on marx's capital

[Anonymous No.20157221]

how fucking unironically retarded and backwards do you have to be to read marx and not become a marxist? how trucking much of backwards simpleton do you have to be? Marx is literally constructing heaven and everyone else is just wallowing in the mud. its literally beyond my comprehension how you could be SO stupid that you would literally enslave yourself instead of being free and embracing marxism

[Anonymous No.20157227]

Yikes.

[Anonymous No.20157229]

>>20157221
<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="25" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/1ee7c5a1_Pepega.png">

[Anonymous No.20157233]

>>20157227
>dude I LOVE being a cuck to private property

[Anonymous No.20157237]

>>20157221
>Marx is literally constructing heaven
It's almost like that is the telltale mark of a snake oil salesman.

[Anonymous No.20157241]

>>20157233
You will own nothing and you won't be happy.

[Anonymous No.20157248]

>>20157237
there's nothing snake ooil about workers owning the means of production and distribution and the elimination of the state. do you have no imagination?

[Anonymous No.20157264]

>>20157241
you will own the means of production via the dictatorship of the proletariat. try again.

[Anonymous No.20157269]

>>20157248
Post-scarcity is economic snake oil. And his entire "heaven" depends on the antithesis of reality as we know it being true of reality. Secondly, private ownership and the state are ideals, so why would I want to abolish them? A world without distinction, the prospect of advancement above others is more like hell than heaven in my eyes.

[Anonymous No.20157275]

I'm a landowner. I'm probably among the top 50 richest people in my shithole third world country. I consider working people to be less than human. I hold my pets in higher esteem than manual laborers

[Anonymous No.20157283]

>>20157264
dont worry, this board is st8ill too ignorant and full of tradcath larpers to even begin to comprehend the advanced class struggle

[Anonymous No.20157287]

KIll yourself, tranny.

[Anonymous No.20157297]

>>20157287
>That image
<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/e54792d7_KEKW.png">

[Anonymous No.20157308]

>>20157287
wagecuck

[Anonymous No.20157310]

>how can i get people to like marx
>i know, i'll talk like a FAGGOT and make everyone further associate marxism with HECKIN CHONKY TWITTER REDDIT TRANNY FAGGOTRY

THE WORKING CLASS APPRECIATES YOUR SUPPORT

[Anonymous No.20157322]

>>20157310
DUDE EVERYONE WHO IS A SLAVE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY IS A TRANNY

[Anonymous No.20157326]

> Still no argument ITT
based marx

[Anonymous No.20157333]

>>20157221
At first I read this as "how could you read marx or become a marxist" and I was like haha yeah but then I was like lol this guy's a faggot.

[Anonymous No.20157341]

>>20157287
someone make a wojak

[Anonymous No.20157343]

>>20157264
>you will own the means of production via the dictatorship of the proletariat. try again
The worst part about this post is that it's believable that anon's think this unironically.

[Anonymous No.20157348]

if you arent a marxist you are literally a cuck to privet property. imagine not owning the means of production. imagine living in a capitalist hell when you could live in a utopia..like holy shit WE COULD BE IN PARADISE if it wasn't for rightoids

[Anonymous No.20157353]

>>20157343
read theory

[Anonymous No.20157354]

>>20157348
>own thing
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

lmao

[Anonymous No.20157359]

>>20157353
That's like asking me to learn klingon. i.e. something that is made up and not based in reality.

[Anonymous No.20157368]

>>20157359
>
>due pimagine if i, the worker, owned private property
>wow thats too foregn to leterally comprehend

[Anonymous No.20157371]

the materialist conception of history is correct

[Anonymous No.20157373]

>>20157354
>work labour
>someone else makes money thar you dont off your labour
how could you be this stupid?

[Anonymous No.20157382]

>>20157354

CONSUME

[Anonymous No.20157387]

<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/0ee48fb4_longcat.png">
<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="30" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/95c37417_longcata.png">
<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/e77bc341_longcatb.png">
shut the fuck up!

