/lit/ - Literature

It’s less about Marx, and more about western youth absorbing anything even vaguely anti-traditional and making it a united political front for appearance.

Because the socialist project has collapsed since the fall of the soviet Union and the left's inability to pursue a non-totalitarian alternative, along with capital's effort to make every single political issue about culture and identity.
If you're interested in reading about this then try Fisher's "Exiting the vampire castle".

popularization of Frankfurt School ideas after World War 2. The Western leftists got corralled away from communism into left-wing liberalism focused on sexuality and identity especially in the 1960s. I think your use of the word 'synthesized' isn't a very good descriptor. Classical marxist thought got completely co-opted and paved over decades ago. Rightfully so anyway, really what does this critique of 19th century european industrial economies have to do with today's financial speculation and services economy? It's hilariously outdated and the 'TRUE LEFTISTS' that still cling to it are possibly even more deluded than the progressive liberals adopting their rhetoric to advocate for trannies etc.

>>19985134
When you advocate materialism, materialists are what you get. Transformers and libtards are simply what happens when you take materialism and moral relativism to its logical extreme. Its why you don't see this kind of thing outside the west, or even in America prior to the Sexual Revolution

If you turn historical materialism back on its historical origination point (follow it to its logical conclusion) you destroy formal Marxist theory and political Communism i.e. Marx was just one guy, his ideas are outmoded, not updated for 21st century, class reductionist. Historical materialism then becomes a free floating destructive toolkit weaponized against all hierarchies and institutions including Marxism
>our liberation is to be more complex and nuanced than the USSR and class revolution, which was pretty heckin' reactionary anyways!
This means that historical materialism turns into something akin to "sociologism" which is a materialism that is inclusive of superstructural elements, so man is a product of his material conditions and the moral and intellectual conditions of his time. This provides ammunition for fat liberators and such because they learn that all existing attitudes and beliefs are the product of superstructural conditions that have nothing to do with god, truth, reality, or nature, so they are unjust and must be toppled so new voices can be heard. This is what Cultural Marxism is, or as Jonathan Bowden put it
>you could pack all the CPUSA members into a few cars, and yet a spirit of Marxism is abroad in the West
So, we simultaneously live in a society where one aspect of Marxist theory is completely triumphant (the idea of man as a product of material conditions, with beliefs paradoxically considered to be part of material conditions insofar as they are derived from material propaganda and prejudice within history, not something eternal and True like being from God or Nature) while Socialism is completely dead, something that Leftists constantly reiterate to claims of a "Marxists infiltrating our institutions". It's this plus the fact that historical materialism in itself in a cultural sense is not at all exclusive of Capitalism or bourgeois society, and in fact it helped bourgeois society rid itself of reactionary beliefs through killing religious and national feeling

>>19985145
Well, this is also true. I think it's unlikely that the average nonbinary communist TikToker has sat down and read Marx's bibliography. There's probably a sociological explanation for why these ideas have popularly come together this way. I'm more interested in if and how their synthesis is coherent. In the context of the 19th century political thought, it seems like people are borrowing incompatible elements of Marxism and liberal individualism.

>>19985134
>How did Marx get synthesized with stuff like fat liberation, queer theory, etc?
There’s no link whatsoever except 1/ in the mind of illiterate right-winger who call “communists“ everything they think is far-left 2/ in the fact that the demographic that tend to be vocal about their adoption of (some aspects of) Marx theory also tend to be vocal about stuff that is idpol related

the actual reason is each little subtheory is taking marx's critique of class conflict and swapping in their favored identity for the proletariat. the idea is that the subordinate class reveals the truth of the entire system via its subordination. you can do this with anything where there exists a contradiction (men/women, white/black, queer/straight)

in the end marx's argument for the proletariat was that they can survive without the capitalist but the capitalist can't survive without the proletariat, making them the subject of history. it gets a little weirder when you start doing this with women and homos

>>19985223
What are the elements that are incompatible?

>>19985257
individualism is incompatible with class consciousness. a worker who thinks about themselves in terms of another identity first is doing the capitalist's work for him

Let's pretend Engels didn't start Marxist Feminism with his anthropological work: the thread

>>19985269
I think the incompatibility comes from Marx, rather than the tiktokers calling themselves Marxists. Marx reduced men into purely materialistic economic animals, and then expected them to be anything but individualists. There's a reason that every communist movement eventually leads to the leaders living in palaces while the proletariats work for peanuts, and its that materialism doesn't unify people

>>19985237
Your 2nd point literally describes the link lmao

>>19985287
SILENCE INCEL

>>19985134
Reading Marx, I thought the same.
Then I read Engels' Origins of the Family and I realised so much of the auxiliary Marxist traditions are not at all scrupulous, but are tools to achieve what the author personally desires.

As it was from the beginning, the latter movements (correctly) view society as a product of its historical and materical context only to stitch on the author's vision of how the world should work.

That being said, Marx is invaluable and I wouldn't want us to lose the truth is his writings for the sake of some degens.

>>19985202
>>19985199
I don't see how historical materialism is implicated in any of that. The death of God and the triumph of perspectivism/relativism were all things that Nietzsche saw in the 19th century as potential consequences of the enlightenment. I think Marx did too, to some extent. Seems asinine to portray historical materialism, something now relegated to the fringes, as responsible for what people two hundred years ago took to be the inevitable fruits of liberalism.

>>19985177
I like Mark Fisher. His contention though is that these ideas aren't really compatible. So I'm wondering, who is saying that they are?

>>19985134
It's just demoralization, why else would anyone degrade themselves so

>>19985307
>(post-Marxism) The development of radical reworkings of Marxism from the late 1970s, arising in reaction to classical Marxist materialism, economism, historical determinism, anti-humanism, and class reductionism and influenced by poststructuralism and postmodernism, notably in the rejection of grand narratives (including classical Marxism itself). These emerged in the late 1970s, associated with theorists such as Lyotard, Baudrillard, Foucault, the Argentine political theorist Ernesto Laclau (b.1935), the Belgian political theorist Chantal Mouffe (b.1943), and Stuart Hall. From the 1980s, post-Marxism was increasingly inflected by such cross-currents as feminism and postcolonialism. It is an anti-essentialist approach in which class, society, and history are no longer treated as unitary, universal, pre-discursive categories. Multiple subject positions are constituted dynamically in discourse in relation to class, gender, race, and nationality. Consequently, there is no uniform class consciousness. Post-Marxist theory has also been influenced by the Gramscian concept of hegemony. Ideology and culture are seen as relatively autonomous of the economic base. See base and superstructure; cultural materialism; relative autonomy.

OH NO NO NO NO MARXBROS

>>19985284
Like this anon said:

>>19985257

The historical materialism of Marx sees individual consciousness as an abstraction. A lot of queer theory would appear to see a conflict between individual consciousness and coercive social norms. This is what Mill saw but Marx rejected.

>>19985315
This is a good point.

>>19985134
Marginalized folks have every reason to trust progressive bourgeoisie and managerial strata over fascist white settlers who want them dead.we have every right to deplatform fascists and reactionaries and class reductionists and science deniers and ensure safety for marginalized and vulnerable members of our communities. We have every right to demand the destigmatization and normalization of sex work, mental health, fat positivity, pornography, drug use, decolonization prison abolition police abolition family abolition the sexual enmancipation of children and an end to white supremacy and the gender binary.

Instead of pandering to the most backward secrors of the working class we should lead the way along with the most advanced ones, black and indigenous people, and queer/ trans sex workers. Sex workers 2gnot the straight male labour aristokkkracy who are at the vanguard of the proletarian movement, women and queer people taking the means of production into their own hands by refusing to perform unpaid sexual and emotional labor for white men. The real class struggle is not in factories but in womens bodies. Sexwork is a threat to patriarchy the capitalist system itself it is radically queer because it goes against the idea that sex is for the reproduction of the nuclear family and the patriarchal ideology of romantic love. Its a means for workers to take the means of production into their own hands here and now to abolish the distinction between the private sphere and the public, between work and pleasure and self expression. To break down the walls of lily white christian suburbia into a brave new world of pleasure rebellion and freedom. Yes it is true what they say about us queer postmodern neomarxists We are gonna groom all your daughters to be whores and your sons to be nympho trans seworkers.

>>19985327
It's a shame a thinker as great as Baudrillard has associations with the Left. His ideas are brilliant and apply to all the political spectra. The truth is that leftists fail to apply his ideas very very badly and let hyperreality control their narratives entirely. They'll do things like write these really gay articles about like THE 2016 ELECTION DID NOT TAKE PLACE but then not interpret the George Floyd incident as a media-created hyperreal narrative, it's just embarrassing.

>>19985315
Leftists merely want to replace the family and the church with NGOs public schools bluecheck media elites psychiatrists and the woke pimps and pornographers of the sex industry a snivelling priesthood of pedophilc lgbtsjwtfnpc apparatchiks. Notice how queer theory types talk about literal prostitution aka sex work as just one amongs many marginalized gender or sexual identities, they only really oppose traditional values vecause they get in the way of total centralized control and exploitation and the full commodification of human feelings and sexuality

The link is quite natural, because Marx & Engels largely defined their theoretical framework by criticizing notions of "essential humanity", instead examining how modes of production constituted and set historical bounds to "human nature". In Theses on Feuerbach, Marx states that human nature can be defined as nothing else than the "ensemble of social relations". It follows from this that the dominant ideology that corresponds to the current mode of production will produce its own conceptual scheme of what a human being essentially is.

The thing is, as radical as M&E were in their own time, they were still a couple of privileged heterosexual dudes in the 19th century and didn't comprehend many social phenomena as historically contingent and preserved by class domination. They made some important headway in understanding the nature of patriarchal oppression, but this work would have to be picked up after their deaths.

Pic included is from MacKinnon's "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State", a landmark work of marxist feminism.

>>19985327
This seems like an outright rejection of Marx's central claims, then? It seems impossible to square Marx's historical materialism with a view of ideology and culture as oftentimes functioning independently of the prevailing economic (material) conditions.

>>19985356
Read michael taussig's magic of the state and genovese on paternalism and the cultural hegemony of the master class george floyd and the indian sam hyde yakub the blackman and the white man donnie trump are the american equivalent of the venezuelan spiritual courts, postcolonial hoodoo deities of dubious origin. Capitalism cant dispense with archaic racial mythologies, you talk about black slaves and the white master who both protects and threatens with unspeakable violence because you cant talk about bare life or the often brutal ways in which capitalism creates productive subjects. Leftists are at their core aspiring managers or plantation overseers. The george soros NGO industrial complex drive to normalize prostitution and BLM coomer onlyfans leftists proudly supporting sex workers

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Hide

Mr johnsons surveys his plantation "the great society" on horseback followed on foot by his foreman a wily bespectacled irishman by the name of mcnamara, on the floor picking cotton we have a buch of N... We call them african americans now, and they come in all colors, apparently johnson and macnamara are talking abot "breaking some bucks"

>>19985237
so how many of your friends are trans?

>>19985403
He can't keep getting away with it

>>19985134

The generous answer is that there's some kind of line you can draw between things getting really wacky in the 20th century when everyone started doing Frankfurt School style shit and synthesizing Marxist analysis with psychoanalysis down to this stuff today.

Really though what you're dealing with fundamentally is a bunch of mediocre people with low self esteem engaged in lazy value inversion and making a tin god out of universalizing or essentializing slave morality. They may find random thinkers to cling to in order to justify this but at the end of the day I think since what we're dealing with here is a phenomenon that springs from the psychological neuroses of North American NPCs and fundamentally lacks any substantive connection to any real literary tradition.

A few fringe hippie boomers may have said some goofy shit that foreshadowed some of these attitudes in the 60's or 70's but it's not like some blossoming of theoretical insight around Andrea Dworkin caused this to happen. These people are just fucked up and rep Marx because it's a meme you can glom onto from watching cable TV where everything is just reruns anyways.

>>19985420
I was an edgelord industrial nazi MDE jim goad boyd rice My posting carreeer faggot before it was cool but now im thinking about following steve albinis example checking my white privilege and becoming a progressive maybe an academic a democrat party strategist maybe work at an NGO, not for any gay altruistic reasons but because thats the optimum way to be debased and inflict the maximum possible amount of hardcore mkultra buckbreaking trauma based mind control on the weak and unsuspecting . All the while monopolizing the moral high ground and killing off any chance for 'proletarian solidarity'(the gayest most idiotic thought imaginable, why even pretend to be 'post left' and argue with trannies on twitter if you can get to buckbreak the trannies yourself, i mean they are already pretty buckbroken but one always has to make sure) . I get off to the thought of reducing human beings to nigger cattle, destroying any semblance of an independent personality so they can be rebuilt in the image of the cult.

>>19985403
>>19985448
you're an incoherent schizo

>>19985134
>Or are zoomers just confused?
Not only zoomers. Boomers as well.
If you are talking about something you didn't read, of course you are going to be confused. Especially Marx.
I since most people do not read the primary source, but watched videos, most people are confused.

>>19985321
>I don't see how historical materialism is implicated in any of that
From an orthodox Marxist perspective it's not related to the mutation into absolute relativism. The point is that the materialism of Marxists psychologically prepared them for the idea of sociological man, that is, man that can be considered to be a product of material culture without reference to spirit, god, destiny, providence, bloodlines etc. This conception of man is highly radical and very new in history. To bring this back around to the OP post, how is it possible to justify a single set of social norms when all social norms are just reflections of power relationships or derived from random prejudice? You should see the Nietzsche/Foucalt infusion here. The question of
>could we have arrived at this moment WITHOUT Marxism/historical materialism through the liberal tradition only?
is important and I don't have a definitive answer. The issue is that Marxism and Liberalism were engaged in a sort of compenetration throughout the whole 20th century, which is why, for example, the Frankfurt School and most postmodernists began their careers as orthodox Marxists and ended as Left-liberals

>>19985269
There is no such thing as "class consciousness" - workers are not monolithic and do not even primarily focus on their class. Religion, nation, heritage, nationalism, language, passion, and many factors outside of class are more pertinent to them. Communists just invented the idea of "class consciousnesses" because they needed a political, propaganda excuse as to why people were not willing to throw their lives away for their naive idealisms. Marxists don't care about the worker, per say, they only care about the worker if they conform to their beliefs. What Marxoids, and communist degenerates in general, is how loyal of a herd animal one is to their party and selfish political demands. You're pathetic pauper looking for way to rile people up to your cause of revenge because you're narcissist who can't accept the hand god gave you in life.

>>19985199
>Transformers and libtards are simply what happens when you take materialism and moral relativism to its logical extreme.
I thought it was about commodification of the body, and diversion from class struggle.
>Its why you don't see this kind of thing outside the west,
Is Brazil "trad"? Is japan, with it's sexualized pop music, and it's idol movement? Is china trad?

>>19985476
In fact one could argue the bronze age pervert and sundress tradwife people are more transgender and posthuman than these so called trannies.

>>19985134
It’s the coalition of the resentful. Read Nietzsche Genealogy of Morals.

>>19985490
One could argue that but theyd be obviously wrong

>>19985466

>if Marx hadn't pointed out that modern society was reducing human beings to objects of socio-economic forces would it have been possible for us to be reduced to mere objects of socio-economic forces by society?

Leftists in 2022: "Could we cut coal mine disasters to zero by getting rid of the canaries?"

>>19985466
>The point is that the materialism of Marxists psychologically prepared them for the idea of sociological man, that is, man that can be considered to be a product of material culture without reference to spirit, god, destiny, providence, bloodlines etc.
Marx didn't empty the churches. The supermarkets, consumer society, did.
By the way, Marx believed in the spirit.

>>19985499
>Marx didn't empty the churches
>Implying he also wouldn't do the same
Here’s Karl’s verdict on Christianity, from an article in the Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung (September 12, 1847). Sometimes the obvious needs to be repeated.

