Marxist

[Anonymous No.16161376]

What does it mean to be a Marxist?

[Anonymous No.16161398]

It means that you're anti-American.
It means that you're a traitor to your countrymen, regardless of nationality.
It means you hate the poor.
It means you have no understanding of the real struggles of the working class.
It means you're economically illiterate.
It means you're murderous, genocidal maniac.
Being a Marxist means you're antithetical to all decent human values.

In short, being a Marxist means you're either evil or a dunce.

[Anonymous No.16161412]

>>16161398
Do you think is fully accurate and there needs to be no further discussion about the topic?

[Anonymous No.16161422]

It colloquial usage it means that you complain about oppressive forms of social roles while simultaneously instituting the same social roles but in a reverse hierarchy.
It also means you're upset you have to get your hands dirty. I've never met a marxist who has done manual labor. All of them disappeared in the 60s.

[Anonymous No.16161435]

>>16161376
It means you analyze society in terms of material conditions, and reject identity politics.

[Anonymous No.16161440]

>>16161412
Practically speaking, yes

[Anonymous No.16161442]

>>16161435
>and reject identity politics
I think that's a good idea

[Anonymous No.16161443]

>>16161398
>>16161422
based retards

[Anonymous No.16161449]

nothing

reject the term

instiutionalization is a byproduct of fetishism

[Anonymous No.16161467]

>>16161443
I specified that it was colloquial

[Anonymous No.16161469]

It means you are deconstructing the Western Civilization
It means you advocate for the subversion of our Judeo-Christian values
It means niggerfying your culture
It means spitting on your nation and your race
It means advocating for open borders and bringing hordes of immigrants in to take our jobs, gangrape our women, eliminate our race
It means destroying the traditional nuclear family
It means the destruction of motherhood and femininity and women taking the roles of men working in cubicles and hating and cheating on their husbands because of equality and taking everything he has
It means stealing private property from someone who worked hard because you are lazy and resentful
It means advocating for interracial sex and the contamination of racial purity
It means indoctrinating our children in schools and university to hate themselves, their culture, their nation, their race
It means advocating for promiscuity and degeneracy and the erasure of the morality and values that were held by our ancestors

[Anonymous No.16161473]

>>16161459
Wow it sounds really bad

[Anonymous No.16161489]

>>16161376
>>16161376
Highlighting the plight of the proletariat and giving perspectives on their struggles. Aiding in the expansion of the labour movement.

[Anonymous No.16161501]

Really feeling like you have your finger on the pulse of society but ultimately you will almost always be an armchairfag

[Anonymous No.16161505]

>>16161469
Damn, that is some high-fructose corn syrup-tier americana.

[Anonymous No.16161510]

>>16161469
based retard strikes again

[Anonymous No.16161537]

>>16161398
This.

[Anonymous No.16161544]

>>16161469
>>16161398

Sounds awesome. Count me in.

[Anonymous No.16161549]

>>16161544
based snarky woman

[Anonymous No.16161562]

>>16161398
Turns out I'm a Marxist! Yay!

[Anonymous No.16161574]

>>16161469
It just keeps getting better

[Anonymous No.16161591]

The basic relationship between production and consumption (in the most general sense of human communities producing and re-producing goods and services for their own needs) at this stage in history is in a form that causes the abstraction of real human beings into generic "workers," who only matter insofar as they produce averaged abstract labor, which reciprocally deforms authentic human behavior (which should be, and thus potentially is, creative activity, engagement with community and with the world) into abstract units of "work," which is a commodity stripped of all human particularity and meaning so as to be purchasable with maximum efficiency on the market, with abstract "money" which likewise has no value other than being a total abstraction of everything in life down to a single universal "economic" value.

We are trapped in this system of relationships which bear with them certain conceptions (and thus preconceptions) of human existence. For example instead of seeing our true potential as autonomous creators of particular things, meaningful to us and others for particular reasons, we see ourselves as functions of abstract "work" for earning abstract "wages" (average compensation for average work) producing abstract "money" so we can buy more commodities we want. But note how all commodities are necessarily implicated in this reciprocally defining and stabilizing system of relationships, so that when we buy commodities we are really using abstract labor time to buy products of abstract labor time. Everything is money at the end of the day, everything is abstracted work, "work" in an abstracted, pointless form that does not correspond to the particularity and intrinsic sociality of authentic human labor.

These terms and relationships not only define and stabilize one another, they spawn and stabilize other forms of sociality and conceptions. The obverse of "work time" (the time I go to work so get money to live another week) becomes "leisure" (the time I get off because I worked long enough to purchase time off for myself). But this defines the personal time of the individual human purely negatively, as time absent the need to work to survive. Rather than having a conception of labor that might be rewarding, like the peasant tending his ancestral farm or putting in "extra hours" (even this concept is parasitic on capitalist economic relations, notice the abstraction of purely quantitative "hours" and the idea that they are "extra" i.e. over the bare minimum necessary to complete abstract "task") to benefit his family or community. Now all that exists is "time I gotta work" and "phew time to not have to work."

[Anonymous No.16161595]

>>16161591
>averaged abstract labor,
i lol every time I see some iteration of this retarded concept

[Anonymous No.16161608]

>>16161591
The worker begins to view his "personal" time as time for equally anonymous, time for pointless pleasure-seeking, especially since he needs to "recuperate" from meaningless abstract work (rather than seeing the work itself as ennobling and as his own, i.e. as non-"alienated" from him). The employer sees his employees as functions of the average abstract work they can do, they begin to see their laborers the way they see machines, that is as the sum of the cost plus the maintenance and replacement cost; workers needing "leisure time" is fundamentally the same as machines needing to be turned off or serviced. This relationship is mathematical of course, it's all abstractable out to money once again, so that the "logical" thing to do (under capitalism's preconceptions, held by everyone instinctively) is to quantify and maximize the efficiency: workers can logically have the bare minimum necessary rest time they need so as not to hamper their performance (or cause them to revolt). Everything at the end of the day is filtered back into the logic of capital, abstract everything (time, labor, remuneration) and maximize its yield.

This is only one example of course. From these more primitive social relations, other social relations follow. The system naturally selects for people who will not only defend it and justify it, but provide ever more sophisticated justifications, until you have progressively more complex layers of mystification, or "ideology." Whole groups and classes and strata of people can exist who systemically support the structure and allow its fundamental relationships to go on recapitulating themselves. Likewise people who dissent against the system are selected against, they tend to be depressed and suppressed in the same way wages do.

The goal of Marxism is not just to create better conditions for "the working class." If you've been paying attention then you know the "working class" (and everything that goes with that term) is as much an emanation of these production relations as the relatively more basic concepts "work," "worker," "money," etc. The point is to abolish the entire way of life bound up in that primordial set of relationships, which will naturally collapse the structures built up on them. While society after this rupture may still use the word "work," they are now free to express more authentic meanings by it, consciously and unconsciously. They no longer unwittingly reproduce a system of intertwined ideas that dehumanize them and alienate their free creative activity from themselves, nor the social structures built up on such ideas.

[Anonymous No.16161646]

>>16161608
That's why Marxists often say they are not just trying to "decrease exploitation," or make better conditions, for the working class, they are trying to overthrow an entire system of relations and the entire sick worldview that goes with it. They don't want to abolish exchange or production or trade, they just want to break a set of flawed ideas (themselves historically necessary according to Marx because the logic of capital progressively reached its current stage).

A common way of phrasing this is, Marxism does not desire that the working class should become the new bourgeoisie, but that the reciprocally defined and stabilizing concepts of working class and bourgeoisie/capitalist should be annihilated in their reciprocity so that new definitions (already latent and trying to express themselves) can exist.

Not a marxist btw, I think this is too eschatological a vision and creates a binary of "if the revolution hasn't happened yet then you need to accelerate more," but at least they aren't social democrats. Fuck /leftypol/ also.

>>16161595
It makes sense, it's a basic Hegelian dichotomy between humans seen as objects and humans seen as subjects. In a world where all objects are subject to quantification and abstract manipulation as economic units, naturally humans (and their labor) seen as objects are going to be similarly subjected to this objectification, in a dialectical fashion that reduces them to the most efficient relationship, which will be dehumanizing and only stop when it meets resistance. But you can decrease resistance by smashing it or by infecting the worker with confused ideas where he's happy to be a slave.

[Anonymous No.16161653]

>>16161646
Hegel was already practically gibberish before you try and take him and apply the concepts to a materialist conception of economy

[Anonymous No.16161656]

>>16161376
It means that you believe the ideology of a Jewish son of a rabbi funded by Rothschild is unironically of more value than the philosophy or sophism so your native country so much so that you will overthrow your domestic institutions for what a foreigner mandates

[Anonymous No.16161680]

>>16161591
I see. I think that makes sense. How would you respond if someone said that "communism is a spook"?

[Anonymous No.16161697]

>>16161376
It means being very smart and patriotic.

[Anonymous No.16161702]

to nominally reject ideology, but to be consumed by it

[Anonymous No.16161727]

At the most basic level, it means subscribing to the general philosophical system created by Karl Marx and those who tried to develop the system afterwards. This generally includes historical materialism, dialectics, belief in the fundamental instability of the capitalist system, and the belief that it will be succeeded by socialism.communism. Marxism has developed in a whole bunch of different direction, so it includes all sorts of stuff these days.