[Anonymous No.20157397]

>>20157221
>Marx is literally constructing heaven
It is really amusing how true it is when people describe Marxism as a religion for atheists. At least the major churches treat foretelling judgement day as heresy so that only the most fringe Christians embarrass themselves with false predictions, failed Marxist predictions of the coming revolution are too frequent to be amusing anymore.
>inb4 20th century communism
Almost all major takeovers were of feudal empires which subsequently made other smaller states communist by outright conquest rather than workers in capitalist democracies rising up, and almost all are now dead, capitalised, or turned quasi-fascist.

[Anonymous No.20157398]

>>20157237

hilarious using "salesman" as a slur in defense of capitalism. enjoy paying top dollar for your insulin so that a pharma billionaire can take another sex tour to the Philippines

[Anonymous No.20157405]

>>20157397

mfkers don't know the difference between utopian socialism and scientific socialism

[Anonymous No.20157411]

>>20157398
Bitter asshole <span class="xae" data-xae="thup">👍[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.20157414]

>>20157373
>use someone else’s tools that you had no part in the construction of to do your work
>n-nuh uh i-it was all my effort!

[Anonymous No.20157420]

>>20157405
>economic “science”
>being scientific
This is what Marxists actually believe. Marxism uses science to the same extent the church uses rationalist philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20157421]

Do poor people have souls?

[Anonymous No.20157431]

>>20157411

Is that your review of rimming your employer's CEO?

[Anonymous No.20157432]

>>20157221
Its simple, LTV is wrong and practical Communism was rather unpleasant to live under for most

[Anonymous No.20157435]

seriously how stupid, cucked and retarded do you have to be not to be a leftist? you are literally cucking yourself because you dont understand basic economics and class solidarity

[Anonymous No.20157438]

>>20157414
cuck

[Anonymous No.20157448]

>>20157420

https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

[Anonymous No.20157455]

>>20157373
>need people to do work for you to get something done
>hey buddy, can you work for me?
>Why? I'd be spending my time doing work for you instead of me.
>Okay, I'll give you something that we can both agree upon to be as equally valuable as your time being used working for me.
>Alright, that sounds fair.
>*Marx attempts but fails to kick the door open*
>Turns out it opens to the outside so he opens it and walks in
>HE'S STEALING YOUR LABOR! the fat faggot cries, possibly shitting himself from the excitement in the process
>What the fuck are you talking about? Also who the fuck are you and what are you doing on my private property? says the man offering a job
>Marx's face turns red from rage at the sound of "private"
>Yeah - says the other man - I mean, take me for example, I need food, but if I spent all day farming, I wouldn't be able to do anything else, but someone else offers that for all of us, and as compensation, we give him valuable things back in exchange for the food he grows. Because if we didn't, why would he give his food to us?
>At this point Marx is literally shitting so hard that the shit which has turned to liquid out of anger has begun splattering through his pants (made in China) and onto the ground

It shocks me that people unironically still take anything about Communism in general as serious and don't see it for what it truly is. As both a failed attempt at explaining the world from an autistic retard enraged with resentment and a means to dispose of powers that be to become the new powers that be through the enlistment of useful idiots to catapult the "socialist man" into said positions of power.

[Anonymous No.20157457]

>>20157405
explain the difference

[Anonymous No.20157482]

>>20157457

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - Frederick Engels
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htm

[Anonymous No.20157483]

>>20157455
It's actually like
>hey! that capitalist is stealing the value of your labour
>maybe you should get the full value of your labour instead of that capitalist who did literally nothing
>ok, we've gotten rid of the capitalist and formed the dictatorship of the proletariat which equitably distributes capital among the workers
>wow now i have everything i need because i get the full worth of my labour

you would have to be seriously fucking idiotic to reject this. how fucking stupid can you be? how much of a cuck can you be?