>>19985134
Everybody who has ever coopted Marxism throughout history has literally been insane
I suppose it could just be a coincidence

>>19985454
Such is the fate of "national socialists" like him who fall into the American false dichotomy

>>19985180
Don't forget that Western governments also funded a lot of this stuff. Gloria Steinem is surprisingly open about her involvement with the CIA, so she would be a good start for someone who wants to dive down that particular rabbit hole.
>>19985202
>>19985256
This process is completely in the interest of finance capital, so they will always support it. A united front against the banks is always dangerous, so they always need to split it into opposing camps. They don't care whether it's along race, ethnicity, sex, sexuality, gender identity, language, etc. As long as you're not looking at your shared economic interests, they're happy.
>>19985134
>How are these things related?
I suspect they're not really, in fact they're often in opposition. They have to use Marx's name, because he is the "big daddy" figure of left wing theory. It's like if you wanted to subvert Christianity, you would have to claim you're doing it in the name of Jesus - otherwise no one would fall for it.

>>19985134
They're lazy and want to get paid well for working at McDonald's

>>19985513
That was written by young Marx. Reminder that Marx was born in 1818. So he was 29 years old when he wrote this.
Later, he made the distinction between institutionalized church, especially english institutionalized church, and christianity.
Read Thesis on feuerbach. Read Engels, On the History of Early Christianity,
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/
Also, Jesus Christ in not the christian dogma. Reminder that Jesus Christ never wanted to create a Church.

>>19985513
Christians are absolutely right there needs to be a ruling class. Why is Marx criticizing Christianity while calling for a new set of rulers? Communists just prove Nietzsche's argument again and again - they are resentful they can't order and boss others around. The principle isn't even liberation - its just envy. Fucking retarded, degenerate communists want to tell us the rabble drunkards that beat their wives after a long day of work have the moral aptitude to dictate the lives of others? What a joke.

>>19985536
Marxism calls for the rule by the meanest and dumbest of the rabble who's sole purpose for power is to increase the physical possession that they have and lust for - that's why Communist dictators like Lenin and Stalin lived in mansions while their policies murdered the workers they so called served. That's why Venezuela is the way it is today. Its clear to anyone with a grasp reality that socialists nothing by low lives, criminals and social rejects who aren't oppressed enough - their vices have/ are destroying civilization. That's why Marxism and its supporters should be destroyed.

>>19985542
>Fucking retarded, degenerate communists want to tell us the rabble drunkards that beat their wives after a long day of work have the moral aptitude to dictate the lives of others? What a joke.
Well, the "elite" do not drunk and beat their wives after a long day of work. They rape kids. (Epstein).

>>19985448
wow

>>19985527
Saved, and exactly this. Race war brings chaos, and strict order, after.
Class war means the end of the ruling class, based on exploitation of proletarian work.

>>19985527
That graph is complete bullshit. GDP per capita, wages and salaries have both gone up. Leftists like you have tendency to just mix subvert right-wing movements by using populist talking points and mixing it with your economic illiteracy. The real subversiveness comes from people like you.

>>19985562
Pretty much. I dont have high hopes that the nobility were different tbqh

>>19985562
Most criminals and rapists are the poor though? The elite commit way less crime than the poor do. The poor are poor because of their bad decisions because they participate in crime and doing drugs which can largely be explained by their genetics.

>>19985476
I know that geographically, Japan, Korea, and Australia are obviously not physically Western countries. But when I say West, I do mean more than just coordinates on a map, so to me, those countries are Western shitholes. I doubt anybody would disagree and say Australia is an "Eastern" country because its in the east

>>19985574
>What is real wages?
>What is the rate of exploitation, and why did it increase?

>>19985578
The upper middle class commit less crime. The elite literally dont have to obey laws so who knows how much crime they commit

>>19985537
This doesn’t refute the conclusion that Marx saw Religion as a cope from the changing material reality, which conflicts with class consciousness. We’ve seen conclusions taken by his most militant follows of eradicating the Church to plant it’s Leftist Doctrine of a monolithic prison of interlocking intellectual assumptions that exclude religious belief for its Communism.

>>19985237
There definetly is a link, read the communist manifesto and look at the dot points on what it wants to achieve, destruction of the family, destruction of social norms, destruction of religion and classes. The link between this and now is so obvious

>>19985580
You are confused. You confuse the level of Capitalistic advancement, with some jewish deliberated "ideology".
For the last time, it's Capitalism deployment which creates, generates, deploy, the globohomo agency.
Capitalism, it's deployment, creates, generates, the globohomo agenda.
Base, social relations, relations of production, determines The superstructure. Not the other way round.

>>19985578
Define "less crime." Because you could add the economic impact of nigs robbing liquors stores for 50 years and it wouldn't match the economic impact of even one significant white collar crime. I wouldn't even need to look at 2007 financial crisis, where elites stole trillions. You could look at pretty much any banking scandal or Big Pharma coverup and it would surpass anything the lower classes are capable of

>>19985527
The CIA didn’t force the occupy wall street hippies’ to accept Blacks and Faggots at gun point, they did. It was always a movement of weed smokers which is why it never went anywhere and was easily co-oped.

>>19985537
Jesus Christ wanted to create an empire.

>>19985346
Tldr

>>19985597
I think their confusion/conceit lies in the fact that it was Neomarxists and not Marx that committed to the "culture war". Marx probably thought that religion would wither away without being directly attacked, while Neomarxists saw religion as an institution to be directly attacked, whereas Marx ostensibly only saw the property structure as the thing to attack. I believe they're trying to gaslight people into thinking that Marx was le based and traditional culture and religion being destroyed was something that happened ex nihilo

"Class consciousness" and leftist sociology in general is just a smokescreen to ignore the reality of genetics and how it determines the make up society. They don't want to acknowledge that equality does not exist because their philistinism can't come to the terms with the fact their inferiority is hard coded by their genes. Leftists are just people who just want post-hoc justifications for pedophilia and homosexuality.
>>19985589
This is false. The majority of crime is done by the poor and people like you. All empirical analyses show you are wrong on the matter. Do you want to debate those numbers right or do you wanna admit you're right before you we continue this discussion?
>>19985587
That graph has been debunked multiple times.
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/3.2-Pgs.-168-179-The-Link-Between-Wages-and-Productivity-is-Strong.pdf
Wages have rose with productivity - you're using a graph that's literal proapganda from the EPI - a organization connected to the Democratic Part and ACLU, AFL-CIO and George Soros - its complete crap. They ignore the fact that compensation doesn't only come from wages - but from healthcare, stock options, paid time off, retire benefits and other forms that reflect the true earnings of workers. Its also really stupid argument - you do realize a significant portion of the work force, almost half of it, doesn't even get compensated with wages. Free lancer contractors, self employed workers, and salaried workers don't receive wages, yet they make up a significant portion of the economy. Wages don't tend go up in fields of work where there is market saturation from easy of unskilled labor which that graph represents. But please, keep going with your retarded leftist talking points. I can rape you all day on this subject. I know more than you on economics by long shot.

When I say West, I'm thinking more of liberalism, which has its roots in the Enlightenment. The Jewish ideology came about long before capitalism did in my opinion

>>19985597
>We’ve seen conclusions taken by his most militant follows of eradicating the Church to plant it’s Leftist Doctrine of a monolithic prison of interlocking intellectual assumptions that exclude religious belief for its Communism.
Marx =/= Lenin
Classical Marxism =/= Vanguardism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Marxism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism

>>19985619
>This is false. The majority of crime is done by the poor and people like you. All empirical analyses show you are wrong on the matter. Do you want to debate those numbers right or do you wanna admit you're right before you we continue this discussion
Did you even read my post you retard. I agreed with you that the poor commit the majority of the crime compared to middle and upper middle class, but I posted out that the elite literally dont get booked for their crimes. Who were Epstein and Maxwell's clients? Why dont you know that? Why was that info "lost"

>>19985610
So, your argument is essentially solipsistic. You don't care that crime is correlated by income level; you just want to social justice your way to into saying its something we should ignore because burning down businesses and rioting is perfectly fine because only your agenda matters and not the facts.

>>19985602
>what it wants to achieve, destruction of the family, destruction of social norms, destruction of religion and classes
Engels complained about those exact same thing, in socialism: utopian and scientific (1880). He pointed Capitalism as being the responsible.

>>19985621
>>19985608
meant to reply to this one

>>19985612
>Jesus Christ wanted to create an empire.
I read the new testament thorously, and i didn't remember this.

>>19985630
No, nigger, you just want to blame the "elites" - a group so abstract you're too fucking stupid to define, as the source of your problems in life and not the fact that a worthless, subhuman life yourself ruined your life by wasting your time social media instead of working and preparing for your future. Now you want some excuse to take it out for on others. Luckily, your brains will be shot out and you won't be a problem for society anymore.

>>19985631
I don't believe that at all, I just think we need to take magnitude into account when we define crime. It's pretty retarded to focus all the efforts on criminal lower classes when they aren't even committing the biggest crimes. I'm not a "defund the police" retard either, I think the lower classes still need to be policed, but elites don't get a free pass

>>19985633
Actually, no, Engels said he wanted to abolish the family, dumbass

>>19985560
Not really, Marxism is a bourgeois ideology, in the sense that you need to be an educated man, a man of books, to understand it, and the composition of Marxist parties and the Marxists in general has always been (by and large) bourgeois, students, academics, etc. It has never been the tradition of the simple labourer, farmer, factory-worker.

>>19985619
>Free lancer contractors, self employed workers, and salaried workers don't receive wages, yet they make up a significant portion of the economy.
Less than 10% of the GDP, to my knowledge.
> I know more than you on economics by long shot.
So how do you explain that the rate of exploitation increased, in the last decades?

>>19985646
I notice you didnt reply to my point about Epstein and Maxwell. Maybe you just like being ruled by these people

>>19985654
What do mean magnitude? Are you going to argue violent crimes (rape, murder, and robbery) are not primarily done by the poor? By what magnitude do rich people commit crime that is more than the the crime done in society by the poor?

>>19985655
You said this, because of Engels, you have read the wikipedia page only. Or probably not even this.
Engels glorified the primitive gens.
And complained in socialism: scientific and utopic, that Capitalism destroyed the patriarchal Family.
You should stop to post, if you talk about subject you didn't read about.

>>19985134
>>19985315
>>19985321
>>19985537
>How did Marx get synthesized with stuff like fat liberation, queer theory, etc?
>It seems as though there's this pervasive trend among the online left where people will identify as communists, Marxists, or anti-capitalists while insisting that the individual needs to be liberated from certain social norms (fatphobia, the gender binary, and so on).
>How are these things related?
What is so hard for you to understand about this? The ideological core of marxism and leftism in general is about fighting against oppressors to achieve liberation. All this talk about dialectics and materialism is all just window dressing to make marxism appear scientific.
The final goal of letism/marxism/anarchism/progressivism is not le workers controlling muh means of production. That is only an intermediate step towards the final goal of complete LIBERATION (antinominalism) from oppressive society.
In the mind of the radical emancipator (which lies at the core of all leftism) every single healthy social norm can and ultimately will be seen as oppressive, yes this includes scientific concepts of physical health and even rationalism itself as seen with the rise of postmodernist philosophy in leftist circles.
Letism/marxism/anarchism/progressivism is pathaological antinomianism.
So why wouldn't people who fight against economic oppression not also fight against sexual-, gender-, racial-, weight- and cultural oppression?
The cultural revolution in china was thusfar in human history the purest manifestation of this leftist/marxist/progressive mentality.
A bunch of completely radicalized antinomian youths, destroying everything "old" everything that came before them, so that the new emancipated society can freely flourish without any of that old "baggage".
What do you people think society in the proclaimed FALGSC (fully automated luxury gay space communism) would look like? A society of sober, disciplined healthy chads as depicted in those old soviet propaganda posters? LMAO
No comrade, these proaganda posters are fatphobic and promote toxic health. People should be as unhealthy as they please, telling people that being obese is bad is crypto-fascist and promotes darwinist might-is-right ideology, btw physical health standards are oppressive social constructs.
This mentality is not a deviation from marxism but a natural result of it, which can be summarized with : OPPRESSION AND NORMS ARE BAD, LIBERATION AND EMANCIPATION ARE GOOD.
If you want to take a quick glance at the humanity that communists and all other liberation movements will create (wether they realize it or not) you can look at the utterly shameless, uprooted, atomized, traditionless, porn addicted hedonistic, androgynous anti-nomian western degenerate lgbtqpxyz+++ coomer perverts.

>>19985666
Big banks stole trillions from the government during the financial crisis. Nancy Pelosi makes millions of dollars trading on private information. Big Pharma has to pay out billions every year because of the side effects from medicines they sell. Goldman Sachs stole $3.5 billion from the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund. Have you ever heard of a black stealing $3.5 billion dollars?

>>19985658
Exploitation is an objective fact of human life, and its necessary because humans have scarce time and resources. Exploitation allows them to complete tasks faster and more efficiently with what limited resources we have while we are here. Marxists are just stupid - without surplus labor, civilization could not exist nor could progress. So I don't really care about your cries about "exploitation." Humans can not exist without it - its a false loaded statement from you that assumes exploitation is something to be stopped instead of enhanced for human development.

>>19985617
>I think their confusion/conceit lies in the fact that it was Neomarxists and not Marx that committed to the "culture war"
People care about ‘culture’ which is why he was rambling about religion in the first place.
>Marx ostensibly only saw the property structure as the thing to attack.
Cleary not, and even so that was an at what they thought way attempt to reduce reactionary elements, Communists don’t stop there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

>>19985420
Tfw no jewish trans gf with high functioning autism who gets off being degraded as a retarded faggot who fell for pedophilic ZOGaganda that was anyhow meant for the goyim and who the takes turns calling me out for my internalized ableism and antisemitism and queerphobia and insufficient enthusiasm for the managerial therapeutic states post liberal biopolitics

>>19985675
>If you want to take a quick glance at the humanity that communists and all other liberation movements will create (wether they realize it or not) you can look at the utterly shameless, uprooted, atomized, traditionless, porn addicted hedonistic, androgynous anti-nomian western degenerate lgbtqpxyz+++ coomer perverts.
That exactly is Capitalism in it's terminal crisis. But since your mind is confused, you have it upside down.

>>19985682
>Humans can not exist without it
Huterrites, israeli kibbutzim, Revolutionary Catalonia (1936), primitive tribes.
>Marxists are just stupid - without surplus labor, civilization could not exist nor could progress.
Necessary labor would have to be higher in a communist society, but surplus labor, taken by the Capitalist class, would disappear.
In any case, we have seen that you make the apology of exploitation. Beautiful "tradition".

>>19985679
>Big banks stole trillions from the government
No, they did not. The finance crisis was caused by the federal government giving bad loans to stupid people, like the poor, who could not pay them back.
>Nancy Pelosi makes millions of dollars trading on private information.
Yeah, and why is that a problem you retard? How being a successful politician and business person worse than being a murderer or a rapist? Are you really that stupid?
>Big Pharma
They make billions off people who voluntarily buy their drugs. They're so evil for producing diabetes and heart disease medication for lazy, fat poor fucks who have no sense of self control. Oh the inhumanity. I could not care less. The stupidity of leftists like you who think money makers are worst than criminals who murder and steal.

>>19985697
The federal reserve counterfeits money, devaluing the currency the masses own, and through shells it ends up with orgs like BlackRock who buy up real estate. The government and the banks are part of the same criminal conspiracy

>>19985697
>The stupidity of leftists like you who think money makers are worst than criminals who murder and steal.
They literally are. They just killed millions of people the last two years, forcing people to take shit in their veins, that is poison.

>>19985622
>Not real Marxism.
>This article needs additional citations for verification.
See>>19985513
I have your precious santa clauss pretty much admitting what he thought of Christianity in the heat of the moment, and your only response is that he was a young silly billy?