[Anonymous No.16161731]

>>16161608
>The worker begins to view his "personal" time as time for equally anonymous, time for pointless pleasure-seeking, especially since he needs to "recuperate" from meaningless abstract work
What is to be done about this?

[Anonymous No.16161751]

>>16161616

[Anonymous No.16161752]

>>16161646
What a load of nonsense. I loved working for my boss. He was actually really cool and he'd bring his kid to the office, to play with us. He'd also take the guys to watch movies, bowling games etc. Everyone liked him there. It was a firm that specialized in selling apartments (don't know how to call it in English - real state sales?) I worked there when I was 18, after finishing high school, while studying for my uni admittance exams.

I am my own boss now (having gotten a Law degree since then), because capitalisms allows for social mobility, but back when I had a boss I didn't see any problem with it and never felt treated like an object. Maybe in China or the USSR you feel like an object of the state, but here I don't really feel like anyone's object.

It's pretty great living in an capitalist society, though I think my country is too anti-capitalist for my taste. I wish there was space for more capitalism here. There is anti-market prejudice, for instance, and lawyers aren't allowed to make such things as propaganda etc. because the corporation doesn't allow it. I wish I could make propaganda for my services and also own businesses unrelated to law (I have dreams of establishing a publishing firm specializing in bilingual poetry translations). It's unfortunate that I can't! I wish there was more capitalism here...

[Anonymous No.16161759]

>>16161653
Marx is not necessarily materialist. I think associating "materialism" with Marxist socialism is one of the dumbest moves ever made by Marxists. It confuses people because it has a much more general meaning of metaphysical materialism, it confirms the bad associations of many who already have a bias against Marxism for being life-denying or anti-spiritual, and it encourages a bizarre sub-sect of Marxists who turn "dialectical materialism" into a religion, while never being able to define it for outsiders.

Just call it dialectical socialism or something to maintain the Hegelian critical dimension. The Marxist critique of social relations is really good and goes beyond simplistic socialisms, which always collapse back into bourgeois shit for reasons Marx understood well.

>>16161680
Marx's critique of Stirner is pretty good. Stirner is not misguided simply because he justifies the individual over the community (a vulgar misconception of communism's complaint with egoism/existentialism) but because he thinks he can AVOID being constituted by the community (and its most basic, underlying relationships) by retreating into his "own" subject. The subject's basic concepts are already constituted intersubjectively so this is impossible. Self-liberation and egoism requires critical self-reflexivity but this too can only be done by engaging with outside concepts, and by refining and developing one's own "given" (by one's community) concepts in dialogue with the community.

However another weakness of many Marxists is their dogmatism on this subject. They mistake the critique of existentialism and radical egoism as total and final, they go out of their way to say that any radical elitism or asceticism or aristocratic individualism is retarded and evil (which is different from saying that it's epistemologically flawed, which is valid), and in the process they end up justifying the preconception of many critics that they are nihilistic world-reducers who want to turn humanity into one big happy herd.

The trick is to keep the critique from Marxism, but also keep the revolutionary eschatology (this is what the post-modernists excise from it, thinking they can keep just the critical philosophy, but as Marxists correctly point out, this just leads them to become too-clever self-deluded bourgeois traitors), and also keep some respect for individuality values outside the economic.

Marx was far too totalizing about his economic worldview, he had a characteristically Hegelian radical monism. But you can keep all the fruits of Marxism while rejecting this one root. Unfortunately his followers do the opposite, turning his outdated personal idiosyncrasy into a religious dictum even as it drives 90% of potential recruits away.

[Anonymous No.16161764]

>>16161376
to have a penis

[Anonymous No.16161768]

>>16161646
>>16161608
>>16161591
based explanation anon. thanks dude.

[Anonymous No.16161820]

>>16161731
A lot has been written about it by Adorno and others. The idea is that you can't abolish just one relationship or aspect of capitalism while maintaining the others, they are dialectically interrelated by necessity.

http://xenopraxis.net/readings/adorno_freetime.pdf

However you don't have to accept everything or nothing from Marx's critique. What is most important to take from it is that such relationships can be reciprocally defined and dialectically intertwined, not the specific critique or outlay of terms decided on by Marx necessarily. Although his critical sociology of the capitalist economy is really fucking good, and again, I am not even a Marxist.

>>16161752
You are not looking deep enough, the whole point of Marxist critique is that what you enjoy or find acceptable is structured prior to your own self-awareness of i. Of course you would find your life story acceptable, that's the whole point, the system naturally creates discourses, social and culture features, that teach you to see the system as natural (Althusser's "interpellation").

The question isn't whether you like it, it's whether you ought to like it. This partly goes back to Hegel's discussion in The Philosophy of Right of what should be done about a subject that is so alienated that he wants what is bad for him. It's why Marx is so focused on "raising consciousness."

I don't want to get into whether you're empirically right or wrong about your experiences or whether "capitalism" is good/bad (I have my own views and they are very different from yours), but the point is whether you have answered Marx's critique on its own "meta" plane or not. Of course Marx could be wrong but you do have to answer him on his own terms there.

Also again I want to stress Marx isn't against trade, exchange, self-betterment, all the good things you associate with "free enterprise." At least not deliberately. But Marx does get very hazy on the point I already mentioned, the "when do we know communism is actually here" and the related "how do we make it arrive then" point.

[Anonymous No.16161832]

>>16161768
No prob, and thanks. Take with a grain of salt just incase I botched aspects of it of course.

[Anonymous No.16161837]

>>16161376
It means a belief in historical materialism and Marxian dialects. Their are different forms of Marxism but these are the beliefs they all hold. Any other answer that isn't similar to this one is a meme answer and you should ignore it.

[Anonymous No.16161839]

>>16161376

[Anonymous No.16161844]

>>16161837
Analytical Marxism rejects dialects.

[Anonymous No.16161877]

have a gnawing urge to increase societal entropy through inane policies. insincerely so.

[Anonymous No.16161878]

>>16161844
Do Analytical Marxists actually reject Marxian Dialects? How? Marxian Dialect is a core idea in dialectical materialism which is a necessity to understand Historical Materialism, the basis of Marxian ideology.

[Anonymous No.16161909]

>>16161376
What does it mean to be a cuck?
>>16161398
It means that you are a traitor to your own race.

Read Marx incels.

[Anonymous No.16161921]

It means you see the obvious flaws in the capitalist system and wish to fix them. Being a Marxist means you want to help the working class and destroy the bourgeoisie. That doesn't mean that the Marxism is the best or only or even a viable way to fix any of the issues facing the proletariat, but being a Marxist means you subscribe to how Marx thought that the oppression of the working class should be dealt with.

[Anonymous No.16161929]

Just read this: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm

[Anonymous No.16161981]

>>16161752
Your boss was still jewing you on your pay, he has too by definition because otherwise he wouldn't be making a profit. He deliberately played nice so that his workers wouldn't get uppity and you bought it

[Anonymous No.16161993]

>>16161981
Dude abolish profit lmao

[Anonymous No.16162013]

>>16161993
>I'm happy I'm lining my bosses pocket
Since you're such a nice guy you won't mind when I fuck your wife

[Anonymous No.16162016]

For westerners it means being an ineffectual psued. Everywhere else it makes you a chad man of action

[Anonymous No.16162030]

>>16161398
>It means you hate the poor.
Don't you mean hate the rich?

[Anonymous No.16162041]

>>16161981
Yeah one way to think of it is this: what is the goal of any given economic action, in a capitalist mode of production? Always to maximize profit, of course, to increase the heap of capital. But what does that actually look like?

When your boss is nice to you, what is his real, ultimate goal? Is he looking out for your well-being? Maybe to an extent. But why only to an extent, and why only to whatever specific extent he does? Is he looking out for the community's or country's or humanity's well-being? Maybe to an extent, but again, why only to an extent, and why only to the extent he in particular (as opposed to some other boss who is much harsher, which by capitalist ideology is "up to him") does?

It is possible to desire mutual gain and mutual enrichment, and to put one's community (however defined) before one's personal enrichment. Why should the default, normal goal of any given person be to maximize personal profit? Why should we expect that an "average," "given" boss is going to behave selfishly to maximize profit primarily, and it's a nice bonus if he manages to take his employee's health into account?

If he really wanted to take your health and well-being and future prosperity into account, why doesn't he bring you on board in his business and help you get a leg up? Particularly if he inherited his business (lucky him) and you inherited nothing, which is why you're the worker and he's the boss. If his REAL, ULTIMATE GOAL is to help you, or your community, or humanity, shouldn't be he trying to bring you up to his level rather than put a sugar coating on your relationship as his inferior?

Every boss is juggling conscious and unconscious priorities. Consciously you both may think he's a good person and your friend, but unconsciously you know what most bosses will do once their bottom line is affected. Any boss who doesn't is simply manifesting "self-destructive" (within fucked up ideology that is) impulses. The boss who only pays lip service to being a capitalist accumulator, preferring to provide his employees with quasi-welfare state conditions and spread the wealth, won't accumulate as much capital. Ipso facto, his heirs won't be among the capitalist class.