[Anonymous No.20157486]

>>20157397
I dunno I get a larff out of em. Must be why that Fisher fella done offed himself. Its humorous

[Anonymous No.20157487]

i'm at the point where if someone doesn't defend the execution of the romanovs, they aren't worth talking to about ethical or political questions
all power to the central committee

[Anonymous No.20157494]

>>20157483
>>20157483
>>20157483
>>20157483
>>20157483
>>20157483
this

[Anonymous No.20157499]

>>20157287
if tranny janny wasnt a retard he couldve really fucked with waters given that headline. that guy was a reject who got passed over for a real show and put on retarded comedy segments for like 10 years

[Anonymous No.20157504]

>>20157482
>utopian socialism is when the people take control, scientific socialism is when the people take control though authoritarianism

lol

[Anonymous No.20157509]

>>20157310
>ropium
kek <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/e54792d7_KEKW.png">

[Anonymous No.20157522]

>>20157397
>Almost all major takeovers were of feudal empires which subsequently made other smaller states communist by outright conquest rather than workers in capitalist democracies rising up, and almost all are now dead, capitalised, or turned quasi-fascist.
the world would have gone red if not for the misleadership of the social democratic parties on the eve of ww1. People don't understand how big marxism was among workers in 1910, particularly in Germany. If it as possible in Russia, it was possible in the Industrial core.

[Anonymous No.20157539]

>>20157522
wow i wonder what ethnology-religious group was leading the charge for marxists in the early 20th century

[Anonymous No.20157542]

>>20157448
Einstein was a great physicist. Had he been a great biologist instead perhaps he would have understood why “laws” pertaining to human society (the most complex organisation of the most complex animal) are not going to be as easily found and universally applied as laws in physics, biological phenomena are never so concisely described, even the term “species” is under critique, as it has been since before darwin. I do not believe our consumerist capitalist liberal society to be moral, but it is unbelievable hubris to imagine one has “understood” the nature of humanity and it’s societies as Marx and his followers did. Socialism, the good of the community above the individual, is a noble cause; Marxism is a dogmatic stain on the potential for the improvement of our societies, it is for those who pretend to understand more than they do.

[Anonymous No.20157550]

>>20157522
I guess that perfect scientific prediction of the development of human society couldn’t predict a war that had been growing inevitable for decades then.

[Anonymous No.20157558]

>>20157398
It reflects more on the irony of Marxists themselves, as basically capitalist-materialist in instinct (the latter of which they will admit to).

[Anonymous No.20157567]

>>20157405
There is utopian socialism, ie socialism which doesn't bother to try to explain anything, and pseudo-scientific socialism, ie socialism which uses unscientific principles to attempt to justify itself, which results in "theory" which is more akin to naturopathy than anything actually scientific.

[Anonymous No.20157571]

>>20157558
>the irony of Marxists themselves, as basically capitalist-materialist in instinct
It shouldn’t be surprising for people that base an entire worldview off of economics, which is still a poorly constructed and impractical subject

[Anonymous No.20157574]

>>20157539
Slavs
Eastern and Western Europeans. Usually none religious, but probably still marginally christian.

[Anonymous No.20157575]

>>20157567
imagine being a right wing cuck to cooperations like you lmao

[Anonymous No.20157582]

>>20157574
based, christfags who oppose the revolution are hypocrites

[Anonymous No.20157599]

>It is really amusing how true it is when people describe Marxism as a religion for atheists.

[Anonymous No.20157623]

>>20157483
<img class="xae" data-xae width="30" height="29" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/51cbf903_PepeLaugh.png">
"Needs" change my young friend. Our system is (supposed to be) built for maximum innovation. We consider cellphones a need now for instance. Under your distribution system, less will be produced. Also, if you are a socialist because you believe capitalism is making your life worse personally, I can guarantee you that now is a good time to make money if you're an American. There hasn't been a better time to make money with artistic things too (because I know you're gonna say that you don't want to be a part of the production machine)

[Anonymous No.20157628]

>>20157221
>>20157233
>>20157264
>>20157448
>>20157482
>>20157599
>WHY ISN'T MY SCHIZOPHENIC RABBI'S RAMBLING WORKING!?!?!?!?

[Anonymous No.20157643]

>>20157599
No, that’s “Marxist-Leninism”
But he’s just copying what all states do. What Nationality are you?

[Anonymous No.20157648]

Nietzsche was absolutely correct to describe Marxism as the personification of slave morality. Marxism appeals to people with a victim complex, people who refuse to improve themselves, and those who simply want to be envious and resentful towards the gifted and lucky. It truly the ideology of the weak, decedent and genetically inferior. They are degenerates. People should support Marxists should physically removed from society.