>>19985697
Lol the crisis was caused by the derivatives market, fraud on the part of ratings agencies who rated those shitty loans as AAA, and it ended with the former CEO of Goldman Sachs giving trillions of taxpayer dollars to his old buddies.

Also, people don't voluntarily buy poison. When your mother bought baby powder without knowing that J&J put asbestos in it, is she just one of the "poor, fat fucks"? Also I love how you didn't address that no poor person is ever going to be able to steal a million, let alone $3.5 billion. You're literally licking the boots of people who see you as a roach, but I'm the retard lol

>>19985695
>Huterrites, israeli kibbutzim, Revolutionary Catalonia (1936), primitive tribes.
Catalonia with their anarchist prisons, the same anarchists who capitulate, and joined the popular front government of Spain?
>Huterrites, israeli kibbutzim,
Fringe free riders who have dozens of members who admit they use private property and are dependent on capital goods? Kibbutz have declined, and there is plenty of evidence from members who have left those idiotic arrangements that they rely on complete social, religious indoctrination kinda like the totalitarian systems you openly defend? It doesn't even seem like a successful model. They can't expand or even last very longer. Some "Success" that is.
>primitive tribes
Again, proving my point, socialism would just reduce us to primitive nomads who live mud huts with no running water, no electricity and without modern medicine so that we die before we age of 30. What a fucking ridiculous defense. We have devolve to cavemen for socialism to allegedly to "work" - the fucking delusion of communists.
>Necessary labor would have to be higher in a communist society,
Labor is necessary for society now... communism, in your own statement, is pointless. People would still have to work to survive - so why are you complaining now? You can't be NEET all day - there's no fundamental change for you. You're retarded.

>>19985706
The federal reserve is why we United States has unemployment rate of 3.9%. You're a complete dumbass - they saved jobs and peoples' lives with their monetary stimulus. You're just a dumbness, and a stupid kid, get off the internet and get a job.

>>19985697
What are you, 17? You know the government has not been giving loans for like 40 years right? Freddie Mac got privatized a long time ago

>>19985724
It was caused by the federal government forcing banks to give niggers easier loans for housing. It wasn't the banks - it was the people who the banks trusted with their money - the poor.
>You're literally licking the boots of people
I'm defending the people who pay the most in taxes and create jobs. You're defending the people who create crime and sit on their ass all day and watch Netflix while complaining how "hard" life is while living off generous government benefits.

>>19985739
You're a bootlicker. You may be so brainwashed that the bootlicking is subconscious but a bootlicker you are nonetheless.

Also lmfao at the US unemployment rate which doesnt even measure people who just gave up trying to get a job

>>19985724
Leftists live off checks from the government. You just envy the rich because you want more handouts.
>>19985740
Government gave you a student loan for your worthless humanities degree though

>>19985747
You know you can be against the CRM types and also not suck off criminal financial institutions. It's not mutually exclusive

>>19985747
Lol yes, Jews aren't parasites! They're noble, because they "trusted" people with their money. It's not like they get paid interest to do it lol. 2 shekels have been deposited into your account.

>>19985761
Seriously lel
This guys autistic butthurt and propensity to view people as subhuman make it very likely he is one himself, but he might just be one of their bootlickers

>>19985750
>You're a bootlicker.
I'm the bootlicker because I defend people who do good for the country unlike you. You're just a pest who wants to steal from people because you're jealous of their wealth.
>Also lmfao at the US unemployment rate which doesnt even measure people who just gave up trying to get a job
But it does, retard, it shows more people are asking for jobs, being hired than leaving them.

>>19985685
>That exactly is Capitalism in it's terminal crisis. But since your mind is confused, you have it upside down.
Wrong. There is nothing inherently capitalist about this. Capitalism seeks to genrate profit and is suprisingly nonideological as long as the profit motive remains untouched, whether the economic relations remain in a domestic or a imperalistic context.
Countries like Iran or Indonesia are without a doubt capitalist, (and in case of Iran even the target of imperialist aggression) yet they do not promote antinomian hedonist degeneracy like western countries.
Western degeneracy is a result of marxist/leftists marching through the institutions since the end of WW2 and subverting the previously healthy societies with marxist ideology, this historical process is also often correctly described as cultural marxism.

>>19985757
I'm against bums like you because you contribute nothing to society but your complaining and whiny. I support the police shooting people like you.

>>19985685
You're just butthurt that your fellow gommunist comrades are all degenerate faggots. Too bad for you that capitalist countries have something called freedom of expression that exposes degenerate gommies for who they are.

>>19985776
>dont want central banks counterfeit money
>this means you want to steal other people's money
They are really not sending their best lmao

>>19985572
>Class war means the end of the ruling class, based on exploitation of proletarian work.
Essentially yes, but I would also be wary of using classical Marxist analysis for the present day economy. The lion's share of capital is now financial, not industrial. Today's ruling class don't even directly own the capital they manage, but merely hold it on behalf of their clients. A client can even be something as abstract as a worker's pension fund, so you are quite literally a small owner of the very system that exploits you.
Terms like bourgeoisie and proletariat don't really work as descriptors in this advanced stage of capital accumulation. It makes more sense to think in terms of capital managers vs capital subsidizers. In other words, if you benefited from the latest bailout you belong to the ruling class. If you made a net loss from it you belong to the exploited class.
>>19985574
The graph clearly states wages as a percentage of GDP, not wages and GDP taken separately. In other words, what percentage of the total profit is the worker taking home. This becomes particularly important when you factor in price gouging of labor and rising housing costs.
>Leftists like you have tendency to just mix subvert right-wing movements
I'm not a leftist or right-wing. If anything, I'm a pessimist who thinks the Enlightenment was a mistake and our civilization is now in a death spiral. Maybe it will get a second wind via some kind of Spenglerian Caesar figure, but any such individual would have to first reckon with the power of the central banks. This move would require a very brave and resourceful man, considering what happened to Lincoln and Kennedy.
As far as political alliances go, I'm willing to work with anyone who is against usury and monopoly as a principle. All other politics are non-issues by comparison.
>>19985611
>The CIA didn’t force the occupy wall street hippies’ to accept Blacks and Faggots at gun point
No, the media did that work for them as shown in the word count analysis I already posted. They successfully redirected the anger of minority groups away from the financial system that was foreclosing their homes toward the straight White people who were protesting those very foreclosures. Standard subversion technique.
I suspect future movements of this kind will therefore have to direct their initial critique toward media. The members have to be trained to recognize enemy propaganda before they can be trusted to take part in activism.
>It was always a movement of weed smokers
Some people can handle weed, some can't. If you can smoke it without impairing your ability to spot enemy propaganda, then I don't care. If it impairs your abilities, then it's a problem.

>>19985781
Yes you support the state even though it robs you too because you're a bootlicker.

This can be traced back to the exigencies of the 60s and 70s. At that time, the left found itself between a rock and a hard place: on one side, the vicegrip of western capital seemed to have successfully squeezed the life out of and foreclosed the revolutionary moment (as traditionally conceived); on the other side, the denuding of eastern communism revealed a command economy that used the name of the worker’s movement to justify political repression. The last grand surges of organized labor (May ‘68, the Years of Lead, etc) failed to the spark worker self-determination sought by the traditional marxist left; instead, workers left the organizing to their union delegates, communist parties (namely the PCF) collaborated with the state to end the strikes for milquetoast concessions, and militant sects from all sides of the spectrum exploited the unrest to engage in terrorism. As the years stretched on, not only did the welfare state seem to render organized labor redundant, but the industrial working class itself, long held as the “revolutionary subject,” shrunk with the disappearance of manufacturing jobs and the relative increase in, eg, service work. Concurrently, new social struggles centered on race, sexuality, coloniality, etc erupted and soon eclipsed traditional class conflict. From the standpoint of the intellectual left, then, class was an increasingly inadequate point of departure for a revolutionary movement. They therefore sought a new actor in these emerging struggles, and many eventually abandoned the Marxian framework outright. What remains of Marx in these theories consists (IMO) mostly of lexical holdovers.

Shame I couldn't get here before the mongs did.

all of you think of class in a purely sociological sense and have no capacity to think of Marxism beyond being located in a support for an abstract sociological force of the proletarian rather as a tendency within society that brings the oppressed classes together generally. support for the womens, queer, etc. movement and support for nationalism of the oppressed and workers in the third world who have not been bought off by superprofits is essential to any Marxism today, it's not some sort of alien addition which violates the central pillars of Marxist thought or anything like that, but the logical conclusion of the development of Marxism through the anti-imperialist movements of the third world and associated struggles that came up in the 20th century into the foreground of progressive causes

>why do Marxists happen to be genuinely good people?

>>19985199
Anon, do you know what dialectical/historical materialism is?

>>19985973
>support for nationalism of the oppressed

>>19986000
Ah yes, marxism, that noted ethical stance

Lets be real, the latest fad of crazed psycho left-wing crankiness is simply a result of the multiple financial recessions that have happened in the last 20 years. All the wars after 9/11 in combination with the sub-prime mortgage crisis and now Covid has literally destroyed America economically for foreseeable future, and if you think that this will have any other consequence than people getting fanatically ideological you're a retard. That's literally what happens every single time the economy tanks.

>>19985675
>If you want to take a quick glance at the humanity that communists and all other liberation movements will create (wether they realize it or not) you can look at the utterly shameless, uprooted, atomized, traditionless, porn addicted hedonistic, androgynous anti-nomian western degenerate lgbtqpxyz+++ coomer perverts.
So why is this as a rule only true in capitalist countries but not communist countries past or present?

>>19985475
>There is no such thing as "class consciousness" - workers are not monolithic and do not even primarily focus on their class. Religion, nation, heritage, nationalism, language, passion, and many factors outside of class are more pertinent to them

A person can have more than one role in society, anon. The same person can be a Christian, a man, an American, a father, and so on. This doesn’t mean that he isn’t also part of a given social class. The fact that most people throughout history have never primarily identified themselves with their class doesn’t mean “there’s no such thing as class consciousness”. “Class consciousness” just means that class is brought to the forefront as one of multiple personal identifiers. Doesn’t really make sense to say it isn’t real because it’s definitely something that can happen.

>>19985134
Because both Marx and people of left wing persuasion share Rousseau’s conception of human nature, even if they don’t realise this. Man prior to society and community exist as peaceful and entirely free to pursue their happiness as they had no reason to interact with other men. They had no reason to interact because hierarchy did not exist as of yet to force interaction. Hierarchies once established, are viewed as unnecessary and evil as they both constrain peace and freedom, while not necessarily providing any security. So any criticism of leftism has to attack this very ontology, which views men as being individuals first and secondarily as members of society.

>>19985274
curse be upon him

>>19985778
>capitalism spends 200 years commodifying the entire of human experience, dissolving the bonds between communities and families into impersonal contractual obligations, paving over a rich cultural inheritance to make way for a torrent of lowest common denominator garbage, and waging a war against religion and traditional virtue by engineering nations of mindless consoomers who will buy widgets to prolong the system’s wretched existence
>suddenly the west is filled with coomers
>noooooo why did heckin cultural marxismerino do this!!!!

Project harder. You obviously don’t know anything about Iran or Indonesia if you can’t comprehend that global capitalism is in conflict with their national traditions.

>Since they attack the material basis on which the hitherto inevitable fixedness of desires and ideas
depended, the Communists are the only people through whose historical activity the liquefaction of the
fixed desires and ideas is in fact brought about and ceases to be an impotent moral injunction, as it was
up to now with all moralists "down to" Stirner. Communist organization has a twofold effect on the
desires produced in the individual by present-day relations; some of these desires — namely desires
which exist under all relations, and only change their form and direction under different social relations
— are merely altered by the Communist social system, for they are given the opportunity to develop
normally; but others — namely those originating solely in a particular society, under particular
conditions of [production] and intercourse — are totally deprived of their conditions of existence. Which
[of the desires] will be merely changed and [which eliminated] in a Communist [society] can [only occur
in a practical] way, by [changing the real], actual [conditions of production and intercourse.]

>A desire is already by its mere existence something "fixed", and it can occur only to St. Max and his like
not to allow his sex instinct, for instance, to become "fixed"; it is that already and will cease to be fixed
only as a result of castration or impotence. Each need, which forms the basis of a "desire", is likewise
something "fixed", and try as he may St. Max cannot abolish this "fixedness" and for example contrive to
free himself from the necessity of eating within "fixed" periods of time. The Communists have no
intention of abolishing the fixedness of their desires and needs, an intention which Stirner, immersed in
his world of fancy, ascribes to them and all other men; they only strive to achieve an organization of
production and intercourse which will make possible the normal satisfaction of all needs, i.e., a
satisfaction which is limited only by the needs themselves.

>>19986126
>dude communists think human nature is inherently good just like Rousseau did

Pretty entry-level understanding. Rousseau’s vision of man in his natural state was of solitary man deceived into joining degenerate society. Marx never bothered with the state if nature thought experiment to my knowledge, he just observed the development of human civilization throughout history. Both looked around and saw people in chains, but they had wildly different reasons for believing this and drew different conclusions. There’s not really much of a connection between them.

Has nothing to do with Marx's theory itself really. It's just a mixture of zoomers being born into peak individualist norms fostered by neoliberalism and some postmodern leftist thinkers (though not Marxists) influencing academic thought. Both things can be read up on individually. I suggest digging into the source material of these two things instead of relying on secondary literature because both neoliberalism as well as postmodernism are used in a very inflationary manner and to support arguments in bad faith. The type of people you mentioned usually only use Marxism/communism (if at all) as a superficial symbol of revolt or whatever. I've found that the more someone has read Marxist theory the less they care about idpol ideology.

Ironically, being a Marxist has been commodified. Them being trans, queer, et al. is the same thing as being a Marxist for them: aesthetic.

>>19985134
Because of stupid people. Given that Marx is about material reality, you'd think that people would be less inclined to associate him with people who think they've become a different gender simply because they say so.

>>19985134
People are attracted to Marxism because it offers a cohesive critique of our modern political economy and outlines an alternative. The feelings that underpin this project are those of envy, resentment, social justice, rebellion, etc. Gradually over the years people lost interest in Marx's original political program since much of it was blatantly wrong or impossible to implement in reality, so now Marxism is just an empty shell of whatever people can ostensibly analyze through a framework of oppression, revolution, class, and so on. That's how transgenders and black people become more prominent in the leftist consciousness than the proletariat, that's how leftists end up endorsing prostitutions when Marx always condemned it. It's literally just ressentiment. Marxism is whatever people claim it is.

>>19986828
>Gradually over the years people lost interest in Marx's original political program since much of it was blatantly wrong or impossible to implement in reality
>Blocks your path

>>19986868
when exactly will China become a stateless, moneyless, classless society?

>>19986868
And how many concessions has China had to make in order to properly reform? They literally had to construct an entirely new interpretation of Marxism to survive. China is Socialism with Chinese characteristics, it betrays most of Marx's screeds against nationalism and tradition.

>>19986249
Would you agree that early socialists were influenced by Rousseau? If so, then would you say that Marx’s moralisation about people in chains was at least indirectly influenced, putting aside his historical reasons for reaching this. Since, Marx was influenced by Hegel, would you be able to tell me if his politics was almost entirely based on Hegel’s philosophy of Right. I haven’t yet read Marx’s criticism of it, so if this is the case, than Marx is technically not a liberal. This is since his politics is not based on the state of nature, which is the grounding for liberalism.

>>19985346
I got a stroke reading that, rope yourself

>>19986882
>>19986883
Further proof that China is the ultimate midwit filter. A litmus test for who actually understands marxism and for who is actually just a midwit that has a twitter conception of marxism.
>Marx's view of the whole world is not a doctrine but a method" - Engels
But keep coping and enjoy your decline. The winners of history already know that it's merely the starting point for further research and methods for such research.

>>19986926
The "science" of marxism has never made an accurate prediction. Keep coping, Chang.

