/lit/ - Literature

Because they tried communism and gave up because capitalism is easier.

>>700133

>>700197

>Shch-202

Cool serial number bro.

Russia and China prove the supremacy of command economies, but not necessarily Marxism specifically.

ITT: People who don't know what Marxism is.

As somebody on the left, I think the fact that the spread of Marxism took the path that it did largely disproves Marx' claims about the historical inevitability of revolution, the unique role of the proletariat, etc. Contrary to what Marx argued, the revolution did not come from the proletariat in industrial societies, and it was not worldwide; rather, it was national, it was led by an elite, and it quickly became based around party.

I don't, however, think that Russia or China disprove the Marxist critique of capitalism, or invalidate a lot of Marxist social thought.

OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE YOU MORONS.

MARXISM STATES THAT HISTORY FOLLOWS SEVERAL INEVITABLE STAGES, AND THAT COMMUNISM WILL ARISE OUT OF CAPITALISM.

THE PROLETARIAT ARE THE GRAVEDIGGERS OF THE BOURGEOISIE.

NO LATE CAPITALIST COUNTRY HAS EVER DEVELOPED INTO COMMUNISM.

THE USSR AND CHINA WERE BOTH AGRARIAN SOCIETIES WHO WERE FORCIBLY INDUSTRIALISED ON A COMMAND BASED ECONOMY MODEL.

MARXISM IS NEITHER PROVEN NOR DISPROVEN. IT HAS NEVER APPLIED.

THAT IS ALL. FUCK OFF YOU IDORTS.

>>700308

Like I said...: >>700223

>>700313

WHAT DO YOU WANT? A FUCKING BISCUIT? DIDN'T I ALREADY TELL YOU TO FUCK OFF?

>>700308
Yeah this is the point I was trying to make in >>700278. However, don't you think that the fact that the revolution of the proletariat which Marx argued would arise in late-stage capitalist societies never occurred implies, to some extent, that his work is inaccurate as a political ideology and a view of history?

>>700338

IT HAS NOT OCCURRED YET. THERE IS NO CERTAINTY THAT MARXIST ANALYSIS WILL NOT BEAR FRUIT. HOWEVER IT IS UNLIKELY THAT MARX WILL BE PROVED ENTIRELY CORRECT.

REGARDLESS OF THE POLITICL IMPLICATIONS, MANY OF MARX'S ECONOMIC INSIGHTS, IN PARTICULAR THE THEORY OF SURPLUS VALUE, ARE UTTERLY FUCKING ESSENTIAL TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LABOUR AND CAPITAL. ANYONE WHO DISAGREES IS AN INTELLECTUALLY BANKRUPT MENTAL SPASTIC WHO PROBABLY FUCKS DOGS.

>>700308
Russia, yes; but didn't China industrialize more as a result of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics(i.e. capitalism)?

>>700308
>>700330
>>700351

Any intelligent, reasonable person who reads and understands Marx thoroughly cannot disagree with his main assertions.

in theory it does not. But then again, what proves marxism to be correct? nothing.

It is a circular theory. Sage for irrelevant /lit/ trolling.

>>700125
Wat? Neither were Marxist. Maoist and Totalitarian, yes, but not Marxist.

>>700351

Every morning just as I am waking up, I want you to shout sweet reason into my ear. But preferably from 100 yards away so I may retain my hearing and continue to imbibe your boisterous ballyhoo.

>>700549
That's not what is being implied.

>>700561

>>700588
I know that is what is being implied. I just find it close to unbelievable that anyone would mistake them for an example of Marxism.

OP is from America I'm guessing?

>>700610
Yes. Is that really not widely held misconception in other countries?