[Anonymous No.20157651]

I've come to believe that it's probably unlikely to see the power of capitalism be overthrown and replaced by some totally different socio-economic form of governance and productivity any time soon. However, it might be a different thing to gradually subordinate (rather than try in vain to replace) the power of capitalism to the power of socialism.

A difficult task but evidently not impossible.

Fun fact, the Amazon warehouse in New York that just voted to unionize got salted by communists who used William Z. Foster's organizing techniques:

https://labornotes.org/2022/04/amazon-workers-staten-island-clinch-historic-victory

[Anonymous No.20157654]

There once was a man named Harold Bloom. A case could be made that he had to of read Marx for him to criticize the "fake Marxists" of academia who are mixtures of Foucault and others.

[Anonymous No.20157655]

>>20157221
It seems like there might be some value in 'Marxism' but my problem is that I believe most marxists themselves are the biggest obstacle to the coming about of a marxist state of affairs. What to do?

[Anonymous No.20157662]

>>20157655
>I believe most marxists themselves are the biggest obstacle to the coming about of a marxist state of affairs
Well it's probably useful to quote Karl Marx on this:

>Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

[Anonymous No.20157665]

>>20157221
The marxist countries don't seem any more free than the non Marxist ones.. In fact they seem more enslaved and monitored on. His critique on capitalism seems spot on but honestly haven't finished his work yet though.

[Anonymous No.20157666]

>>20157655
Read works of aesthetic merit, not those pertaining to a certain ideological group.

[Anonymous No.20157667]

>>20157221

How exactly would transferring the means of production from private individuals and corporations to the state benefit me in the slightest?

[Anonymous No.20157668]

>>20157651

[Anonymous No.20157672]

>>20157348
Or you're an ubermensch who's paving the way for humanity to greater heights with your unwavering ambition like bezos and Musk.

[Anonymous No.20157673]

>>20157651
>Praisining union organizing while celebrating a country (China) that shuts it down
You're an absolute fucking idiot. Also, it doesn't matter. When the GOP takes the house in November, they will have the ability to pass the Employees Rights Act which limit non-sense like that.

[Anonymous No.20157686]

>>20157398
Don't you have to pay to see Marx's grave? All socialists are massive hypocrites that don't even try to hold themselves to the standards they expect others to.

[Anonymous No.20157689]

>>20157665
I think part of the issue here, and why socialism hasn't really been much of a thing in Western countries (like the United States) for a long time, is that if you're an American and you look at your country and your life and compare it to actually-existing socialist regimes, those regimes just simply don't measure up. So why would you be a "communist?" It doesn't make any sense unless you were living in the ghetto.

And they wouldn't even be WRONG.

On the other side of the coin, most "communists" in these rich countries today have tended to be just professors or students. Like, it's mostly abstract to them and up-in-the-clouds and mostly focused around critique than solving practical problems in the real world.

The exception was the 1930s when there was a Great Depression, the USSR seemed like an alternative, and the rising fascist regimes propelled opponents of fascism into communist parties because they were the most militant and effective fighting force against fascism at that time. That was a real problem.

But I think it's a different story if you lived in China where just putting an end to chaos and war and getting some basic plumbing and hot water has a substantial improvement in your quality of life. So when we talk about "freedom," in might be better to ask: freedom in what dimension? This isn't even exclusive to communist regimes: look at Singapore. It's well developed now, but it wasn't a few decades ago and there were a lot of people living there in the 1950s and 1960s who didn't have toilets.

>>20157668
Nice meme

[Anonymous No.20157691]

>>20157264
>Your ideas are so bad they require a dictatorship to implement
Socialists really don't try anymore with these arguments huh. They just openly admit they are retarded.

[Anonymous No.20157696]

>>20157673
Hi scabby

[Anonymous No.20157699]

>>20157322
How does one become a slave to private property? Private property is a private person owning property. Your ability to own yourself and your property is the very opposite of being a slave.