>>19986926
>Marxism is whatever the chairman does
Ok buddy, haha.

>>19986926
>The winners of history already know that it's merely the starting point for further research and methods for such research.
Sounds suspiciously like a certain self-moving substance that both has itself for its purpose and its end for its beginning.

>>19986934
>>19986938
>>19986970
See you on the other side, or not

>>19985589
Aristotle was right all along. Middle class is the perfect mean.

>>19985513
>literally criticizing christianity for being a slave morality
Marx is right here, though

>>19985542
>us the rabble drunkards that beat their wives after a long day of work have the moral aptitude to dictate the lives of others? What a joke.
Is this projection?

>>19985656

>tfw i'm both a fashoid AND a marxoid
How do i cope lads
Gonna start reading some Gramsci

>>19987035
>farmers
This isn't 1862. Farming is skilled labor. You need agricultural school. Farms are ridiculously efficient today.

>>19985403
Ah. Indeed.

>>19985134
Communism is wrong but it appeals to the retard that never matured from his teen years
So robber barons became meta-capitalists and sell Communism™ to these retards

>Oh, we are so oppressed, the world is so unjust! Let us give all the power to these people that say nice things to make things right!

The Real Communists learned from fascists that there's no international proletariat, only in their own countries. If they leave, they become lumpen-proles. So now they appeal to these lowest common denominators and the sons and daughter of the ultra-rich with a quasi-cult of Hedonism.
All it cost is the support and vote for the
>nice people
to have all the power that exists, so they can fix things
I mean, are you against Love and for Hate? Love is Love, maaaaan!

It's a never ending cycle of more power and control trough any means necessary because it will be all excused for the perfect utopia that some day will definitely come

>>19987047
And?

>>19985327
>Post-Marxist theory has also been influenced by the Gramscian concept of hegemony.

pic related explains a lot about it

>>19985134

>>19985134

The modern obsession with race-mixing, veneration of backward peoples and anti-masculinity has its origins in the utopian socialists of the early 19th century, especially the Saint Simonians.

I can't recommend Billington's Fire in the Minds of Men enough on topics like this (though it is perhaps overly exhaustive).

>>19985513
This is such a fascinating article because Marx is just describing how all modern leftists act, most of whom embrace "cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, submissiveness" in his name.

>>19985796
>The graph clearly states wages as a percentage of GDP, not wages and GDP taken separately. In other words, what percentage of the total profit is the worker taking home.
Why would workers take total profits home, retard? They're only entitle a portion of as per their labor. Are you retarded?
>I'm a pessimist
You're just gay athesit NEET larper who spends too much time on reddit

>>19985513
>The social principles of Christianity preach the values of the proletariat, the proletariat must defeat its own values!
Did he even realize what he was writing? It's like he had no self-awareness.

>>19985134
Class relationship got reduced to in-group/out-group dynamics since "class" was a nominalistic ethic.
Ironically, social capital became regarded as valuable as material capital thus rejecting the premise of the Material Dialectic.

>>19986000
Promoting fat acceptance is genuinely evil

>>19986094
>So why is this as a rule only true in capitalist countries but not communist countries past or present?
As already said in >>19985778 throughout the 20th century leftists in the west marched through the institutions (academia, education, media, etc.) and promoted leftist ideologies such as feminism, equal rights for lgbt and so on, while leaving the economic base (captalism) untouched.
The result is todays western society that is far left in every aspect except for economics.
In regards to communist countries, the early soviet union was full of these liberation movements such as free love, unlimited abortion, anti-marriage, etc.
It wasn't until Stalin realized what kind of damage and instability these ideologies it would bring to soviet society (especially considering the imperialist encirclement the Soviet Union found itself in at that time) that these ideologies were suppressed and forcibly replaced with healthy cutural norms such as pro-natalism, pro-family, discipline, anti-drug initiatives, etc.
Pragmatism and harsh material conditions (and thus a more tradional rural society) combined with a authoritarian single party government are the reason why communist countries like the Soviet Union, China and Cuba were not so "degenerate" in the past.
However when you look at current Cuba and China you can see all these social liberation movements (which are all undoubtly leftist in nature) re-emerging as the material wealth of those countries increases.
>>19986195
>capitalism spends 200 years commodifying the entire of human experience
Yes capitalism commodifies humanity, I agree.
But this commodification does not necessarily lead to a leftist emancipated society.
>dissolving the bonds between communities and families into impersonal contractual obligations, ... and waging a war against religion and traditional virtue by engineering nations of mindless consoomers
Capitalism dissolves old tradtions and norms only insofar as they stand in the way of the profit motive. Religion and certain other traditional norms however are perfectly compatible with capitalism.
The war against religion and the family has been waged by leftist emancipation movements within capitalist countries, not by the capitalist mode of production itself.
As history has shown us by comparing fascist movements such as Nazi Germany with liberal progressivism, capitalism is very flexible when it comes to cultural and social norms.
You can make profits by encouraging people to be childless cosmopolitan hedonists, but you can also make profits by encouraging people to have large families and adopt a nationalist blood and soil mentality.
Multinational corporations did not one day decide to promote sex reassignment surgery for 8 year old children or lgbtq+ lifestyles because they are capitalist.
They did so only after leftists who marched through the institutions promoted and normalized these things (from Magnus Hirschfeld to John Money to Judith Butler).

>>19985256
This, but you can go deeper than this. The reason this happens is because all leftists are now bourgeois. The only time the left was a real working class movement, between the 1870s and 1920s, it had a serious problem when vulgar economistic reductivism because workers were spontaneously organising AS workers, and 1) weren't super interested in theory except as window dressing for their presupposition that they are right (without any need of "theory" to tell them why), and 2) weren't super talented at theory, because they were workers, not bourgeois academics.

This actually plays right into Marx's theory that the working class movement was the spontaneously self-asserting subject of history, NOT an "ideologically correct" movement whose effectiveness is a function of its ideological correctness. The proletariat is going to do its thing regardless. What bourgeois thinkers like Marx and Engels can do is provide it with better weapons more quickly than it would otherwise have been able to achieve on its own, essentially throwing fuel on a fire that is going to blaze regardless.

The problem is, these notions were inextricably interwoven with other notions: that the proletariat's self-assertion would also take the form of an internationalist, post-nationalist movement that naturally sloughs off bourgeois forms like the nation-state, the ethno-state (France for the French, Germany for the Germans, with the assumption that "being French/German" is something more than an accident of birth), the supposedly exploitative nuclear family, etc. Instead though, all those rough and tumble 1870s-1920s workers with their crass, vulgarised Marxist theory unanimously chose their nation-state, the ethno-state, and their families. They sided with the bourgeois state apparatus against crises and wars rather than seeing, as Marxism predicted they would, these crises and wars as opportunities for their self-assertion - like a meaningless "feudal" war or crisis of feudal ideology in 1788 would have seemed repugnant to the then-rising bourgeois class, who rejected the presuppositions of "feudal" ideology at such a deep level that they just couldn't take it seriously, and HAD to see any such crisis as simply as a useful distraction in the camp of the enemy (the "feudal state").

The equivalent movement (and this fetish for "equivalents" and parallels and structural-dialectical developments reveals some of the monomania in Marx's thinking) didn't happen with the proletariat. Instead what happened is the proletariat unanimously chose to identify, even more strongly, as French defenders of the French national interest, as middle class family men, etc., in ways not subordinate or incidental to their working class identity.

>>19987528
(continued, 2)
So the left had two options:
>1) This happened because the bourgeoisie was so successful at ideologically controlling the workers! Only a total bourgeois retard would ever believe in something like the nation-state or his national culture, over a vague international working-class super-identity which is currently headed by Russians who are (as Russians often are) trampling all over smaller nationalities, ethnicities, languages, and religions in what looks like an excuse to build a Russia-headed empire (as Russians often do)! How can we get people to see that the REAL workers were the Western bourgeois socialist intellectuals, mostly Jewish radicals, and non-proletariat peasants of the former Romanov empire, who were drafted en masse and mosty against their will into a post-national crusader army led by mostly bourgeois intellectuals and foreigners, who had just staged an illegal coup to crush the actual democratically elected post-revolutionary government that more closely represented what anyone wanted in the first place! Except the Soviet Union is also pretty bad so how can we get people to see that it's mostly the Western bourgeois socialist intellectuals, mostly Jewish radicals, who are right, and we should try for another Thirty Years' War in Europe led by spontaneously organising workers in rolling revolutions that collapse all nation states, but do it right this time, without so much brutality!
or
>2) Perhaps we were wrong about this internationalist mythology of a rolling revolution that also somehow isn't hideous and doesn't alienate all actual workers.

The trick is, by "the left" at this point in the story, we mean those Western bourgeois socialist intellectuals, mostly Jewish radicals. There are very real demographic trends in the history of the post-Soviet left. A lot of Jewish Trotskyists fled Russia and Europe and settled in America, where, being true socialist workers, about half of them became influential bourgeois ivory tower intellectuals, and the other half became the seeds of the neo-conservative movement (yes, really): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Intellectuals

These intellectuals integrated with the existing, culturally prolific, left-sympathetic liberal bourgeois currents in American Jewry, as well as importing Zionism, which stands to benefit a LOT from an internationalist ideology (since Zionists are the only group de facto with a movement strong enough to survive an "international order" while remaining a nation - now you see the resonance between leftist internationalist intellectuals and neoconservative Zionist-internationalists, the founding ideology of the neoconservative movement).

>>19987529
(continued, 3)
These tendencies were then grafted onto post-WW2 American culture, which, because of Fordist reconstruction prosperity, had no chance in hell of an authentic workers' movement, the last tatters of which were crushed and ideologically isolated in the 1930s. Heading off the possibility of an autonomous, self-consciously post-bourgeois workers' movement was the main reason for the New Deal, which was actually a ripoff of the popularity of Huey Long with all the radical bits removed.

So you have a very low ebb of actual workers' organising activity, combined with the availability of highly bourgeois, highly intellectualising, highly Jewish, highly "internationalist" leftists. Scare quotes because no longer internationalist in the spontaneous way Marx and Marxism intended, which obviously failed to materialise, but in a NEW sense, which makes "is it internationalist?" into an ideological criterion of "is it true blue 'leftist', acceptable to us bourgeois academics identifying as leftists?" Marxism had empirically failed to generate a workers' revolution as predicted; its only visible fruits were the totalitarian, hardly Marxist (just authoritarian state socialist) countries like the USSR. The left either had to perform surgery on its own heart, revise and update Marx's actual ideas, or relegate Marx to "one theorist among many," with no special authority within leftism.

Instead the aforementioned bourgeois intellectuals chose a third option: mummify Marxism as an ideological mythology. Remember, ideology, mythology, all these things were initially secondary to Marxism, they were at best tools in the hands of the proletariat, which would spontaneously do all this revolution business of creating a new internationalist order. Ideological correctness for Marx meant, if it meant anything, "does it help the proletariat recognise itself as what it already really is?" But now there is no proletariat, or if there is, it's certainly not spontaneously self-asserting a new international order. So if you want to preserve, not Marx's intent or underlying hopes, but "Marxism" as a kind of Old Testament of The Left, you need to preserve it in such a way that it can't be tampered with or improved.

>>19987532
(continued, 4)
You would only do this, of course, if you had no faith whatsoever in Marx's intentions or hopes - if you assumed he was wrong. The worst thing one could do to the proletariat, for Marx, would be to ossify and crystallise a mythology around it, within which its own consciousness had to first "find a place" (interpellate) before it could assert itself. Marx's presupposition is that proletariat self-assertion comes FIRST, and THEN any common culture or myths or ideological formulations may be tested against this, insofar as they serve it. Constant criticism and re-evaluation is the natural function of Marx's proletariat, since all it is doing is rationally asserting itself - imagine going back to the years before the French Revolution and demanding that the proto-revolutionary bourgeoisie all agree on a complex creed drawn up at some "Council of Bourgeois Elders."

But we're talking about bourgeois academics (with varying motives and varying levels of self-deception), and we're talking about workers who no longer saw themselves as solely or primarily "workers," with too much prosperity (for a few decades anyway) to feel the squeeze and perceive that the post-WW2 consensus had just put a bandaids on the failures of bourgeois-capitalist governance. So Marx became a museum piece with bourgeois curators, all vetted by bourgeois institutions (degrees, publications in prestigious bourgeois publishers and CIA-backed magazines like Encounter).

Over the '50s and '60s, the "New Left" emerged from this lack of a coherent milieu. The bourgeois curators played around with mummifying parts of actual leftism in their ivory tower laboratories. Workers didn't give a shit, since they thought reconstruction-era prosperity would last forever instead of imploding in the '70s. But a new constituent for "leftism" arose: college students. You may think that college radicalism is a product of the beats or hippies, but universities were already known for the same kind of self-important "I'm an activist, dad!" culture they are today in '30s and probably even earlier. But before the war, this kind of youthful activism just melted away into adult concerns after finishing university, and there were cross-currents and counter-currents to balance it. You might become "socially conscious" at university as a result of mingling with that group of socialist radicals who notably sent a few kids off to fight in Spain, but you still ultimately went back to your hometown and re-integrated with the country club set who can afford university and you probably become a typical semi-philanthropic semi-corrupt 1835-1970 American "elite".

>>19987534
(continued, 5)
In the '50s and '60s, because of changing economic conditions and the natural decay of elite cultures - in this case the American bourgeois, industrial-capitalist WASP establishment giving way to an urban-academic, financial-capitalist, managerial, and increasingly Jewish elite - these children of old bourgeois elites had more disposable income and leisure time, were more dislocated from traditional religion and culture, and were thus more than typically rambunctious, combined with more than typical adolescent self-importance. They were extremely amenable to a new "activist culture" to replace their waning religious faith, and their waning patriotic faith in America's "civic religion" and manifest destiny, now that America had basically entered its static, imperial phase.

The result was a bourgeois-Jewish-urban-managerial, only mythologically and atavistically "internationalist," activist youth who would go on to great accomplishments in May 1968. By which I mean occupying a few buildings within their designated playpens and speaking through loudspeakers about how we need more togetherness as a society, and the old fuddy-duddies (the WASP-industrialist class still dimly visible at the reins of power) needs to step aside. The thing is, it was already eagerly stepping aside for that urban-managerial-etc. class I just mentioned, so the "New Left" was always doomed to be political theatre - the more it flailed and did stupid shit like the SDS and Weathermen, the more it became a trope. Just as it had a mythologised bourgeois version of leftism, it too became mythical: everyone knows unconsciously nowadays that to "go to college" is to become a hippie wiener and smoke pot.

To go back to Marx again, reified mythology of ANY kind is reactionary and anti-worker because it is simply reified forms of culture that have become "inertial" in their givenness and objectivity. When something becomes that, it not only contributes to the inertia of the present status quo (if only by becoming more distractions and junk data to sort through before reaching any truth), even worse: it can be sold as a commodity. This is why Adorno hated the "counterculture," and said "precisely what is bad about protest music is that it makes horrors bearable"; "wrong life cannot be lived rightly," but the New Left's entire raison d'etre (in the absence of anything real) was to make mummified leftism "liveable" and rather enjoyable - for a small set of rich people who can afford to "go to college" and to be a hippie.

>>19987539
(continued, 6)
Paglia says somewhere that the best people of the era, and there were still some, were the exact sorts who hated the inauthenticity so much that they would whip themselves into radical frenzies and get themselves killed or jailed, or more often, burn themselves out with depression and drugs. The New Left thus self-selected for complacent morons who can "live wrong life rightly," because their fundamental centre of gravity is in being a rich little pussy who doesn't even know what taking something seriously enough to sacrifice and suffer would mean or look like.

If you are making a connection between this and today's podcast consuming university class that preaches """"leftism"""" while making it yearly less feasible for ordinary people to go to university and learn to become good leftists, you've seen the point.