To the extent that bosses are nice and "self-destructive" of their own (capitalist, egoistic) interests, they are latently trying to manifest socialism. A good boss would be a better man under socialism, where leadership and authority have nothing to do with randomly inheriting a business but with merit and the needs of the community. This sounds utopian, but no one says it will be easy or simplistic to implement.

[Anonymous No.16162042]

How can marxists in good conscience call their opponents reactionaries when they want to return not to some sort of monarchism or aristocratic republicanism, like most reactionaries, but to pre-agricultural revolution "primitive communism"?

[Anonymous No.16162049]

>>16162030
>>16162030 Marxists hate the arbitrary categories of rich and poor, especially insofar as wealth begets wealth and poverty begets poverty. The only reason we don't live in a nightmarish hell of feudalism and slavery right now is because some workers resisted the endless pressure to suppress their wages, their living conditions, and their capacity to revolt. We're sitting on the shoulders of men who said "if you don't stop depressing wages and raising costs to the point that my children are dying of coal inhalation by age 16, I will kill you," and "if you try to monopolize the railroads or control waterways as private enterprises, the state will declare you an enemy and the military will kill you and everyone who fights for you."

You are already living under "socialism."

[Anonymous No.16162056]

>>16162042
>but to pre-agricultural revolution "primitive communism"?
Because they want advanced communism, i.e., to live as cavemen with iphones.

[Anonymous No.16162070]

>>16162049
Wealth is the spiritualization of social worth. Marxists hate it because they're social retards and seek to remove it so they no longer have to bend their knee to more socially decent people.

[Anonymous No.16162082]

I'm curious about what marxists think about the establishment integrating pseudo-socialistic elements into their framework. That is to say, a system where people exchange what are essentially worthless labor slips for products made by government-subsided companies and about 20 percent of earned salary goes to government agencies to be redistributed into shitty second-rate public services and into obese negro single mothers' hands is hardly the most capitalistic thing I've heard of, or at least, it's definitely unlike the capitalism that was around Marx's time.

[Anonymous No.16162093]

>>16162042
Depends on the Marxist and who they're calling reactionary

[Anonymous No.16162108]

>>16162082
The extent to which a social safety net exists is to keep people from saying fuck it and becoming violent

[Anonymous No.16162118]

>>16162082
You're basically asking what Marxists think about social democracy. Social democracy is the bourgeois state's way of managing class contradiction, and should be smashed into a million pieces, along with bourgeois state.
From the very founding of social democracy, the idea socialism can be reached through small reforms, with the Labour party in Britain, its sole aims has been to organise the workers against their revolution.

[Anonymous No.16162124]

>>16162070

>Wealth is the spiritualization of social worth. Marxists hate it because they're social retards and seek to remove it so they no longer have to bend their knee to more socially decent people.

Not true in modern society, it's a game of luck and cunning where that sweet spot of ruthlessness and pettiness wins out. The sociopath coward type has the right combination of fixation and anxiety, and also callous cruelty in a business and financial atmosphere to really make it in a mercantile society like America

[Anonymous No.16162127]

Furthermore, I wonder if there are ways to integrate non-egalitarian elements into the mix, because as someone who's from a working class background, I'm 100% certain that I wouldn't trust the slightest bit of power and influence in anything to be in the hands of retarded proles (who make up about 99% of proles that I've met) who are way better of being lead than leading themselves. I'm not saying that I want that power to coalesce in the hands of wealthy upper-class kikes, but trusting the masses to govern themselves responsibly is just as retarded and a definite recipe for mob rule.

[Anonymous No.16162152]

>>16162030
They hate both.

[Anonymous No.16162157]

>>16162127
The working class being retarded is a byproduct of the cultural slurry they've been forcefed

[Anonymous No.16162163]

>>16162049
Unions aren't socialist. Stop pretending Marxists just want a few better union promoting policies.

[Anonymous No.16162175]

>>16162124
>Not true in modern society
It's still true. The "lucky" and "ruthless" are short-lived exceptions.

[Anonymous No.16162192]

>>16162127
The working class aren't "retarded". In fact, one of them is smarter than the entire bourgeoisie put together, the only difference is the proletariat learn their lessons through direct experience, while the bourgeoisie read about it or not at all.

[Anonymous No.16162202]

>>16162070
wealth is the accumulation of capital. Define "social worth" without lapsing into patrician knobbing.

[Anonymous No.16162219]

>>16162202
The vast majority of people accumulate capital by giving value to others.

[Anonymous No.16162253]

>>16162175

Millionaire porno directors have a huge sway in the culture that everyone is too brainlet are too cowardly to talk about openly. Sames for any other big media job. Would you consider these people bastions of virtue?

[Anonymous No.16162261]

>>16162219
Epstein was a bastion of social value

[Anonymous No.16162270]

>>16162157
I'm not debating that being an element in it, and I know how allergic marxists are to essentialism, but I genuinely can't shake the feeling that most people are just unfit to possess power because of their constitution. The overwhelming majority of the proles I'm talking about had all the resources and encouragement to break out of their lot in life, but they are just simple people with simple needs and no real desire to do anything beyond satisfying those simple needs. I can't see them honestly aspiring to be anything more than what they are by their nature no matter how much you try to educate them, or separate them from the bourgeous sedation. They just have no affinity for it - they are content with just satisfying their small-scale desires, like sexual success, hanging out with their buddies now and again, and spending time with their families.

>>16162192
Common sense and "street smarts" are definitely something that's more common among them, but believing them to be actually able to do anything as intellectually and motivationally demanding as ruling a state is, in my experience, a sort of romanticization of the proletariat that's quite detached from their reality.

I'm not saying that the proletariat doesn't deserve better, I'm just saying that in my experience they neither the innate ability nor the drive to govern themselves without it crashing and burning, or fragmenting themselves because of conflicts of interests, megalomania, or personal matters.

[Anonymous No.16162298]

>>16162270
Having grown up in elite private schools you realize that most of the people that are groomed for career politics aren't actually particularly intelligent so while I wouldn't quibble with the idea that a portion of the proletariat wouldn't be suited for administrative positions I think you're wrong if you think the current ruling class is intelligent

[Anonymous No.16162310]

>>16162270
Its not "common sense". Common sense is often wrong. What I'm saying is they understand capitalism far better than a detached bourgeoisie like Trump, because they have to live inside it day and night. The proletariat can rule a state, but not without reciprocal guidance. The party must be led by the proletariat, and in turn lead the proletariat, who must lead the party. The state cannot be run by bureaucrats detached from the proletariat, nor can the proletariat run it exclusively themselves. This is why mass line is the chosen strategy for ruling a state, at least until that state withers away and is no longer needed.

[Anonymous No.16162345]

means you read marx etc

[Anonymous No.16162346]

>>16162253
Porn (and I mean the quality paid-for kind) is a good fucking thing for a ton of people. Just because there's some morons out there who can't control themselves with it doesn't mean it isn't.

>>16162261
Epstein is not "the vast majority of people," retard.

[Anonymous No.16162352]

>>16162346
It's pedophiles all the way down anon

[Anonymous No.16162357]

>>16162298
I'm not implying that the bourgeoisie are any more suited for it than the proletariat, what I'm saying is that just as putting too much trust in the bourgeoisie to rule responsibly is foolish, so is banking on the proletariat's ability or drive to do so. I don't have a good solution to this conundrum myself, admittedly.

>>16162310
I feel like this is a line of thought that already reached its logical conclusion. The proletariat -> vanguard party -> intellectuals -> minorities/LGBT/etc. pipeline when it comes to who should lead a revolution has already played out to no real success.

I'm also skeptical about the abolition of the state as an institution - though it would be easy for me to say that people will naturally separate themselves into groups, thus making a classless-stateless society a pipe dream, I'd argue that a stateless society is not feasible because states don't exist in a vacuum - groups that are united under the banner of a nation would overrun a group that has no cohesion akin to a state ruled with a strong hand. Unless everyone plays along with the rules you propose for them to play along with, it's simply unrealistic for it to work in any capacity.

[Anonymous No.16162365]

>>16162352
So you're a pedophile too then?

[Anonymous No.16162368]

>>16162357
Most Marxist Leninist want to maintain the state until its no longer necessary so until there isn't a hostile state

[Anonymous No.16162375]

>>16162365
I don't actually exist, solipsism is real and you're arguing with a figment of your imagination like a retard

[Anonymous No.16162382]

>>16161398
holy based

[Anonymous No.16162391]

>>16162375
Oh okay, thanks for clearing that up, me.

[Anonymous No.16162412]

>>16162368
And they genuinely believe that it is possible to unite billions of culturally, linguistically, and ethnically different people under a single banner without it blowing the fuck up in their face? What about people who don't want to become a part of them, of their own volition, without any bourgeois interference?

[Anonymous No.16162419]

>>16162412
>t people who don't want to become a part of them
They see these people as counterrevolutionaries whom they are permitted to murder

[Anonymous No.16162435]

>>16162368
For what purpose?

[Anonymous No.16162437]

>>16162346
Porn, and sexuality in general is too potent a tool in sublimating revolutionary energies to be left to its own devices. A society that is not repressed to a healthy degree is a society that is sedated to hell, and depending on whether you subscribe to the view that such a thing exists, immoral.