[Anonymous No.20157701]

>>20157689
New York is the most unionized state in the country, and its still one the most shittest places to live and expensive places to live. The idea unionization will help is laughable wrong. New York unions are notorious for corruption and they're just shell organizations for the mob there.

[Anonymous No.20157705]

>>20157699
Communists are slaves to private property. They're mindless consumers who support communism because they are hyper-materialistic.

[Anonymous No.20157706]

>>20157373
>Agrees to work for someone else
>Agree that you get compensated x amount for labour
>Complains about what you agree with?
Don't want to work for someone else? Don't agree to those terms. It's literally that simple.
Also, why do dimwit communists that love talking about owning their own work, never put their money where their mouth is and open up their own business with their own principles?

[Anonymous No.20157707]

>>20157701
Oh, believe me, you can talk to my friends if you want to hear stories about these "unions." But I think why that organizing drive was successful is because they used old-style militant communist techniques. Totally grassroots rank-and-file. Contrast that with the failed attempt in Alabama via a union affiliated with the AFL-CIO and their entrenched labor bureaucrats who have built long, well-paid careers being fucking useless.

But between this vote and the ousting of Hoffa Jr. at Teamsters, we might be seeing the rebound of the labor movement.

[Anonymous No.20157710]

>>20157705
Stop posting these

[Anonymous No.20157711]

>>20157275
<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/90786369_pepePoint.png">

[Anonymous No.20157722]

>>20157707
Teamsters literally ran by the fucking mob dude what fuck are you on about lmao
Do you not know who Jimmy Hoffa is?
>Failed in Alabama
Good, unions representation is the highest in places that are the most expensive to live Its not a coincidence unionized states are shit holes to live. Keep that shit in blue states and stay the fuck out of the south.

[Anonymous No.20157726]

>>20157710
Cope and Seethe.

[Anonymous No.20157733]

>>20157722
>Teamsters literally ran by the fucking mob dude what fuck are you on about lmao
Do you think that's a coincidence? Or that it's a coincidence the CIA and the mafia had a relationship during the Cold War? They don't my friends getting in there.

[Anonymous No.20157738]

>>20157726
>Dead board. Dead site. Just ugly copycats of ill intent

And no Beary Nice emoji for April fools <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/41a37aa0_ReimuPalm.png">

[Anonymous No.20157745]

>>20157705
I am neither European, nor a Marxist, but what does European heritage being destroyed have to do with the topic at hand? Don't Nazi's cling to that sort of thing?
The problem is that people do not read enough, and never discover their true selves. Society gives them an image of themselves which they conceive of as themselves rather than finding their inner self through reading. It is the work of the archons.

[Anonymous No.20157748]

>>20157738
>>Dead board. Dead site. Just ugly copycats of ill intent
You forgot dead trannies.
You will never be a woman.

[Anonymous No.20157753]

>>20157705
>we're the real dissidents
yes? were the ones who oppose private capital, its L I T E R A L Y impossible to oppose the designs of private capital without communism

[Anonymous No.20157780]

>>20157748
>You forgot about the dead trannies that dance in my head 24/7

I honestly don’t think about your mental illness much. Sorry soul.

[Anonymous No.20157786]

>>20157753
wow you guys are such dissidents the state really hates leftists and wants nothing to do with them. thank you for your bravery

[Anonymous No.20157792]

>>20157786
>burger political circus is gommunism

[Anonymous No.20157799]

>>20157722
Also, if I wasn't clear enough, what I'm saying is that these corrupt, mob-run business unions were your best defense against communists. You might hate them for being sleazy goons on the take. But they served a purpose. They ran my friends out of the unions in the 50s, and then did what their friends told them to do in the 70s and 80s, which was to comply when it came time to outsource their jobs.

Which is what happened. They didn't resist. So now rendered impotent and toothless, your friends decided they didn't need them around anymore, while my friends in Gen Z went back to reading Chairman Z.