The question is then: Why specifically "intersectionality?" Why specifically the feckless blend of puritan-progressive feelgood shit that is contemporary "leftism?" How is "The Left" so effective at neutering itself? Why does it only attract neutered (and increasingly, literally gelded) people, neurotics, and narcissists? Is this by design or is it a function of the New Left worldview?

The answer is that it's both. The New Left was a fortuitous constellation of feckless, rich, entitled people, further sullying terms like socialism, communism, and leftism at a time when the old WASP bourgeois elite was very happy to see them quarantined. In the '50s and '60s, this elite was still residually in control of organs like the CIA, and its biggest fear was subversion by the USSR. It really did see communist agents everywhere (and it wasn't wrong, it's just that they were ineffectual), in large part because of the aforementioned Jewish and East European diaspora bringing their baggage and connections to the old country with them. So this fading WASP elite did anything it could to promote fecklessness and self-sabotage by "leftist subverters," who they saw as useful idiots for eventual pro-USSR propaganda.

The apparatus created by these WASPs was then inherited by the very urban-managerial class then being trained at the universities to be "socially conscious." This was the real "long march through the institutions" spoken of by Marcuse, but it was not a march by dedicated subversion artists. It didn't result in the strategic dismantling of the bourgeois state by Marxist sleeper agents. It simply saturated the entire state and gunked up its every level of administration with rich college kids, "academics," neurotics, and narcissists, the kinds of people too stupid or too dishonest to burn themselves out in the '60s - the classic "yuppies" left behind by the hippies.

>>19987540
(continued, 7)
These people aren't useful idiots for the USSR. They are useful idiots for their own useful idiocy. Look at the Cloward-Piven strategy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
Instead of WASP tyranny, and instead of USSR subversion, congratulations, you have a dysfunctional, designed-to-fail welfare state that runs on platitudes and is supported by both neoliberals (Democrats) and neoconservatives (Republican neoliberals; there is no conservative party in the United States). What combination of ex-Trotskyist Zionist chauvinism was responsible for the 1965 Immigration Act? Margaret Orchowski:
>You can see why [in the 1920s] American felt our borders were out of control. [The immigration law passed at the time] stated a preference for Northern Europeans] ... [Restrictions on] Southern Catholics and Jews—this went on to 1964, so all through [World War II] there were incredible restrictions. 1965 comes, we’re reluctant leaders of the world, we have an economic boom, we didn’t have much immigration, and we have a ton of guilt. First, about the Holocaust. [Rep.] Manny Celler was voted in in 1923…he was Jewish, from Manhattan. He was warning about the Holocaust, and everybody was ignoring him. In 1947, he was head of the Judiciary Committee, and he was able to get jurisdiction [over immigration] changed from the Labor Committee. He had control over immigration reform. There was a huge attitude change. Exodus had been published. Israel was popular. The other thing was the civil rights movement. Black soldiers were coming back, and there were Jim Crow laws. Those movements drove the 1965 law. Philip Hart, called the conscience of the Senate, was passionate about civil rights. ... They decided to do away with preferences for work skills, and have preferences for family reunification. That’s pretty unique to immigration law—they gave green cards to extended family members.
>“They mainly thought it would be Europeans and Jewish families [who would benefit],” Orchowski told TAC.

What exact combination of good intentions, actual communist subversions, CIA psychological warfare, and neoliberal/neocon "gee thanks for creating the ideal anarcho-tyranny state for me to rule over and destroying the middle class!" produced this "New Left" consensus on ruining everything while getting three master's degrees in Comparative Literature? Does it even matter? We know all those ingredients are present, to somewhat comparable degrees. Perhaps the fecklessness of the New Left and its heirs is simply so powerful and so self-sustaining that the power brokers only have to put their finger on the scale occasionally, to whip it up or steer it when needed - like crushing Occupy, or the trucker convoy protests, but promoting and running apologetics for directionless BLM arson that benefits America's failed businesses on intergenerational corporate welfare and their symbionts, the established political party-machines.

>>19987541
(continued, 8)
What exact combination of good intentions, actual communist subversions, CIA psychological warfare, and neoliberal/neocon "gee, thanks for creating this ideal anarcho-tyranny state for me to rule over and destroying the middle class!" produced this "New Left" consensus on ruining everything while getting three master's degrees in Comparative Literature? Does it even matter? We know all those ingredients are present, to somewhat comparable degrees. Perhaps the fecklessness of the New Left and its heirs is simply so powerful and so self-sustaining that the power brokers only have to put their finger on the scale occasionally, to whip it up or steer it when needed - like crushing Occupy, or the trucker convoy protests, but promoting and running apologetics for directionless BLM arson that benefits America's failed businesses on intergenerational corporate welfare and their symbionts, the established political party-machines.

The net effect regardless of an exact genealogical breakdown of intentions and functional-structural factors is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X55JPbAMc9g
Is this real? Is this just to fuck with you? Do they even know anymore? Were the people who decided to say "CIA is based crossdressers now!" also crossdressers or were they a small minority of remaining WASP elites smoking cigars and laughing about it? I don't know. Who cares? What matters is that the upper middle class, the parvenu urban-managerial "new elite" (Lebedoff, Lasch), the "Davocracy" (Huntington), etc., is the dominant fact of modern life, and even if it is stirred or steered by worse actors, this is a dangerous fact in itself, because this "socially conscious" post-New Left class is essentially one giant flailing mental defective. What's even worse is that its rule over ordinary people (including those all-important workers) have been reduced to serfs who accept the rule of their betters reflexively - CNN said crossdressing good. The bourgeoisie may not have accepted some feudal bullshit in 1788, but the peasantry did, and would all the more if the bourgeoisie (then controlling the press and culture) told it to.

>>19987543
(continued, final)
Everything post-left, New Left, whatever, has to be broken down in this way. Was Marcuse really CIA? Or was he a useful idiot? Who cares? What was his net effect? Is Habermas "neoliberal?" Who cares? What is the actual effect of his shilling for the legitimacy of the neoliberal consensus? Is your local crossdressing communist "serious" about his Marxism? Probably, but he is doing more damage to it with his naive, deracinated sincerity than Habermas ever has. Is his pothead, fifth generation Harvard attending, 115 IQ sister who claims to read Fritz Fanon and CLR James "serious?" Probably less serious than the crossdresser, but doing comparable damage nevertheless by further muddling "leftist culture" and turning it into a vague constellation of things for airhead elite party-goers to talk about and listen to podcasts about.

Were Fanon and James themselves serious? Yes, almost certainly. Does the prestige they lend to "post-economist" bourgeois pseudo-leftists seeking to make everything about race damage leftism? Yes. Were 50% of "Western Marxists" on the neoliberal payroll when they helped turn Marx into a bourgeois academic affair? Probably. Did they intend this? Some probably, maybe not most, if the latter were sincerely bourgeois and post-left. Again, what is the net effect of the structures? What can you do to reverse, disrupt, and replace them? What can we do to prevent this shit from ever happening again?

>>19985199
Powerfully Orthodox. Doubtless there's a synergy between poverty as a rule rather than the exception, and the kind of moral virtue you have in mind, but on the whole it's a lot sicker than the vices that come with the affluent societies Galbraith described. This is not to say that Marx wasn't a windbag theoretician useful to equivocating demagogues, especially in the East, where the love of despotism is a feature permanently built-in to languages there, since history demonstrates that to be the case.

>>19985134
marxism comes from satanism thus must end in the denial of the most obvious and intimate realities.

>>19987520
>The war against religion and the family has been waged by leftist emancipation movements within capitalist countries, not by the capitalist mode of production itself.
Financed and promoted by the CIA, by billionaires think tank (Kinsey institute, funded by the Rockefeller fondation).

>>19987520
>You can make profits by encouraging people to be childless cosmopolitan hedonists, but you can also make profits by encouraging people to have large families and adopt a nationalist blood and soil mentality.
You make more profit, if the women are wage labor slaves, who never bear children, so they can keep working without interruption.
White born cost a lot from birth to adulthood. So it's better, in a purely profit oriented society, to limit the birth of whites, and import cheap third world worker from latin america (north america), or africa (for europe).
>nationalist blood and soil mentality.
Foreign workers are cheaper. Lower wages, equal more profit. What's more, foreign cheap workers don't have class consciousness, at all. If white western have low class consciousness, third world workers class consciousness is even weaker. That's a benefit for the Capitalist, who doesn't want strikes.

>>19987236
>Why would workers take total profits home, retard?
I didn't say they should. I said that the percentage they take home is declining, while cost of living rises due to the cost of housing. You might get less angry if you take the time to read before you comment.
>You're just gay athesit NEET larper
Whatever. Optimism is cowardice.

>>19987520
>Multinational corporations did not one day decide to promote sex reassignment surgery for 8 year old children or lgbtq+ lifestyles because they are capitalist.
Commodification of the body, is typically a Capitalistic concept. Those surgeries, and lifelong hormones therapy, for transgender people, cost a lot, thus make a lot of benefit, for private campanies, big pharma, producing those hormones. It's making someone totally dependent on big pharma, without even being ill. Dependent on consuming something: hormones.
Seriously, you really should read Marx. As it is obvious that you didn't. Marx and Engels would never have promoted transgenderism, especially if this transgenderism meant more profit for the Capitalists, in the form of hormone therapy.

>>19987843
>Marx and Engels would never have promoted transgenderism, especially if this transgenderism meant more profit for the Capitalists, in the form of hormone therapy.
Current socialist Cuba allows transgender surgeries and self identification (approved by Fidel Castro who in 2010 officially apologized for mistreating lgbt people in the past), not for profits but for the sake of self-determination of a free emancipated human being, which is undoubtedly a leftist motivation. Same thing is slowly happening in current day China, pic related.
Also what Marx and Engels may or may not have thought about transgenderism is irrelevant. Trans liberation follows clearly in the footsteps of prole liberation, and female liberation and black liberation and so on.
Yes Transgenderism is profitable for capitalists but the foundation of the ideology itself is clearly leftist and antinomian. Just as the liberated female fights against traditional patriarchy, the liberated transperson fight against traditional cisnormativity.
If you are suggesting that transgenderism and the breakdown of traditional notions of sex and gender is reactionary and not leftist please provide more arguments than simply "capitalists are profiting from it". Are all those transgender marxists with they/them pronouns in secret all reactionaries? Don't make me laugh. Capitalists profit from all kinds of things but that doesn't make these things automatically anti-left or reactionary.
>>19987832
>You make more profit, if the women are wage labor slaves, who never bear children, so they can keep working without interruption.
Yes and you can make even more profit by legalizing all drugs and pedophilia, yet these things remain mostly illegal in the current capitalist west. If capitalism on its own (without the help of leftist subversion) is so keen to legalizing and normalizing everything that is profitable why hasn't it already normalized and legalized these two things despite all opposition?
And why are clearly capitalist countries like Indonesia or Pakistan still so traditional even though many of these traditions hurt profits? Why are almost all of things that are being normalized and glorified right now things that progressives/leftists want?
The answer is that the capitalist mode of production isn't that all powerful force subverting social and cultural norms. Without the eager help of leftists who constantly attacked all norms and traditions throughout the 20th century things like gay marriage would still be illegal and frowned upon in western societies as they are in Pakistan.

>>19987984
>Are all those transgender marxists with they/them pronouns in secret all reactionaries?
yes, everyone except stalinists are reactionaries and revisionists

>>19988002
>yes, everyone except stalinists are reactionaries and revisionists
there is no contradiction between stalinism (also known as marxism-leninism) and transgenderism.

>thread about marxism
>devolves into trannies talking about themselves

Almost as if.... there's a pattern here....

the question is ill-posed from the start since none of the people who push idpol are marxists. at best they are democratic socialists (capitalists)

>>19987984
>legalizing all drugs and pedophilia
the war on drugs is itself a capitalist scam. the age of consent being abolished was something that was pushed by some "leftist" intellectuals but nothing cam out of it which goes against your explanation

>>19985180
adorno would have scoffed at the decadence of the so-called left today. another thinker abused by history

>>19985134
It's a distraction from the real issue, class struggle. This shit was literally made to divide and conquer.
Which sector of society is more traditional, homophobic and religious worldwide? They hate the proletariat.

>>19987984
>Current socialist Cuba allows transgender surgeries and self identification
Before reading further, Cuba is not Communism, as envisionned by Marx. It's not inferior communism, but State Capitalism, as envionned by Marx and Engels, as something negative that could happen, and LARP as being communist, and that's what happened.
>Same thing is slowly happening in current day China, pic related.
China is not communist, never was. What is your problem, seriously? I mean, at least, if you do not read Marx, read the wikipedia page about State Capitalism.
>Yes Transgenderism is profitable for capitalists but the foundation of the ideology itself is clearly leftist and antinomian.
I'm classical marxist, and i do not give a shit about transgender. For me, it's unatural, it's people maiming themselves, pushed by the Capital, and Capitalists, who put crippling ideas in some mentally fragile people's heads.
>If you are suggesting that transgenderism and the breakdown of traditional notions of sex and gender is reactionary and not leftist
Transgenderism is neither reactionary, nor does it comes from class struggle movement. Transgenderism is a bizarre cancerous metastasis of Capitalism.
>Yes and you can make even more profit by legalizing all drugs and pedophilia, yet these things remain mostly illegal in the current capitalist west.
As much a some of the "elite" would like to legalize pedophilia (see sartres, Cohn bendit, Clinton, Jimmy Saville, etc...), the proletarian would never agree to this. Pedophilia is mostly something that is practized in the "elite".
As for drugs, they are legal. It's called big pharma, and it's best seller, antidepressant.
>And why are clearly capitalist countries like Indonesia or Pakistan
Indonesia is not traditional. As for Pakistan, have you seen Astana?
>Why are almost all of things that are being normalized and glorified right now things that progressives/leftists want?
But it's not what classical marxist want. Let me say it, once and for all. It's what the CIA, the MI6, did. They put on a pedestal identity politics, feminism, LGBT, financed these people, and on the other hand, they outmoded real class struggle. When was the last time TV talked about transgenderism? When was the last time TV talked about wage labor abolition? Wage labor abolition hasn't been talked about on TV for decades.
>Without the eager help of leftists
It never was class abolitionist leftists who promoted gay marriage. It was always perverted market socialists. Market socialism is Capitalism laboratory. It's vanguard.
We, classical marxist, want wage labor abolition. We do not care about id politics garbage, as it is a diversion from true class struggle: abolition of wage labor. Put that in your head, once and for all.

(edit)
Inferior communism: lower stage of communism
class abolitionist leftists: class abolitionists. As we are not even leftists. Leftists are commodity reformist people. They want emancipation, feminism, LGBT, but INSIDE a wage labor society. As i said before, they do not give a shit about abolishing wage labor, as long as they have their trans rights. Their lesbian or gay rights. Their women right. But INSIDE a wage labor mode of production. They do not give a shit about wage labor abolition. They are obsessed with their identity neurosis.

>>19988023
>the war on drugs is itself a capitalist scam.
Cuba and China are also heavily involved in the war on drugs, because hard drugs such as heroin are objectivly bad.
The "Legalize all drugs!" stance simpy has not a majority among leftists.
The fact that the west takes a profit-oriented and cynical approach to it doesn't make an anti-drug stance capitalist scam.
>the age of consent being abolished was something that was pushed by some "leftist" intellectuals but nothing cam out of it which goes against your explanation
Here again, pedophilia was only pushed by some leftists while the majority of leftists despised and to this day still despise it.

