided he works for an institution that serves industrial workers. Sleep on this and we'll talk about it again some other time.

>>19093812
no? that's not what I said at all. I said that his "revolutionary potential" and "political sensibilities" don't matter. if the proletariat loses control over him, it means that it has lost its state. and every Marxist knows such thing isn't due to the bureaucrat asserting some independent interest, but due to the proletariat as a class losing strength relatively to capital.

Can any Marxist here give me the Marxian definition of " Capitalism"?

>>19093952
>I said that his "revolutionary potential" and "political sensibilities" don't matter.
when they suddenly become card carrying party members, and permitted to infest the party apparatus, their political proclivities did indeed matter.

>>19093963
a mode of production characterized by generalized wage labour

>>19094002
if the proletariat lets its party become infested by elements it can't control, then its dictatorship is already dead. and if it died, then every Marxist will know that it was due to the general proportional strength of the proletariat and of capital, not due to some "sudden" political maneuver. the latter is how everyone else conceives politics, EXCEPT Marxists, who know better.

>>19094151
>a mode of production characterized by generalized wage labour
I don't like this definition.

By this logic there bas never been a country that had a mode of production that escaped from the wage labor mode.

Do you agree?

>>19094182
well, yes. after capitalism has been established there has only been capitalism. one of the main characteristics of capitalism is its interconnection. it can't be transcended within a single country.

>>19094203
I don't think entire world has to be socialist for socialist mode of production.
A country like USA can be self sustainable.

>>19094220
it would be immediately crushed by a world bourgeois coalition

>>19094220
>>19094315
besides, I didn't say "entire world" but "not a single country". obviously not every part of the world will reach socialist production at the same point of the revolution.

>>19094315
>it would be immediately crushed by a world bourgeois coalition
My ass. Europeans have no fighting spirit and the only nation that can pose a threat is the capitalist chinese and their barrack regime.
>>19094329
I am unsure vast majority of the world population is capable of civilization, let alone socialism.

Bump

Pic related debunked historical materialism

>>19094350
>china
>capitalist

t. western revisionist falling for cia lies

>>19095457
Independent unions are illegal in China. What more do you need?

>>19095473

>>19095532
At least Lenin had a civil war he was fighting. What excuse does CCP have

When I was a child I thought China was a supercapitalist country with the most worker exploitation. Most commodities my family and I owned, tables to consumer electronics were made there. Every Chinese I knew had "face" and a business oriented mindset.

I was a smart child.

>>19095548
I’m not going to defend China but lack of independent unions obviously isn’t sufficient to determine if the proletariat wields state power.

>>19095571
Yes it is