[Anonymous No.16162444]

>>16161398
If you have a tenuous knowledge of it, maybe

[Anonymous No.16162452]

>>16162412
I think it's rare to find a Marxist Leninist that wants to borg out the state to consume everything these days. Besides that left anarchists are 99% an op and can't into being mean or not immediately falling to capitalist aggression

[Anonymous No.16162453]

>>16162357
When have "minorties/LGBT" ever ruled a communist pary? That just sounds like chauvinism on your part.
Every socialist society so far has been torn apart by revisionist beuracrats. Which is exactly why when such a thing happens, you have Cultural Revolution, where you arm the proletariat and have them purge the government of such forces.

States will cease to exist because they no longer need to exist. They only exist today to reconcile class contradictions. There will reach a point on socialism where the state becomes a vestige, people will be so organised they don't need it anymore.

[Anonymous No.16162465]

>>16162435
If you aren't organized capitalist states will just kick your ass militarily or actively fuck with you to try and keep you from being successful if military intervention would be too risky

[Anonymous No.16162481]

>>16162437
Revolutions are criminal and bad in nature. They only happen to satiate and exhaust the immediate and violent compulsions of the most disgusting and hateful people in the world, giving nothing valuable to anyone in the process. So the sublimation of "revolutionary energies" can only be a net positive for the world.

[Anonymous No.16162506]

>>16162453
>When have "minorties/LGBT" ever ruled a communist pary? That just sounds like chauvinism on your part.

They didn't, because they're incompetent, but contemporary marxism seemed to have given up on the proletariat as a whole, on the idea of a vanguard party, and on intellectuals to lead a revolution. I'd argue that this is the final state of degradation for marxism, and as such completely inert of revolutionary energies.

>Every socialist society so far has been torn apart by revisionist beuracrats. Which is exactly why when such a thing happens, you have Cultural Revolution, where you arm the proletariat and have them purge the government of such forces

Such transformative processes demand authoritarian measures, and because of that it is all too easy for people lusting after power to derail the process for their own selfish reasons. I also still believe that the proletariat is just as unfit to rule as the bourgeoisie.

>States will cease to exist because they no longer need to exist. They only exist today to reconcile class contradictions. There will reach a point on socialism where the state becomes a vestige, people will be so organised they don't need it anymore.

States, ideally speaking, are emanations of the in-group preferences of certain groups to serve as the tool of their interests - unless you manage to turn everybody into a homogenous mass, is it truly feasible for the state of matters that you're speaking of to ever arrive? Even if you don't subscribe to this conception of the state, do you believe that homogenization and flattening of every difference between groups is worth it in the end?

>Revolutions are criminal and bad in nature. They only happen to satiate and exhaust the immediate and violent compulsions of the most disgusting and hateful people in the world, giving nothing valuable to anyone in the process. So the sublimation of "revolutionary energies" can only be a net positive for the world.

Revolutionary energies are a form of transformative energies, and transformative energies are the energies that mankind fights inertia with - without transformative potential in a society, could there be art, ambition, or anything that the human spirit is capable of creating? A sedated society is like a rotting corpse, completely inert, and in a state of decay.

Revolutions are also not always "bad" or "criminal" - many times they're absolutely justified. However, the ones worth fighting for are almost always the ones that are a lost cause.

[Anonymous No.16162513]

>>16162506
Last paragraph is meant for >>16162481

[Anonymous No.16162554]

>>16162506
>Revolutionary energies are a form of transformative energies
>without transformative potential in a society, could there be art, ambition, or anything that the human spirit is capable of creating?
I agree with the second point, but regarding the first point, revolutionary energy is a NEGATIVE form of transformative energy. It doesn't lead to art or creation for that matter. It's transformative energy gone awry, a corrupt manifestation of it, mangled by the most decadent forces out there. It's petty destruction for the sake of an anti-social hatred and the elimination of everything that makes one feel insecure. Its basis is insecurity and weakness, therefore making it wholly a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.16162571]

>>16162506
It hasn't given up on the proletariat, such as the national minorities and LGBT+ proletariat, its more that the proletariat in general has been led astray by bourgeois social democracy, the labour aristocracy and chauvinism.

>States, ideally speaking, are emanations of the in-group preferences
They certainly are. Either the bourgeoisie state or the proletariat. The state is a means of suppression. When the capitalists are in power, there is bourgeois state. When the proletariat is in power, its a worker's state. Only the worker's state can wither away, since the working class are the class don't need anyone else except themselves.

>sedated society is like a rotting corpse
No-one is calling for this. Socialism is not a utopia, as the USSR and China have proved. Even after the socialist revolution, the working class must always remain in power, andmust always have the right to rebel - even if that means violent rebellion against bureaucrats and revisionists, as well as the ultra-left. The socialist revolution is not necessarily the *last* revolution, in fact its definitely not the last.

[Anonymous No.16162612]

>>16162452
All socialists are the same authoritarian scum.
>The Spanish Revolution, like the Russian, also had its labor camps (campos de trabajo), initiated at the end of 1936 by Juan Garc¡a Oliver, the CNT Minister of Justice in the central government of Largo Caballero. As we have noted, Garc¡a Oliver was a very influential fa¡sta and the most important figure in the Central Committee of Antifascist Militias, the de facto government of Catalonia in the first months of the Revolution. In no way could this promoter of Spanish labor camps be considered marginal to the Spanish Left in general and to Spanish anarchosyndicalism in particular. According to his supporters, Garc¡a Oliver had established the principle of equal justice under law that the Spanish bourgeoisie had previously ignored. The work camps were considered an integral part of the "constructive work of the Spanish Revolution," and many anarchosyndicalists took pride in the "progressive" character of the reforms by the CNT Minister of Justice. The CNT recruited guards for the "concentration camps," as they were also called, from within its own ranks. Certain militants feared that the CNT's resignation from the government after May 1937 might delay this "very important project" of labor camps.
>Understandable resentment against a bourgeoisie, a clergy, and a military whom workers considered unproductive and parasitic crystallized into a demand to reform these groups through productive labor. Anarchosyndicalists endowed work with great moral value; the bourgeoisie, the military, and the clergy were immoral precisely because they did not produce. Thus penal reform meant forcing these classes to labor, to rid them of their sins through work. The Spanish Revolution was, in part, a crusade to convert, by force if necessary, both enemies and friends to the values of work and development.
>According to a CNT historian, "delinquents, reactionaries, subversives, and suspects were judged by popular tribunals composed of CNT militants and, if found guilty, jailed or condemned to forced labor. Fascists, soldiers who looted, drunkards, criminals, and even syndicalists who abused their power were put behind bars or in work camps where they were forced to build roads."77 Inmates of the work camps reported that they also dug trenches and built railroads.
Left anarchists want violent revolution. Left anarchists want to remove "unjust hierarchies," and they will use violent means to do so. But when is a hierarchy unjust? In practice, the mob, and perhaps their charismatic leaders, will decide which hierarchies are unjust. It is the dictatorship of the majority, individual liberties and rights be damned. All socialists are the same. They all want Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat, and it will always lead to authoritarianism. Anarchists my ass.

[Anonymous No.16162616]

>>16162571
That sedated societies comment I've made was about the part the collective libido plays in things - I believe contemporary people are way too sedated because of porn and the reckless search for casual sex. Energies that could be better used elsewhere are sunk into the endless search for hedonistic satisfaction, and thus porn and casual sex are very potent tools in sedating a society that would be much more difficult to handle without them being able to blow all of their steam on cooming. A healthy level of repression is necessary for a formidable amount of potential energy to be in society's reserve if a situation calls for that potential energy, or else we're reenacting the late western roman empire where everybody is just cooming until their brains turn into mush while Rome is burning in the background.

[Anonymous No.16162640]

>>16162357
>I'm also skeptical about the abolition of the state as an institution - though it would be easy for me to say that people will naturally separate themselves into groups, thus making a classless-stateless society a pipe dream, I'd argue that a stateless society is not feasible because states don't exist in a vacuum - groups that are united under the banner of a nation would overrun a group that has no cohesion akin to a state ruled with a strong hand. Unless everyone plays along with the rules you propose for them to play along with, it's simply unrealistic for it to work in any capacity.
>In order for humans to behave, we have to put them behind bars. It is the only way.

[Anonymous No.16162654]

>>16161398
Based. Fuck marxists

[Anonymous No.16162670]

>>16162640
>In order for humans to behave, we have to put them behind bars. It is the only way.
Some, yes. You're so fearful of institutional power that you can't even fathom that it's merely a tool in the hand of its possessors, and not the evil itself.

[Anonymous No.16162680]

>>16162616
Porn is just another aspect of patriarchal capitalism. Patriarchy has a two sided nature - but both a part of reproductive labour. One one side there is the traditional conservative side, women is meant to produce domestic labour and rear children. On the other side is the prostitute nature, the side which is supposed to provide unlimited sexual pleasure for men.

These things are direct opposites, but are part of the same thing, and so turn as easily into one another as any other opposite. The sexual "revolution" wasn't a revolution at all, it was just conservative patriarchy turning into its opposite, prostitution exploitation, which is still exploitation just as vile and enchaining for women as conservative domestic exploitation.