>>19988040
>Cuba is not Communism, as envisionned by Marx.
Cuba is a real and honest socialist project which tries to build communism.
>I'm classical marxist, and i do not give a shit about transgender. For me, it's unatural,
Thus you are reactionary in the eyes of most of your comrades and they are right. A proper marxist will care about liberation for all oppressed people and minorities no matter whether he/she peronally dislikes what they are doing.
Dismissing things because they are "unnatural" and icky is how right-wingers argue. Just like TERFs you refuse to confront your own cultural bias and update your theory in accordance with the newest dialectical developments.
>it's people maiming themselves, pushed by the Capital, and Capitalists, who put crippling ideas in some mentally fragile people's heads.
>Transgenderism is neither reactionary, nor does it comes from class struggle movement. Transgenderism is a bizarre cancerous metastasis of Capitalism.
As I already said, capitalists profit from it but the ideology itself is leftist and antinomian. Transgender ideology stems from transpeople themselves who wish to break down the oppressive cisnormative society so that they can live emancipated and free the way they like it. This is completely in accordance with marxism which fundamentally fights for liberation from all oppression. Thus the transgender liberation movement is a direct consequence of marxist/leftist thought becoming popular.
>But it's not what classical marxist want. Let me say it, once and for all. It's what the CIA, the MI6, did. They put on a pedestal identity politics, feminism, LGBT, financed these people, and on the other hand, they outmoded real class struggle.
There is no contradiction between classical marxism and idpol and all these idpol subjects are clearly leftist in nature. Idpol grievances extend marxism in regards to oppressive aspects of society that are not directly linked to economics. Just because Marx as a white cishet european man did not write and care much about these things does not make these things unmarxist.
>It never was class abolitionist leftists who promoted gay marriage. It was always perverted market socialists.
Are you calling people who promote gay marriage perverts? This makes you without a doubt reactionary.

>>19988092
you certainly seem to be working on a different definition of Marxism than anyone else

>>19985223
A misrepresentation of Marxist philosophy. Ironically this misrepresentation is pervasive in the 'right wing' and 'left wing' political sphere. They both see it as a moralist project of freeing the oppressed from the oppressor. The right sees it as subversive to traditional values and the left sees it as liberating. Marx wasn't a moralist at all.

>>19988104
>you certainly seem to be working on a different definition of Marxism than anyone else
I am simply working with the fundamental motivation that lies at the center of all leftism including marxism.
And that is abolishing all oppression for the sake of liberation. In this regard the utopian socialists and scientific socialists (marxists) are no different.
Marxists oppose capitalism not because they dislike it when people are trading goods for currency or sell their labour. They oppose capitalism because it inevitably leads to oppression and exploitation. For the same reason they oppose patriarchy, hetero- and cisnormativity, racism, nationalism and so on.

>>19988135
The is no such fundamental motivation, the goal of Marxisms is the abolision of wage labor. Everything else is irrelevant.

>>19988133
If Marx was against slavery then he was a moralist.

Capitalism sells Marxists what they want. We shouldn’t conflate Capitalism with ideology. Another hackneyed trope.

>>19988092
>Thus you are reactionary in the eyes of most of your comrades and they are right. A proper marxist will care about liberation for all oppressed people and minorities no matter whether he/she peronally dislikes what they are doing.
Classical marxism =/= vanguardism
Classical marxism =/= market socialism
Classical marxism =/= wage labor compatible progressivism.
>Cuba is a real and honest socialist project which tries to build communism.
Cuba is wage labor. Cuba is luxury hotels. Cuba is commodity based society.
Modern Socialism is not lower stage of communism. MOdern Socialism is accommodating Capitalism. Reformism. Marx himself by the end of his life started to criticize socialists, as they were only Capital reformists.
>Just because Marx as a white cishet european man did not write and care much about these things does not make these things unmarxist.
Yes it does? How can you accuse Marx of being responsible for things he didn't promote, and even was against? Engels was homophobic (wrote sodomy is disgusting). Marx said that in the future, Capitalism would promote gay culture.
>Are you calling people who promote gay marriage perverts? This makes you without a doubt reactionary.
The proletariat is reactionary, when it comes to societal useless garbage, favoring Capitalism, by diverting attention from true class struggle: wage labor abolition. And yes, of all classical marxists i know of, all of us are, on those particular questions (mass immigration, LBGT, feminism), reactionary. However, it's out of the question that we come back to the feudal order, working for lords.

>>19988153
he wasn't

>>19988178
Read the Communist Manifesto, written by Marx.

>>19988092
I mean have you tried bringing up any books around your local lgbtsjwtfnpc marxist cattle? In no time you will see their beady stupid cowlike eyes light up in panic. Soon enough they will start with the usual subhuman bleating "wasnt he sexist? Arent you being dangerously eurocentric? Hasnt it been debunked as fake news russian bot pseudoscience?Why read books by dead white men when you could have been watching CNN streaming the latest diverse and inclusive workplace comedies at netflix hulu and disneyplus? your daily mandatory dose of ''ethically sourced'' child pornography? Didnt you know reading antything beyond YA literature is ableist towards people who are too retarded to read? How does this further the short term electoral goals of the democratic party? Are you saying child sex workers arent real sex workers?Have you been taking your daily recomended dose of high fructuouse corn syrup your SSRIs and HRT? it is very important that you take the medication dr goldstein prescribed otherwise we will report you to corporate for mandatory sensitivity training as per the domestic terrorism act of 2021"

>>19988175
>Cuba is wage labor. Cuba is luxury hotels. Cuba is commodity based society.
Despite the current state of Cuba and China in regards to the abolishment of the capitalist mode of production, they have been founded and are still influenced by marxists who wish to reach communism.
And again, all of these idpol subjects such as feminism, transgenderism, anti-racism stand in accordance of the marxist/leftist struggle for liberation. As the text of The International goes:
>Stand up, all victims of oppression
>For the tyrants fear your might
>Don't cling so hard to your possessions
>For you have nothing, if you have no rights
>Let racist ignorance be ended
>For respect makes the empires fall
>Freedom is merely privilege extended
>Unless enjoyed by one and all.
The last two lines sum it up nicely. Freedom for one and all, yes this includes the freedom to be a childless porn-addicted pozzed transgender diaper-furry coomer.
If you try to stop people from being such degenerates you are ultimately oppressing them by denying them to live their live as they please and thus you are functionally a reactionary.
This is the truth you must face. I stopped being a leftist once I realized this: A healthy society and a fully emancipated society stand in opposition to each other.
The idea that all those degenerate impulses will simply vanish once capitalism has been abolished is pure cope reiterated by delusional "trad communists".
>Yes it does? How can you accuse Marx of being responsible for things he didn't promote, and even was against?
Marxism is not just whatever Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao etc. themselves wrote and liked. As long as these idpol ideologies do not reject the oppressor vs. oppressed dialectic, they stand in accordance with marxism. See also >>19988135
>And yes, of all classical marxists i know of, all of us are, on those particular questions (mass immigration, LBGT, feminism), reactionary.
Which makes you and all people you describe as "classical marxists" an enemy of almost all leftists/marxists in the world.

>How did Marx get synthesized with stuff like fat liberation, queer theory, etc?
Western Anglo-Saxon racist capitalist subversive propaganda

>>19988287

This may sound like a meme answer, but it is literally what happened.

>>19988285
>Perhaps one of the most disturbing attempts to undermine families can be seen in a slick video produced by LGBT in the City, a multi-media organization that produces talk shows and videos related to LGBT issues and is sponsored by such monster corporations as Telus and TD Bank. To say LGBT in the City has a hedonistic focus would be a grotesque understatement and it might be argued that at least one of their videos encourages the sexualization of children, specifically in the form of an eight year old boy mockingly named “Lactacia.”

>In a slick video released on Facebook with over one million views so far, a hyper-feminized/sexualized 8 year old boy (who some have compared to a drag version of JonBenét Ramsey) is featured partying in a hypersexual adult LGBT environment and telling kids watching that if their parents or friends do not support their desire to be drag (or trans), they need to get new parents and friends. Professional quality video and editing made this call to young children to the queer lifestyle all the more appealing. As “Lactatia” speaks to his peers, while an all too happy host leers, bold text leaps out at the viewer saying “YOU NEED NEW PARENTS! YOU NEED NEW FRIENDS!” You too can be a drag queen or transgender superstar and perhaps head out on the town to party with the wild LGBT boys and “Lactatia.” If your parents won’t get on board, they can simply be replaced with a new “glitter family.”

This would have been unimaginable only 10 years ago, now people are afraid to speak out against it for fear of loosing their jobs and livelihoods. i shudder to think about were the next 10 years of "progress" will take us if no action is taken to stop them. This is cultural marxism this is bioleninism this is the future they want for our children. if you support "gay rights" or "trans rights" this is what you are supporting. By this point its clear they are not just harmless perverts who just want to be left alone i dont know what the fuck is it these people want but its obviously anything but to be left alone. the so called LGBT community are attack dogs for the corporate state's putrid totalitarian ideology.

>>19985973
feminists are soros shills who want to normalize prostitution and queers are pedophiles,

>>19988040
>Its not real communism
Every time with these fucking retards.
>>19988092
>Cuba is a real and honest socialist project which tries to build communism.
So why don't socialists just go live there? All those people that flee on wooden rafts must love it.

>>19988092
>A proper marxist will care about liberation for all oppressed people
This is some slave morality type shit, and this is why I could never support or condone Marxism. The idea that one must liberate others, and people have no personal responsible to rely on themselves for personal development is nothing more than a defense of weakness. Your ideology is basically a permanent alibi for victim hood status and dependency. Your whole shit about "cultural bias" is just self flagellation for the sake of the sensitivities of your herd-like, sheep brained "comrade" cuckholds who don't have the courage to face adversity, or have the ability to allow themselves to be challenged in life. You people only care about conformity, and encourage mediocre for the sake of not offending people. What a fucking joke of a belief system. Its degenerate to its core, and its the primary reason of why we live in such a degenerate age.

>>19988092
support my pedophilic social engineering agendas that just happen to be aggresively promoted by all major corporations!

Leftists merely want to replace the family and the church with something even worse an effectively totalitarian managerial bureaucracy of NGOs public schools bluecheck media elites psychiatrists and the woke pimps and pornographers of the sex industry a snivelling priesthood of pedophilc lgbtsjwtfnpc apparatchiks, dedicated to ensuring people are properly ''liberated''. Notice how queer theory types talk about literal prostitution aka sex work as just one amongs many marginalized gender or sexual identities, they only really oppose traditional values vecause they get in the way of total centralized control and exploitation and the full commodification of human feelings and sexuality

>>19987545
Excellent breakdown, senpai. Saved.
Where can i read more about these systems level thinking?

I have my own ideas--it's much more simplied for I'm going to use it in my fiction--that I would like to share. Let me know if you are interested.

>>19988357
You misunderstand me. I am an anti-marxist. I wrote this post here >>19988092 to show marxists in this thread that ideologies such as feminism, transgenderism, anti- racism and all of the degeneracy which accompanies them are a direct consequence of marxist/leftist thought.

>>19987528
Marxism was never anything but a movement by petty bourgeois radicalized who feared proletariatization. Your posts are largely unnecessary - the fact of the matter is genetics is what determines distinctions within civilization. That implies that people are going to assigned roles gravitate closely to their inherent nature. There's no need for the esoteric sociology because there's no need to change, or socially engineer a self regulating process. Its utter narcissism for political theorists to believe they could invent something control the natural laws of the world. Like the Marxists, you're just inventing post-adhoc rationalizations for your social engineering lunacy. Let god do what is intended and don't get in his way.

>>19985621
Its unreal how much this concept has been disturbed to the point it lacks a proper meaning anymore, this is why theres so much confusion, i have argued plenty of times, but what really happens is that over time some influential fags ruined the term beyond recognition, you can track it for a long time, lets just remember a few ones.
I think that one of the most arguably and strong defitions is everything that derives from europe as a whole, hence why europe is always tought as a continent in oppposition to everything else, then you have greeks, then western rome split from eastern, then afterwards church schism which creates two sects, we could insert many more.
But fast forwarding and going to important examples are european settlement colonies in the americas and then bastardizations like economic divisions, which was propelled by samuel for example, which i think its completely retarded because you dont erase the ethnicity itself and its culture which spans from thousands of years, thats why i keep saying that people who use this term are completely oblivious and dont understand at all what theyre talking about, its asinine, this is why i think the term is completely retarded because anyone can assume whatever they want, i think the original concept should be the real meaning, not modern ones, but even modern ones like i said, there isnt a definitive one, for obvious reasons, let me give you one example, USA has more influence from outside places than europe than most eastern countries, yet just because its a superpower, plenty of thinkers which come from there, will obviously put it in the western hemisphere because of political alignments, i dont defy it isnt, but thats where im trying to explain why some eastern countries like east europe who has much more to do with europe than usa, gets outs of it, it doesnt make any sense whatsoever, same for latin america, if you look at any infographic, depending on the source youll use, will make europe as the primal point, USA just inherited power and thats why they bastardized the defitinition, excluding it into economical tought.
Another incongruent problem are countries that just received west pseudo-colonization, but it doesnt make them western at all, some could even argue the entire americas and oceania, but im talking about places like asia and africa, the difference from americas and most of oceania is that these have been replaced entirely, thats the difference.
Look at the pic for example, it is made with samuel tought, which i find disturbing, but whatever, theres much better defitinions of it.
TLDR I hate retards that cant understand original meaning of the word West, because it have been changed over time without legitimacy

>>19987017
>Muh slave morality
All you are doing is informing everyone that you are a scumbag degenerate who is trying to justify shitty behaviour via pseudo intellectual faux moral philosophy, no different than progressives going through mental gymnastics to justify things like self destructive lifestyles and putting kids in rooms with sex offenders for drag queen story hour

>>19988035
lgbt are purpose enginnered biopolitical clientele for the managerial state pharmaceuticals, NGO and the democratic party, an alliance of the one percents, the top capitalists and the bottom of the mentally ill queer lumpenproletariat against normal decent working people everywhere

>>19988781
and not to mention psychiatrists and the sex industry. if you want to control people you get them hooked on really fucked sexual things, you tell them itsnot their fault and its the white man whos keeping them oppressed, top lgbt activists obeyed unconditionally by the kultmarx NPCs on the ground are kept under control through blackmasil and child pornography. make no mistake this is a putrid totalitarian ideology.

>>19987092
>and
They're not subhuman slave moralists they are productive members of society.

>>19986249
The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, which is credited to Engles but is mostly an amalgamation of Marx's writings, pretty much confirms that Marx had a rousseau-esque belief of the natural utopian state of humanity which Marx believed was destroyed by the concept of ownership

Judith Butler

>>19988023
>none of the people who push idpol are marxists.

The absolute delusion. Why do leftists on this site always make claims like this?

>>19989021
What is wrong with idpol? White people need to start using it.

>>19988285
>Which makes you and all people you describe as "classical marxists" an enemy of almost all leftists/marxists in the world.
Yes that's true. Marxist, is not classical marxist. That's exactly why it is specified: CLASSICAL marxist. Marx himself, by the end of his life, said he was not Marxist. Identity politics marxists, progressivists, globohomo propagandists, view us, classical marxist, as fascists. But we do not care. As we have read marx. And we know that market socialists, and progressivists, are traitors to the working class. They do not want to abolish wage labor, nor exploitation. They want a wage labor society, with gay, lesbian, women, minorities, special rights. Because these identity struggle, do not affect Capitalism. On the contrary, they create a diversion from class struggle.

>>19988349
>Every time with these fucking retards.
If someone say bolshevism is communism, you'll say it's proof that communism is evil, because bolshevism was (indeed), evil.
If people who have read marx say that bolshevism wasn't communism, you'll say that we are insincere.
You are literally applying a way of thinking were we cannot be good. That's doublethink. Which apparently, do not only apply to the mainstream.
Not thread related, but this also applies for the jews. For anti-jews, jews who are Capitalists, are evil. Jews who are anti-Capitalists, are evil as well. Jews that got expelled from a nations, because they commited usury, in the middle age, are evil. Jews, who got expelled from a nation, because they wanted to abolish money (like Marx, expelled from Germany), are evil.
Truth is, you do not really take facts into consideration. You see the word communism, it's necessarily bad. You see the word jew, it's necessarily bad. Necessarily.

>>19989021
Marx himself said he was not marxist:
"Now what is known as ‘Marxism’ in France is, indeed, an altogether peculiar product — so much so that Marx once said to Lafargue: ‘Ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste.’"
- Letter to Bernstein, 1882.

>>19989045
Nice diversion from class struggle indeed.

>>19989100
How was Bolshevism 'evil', anon?

>>19989120
Class is in itself an idpol.

>>19989149
Wage labor is an idpol? Factory worker, working for the owners of the factory, making them rich, is an idpool? Wage labor is a social relation. It has nothing to do with identity.
>>19989146
>How was Bolshevism 'evil', anon?
Read Karl Kautsky: marxism and bolshevism

>>19989172
Uniting people based on their social relations is identity politics by the definition of that concept.

>>19989172
>Wage labor is a social relation
And so is race, yet you retards think race politics is somehow 'idpol'.

>>19989172
>Kautsky
Opinion discarded.

>>19989182
Definition of identity politics (wikipedi): "Identity politics is a political approach wherein people of a particular gender, religion, race, social background, social class, environmental,[1] or other identifying factors, develop political agendas that are based upon these identities. The term is used in a variety of ways to describe phenomena as diverse as multiculturalism, women's movements, civil rights, lesbian and gay movements, and regional separatist movements."
By this definition, anything and everything, is identity politics, including tradition, religion, even NSDAP follower, are identity politics.

However, identity politics, is mostly, on social network, or TV, about defending gay, women, ethnic minorities. Never about wanting to abolish wage labor. When was the last time you saw wage labor abolitionist on TV?

>>19987528
This is just >>19985907 as a runaway train of antisemitic conspiratorial delirium

>>19989205
Then use 'ideology' or 'cultural hegemony'. Don't use meaningless bunker tranny phraseologies that don't describe anything accurately.

>>19989205
>By this definition, anything and everything, is identity politics

>>19989187
Race is not a social relation. As the DNA of a people, if this people is even ethnically homogenous, like japanese, for example, this DNA, is supposed to stay stable. Social relation, on the other hand, is something that changed. Proof: production was based on slavery social relation, during antiquity, then on the feudal social relation, then on wage labor. Social relations are not static, as they evolve.
>>19989192
Kautsky is good when he talks about the bolsheviks. He was also a good compiler of Das Kapital volume 4. Now, kautsky was for representative democracy, and communism through parliament ways, which was meant to failure, as parliament serves the interest of the Capital.

>>19989120
bringing class to a race war is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. these people(marxist lgbt shitlibs) want us broke, dead, our children raped and brainwashed and they think its all pretty funny. they are deranged, violence is the only language they understand.

>>19989221
>Race is not a social relation. As the DNA of a people, if this people is even ethnically homogenous, like japanese, for example, this DNA, is supposed to stay stable. Social relation, on the other hand, is something that changed. Proof: production was based on slavery social relation, during antiquity, then on the feudal social relation, then on wage labor. Social relations are not static, as they evolve.
Race precisely fits into your characterization of a 'social relation'.

>>19989215
>Don't use meaningless bunker tranny phraseologies that don't describe anything accurately.
It's NSDAP followers that are fond of the expression identity politics. Not me. They are the firsts to mention this expression.
They got trapped. As the deep state knew that promoting minorities right, through mass medias, would create a reaction, in traditionalists groups. It worked. Now everybody is talking about negros, trannies, agressive feminism.
During this time, the exploiters, the Capitalists, the owners of the means of production, those that extract surplus labor from the working class, are relaxed.

>>19989242
Racial thinking is perfectly compatible with Marxism, after all Marx said Darwinism only makes his theories stronger. Any person who thinks Marx and racial science is incompatible are retards with an incomplete understanding of either one or the other.

Remember, it's the bourgeoisie which imports millions of non whites into white countries, and it's bourgeoisie who fund CRT.

>>19989249
>It's NSDAP followers that are fond of the expression identity politics. Not me. They are the firsts to mention this expression
I've first saw the bunker trannies use it. Sorry buddy.

>>19989242
>bringing class to a race war is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
1/How many death caused by the class war during the last two year?
2/How many death caused by the class war during the last two years?
I count:
1/perhaps a few thousands, if you take into account the south african white farmers.
2/ Millions. Indeed, they didn't inject pure water in your veins.

>>19989258
Yes tranny use it, but then NSDAP followers play their game, by creating a counter identity politic.

>>19989269
There's nothing wrong with identity, people naturally form communities that last centuries and millennia and that are more than the sum of their parts. Despising this as being "irrational" is a nineteenth century positivist residue in Marxism that has been maintained despite all tactical common sense to the contrary.

>>19989264

>>19989045
>>19989149
The difference is that uniting around race does nothing to dismantle central banking, but the defeat of central banks would create space for racial self-determination. There is a necessary order of operations for revolution, which has to begin with the common class enemy. Doing it in any other order will just make you a useful puppet of global finance.

>>19989273
Marx didn't reject it as irrational, however he did think of it as ideology which will wither away due to material conditions.

And he was correct—when it comes to white people, who are capable of assimilating into one another.

The other races do not.

>>19989276
>The difference is that uniting around race does nothing to dismantle central banking, but the defeat of central banks
You don't need to 'unite' with anyone period. You form an army, overthrow the government, then murder the dissidents. Simple as that. It worked for Lenin, it worked for Hitler.

>>19989276
Uniting around any identity strong enough to galvanize people against the depredations of global finance is a good thing. The fascists were well aware that this would manifest differently in different countries. In Germany it manifested as rather vulgar biological race fetishism among a certain section of the elites, although most Germans were more ethnonationalist and volkisch than biological racist it still stamped the NSDAP regime. Italy was more level headed, Romania chose the idea of distinct Christian nation under God but not reducible to atomized individuals believers as their form of identity. Yugoslavia tried its own thing too, and so have many other kinds of "national" Marxists.

Autistically fixating on class just makes it so you never have to do anything, because the pure class revolution isn't here. Look at how bunker trannies made excuses not to support and tactically signal boost the trucker convoy, to make mass workers' protests more plausible in the minds of the masses again. Instead they said "well technically this doesn't conform to my twitter version of Marxism where only janitors can be revolutionaries," even though the German SDP was almost entirely impelled by upper bourgeois and petty bourgeois workers who don't fit that bill either, and even though Marx and Engels despised the lumpenproletariat as the ultimate trump card for reaction. But bunker trannies don't care, because what bunker trannies really want is to never actually have a united front, never actually have to fight. They want to fantasize about a revolution that will never come, so badly that they will denigrate the revolution we could have in 5 years.

That Kyeyune guy in Sweden has the right idea. Right now it is tactically beneficial to unite with the populist right and even the Nazbols, sorry if that offends bunker tranny meme culture but it is true.

Traditionally conservatives are 90% behind capitalism and opposed to progressivism. The most racist and homephonic you will usually see are capitalists and insanely anti communist

>>19989273
>>19989275
Thanks Capitalism for importing cheap brown labor.
Blame communism, if that makes you feel better. You are the one lying to yourself. This shit gives cancer.

>>19989342
both capitalists and communists try to destroy nations and reduce people to abstract economic units, calling nationalism irrational

>>19989320
Reactionary want a 1950s Capitalism. Not realizing that 1950s Capitalism, gave 2022 Capitalism.

>>19989347
Nationalism, in the past, destroyed regional identities. Nationalism is the globalism of the past.

>>19989342
>Implying communism wouldn’t do tha self thing.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels approve of the mixing of Ethnicities and saw it as a positive thing, relating the 'brilliance' of hybridization to what went on in America.

"The emergence of races: hybridization
Next to the influence of natural and social conditions on heredity, the second mechanism of race formation was hybridization, the mixing of blood, a process both Marx and Engels almost invariably regarded in a positive light.53 A text fragment compiled into The German Ideology discusses how the United States became the locus for the ‘most advanced social formation [Verkehrsform]’. This was one of the reasons: ‘Personal energy of the individuals of specific nations – Germans and Americans – energy through racial hybridization [Rassenkreuzung]’.54 The authors furthermore suggested that if one could improve ‘races of animals’, and even create new races through ‘racial hybridization’, why would that be impossible with humans?55

Engels seems to have been more preoccupied with hybridization than Marx. In the former’s eyes, the mixing of blood of the various European ethnicities had a favourable effect on the temperaments of the modern European nations. In 1844, he asserted that the key to the ‘English national character’ lay in the merger of ‘Teutons [Germanen] and Latins [Romanen]’. This combination of ‘Germanic [germanischen] and Latin elements’ had caused the ‘eternal anxiety’ of the English, while triggering their tremendous ‘energy’, which Engels, again, straightforwardly called the ‘source of colonial ventures [Kolonisation], shipping, industry’.56 Thus, Engels traced the English national character, and even their industrial and trade successes, to hereditary character induced by ethnic merger.

>>19989347
>reduce people to abstract economic units,
Wage slaving for a whole life is not an abstract economic concept.

>>19989350
interesting attempt at pilpul at least but at the end of the day one can choose whether they want to generally preserve their nation or generally cooperate with capitalists and wealthy "communists" with fancy degrees in destroying it

anything that many jews dislike in unison, despite other differences, is at least worth considering. the languedoielian absorption of languedocian notwithstanding.
>Nationalism is the globalism of the past.
tell that to ottoman and habsburg attempts to homogenize their subjects into nonnational superidentities.

>>19989356
>Working to buy food is slavery
Guess having the need to eat is slavery, I mean, who takes time out of their day to buy and consume food while I could be taking my tranny meds and watching porn?

>>19989342
I didn't blame communism for it, however many Leninists today basically promote racial mixing.
>>19989350
>Nationalism, in the past, destroyed regional identities.
And I wish to destroy them even further, I am a pan-european. I still less want to 'unite' read: mix with the other races

>>19989356
i am a marxist, i agree with destroying wage slavery and the capitalist value form it is bound up in. i just don't agree that the opposite of wage slavery is UBI where you cut off your penis and play video games all day.

>>19989355
>Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels approve of the mixing of Ethnicities and saw it as a positive thing, relating the 'brilliance' of hybridization to what went on in America.
They never said with fucking niggers lol
They were right about the rest, and them praising America for it is exactly the kind of thing American WNs would get behind.

>>19989375
>They never said with fucking niggers lol
That would also include niggers. Besides that EVERY Leftist would support this anyways, the point being this bridged and inspired Lenin and even Stalin to perceive that the nationalities would naturally coexist in some kind of democratic union, but (and this supports the fascist position that nations, and thus nation-states, are natural formations), but instead they all wanted to rebel from the USSR and go their own way as effective ethnostates. The principle of self-organisation they democratically chose was their traditional ethno-linguistic-cultural identity, their "people" (Volk, gens, etc.).
>America for it is exactly the kind of thing American WNs would get behind.
Praising race-mixing is the complete opposite of what White Nationalists want, lol. They fear that racial demographic would overwhelm American Whites which would cause mixing. No White American voted for this.

>>19989367
>Leninists
Vanguardism =/= classical marxism. It's in the very definition of those concepts.

>>19989405
>That would also include niggers.
Marx and Engels had a negative opinion of people coming from oriental lands, as they have an anti-revolutionary culture.

Also, reminder that race, in the 19th century, did not meant only DNA identity, but also was partly meant as culture.

>>19989430
Yeah it basically meant "peoples" before Gobineau's autism filtered through Houston Stewart Chamberlain to Rosenberg to Hitler.

>>19989405
>That would also include niggers
According to who? Marx and friends had the typical Victorian view of race. One of the ways they praised capitalism is how it destroys 'reactionary peoples' unable to progress to industrial capitalism. Marx was also a staunch supporter of pan-germanism.
>whitr americans
You already proved my point lol. White Americans are mixed europeans.

>>19989413
>Vanguardism =/= classical marxism
Yet there is no such thing as Marxist Orthodoxy. Each individual will interpret Marx in a different way, and Vanguardism today is the most popular interpretation of Marx.
Mussolini was also a 'classical Marxist' and look how that turned out.

>>19989426
Oh I see what you mean. Sure, Marx and Engels said some icky things about the Chinese and Slavs as being ‘backwards’, but my point is that good luck trying to convince neo-marxists or any other western leftist that the people who were once located in these “oriental lands” who now have access to Western Nations now need to be kicked out because of their racial grievances and underperformance. No self proclaimed marxist today is going to kick them out even if it was for Socialism, and are still going to take inspiration of a single ‘human race’ mongrelization that will include Blacks. I still don’t support Marx and Engels hybridization anyways even if it was without Blacks.

Also Europeans don’t have the same ‘Whiteness’ perspective like America or Australia, Germans don’t see French as ‘White’, but French, ‘White’ is a globalhomo classification for Europeans that changes all the time.

>>19989438
What point did I prove? yeah ‘Whites’ in america are more mixed, but that doesn’t mean people want that.

>>19989518
>What point did I prove? yeah ‘Whites’ in america are more mixed, but that doesn’t mean people want that.
Do you understand what I am saying? I am saying that white americans are a mixed european identity, of Anglo, German, French, Italian, polish etc. 'White American' is by name a pan european racial identity, and this was precisely what Marx was praising, and precisely what white Nationalists and pan europeans today want. A European identity.

If you want to discriminate WITHIN european races then you have every right to do so, but that's counterproductive, considering you're probably American.

>>19989172
>kautsky
lmfao it's like you want no one to take you seriously

>>19989526
You’re correct, but in my opinion, that’s an entirely wrong way of perceiving it and it’s only perceived that way because of the millions of non-European immigrants that are growing in the heartland of the country. American holds this ‘Pan Whiteness’ identity because they are in conflict and in constant compromise with radically different people with very different ethno-linguistic-cultural identities which are the current front runners of the progressive statist project. In conflict, people learn a lot about themselves in respect to other organic groups, Europeans know this better and why they don’t hold the same Pan-Whiteness topic. Plus, they are now getting the American treatment of importing Asian immigrants which they can’t run away from. Pan-Whiteness should be a political classification for defending European geopolitical intrest; much like how the NSDAP called their allies ‘Aryans’. No one should indorse a proto-Americanization of Europe unless you want Europe to look like America.

Marx and Engels and even Lenin held a lot hopes in the past about the United States for being revolutionary entity, but you should know better that it’s a complete wild card.

>>19989021
>Why do leftists on this site always make claims like this?
Because those are people who have read marx

>>19988813
So everyone without formal education is a slave moralist and not a productive member of society? Where does that leave you?

it's just an excuse for more power
anything else is ideological wankery
>we were always at war with Eurasia
etc

>>19989587
Where did I say that?

>attaching an anti-communist meme to your concern troll post

>>19989575
The american pan european identity existed before the American bourgeoisie started importing non-europeans. Whether you oppose the mixing of say, French and poles is up to you (good luck on enforcing it), but the fact is that Europeans have to unite to deal with there external threats and it's precisely that which will enforce a shared national identity.

What happened with the Risorgimento is precisely analogous with what's going on now. Italians used to perceive themselves as entirely different peoples that belonged to different regions but jt was WW1 which brought them together under Italian identity.

>>19989430
the italian word razza that it's from meant something along the lines of descent or generation or heritage

>>19989647
>The american pan european identity existed before the American bourgeoisie started importing non-europeans
The Irish, and especially Italians in which some have even been reported lynched. Hell, Anglos would even complain about German immigrants voting in bigger Government policies against the American Experiment of local custom federalism. America as NEVER liked immigrants, if White Americans held such a belief they wouldn’t fight Germany during the great wars, it would have been an domestic nightmare to get involved, only German Americans who have yet to americanized have.
>French and poles is up to you (good luck on enforcing it), but the fact is that Europeans have to unite to deal with there external threats and it's precisely that which will enforce a shared national identity.
I agree, but they shouldn’t race mix and mongrelize like Marx and Engels wanted, they should keep their identity and form a political pack with respect to collective interests, economically and culturally. Like a Nazi European Union. Trust me, proto-Americanization is basically Globalhomo; you would agree it’s nightmare, Europe is dealing with it as we speak.