Porn is no more potent than a man having his own domestic slave was,m no matter how vulgar it seems. Ultimately, both are no better than the other, they are fundamentally meant to keep humanity apart by reducing us to commodities and translations. Human sexuality can only reach its truest form when we transcend commodity fetishism, that is, seeing other humans as just transactions or what we can squeeze out of them in money or property, and enter true, human relationships.

[Anonymous No.16162692]

>>16162419
>Capitalism is based on freewill.
>It doesn't need enforcement.
>Only communal societies need enforcement.
>Private property is a fundamental right.
>Locke says so.
>It is written in the Constitution.
>AMENDMENT V
"No person ..., nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
>The (((Founding Fathers))) are so cool.

[Anonymous No.16162715]

>>16162692
>"No person ..., nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
And a just compensation is an amount sufficient to buy property of equal value in the market place. You know that place where you can buy duplicates of the same thing? That concept of not needing a voucher to get your daily state provided rations that's just enough for sustenance if you're lucky? :^)

[Anonymous No.16162728]

>>16162715
>buy
>value
>market
>buy
>thing
You just described paradise.

[Anonymous No.16162744]

>>16162680
Your post has some good insights, but I don't agree with the overall pessimistic conclusion. The patriarchy is not "fundamentally meant to keep humanity apart by reducing [it] to commodities and translations" as you're suggesting. It's concerned with keeping people apart, yes, but so that they are organized within their proper ranks, so that as a whole they form a more productive unit.

Ultimately, the patriarchy is a tool for cultured men, who are concerned with the creation of art and greatness, and who are at the head of this structure, while lying slightly outside of the structure simultaneously. The two sides of the coin of masculinity are actually patriarchy on one side, which has its militaristic / capitalistic positive and exploitative / commodifying negative expressions as you outlined, and culture on the other side, which is everything generative in civilization (men create all the culture; women have never created any of it and never will).

[Anonymous No.16162786]

>>16162744
>The patriarchy is not "fundamentally meant to keep humanity apart by reducing [it] to commodities and translations
Not him. This shit has been going on for 12000 years. Since the neolithic revolution. It's called (((civilization))). And i think it is evil.
>so that as a whole they form a more productive unit.
What can i say? Having over being mentality.
>and who are at the head of this structure
Great. Hierarchy apology. Culture is, by the way, a result of the base, of the production forces. It never was that interesting in the first place, is a glorification of the material and the productive forces, and is getting worse and worse as Capitalism itself is sinking. See Hollywood and the music industry. That's culture. Nowaday culture.

[Anonymous No.16162792]

>>16162744
Its not a pessimistic conclusion. Its a pessimistic outlook *for you*, who wants to keep women as some kind of productive engine for men. People are supposed to exist for themselves, but at the same time meant to advance life, which is advancing themselves, and that includes women. The purpose of life is to advance life, and women (and men) need to advance life in the way they see fit, not shackled by life as a means to advance another's life, as gender relation so far are.

[Anonymous No.16162795]

>>16162728
As long as we both understand that value means the thing that's on the price tag and that there's nothing wrong with purchasing labor as a product on the market, we can based comrades.

[Anonymous No.16162799]

>>16161398
this tbqh

[Anonymous No.16162830]

Why don't all the marxists get together and start a massive marxist company?

Because none of them actually produce anything

[Anonymous No.16162847]

>>16162830
Primitive accumulation of Capital. Not that you are, or will ever be familiar with the subject.

[Anonymous No.16162852]

>>16162830
They do, they're called coops. It's literally the driving force of market socialism my dude.

[Anonymous No.16162859]

>>16162852
Then why does their system need to be the only one in a nation? If marxism can live within a capitalist society but capitalism will not be tolerated in a marxist society, why would I choose the route that has less choice?

[Anonymous No.16162866]

>>16162847
most capitalist wealth has nothing do with primitive accumulation

[Anonymous No.16162867]

>>16162847
Have you ever produced anything in your life?

[Anonymous No.16162875]

>>16162852
coops are pure garbage with little to no evidence of their efficacy compared to traditional company structures

[Anonymous No.16162879]

>>16162875
Do you have proof of coops not being efficient?

[Anonymous No.16162885]

>>16162866
Denial.
>>16162867
Except for myself, no. I must be a good Capitalist.

[Anonymous No.16162903]

>>16162885
>you've produced yourself
wut, are you taking responsibility for your own conception and birth?

[Anonymous No.16162906]

>>16162786
>It's called (((civilization))). And i think it is evil.
So then leave it and go live on some remote island of East Asia or a similar place, if you really despise it that much. There are people who already do that and live off the land, far away from everything civilization has to offer, just as you seem to want it.

>It never was that interesting in the first place, is a glorification of the material and the productive forces, and is getting worse and worse as Capitalism itself is sinking. See Hollywood and the music industry. That's culture. Nowaday culture.
Culture is all art and philosophy. Yes, it's a glorification of the masculine, because only the masculine is capable of appreciating art and philosophy, and the work of all development of culture can't begin without the patriarchal force first physically usurping power from the weak and granting it to a private class. That said, women have benefited from the patriarchy and our culture as well, because culture has beautified them to the level of goddesses, and it has generally secured them protection against direct physical abuse and exploitation.

Today's culture, by the way, is not just limited to Hollywood and the music industry, and neither of these are the sickening things you're implying them to be.

>>16162792
Men don't want to "keep women as some kind of productive engine for men." They want to place them in the ranks and occupations they are best suited for, that THEY can find the most happiness and self-expression in. For women, this happens to be in the service of men. Even women who boast about being independent from the patriarchy still completely rely on it and even secretly enjoy being a part of it — the capitalist structure is fundamentally patriarchal, and such women almost always enjoy making and spending money, and this lifestyle is entirely thanks to the patriarchy. Women naturally seek out ways in which they can serve some kind of masculine force, and that force has become very spiritual over time; women have not abandoned their love of servitude at all.

[Anonymous No.16162927]

>>16162885
A man can produce for himself. Alienation makes people forget this. E.G: Gardening, raising animals, building things himself etc...

[Anonymous No.16162949]

>>16162680
Patriarchy exists because women are by nature an extension of either an abstract or concrete "daddy" figure they belong to - whether that daddy is her literal father, her husband, or in contemporary times, the daddy state. Women are only ontologically real through men, or through their labor, in case of the daddy state. Women, in their heart of hearts, wouldn't have it any other way - a man's love is the desire to possess a woman, while a woman's love is the desire to be possessed by a male she deems worthy of her possession, to whom she can relinquish all responsibility.

>Porn is no more potent than a man having his own domestic slave was,m no matter how vulgar it seems

Men had to achieve a sufficient amount of power and/or money to keep a sex slave - porn demands nothing.

Women are by nature the commodities of men. Relationships between men and women cannot exist on any other sort of basis. Matriarchal civilizations, which are still ultimately reliant on the labor and participation of their men, are in many cases yet to invent the wheel - patriarchy rewards the men who play into creating civilization with access to women. In matriarchal societies, where no man singularly possesses a woman, they have no drive to create anything.

[Anonymous No.16162956]

>>16162927
Libertarians love someone who produces and supports his right to fruits of his labor. We should really remind the working class that there's nothing stopping them from getting together and starting a co-op in capitalist societies!

[Anonymous No.16162960]

>>16162949
*a woman's love is the desire to be possessed by a male she deems worthy of possessing her

[Anonymous No.16162968]

>>16162906
>So then leave it and go live on some remote island of East Asia or a similar place, if you really despise it that much. There are people who already do that and live off the land, far away from everything civilization has to offer, just as you seem to want it.
Raise a lion in a cage, and then free him. Anyway, most temperate climates are already under civilization control. E.G: primitive tribe in the rainforest who are threatened by deforestation.
>They want to place them in the ranks and occupations they are best suited for, that THEY can find the most happiness and self-expression in. For women, this happens to be in the service of men.
Your mind have been infected by the neolithic revolution. And i'm not even feminist. You are an other tradcuck, who despise Capitlaism 2.0, so you want to go back to Capitalism 1.0, aka the 16th-20th century era, Victorian society like.

[Anonymous No.16162969]

>>16162885
it's not denial, look at the top billionaires, they didn't get their wealth from primitive accumulation

[Anonymous No.16162971]

>>16161398
>It means that you're anti-American.
Yes I am
>It means that you're a traitor to your countrymen, regardless of nationality.
Yes I am
>It means you hate the poor.
Yes I do
>It means you have no understanding of the real struggles of the working class.
no I don't
>It means you're economically illiterate.
yes i am
>It means you're murderous, genocidal maniac.
yes i am
>Being a Marxist means you're antithetical to all decent human values.
yes i am

I guess i am a marxist after all

[Anonymous No.16162984]

>>16162971
What are the real struggles of the working class

[Anonymous No.16162989]

>>16162956
They work, in the production sectors (agriculture) who have not yet been entirely centralized in the hands of a few, like mining, oil, heavy industry etc...

[Anonymous No.16162997]

>>16162969
Except they did. You just don't know about their networks.

[Anonymous No.16162998]

>>16161376
It means that you think humanity has peaked in every way and further innovation is impossible.

A notion that is largely held by incompetent narcissists.

[Anonymous No.16163013]

>>16162984
>no, I don't understand the real struggles of the working class

[Anonymous No.16163022]

>>16163013
>it means you have no understanding
>no I don't have?

[Anonymous No.16163029]

Why did Marx say that capitalism would eventually evolve into communism but also advocated for workers to overthrow the existing order?

[Anonymous No.16163035]

>>16162997
What is this conspiracy theory, they just got lucky at the head of businesses that were taking off, most of them have to do with digital technology.

[Anonymous No.16163051]

>>16163022
i am retarded

[Anonymous No.16163055]

>>16163035
>What is this conspiracy theory
Maybe you should be focusing on this. Lenin the bolshevik was financed by the central bankers, but somehow Bill Gates and Elon Musk are self made men. LOL.

[Anonymous No.16163073]

>>16163055
Musk I don't know about, Gates was. I don't like Gates, he seems like a sociopath to me, and I'm sure he did lots of terrible things to get where he is now, but why would the powers that be elevate some random nerd to that position?

Lenin was backed by banks yes, but he was also something of a self-made man, and also likely a sociopath.

[Anonymous No.16163092]

>>16162989
Hey, I hear you buddy. Libertarians hate centralization as much as anyone. That's why we're against crony capitalism that selects winners and losers either through excessive regulations or by unequal enforcement of the law that's possible when the government is overbloated therefore and easily susceptible to corruption by the rich. Co-ops would probably have a fairer time getting off the ground if the government was off their backs, just like any other small business.

[Anonymous No.16163099]

>>16163073
>but why would the powers that be elevate some random nerd to that position?
That is just one fraction of him. The answer is control.

[Anonymous No.16163101]

>>16163073
>Lenin was backed by banks yes, but he was also something of a self-made man
Now That's What I Call Cope: Volume Twenty-wew

[Anonymous No.16163107]

>>16163029
The better question is why Marx thought communism was an INEVITABLE evolution of capitalism yet still pushed people to revolt with pamphlets for dumb proles.

[Anonymous No.16163145]

>>16163107
>What is the young Marx, and the old Marx.

[Anonymous No.16163154]

>>16161376
nothing. it means nothing.

[Anonymous No.16163240]

>>16162906
You're only saying women deserve to be enchained to men and that's where they best are. This is just metaphysics, no better than saying the serf belongs to the lord, or the proletarian needs the bourgeoisie.

>>16162949
>Patriarchy exists because women are by nature an extension of either an abstract or concrete "daddy" figure
Again, this is metaphysical nonsense.

[Anonymous No.16163777]

>>16162968
>Raise a lion in a cage, and then free him.
So then what's the problem? You're in the cage. Learn to enjoy it rather than hate it. Your hatred isn't going to destroy the cage, just yourself.

>You are an other tradcuck, who despise Capitlaism 2.0, so you want to go back to Capitalism 1.0, aka the 16th-20th century era, Victorian society like.
Couldn't be more wrong. I see "Capitalism 2.0" as the continuation of the patriarchy into a more abstract form. I'm in favor of the modern world and everything in it, even whiny lions.

>>16163240
>You're only saying women deserve to be enchained to men and that's where they best are.
I'm not, I'm observing women too. Even the independent ones are still subservient to a masculine force. Modern society has merely abstracted it and made it impersonal, so it isn't immediately felt that way anymore. At the end of the day, all of them still serve: money, the system of its exchange, their employer, social media, the dream of their independence — all given to them by men, and therefore part of the culture of men.

[Anonymous No.16164963]

>>16163154
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.16165014]

>>16162042
Retard Marx was in awe of the productive capacity of capitalism. He is immensely critical of the sheer waste of necessary overproduction and profit-seeking behaviour. This agrarian romanticist guff is an awfully convenient myth to make morons like you work 50 hours a week at minimum week for an iphone.

[Anonymous No.16165026]

>>16162298
I went to a Public School in the UK and what turned me from a liberal into a leftist was how retarded and lazy my peers were, barely scraping into good unis despite classes of 8 people and extra tutoring, then getting key internships and voila. These are the mouthbreathers managing public projects that get privatised.

[Anonymous No.16165034]

>>16162612
Wait until you hear about this authoritarian system called "colonialism" anon.

[Anonymous No.16165362]

>>16165034
Based. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only right wing person who can admit that colonialism was pretty bad.

[Anonymous No.16165448]

>>16165362
Why do you think things have an inherent good/bad valorisation, as opposed to the pure action of the value-form upon relations?

[Anonymous No.16165634]

>>16165362
The drive to maximise overaccumulation and productive forces gained from the colonies literally destroyed the monarchy, the domestic division of labour, the extended family etc - the things conservative fetishize today.

[Anonymous No.16165653]

>>16165448
It keeps things simple it's not as if everything has to be on a spectrum you obsessed freak

[Anonymous No.16165657]

>>16165634
Exactly

[Anonymous No.16165761]

>>16161376
Resentful materialist kikegeist

[Anonymous No.16165892]

>>16161909
best answer

[Anonymous No.16166330]

>>16161398

[Anonymous No.16166371]

Does this board really need a daily marx thread?

[Anonymous No.16166731]

>>16161376
You know when they say the left can't meme without a wall of text?

>pic related
>leftist meme

[Anonymous No.16167660]

>>16166330
Based

[Anonymous No.16167733]

>>16162030
Marxists typically hate both the rich (as they should) and the lowest of the working class because they're mostly religious and intellectually impaired.

[Anonymous No.16167816]

>>16161752
Based

[Anonymous No.16167821]

>>16161398
fpbp

[Anonymous No.16167884]

>>16161839
BAsed

[Anonymous No.16167893]

>>16162013
stfu

[Anonymous No.16167947]

>>16162042
'Primitive communism'' has to be the biggest spook of all time lmao

[Anonymous No.16167962]

>>16162118
>From the very founding of social democracy, the idea socialism can be reached through small reforms, with the Labour party in Britain, its sole aims has been to organise the workers against their revolution.
WTF I'm a social democrat now

[Anonymous No.16167988]

>>16162253
porn rots your brain you should not watch it

[Anonymous No.16167992]

>>16161376
It means to make the statement that economic class outweighs all else in determining the structure of society.
Not that other kinds of structures can't exist. Just that class is more important than them.

Then you can, but don't have to, make the claim that there is a direction that society is moving in, one towards a war between the classes. This war shapes society and which economic class holds power determines its shape.
Not all Marxists say this, but it was once a common idea.

[Anonymous No.16168021]

>>16161469
Marxists due tend to dislike the nuclear family, but only because it was a short lived aberration in every region except England propelled by the post-war economic boom of the West.
They tend to like more traditional larger family structures as it prevents the atomization of the working class.

[Anonymous No.16168036]

>>16162357
>I'm not implying that the bourgeoisie are any more suited for it than the proletariat, what I'm saying is that just as putting too much trust in the bourgeoisie to rule responsibly is foolish, so is banking on the proletariat's ability or drive to do so. I don't have a good solution to this conundrum myself, admittedly.
Please take your pills

[Anonymous No.16168061]

>>16161820

Based marxist

[Anonymous No.16168071]

>>16161562
tranny or faggot detected.

[Anonymous No.16168076]

>>16161820
>The question isn't whether you like it, it's whether you ought to like it. This partly goes back to Hegel's discussion in The Philosophy of Right of what should be done about a subject that is so alienated that he wants what is bad for him.
the sheer arrogance

[Anonymous No.16168100]

>>16161591
>>16161608
>>16161646
None of this considers the reality of the necessity of work or the supply/demand nature of certain job roles. It feels like marxists at best don't understand core economics concepts or at worst actively ignore them to make room for a world-view that treats people like ants in order to have a functional society.

[Anonymous No.16168107]

All threads about marx contain
>the /pol/ shitposter, who think marxism is about trannies and destruction of western civilization and something about jews of course
>the oversocialized liberal cuck, who thinks "radical politics" is cringe (peterson's acolyte)
>the tryharder dude who has actually read, but writes blocks of hardly digestable text
>the burgerman who thinks marxism is when you hate america
>one faggot who spamms reddit-tier "anti-marxist" memes like "there is no food in communism haha"

[Anonymous No.16168112]

>>16161656
Marx was not particularly Jewish, being raised and acting totally secular.
He also expressed some anti-Jewish views at times, although this was also wrapped within his general critique of how capital shapes people's actions. So if it was anti-Jew or just an applied anti-capitalism is mixed.

[Anonymous No.16168307]

>>16168107
And they are all me.

[Anonymous No.16168381]

>>16168107
>>the tryharder dude who has actually read, but writes blocks of hardly digestable text.
That's called having a written conversation.

[Anonymous No.16168526]

>>16161398
>>16161469
based

[Anonymous No.16168548]

>>16168381
I abhor communism but the fact is most communist states did not have shortages of food (or medicine) for most of their lifespans. If you say that they weren't real communism you are embodying the narrative that you personally mock.