>>19989438
>Yet there is no such thing as Marxist Orthodoxy.
It is what marx wrote.
>Each individual will interpret Marx in a different way, and Vanguardism today is the most popular interpretation of Marx.
True, but that doesn't mean vanguardism is right.
>Mussolini was also a 'classical Marxist' and look how that turned out.
Mussolini seemed to have been more a market socialist.
>>19989518
Capitalism is responsible for mass immigration. IMporting massively foreign workers. Increase labor offer. Decrease labor price. Increase profit. It's basic economics.

>>19989765
I agree, Capitalism and commodification must be crushed.

>>19989518
>yeah ‘Whites’ in america are more mixed, but that doesn’t mean people want that.
I just remembered that you WASP took the north american land to the native indians. Sometimes it's easy to forget. So lower your tone about jews perverting "your" land, "your" people.

>>19989779
Do you not get the difference or are you just ignoring it?

>>19989785
What difference, between a pure white people, and a mixed one people?
Yes i see the difference, but if people chosed Capital abolition 150 years ago, you would not see a single brown in europa.

>>19989794
Socialism is nationalist, this is big enchilada.

Capitalism imports cheap foreigners, which happen to be brown.
Honestly, if cheap foreigners were tall blond with blue eyes, they would promote minority rights of tall blonds with blue eyes.

>>19989807
Capitalism is still gay, even if it imports other White people to diminish and outsource my labor.

>>19989800
I do not give a shit about nationalism, or not. As long as wage labor is abolished. I'm not opposed to nationalism, as long as lower stage of communism is achievable.
However, the size of the social unit in communism, has been theorized. It's not the nation, nor the world order. It's the commune. That's it. The city.

>>19989807
>if cheap foreigners were tall blond with blue eyes, they would promote minority rights of tall blonds with blue eyes.

>>19989807
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/white-south-african-familys-refugee-bid-rejected-allegedly-boosted-case-with-white-supremacist-information
>White South African family’s refugee bid rejected, accused of boosting case with ‘racist propaganda’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JX4bsrj178
>The Intellectual Roots Of Wokeness
>87K views 1 year ago
>Ryan Chapman
>An explanation of how Marxism was adapted by academics into leftist identity politics to form what we now think of as 'wokeness.

>>19989820
>SORRY, NOT BROWN ENOUGH
How is this not ideological?

>>19989820
Well i do not have a ready explanation for this. However, that could be because the market is saturated. We are at the beginning of a new 10 year economical cycle. Were the economy only restart again. That would explain why not much extra labor is needed, right now.

In any case, browns are being like, not because their skin color is brown. But because brown come from countries with almost non-existent class consciousness.

>>19989834
She didn't say that she would take 0 Ukrainians. Did she? Only that she would take less than in 2015. Which could be explained by the fact that in 2015, the economy recovered, when in 2022, we are at the end of a crisis.

>>19989828
White south african family is not cheap foreign labor.

>>19989284
>>19989291
Lenin had a clearly defined class enemy. Hitler, Codreanu, and most of the nationalist leaders of the mid 20th century were dealing with largely homogeneous societies. Appealing to the identity of the majority was a unifying move.
Trying to do that in a fragmented society is just giving your enemy more fracture points to subvert you. They can get BLM to fight the Alt-Right, get Christians to fight LGBT movements, get feminists to fight patriarchal cultures, etc.
The online leftist response to the trucker protests is precisely an example of this. They've been indoctrinated to see certain sections of the working class as "far-right", and therefore their enemies. They don't support them in their struggle, because they are engaged in idpol.
Uniting with the populist right brings the same problems, just in the other direction. If you can convert them to Nazbol, then good luck to you.

>>19985346
This is one of the craziest and most accurate satire I've read

>>19989876
Well no need to worry. As Capitalism degrade, people will realize, that they are nothing more than proles. Regardless of anything else. From the small boss, who got proletarized, due to the crushing competition of global corporations. To the white trad, who is a wage slave after all. Even to the blacks, who are factory workers, in this life, right now, before being descendant of slaves.
Capitalism is the great equalizer. And the answer to universal proletarization, is universal class consciousness.

>>19989876
The populist right are not marxists. They do not think wage labor is exploitation outside exceptional cases. The primary "capitalist" thing they hate are investment and central banks because they think these institutions are engaging in fraud. They want fewer government regulations when to comes to capitalist enterprise, for the most part, and they also want to gut many government programs associated with social democracy.

Any union between this group and marxists is a pipe dream.

>>19989857
yes they are
the south african economy nearly collapsed because apartheid laws barred highly skilled native workers while afrikaner workers could barely do those same high skilled jobs

>>19989913
Cheaper than latin america workers? Stop with your relativism. I mean, if, as a Capitalism, you want to maximize profit, you have to hire the cheapest possible.

>>19989917
capitalism maximizes capital, not profit

>>19989917
What about the immigrants who dont work at all

What is Marxism? What is Left?
It's never the
>Real
kind, but everybody that calls themselves Left supports anything by it until it stars failing.
And, usually, the more extreme a lefit is, the less he calls others left
You can never agree but you always support and vote for whoever has a chance of archive control of Power.
I guess you can never be wrong/fail if it never really is the True Left in power.
Or the usual only real and true conspiracies are at fault; like the Republicans, CIA, Americans, and Imperialists.

>>19989906
The populist right are natural socialists because they are natural nationalists, they respect good administration and their preference for small government is easily translated to a preference for less rule by bourgeois clerks with billions of pointless administrative sinecures to provide themselves and their awful rentseeking children with secure incomes.

Marxian dialectic does not require that all workers acknowledge the theoretical underpinnings of Marxism and reject the value form while reading Postone with their feet upside down, it only requires that they concretely abolish the capitalist value form, which is easily done by abolishing bourgeois ideology by seizing upon the populist worker's natural hatred of bourgeois mediocracy and concretely, even democratically, seizing power. That is an achievable national syndicalist goal which can then be called a dictatorship of the proletariat if you like.

The disagreement between the third positionist / fascist and the Marxist can be mediated by saying that this seizure of the means of production by an organised proletariat shorn of bourgeois bullshit ideas may then be followed by whatever communist internationale you prefer. Or it may not. But we can all at least concretely agree that right now, right here, disembedding bourgeois mediocrats and their massive global banking system from their positions of power benefits everyone. You can absolutely get poor whites to believe in socialism and to effectively move towards an abolition of wage-labour, as long as you give them nationalism in exchange - if the nationalism later fades away as Marx predicted, I'll raise a glass to the superior dialectician and concede that nations aren't natural formations (as >>19989405 says) after all. Until then, fuck rich people, fuck bankers, fuck lobbyists, and fuck their entire embedded power structure. I'll ally with Mormon luddites or nudist anarcho-syndicalists against that, I don't care.

>>19989906
>The populist right are not marxists. They do not think wage labor is exploitation outside exceptional cases.
Sociologically, many Capitalist right are downgraded individual. Individual who fall, themselves, professional, or whose ancestor did.
This psychological traits is something that comes often. People who had noble ancestors, but today are small entrepreneurs, if they are even this.
I cannot prove it, but i suspect many Capitalist right on 4chan are rich kids, inheritors, inherited private incomes. Other are student, who haven't yet met the joy of wage labor. Other might be wage workers, who are in denial of the mediocrity of their wage labor life.
That would explain the reactionary thinking, from an individual perspective. They think that if their ancestors life was better, it must have been because of some particular politics, that disappeared today, and must be put back into practice.
In all honesty, if many reactionary life suck, it's mostly because of their own responsability. Mostly, jews or negros have nothing to do with their own individual failures.

>>19989961
Do you think it is possible to criticize Jews, or is anyone doing that necessarily just shifting the blame of their own failures?

Likewise is it possible to defend capitalism on logical grounds or do you attribute any instance of that to psychological defects?

>>19989929
But they mostly work, don't they? Those who don't work, have welfare, paid with taxes, collected not on capital gains, but on the working class: income tax. Imagine how the wage worker is scammed. He gives his surplus value to the capitalist, and a substantial part of what's left, his wage, to the State, so the state can pay welfare to his foreign wage worker competitors, who are cheaper.

>>19989973
Of course it's possible to criticize jews. Marx himself was anti-jew. But many Capitalists right think that their own failure in life, is cause by the jews. That's ridiculous. Especially in a long enough time frame. Now some life here and there, might have been ruined by jews. But certainly not millions and millions of NSDAP followers in the west.
>Likewise is it possible to defend capitalism on logical grounds
Marx did this. Surplus labor, rate of exploitation, primitive accumulation, tendency of the rate of profit to fall, commodity fetischism, etc...
>do you attribute any instance of that to psychological defects?
Of course, we criticize Capitalism, because it affect our lives negatively. But believe it or not, most classical marxists are not social cases. I'm sorry, but i feel that there are more social cases in NSDAP followers, than in classical marxian.
We do not despise Capitalism, because we are social cases, but because Capitalism has way more disadvantages than advantages. Ecomonical instabilities. unemployment. imperialist war. poisonous pharmaceutical sector (big pharma), liar politics. Brainwashing medias. Alienated deep state. Junk food. Alienation at work. Too much work per day. Trapped by the necessities to make profit. Etc....

>>19990001
Have you ever actually read a book critical of Jews? For example The International Jew by Henry Ford, do you know what this book says?

Do you have statistical evidence showing the relative rate of "social cases" among the two groups to which you refer? Because both these groups are claiming that there is something wrong with society's elite, and that this hurts the masses. It's a pretty similar point of view.

>>19990014
I was a former natsoc, so yeah, i think i know a little what it is about.
I've read the controversy of zion (douglas reed). Books from Pierre Hillard (french anti-jew), alain soral (same). I've read the protocols of zion.

Then i understood, that it's bullshit. Because the jew do not create money. The jew do not create commodity.
No. It's the opposite. Commodity, and money, created the jews. The social relation of money, of commodity, create the merchant, the usurer: the jew.
Jewry, is basically the religion of the merchant.
Merchants, money man, usurers, created a religion: judaism.
Judaism didn't create merchants, money man, usurer.
To double down on that, reminder that today, the jew doesn't have, by far, a monopoly on usury, on commodity, on merchandize. On the contrary, the goyim has caught up on the jew, and even surpassed him. Reminder that there is roughly twice as much billionaires in china, that there are jewish billionaires.

Ah, just forgot. You mentionned Henry ford. Wasn't he an exploiter? Didn't he exploit his factory worker, extracting these factory workers workers surplus labor, enriching him?
Didn't Henry ford perfected assembly line work, which is a superior form of alienation in a factory worker's work?
Let me tell you. If Henry Ford was jewish, you would have despised him. But since, hey, he was goyim, that's cool, he was a "good" Capitalism, in your mind.

>>19990041
I see a difference between Henry Ford hiring people to make cars and paying them a decent wage, and banks which create money out of nothing, thereby impoverishing everyone else and not actually producing anything. Even if Ford
is guilty of some level of exploitation(of which I'm not convinced) it would still be a different category. This is separate from the racial question, though the two fit together somewhat when you look at overall patterns. There is yet another underlying disagreement about the nature of power, and how it is organized, how consciously it is organized into what sort of groups.

Obviously you disagree. Maybe you are right. The thread is about to bump limit though and I don't want to spend the next couple hours arguing about it. I assure you though that my perspective is not merely "jew bad because jew".

>>19985134
Marx provided the fundamental oppressor-oppressed narrative. It's an easy elevator pitch concept that anybody can absorb in a second. Apply it as a grievance to any power differential. Then come the conventional symbols of revolution via communism. Then it's off the races.

>>19990071
>banks which create money out of nothing
J.P Morgan, and Rockefeller, who are part of the american federal reserve main shareholders, are not jewish.
Same for other billionaires, not jewish families, the Astor, Onassis, Dupont, Sinclair, Johnson, Bush, Clinton, Kennedy (family who made their fortune in speculative finance, but who get a pass from Capitalist rights). And many others.

>>19990084
>Marx provided the fundamental oppressor-oppressed narrative.
Communism existed before marx. See blanqui, Proudhon. Owen. Grachus babeuf.

>>19990071
>banks which create money out of nothing, thereby impoverishing everyone else and not actually producing anything. Even if Ford
Actually, quantitative easing, is the only reason why Capitalism is till alive. Without money printing, creating fake growth, it would have collapsed since decades.

>>19990105
Nevertheless.

>>19990113
Interesting that so called marxists have the same view of this subject as neocons. "Akshually this is totally helping the system and definitely not theft".

Marx wasn’t some “Pan-Germanic” enjoyer. Read Marx of On the Jewish Question, it’s still the proto-communist "liberal" Marx of the early 1840s pushing the bourgeois critique of the Young Hegelians to its limits under the influence of Feuerbach, but he had only just arrived in Paris and begun to collaborate with Ruge, only incipiently under the influence of Hess' socialism, so he wasn't yet fully embroiled in the social movement as a radical alternative to German "idealism" (now becoming stagnant and conservative under figures like Bauer) as a progressive programme. It's rightfully considered one of the first texts to really demonstrate Marx's characteristic "materialism."

Marx doesn't want to abolish the cultural Jew, he wants to abolish the conditions that make the cultural Jew possible, those conditions being alienation and mystification, at this point understood along Feuerbachian lines. Like I said, Marx's thought was only beginning to fuse with the socialist critiques of bourgeois society and political economy he began to encounter through Hess, Engels, and in Paris and Belgium. At this point his "materialism" is still not quite "historical."

Marx had only ever been a German national by circumstance, he was no great nationalist or Herderian, he was a liberal enlightened radical Berlin Jew. His father was more of a good citizen than he was, an assimilated Jew who fought hard for his right to integrate into Prussian society. Marx was more like Heinrich Heine, taking the European nationalities for granted as backdrops to the great international project of enlightenment. Heine hung out with the Rothschilds by the way.

Marx in On the Jewish Question is critical of petty proto-Zionism, religious Judaism, and of the acquisitive "huckstering" of deracinated bourgeois Jews, insofar as he is critical of deracinated bourgeois acquisitiveness in general. But this criticism is not rooted in any Herderian respect for nationality, German or otherwise. Marx didn't love Germany despite appreciating its culture. He had no feeling for nations as natural entities or organisms. All that was mystification for him. As an atheist Jew he felt naturally entitled to shape and reshape European societies to match his vision of secular enlightenment. That is a far more typically Jewish outlook than his disdain for proto-Zionism.

>>19989828
White South Africans actually do some low-cost farm labor in the US now because they're more cost efficient than native blacks lol

The Western Left is defined by Nazism (as in, reacting against it) first and foremost, followed by decolonization and/or Civil Rights. It tends to be focused on protecting ascriptive victim groups, rather than on Soviet-style Marxist theory, while being influenced by Marxism, of course.

>>19990149
>As an atheist Jew
Are you sure marx was an atheist? Did you read the thesis on feuerbach?

>>19985134
...You are aware it has always appealed to resentful mediocrity from cofy house gentry to pot smoking hippies.

>>19990146
The poster you replied to didn't say that or even insinuate it. There isn't a single marxist that has uttered those words.

>>19989973
>Do you think it is possible to criticize Jews, or is anyone doing that necessarily just shifting the blame of their own failures?
You can criticize an ethnic group if you're intimately familiar with its history and are specific in your critique. Jews are not a monolith; an Orthodox Jew in Eastern Europe probably has little in common with a secular Jew living in New York. Most /pol/ posters are not knowledgeable beyond caricatures that are fed them and conspiracy theory books.

>>19985490
>>19985495
One could argue that BAP is more of a trannie than the so called transgendered.

>>19985448
The most brain fried thing i've read in a while. Stay off the internet for a while. Go outside. For your own sake