[Anonymous No.16168696]

>>16168548
https://libcom.org/forums/theory/lenin-acknowledging-intentional-implementation-state-capitalism-ussr-23032011

[Anonymous No.16168779]

>>16168381
nah I'm the first one to effortpost, but some effortposters go off on rambles that have no link with the main ideas of the thread

[Anonymous No.16168875]

>>16168548
>simping for communism.

[Anonymous No.16168939]

>>16161398
based!

[Anonymous No.16169366]

>>16161376
'Within the intellectual tradition that descends from Marx and his writings.'

[Anonymous No.16169377]

>>16161376
To be one that applies the framework developed by Marx and Engels.

[Anonymous No.16169388]

>>16161878
>Marxian Dialect is a core idea in dialectical materialism which is a necessity to understand Historical Materialism, the basis of Marxian ideology.
Literally a meme invented by Lenin by the way.

[Anonymous No.16169516]

>>16162030
No no, because the rich are nice people that intentionally keep you poor and exploit your labor. Which is totally a thing you volunteered for be virtue of being born. So when a landlord in 1920s China sells your daughter into sex slavery over low yields, that's actually respect for the poor. A cop being called to harass a guy for sleeping on a park bench? Disappearing whole villages of ethnic Maya in Guatemala?That's love to a capitalist.

But the historically fast gains in the living standards of Russians? Libya guaranteeing housing for African refugees? The Black Panthers setting up food services for their neighborhoods? These are examples of hatred to a capitalist, and the capitalists made sure to reverse each of them.

[Anonymous No.16169532]

>>16169366
>>16169377

[Anonymous No.16169571]

>>16162875
Efficiency is not a end of itself. If it gives more value and increases life quality its a great thing. If it results in less of either or both of those, its a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.16169716]

>>16169571
This.

[Anonymous No.16169720]

>>16161398
I'm an egoist, and I hate all of those things and Marx

[Anonymous No.16169977]

>>16167733
critiquing the lumpenproletariat is NOT anti-marxist, or a huge gotcha to left wingers. Blind admiration and a glorification of the worker is often times retarded and pointless. there are working class people who are complete fucking retards and i have no shame in admitting that. However, that does not mean that working on the betterment of the underclass as a whole means that the coincidental class support of those you disagree with is ironic or dubious.

[Anonymous No.16169983]

>>16169977
It doesn't work in practice though

[Anonymous No.16169995]

>>16169977
So what then, are the working class just supposed to do what you guys tell them to?

[Anonymous No.16170047]

>>16169983
How so? The critic but support of the lumpenproletariat, or just communism as a whole?
>>16169995
I am against all populist subversions of working class consciousness. The vanguard of Marxist thought should be brought upon by respected and effective representations of the working-class's will supported within the confounds of actual political theory. Both as a gateway for the majority towards theory and political organisation, and likewise as the applicant of abstract theory into praxis.

[Anonymous No.16170058]

>>16170047
>The vanguard of Marxist thought should be brought upon by respected and effective representations of the working-class's will supported within the confounds of actual political theory.
is this code for 'we are going to tell them what to do and if they disagree we'll force them'

[Anonymous No.16170064]

>>16170047
People starve to death

[Anonymous No.16170090]

>>16170058
I don't want to force the people to do anything (except read theory i guess). If the revolution is not supported by the majority, it will not happen or is doomed to fail. Simple as. Revolutionnary uprisings as seen scattered throughout the XXth century are now impossible. The only thing that is to be done for modern marxists, is to redirect the public malaise of modern society towards a thoughtful and still very poignant analysis of the root of this malaise.
>>16170064
Nobody has ever starved under Capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16170110]

>>16170090
>Nobody has ever starved under Capitalism who didn't deserve it
Fixed

[Anonymous No.16170112]

>>16170110
edgy and cool.

[Anonymous No.16170376]

>>16169571
Efficiency for who? The people making the product, or the people who benefit from using the product?

[Anonymous No.16170398]

Marxism first manifested itself as tragedy, then as farce. Marx certainly was an intellectual giant and eloquent shitposter of the highest rank, but ultimately wrong. Marxism's roots are in the field of political economy and that is also where they are easiest cut and the entire tree falls flat. Marx is at best regarded as a minor post-Ricardian in economics and there's a very good reason no one takes him seriously, and most famous self-proclaimed marxists stir away from his failed economics and why so few tried to build upon it despite it being unfinished. His a priori argument as to why labour invested in the production of commodities is the determining factor of the exchange value is laughable and upon this failed base everything else follows, every failed prediction and hypothesis. Bohm Bawerk picks apart his magnum opus and unmasks the fallacies upon which marxian economics rest. Defenders such as Sombart and Hilfdering come off as bumbling buffoons discrediting marxism as much as bohm bawerk if that's the best defense marxists can muster. Irreconcilable contradictions, unquantifiable variables, and vaguely defined concepts litter the work and make it a 'science', equally impotent as it is unfalsifiable. This incomplete bundle of confusion serves no purpose other than to justify the notion that every form of employment is exploitation, and that the falling rate of profit will make capitalism's contradictions kill itself.
Historical and dialectical materialism are tools which can posthoc justify any event and their predictive power is reduced to nil, at best they retain their descriptive power. Later marxists seeing that the measures of trade unions within capitalism which marx deemed 'conservative' have lessened the burden upon the worker and the white collar revolution that followed decreased alienation experienced at the workplace, devote their attention to matters marx deemed either secondary or did not consider at all or could not consider at all. The continental marxists have created an impenetrable barrier in their works between themselves and the working class they supposedly represent.Some of these works contain genuine insight and truths in them, but are ultimately littered with snobbish jargon or completely nonsensical sentences isolating these intellectuals in a manner that was characteristic of philosophers before Marx, and who he critiqued and said "it's time philosophers put their ideas into practice".
The most respectable marxists nowadays are very timid ones who, at best, hope for "a big thing" to come and shake things up or ultimately kill capitalism, while the biggest majority are internet pseuds who mentally jerk themselves off repeating ad nauseam these esoteric and supposedly edifying concepts which sound cool - "dialectical", "organic composition of capital", "inherent contradictions", "dictatorship of the proletariat", "scientific socialism" as opposed to "utopian socialism" etc without . A sad state of affairs.

[Anonymous No.16170411]

>>16170090
>>16170110
https://www.globalresearch.ca/somalia-the-real-causes-of-famine/25725

[Anonymous No.16170495]

>>16170376
I assume the anon complaining about the efficiency of Co-ops is referring to efficiency of production.
So the efficiency of the people making the product.

Co-ops are going to often if not always be less efficient because of the employees in them while wanting more money are less likely to put into effect programs that would heavily increase their stress in order to get that money. Whereas a normal corporation head will do so.

[Anonymous No.16170519]

>>16170398
> Later marxists seeing that the measures of trade unions within capitalism which marx deemed 'conservative' have lessened the burden upon the worker and the white collar revolution that followed decreased alienation experienced at the workplace, devote their attention to matters marx deemed either secondary or did not consider at all or could not consider at all.
This is the only okay argument you gave. Other than that, your post is just smooth talk. Regarding the (only) argument you gave, Marx, is critique of political economy in itself. In Das Kapital, he never propose political economy concrete measures himself. In Critique of the Gotha program, he mocks political economy adepts, and their faith in the State. In the end, in Marxism view, "measures" which better the worker condition are just means for the Capital to buy social peace, and avoid class struggle. Marx despise political economy.

[Anonymous No.16170678]

>>16170519
>>
I did not come here with the intent to expound on arguments, but rather to give my view of marxism in broad strokes.
I am aware that Marx despised political economy and "vulgar economists" as he called them, but his magnum opus rests on the labour theory of value which was in the center of the political economic discourse of his time, marginalism appearing much after he wrote the first volume of das kapital and the notes that later constituted the 2nd and 3rd. In das kapital Marx supposedly exposes the exploitative nature of capitalism and the inherent in it, and how they contribute to its collapse.
It is funny that you mention the critique of the gotha program right after saying that that he does not propose concrete measures himself, while it is true that marx wrote notoriously much about capitalism compared to socialism, the gothakritik is actually one of the few works in which he differentiates lower communism where "to each according to contribution" is the main principle from higher phase communism where the famous "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is from.
The idea that "measures which better the worker condition are just means for the Capital to buy social peace, and avoid class struggle" will be considered is an idea that marx knew about, but he rejected it as it is incompatible with the workings of capitalism. A capitalist would not be able to consistently buy labour power above its cost of reproduction while the rate of profit is falling as time goes on, if anything this would makes crises more frequent, and accelerate collapse.

[Anonymous No.16170683]

We read theory.
>>16161398
Have interracial sex, chud.

[Anonymous No.16170767]

>>16170678
>A capitalist would not be able to consistently buy labour power above its cost of reproduction
But Capitalist don't consistently buy labour power about its cost of reproduction. What's more, the rate of exploitation (surplus value/value of labor power) increase in the last decades.
About marginalism, it doesn't seem to be able to explain the origin of value. It explain price mechanism, so exchange value dynamics, why does price decrease with utility and such, but it doesn't explain why a particular factory produced item has value in the first place.

[Anonymous No.16170769]

>>16161398
You may suck my dick now

[Anonymous No.16170801]

>>16170767
>But Capitalist don't consistently buy labour power about its cost of reproduction.
Yes, I agree. Good.
>What's more, the rate of exploitation (surplus value/value of labor power) increase in the last decades.
The increase of the rate of exploitation should have occured ever since the industrial revolution, according to marx. The fact that the west has seen real wages grow up until the 70s/80s of the last century is in complete contradiction with the law of value.

[Anonymous No.16170812]

>>16161376
it means you suck dick and eat cum

[Anonymous No.16170841]

>>16170801
Well you should re-read Marx. You can earn more, and still be more exploited. The rate of exploitation is the ratio of the total amount of unpaid labor done (surplus-value) to the total amount of wages paid (the value of labour power).
If the amount of wages paid increase, but surplus value increase faster, then the exploitation rate increase.

[Anonymous No.16170850]

>>16170841
Exploitation of labor is actually a narrow field, you must both believe money to be the primary reason for action and also fail to achieve a satisfactory amount of money relative to your expectations.

Probably like, 15% of people.

[Anonymous No.16170884]

>>16161376
It means you think a more equitable economic system has the potential to supersede capitalism as capitalism succeeded feudalism when a certain combination of material abundance and economic destitution comes about

That’s it

[Anonymous No.16170892]

>>16161398
Chad

[Anonymous No.16170907]

nothing at best or a tendency to adopt ideology at worst

[Anonymous No.16170913]

>It means that you're anti-American.
Yes. The United States of America and all Americans, black, brown, Asian White need to die.
>It means that you're a traitor to your countrymen, regardless of nationality.
Yes and no. They betrayed me first.
>It means you hate the poor.
Yes, I hate how they refuse to get rid of the major stain on humanity, America.
>It means you have no understanding of the real struggles of the working class.
Of course, it's just theory. You have to be actively working class to understand the struggle and fortunately for me, both of parents happen to live miserable lives of pointless toil.
> It means you're economically illiterate.
I don't need to understand neoliberal garbage.
> It means you're murderous, genocidal maniac.
Absolutely. All 328 million Americans need to die in a nuclear first strike.
> Being a Marxist means you're antithetical to all decent human values.
"Humanity" as it is, is a worthless species that needs to abolished.

>In short, being a Marxist means you're either evil or a dunce.
> It means you are deconstructing the Western Civilization
Yes. I want to smash it and build in its place a universal human civilization.
>It means you advocate for the subversion of our Judeo-Christian values
Yes. Judaism and its offshoots must be destroyed.
> It means niggerfying your culture
Niggers have done less harm to me than white mutts, so nothing changes really.
> It means spitting on your nation and your race
They're a bunch of short-sighted and weak losers on their own.
>It means advocating for open borders and bringing hordes of immigrants in to take our jobs, gangrape our women, eliminate our race
Your race is garbage and attacks me for no reason. I belong to an immigrant group that should be full gusano but then one of yours attacked me for no good reason.
> It means destroying the traditional nuclear family
Yes. My father is a bumbling idiot who wasted his life chasing the American dream.
>It means the destruction of motherhood and femininity and women taking the roles of men working in cubicles and hating and cheating on their husbands because of equality and taking everything he has
Yes, though men who suffer that are weaklings who deserved it anyway.
> It means stealing private property from someone who worked hard because you are lazy and resentful
I keep getting cucked out of my creations, it's only just to seize to back from them.
>It means advocating for interracial sex and the contamination of racial purity
I gain nothing from my race, so I lose nothing from losing it.
> It means indoctrinating our children in schools and university to hate themselves, their culture, their nation, their race
All of humanity needs to self-criticize.
> It means advocating for promiscuity and degeneracy and the erasure of the morality and values that were held by our ancestors
My ancestors were garbage as bad as yours.

I'd like to think I am evil, but I haven't killed anybody yet. I am quite assured I am not a dunce.

[Anonymous No.16170927]

>>16161591
Reading Capital right now, based breakdown, well done anon

[Anonymous No.16170938]

>>16168100
The point is that the value extracted from worker's time is more valuable than the products they buy with their compensation causing value to be funneled upwards creating the ridiculous levels of wealth inequality we see today

[Anonymous No.16170956]

>>16170927
Obviously you aren't.

[Anonymous No.16171443]

>>16170913
Lol seething

[Anonymous No.16171453]

>>16170913
Btw you deserve to be attacked and cucked out of your creations. That you are attacked and put under duress is absolutely hilarious!!

[Anonymous No.16171503]

>>16162830
Holy fucking based.
Surplus labor "exploitation" btfod in one image.

[Anonymous No.16171568]

>>16162852
Lol your shitty farmers markets suck and socialists are willing to pay 5x the price for a tomato just to pretend it works

Ironic

[Anonymous No.16171616]

>Marxism as an ideology is... to be woefully naive and disillusioned from society

>If you mean to be like the man himself...
It is to be a complete & isolated neet from society & apart of the rich ruling class.
Only to spend your entire luxurious neet-dom writing a philosophical book about society & its communities inner workings/struggles from what you see by staring out your window at the local market.
Instead of going out and physically interacting with the society and people you are writing about, you will instead
playing into your confirmation biases.
Thus believing that capitalism & the exchange of goods/services through competitive trade is counterproductive to the human race, due to your blatant lack of social skills & interpreting the public's bartering, socially heated conversations, and loud shouting to bring attention to their wares as evil and destructive conflict among the people for limited and scarce resources.
Eventually, you will come to the childish and naive conclusion of an ideal Utopian communal society where everyone receives the same work, wealth, services, & goods via confirmation bias as your current luxury failing to realize the societal undertones and reasoning between peoples belief/virtues/values that inherently lead to violent conflict and strife outside of your comfy ideological neetbubble

[Anonymous No.16171653]

>>16161398
fpbp

[Anonymous No.16171736]

>>16161398
This.

[Anonymous No.16171852]

>>16170519
You proved everything this poster said in the last paragraph about online Marxists. If you were even somewhat literate about Marx, the first paragraph would be enough of an argument for you. kill yourself together with libertarians and neoliberals

[Anonymous No.16172145]

Holy shit the amount of marxshits on here
GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY BOARD

[Anonymous No.16172209]

>>16162830
>>16171503
hey guys exploitation isn't an ethical concept for Marx

[Anonymous No.16172217]

>>16170398
>His a priori argument as to why labour invested in the production of commodities is the determining factor of the exchange value is laughable
it's not an a priori argument

[Anonymous No.16172265]

>>16161376
It means you want to live in the life philosophy of Karl Marx. He was a leech who took money off everyone around him so that he didn't have to do any real work. This is what his followers want also.

[Anonymous No.16172671]

>>16172145
>being this threatened by opposing ideas
maybe literature just isn't for you, anon

[Anonymous No.16172980]

>>16172265
He was a degenerate in several aspects of his life

[Anonymous No.16173294]

>>16172217
>it's not an a priori argument
It is an a priori argument. Marx is well aware that as he is writing the first volume of das kapital that commodities as he is writing DO NOT exchange at their exchange value, but rather at their prices of production. He points this out to the reader in Vol. 1 and promises to resolve this later. Marx proceeds with a negative argument borrowed from Aristotle:
"there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third."
and
"This common “something” cannot be either a geometrical, a chemical, or any other natural property of commodities .... If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour."
Marx states that commodities exchanging at their exchange value theoretically and historically precedes the stage of capitalist production that is present when he is writing, and is present in early capitalist production before competition forces the rate of profit to equalize. For this being the case he gives no proof.

[Anonymous No.16174139]

>>16170841
I am entirely aware that it is hypothetically possible for the rate of exploitation to increase while the worker would earn more, but the problem is that this is, as I've said, in contradiction with the law of value. Labour power is a commodity subject to the law of value like other commodities, according to marx, capitalists only pay for the cost of reproducing labour power. An individual capitalist, even if he wanted to ensure the wellbeing of his workers for whatever altruistic reason, would go bankrupt due to market competition.
If real wages grew as productivity grows, then the contradictions within capitalism become less severe, not more. According to marx the intensity of labour should grow and wages stagnate as the profit rate falls, a last ditch effort of capitalists to remain in the green, before capitalism's collapse.

[Anonymous No.16174333]

>>16161398
This is the most retarded thing I've seen today, and I looked in the mirror.

[Anonymous No.16174357]

>>16174333
>333
He's not wrong though, clearly...

[Anonymous No.16174358]

>>16161591
Don't listen to this idiot, this has nothing to do with Marxist theory. Most likely he's never read anything by Marx nor any other Marxist for that matter.

[shrek No.16174373]

>>16161376
fag

[Anonymous No.16174606]

>>16161435
>reject identity politics.
unless you're an accelerationist

[Anonymous No.16175100]

>>16174606
True

[Anonymous No.16175145]

>>16170683
>unironically saying chud
leave

[Anonymous No.16175488]

>>16174606
So how does this work... Accelerationist-X means advocating doing the opposite of X so hard that people demand X?

[Anonymous No.16176048]

>>16171852
based centrist spotted

[Anonymous No.16176055]

>>16170090
>Nobody has ever starved under Capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16176571]

>>16173294
it's a hypothesis that generates empirical predictions

[Anonymous No.16177985]

>>16170913
>I'd like to think I am evil, but I haven't killed anybody yet.