[Anonymous No.20157804]

>>20157792
every communist supports all that shit so what difference does it make, leftism is a joke in the 21st century and the only good form of marxism is the chinese variant. everyone else is a worthless cosmopolitan dreg

[Anonymous No.20157805]

You would have to be literally fucking retarded to not be a communist, like, seriously, you would have to be the most low IQ retard. how fucking stupid do you have to be. how low IQ lmao

[Anonymous No.20157807]

>>20157371
I disagree as a religious person. Its one of his weakest points

[Anonymous No.20157808]

>>20157348
>imagine not owning the means of production
So you do want to own things or you reject ownership. Make up your minds at last you chimpanzees.
Plenty of workers own companies stocks btw.

[Anonymous No.20157824]

>>20157808
>literally too stupid to own the means of production
sad

[Anonymous No.20157830]

>>20157733
>The CIA drove up the cost of living
I'm good on the fan fiction senpai
>>20157753
>Also, if I wasn't clear enough, what I'm saying is that these corrupt, mob-run business unions were your best defense against communists.
Oh my god. You're so stupid. You really think Mafia joined unions to stop communists? How fucking retarded are you people. It was because they use the unions to launder money and to run extortion fronts. Jesus Christ, you stupid fuck, not everything about your dumb communist shit. Communists never had the influence or the irrelevance in the United States for them even have control over unions. They were done away with long before the Mafia ran the unions in the 70s+

[Anonymous No.20157840]

>>20157221
marxism is not robust to the existence of psychopaths
no economic/political/social regime is, really, but marxism and other collectivist systems are particularly weak

[Anonymous No.20157844]

>while my friends in Gen Z went back to reading Chairman Z.
Dude, the only people organizing unions are members of the AFL-CIO who will absorb them and bring them into the DNC fold. You're a lackie for the libs, You're just making business-unions stronger because communists like you are just useful idiots for the establishment. That's the CPUSA, PSL and every "communist" party in US tail democrats and essentially have a platform no different than theirs

[Anonymous No.20157847]

>>20157830
bro................the mafia means i have to be a literal cuck to private property

fucking rightoid intellectualism lmao

[Anonymous No.20157849]

>>20157830
>You really think Mafia joined unions to stop communists?
No. What I'm saying is that the mafia running the unions was preferable for the ruling class compared to communists.

>Communists never had the influence or the irrelevance in the United States for them even have control over unions.
What was the CIO

[Anonymous No.20157856]

>>20157691
>dictatorship of the proletariat = dictatorship as used in common parlance
read theory

[Anonymous No.20157857]

>>20157824
Literally every fucking worker owns some stocks through his retirement plan. They work and own.
Similarly, every fucking "capitalist" owns - and does _some_ work in managing his business.
So gommies are babbling and seething about different proportions of this own-work relation at best.

[Anonymous No.20157859]

>>20157844
t. poorly paid scab

[Anonymous No.20157860]

>>20157414
>someone elses tools, that were also made by workers whose labour was exploited, just like you
try again

[Anonymous No.20157861]

>>20157856
so how is socialism reliant on the dictatorship of the proletariat different than utopian socialism

[Anonymous No.20157863]

>>20157706
>all lines of work available to many workers more or less equally exploitational
>choose to either be exploited or starve
gee, sounds fair

[Anonymous No.20157865]

>>20157861
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.20157873]

>>20157623
>i NEED a smartphone omg
>i NEED latest product
capitalism trains you to be a consumerist monkey
>there hasnt been a better time to make money with artistic things
yes, in our declining economy where wages for 'socially useful' work are stagnating and cost of living is increasing, now is surely the best time to survive doing something increasingly sidelined in society

[Anonymous No.20157879]

>>20157221
Idk if this is b8 but its unironically correct. You'll get a few walls-of-word-salad-text for replies too, and it will be the most psued thing you have ever read. 4chan is nothing if not predictable

[Anonymous No.20157883]

>>20157861
The dictatorship of the proletariat is an actual scientific plan w where the proletariat rises up and takes control and dictates policy in order to usher in communism. utopian socialism is chaos whee the people supposedly usher in communism without control.

[Anonymous No.20157885]

>>20157861
i dont know exactly what youre trying to ask me, but im just trying to point out that dictatorship of the proletariat just means that the proletariat--the working class--has full control of the means of production, which under marxism is where real power lies. whatever class controls the means of production is the class that has that 'dictatorship,' so we are living under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

[Anonymous No.20157894]

>>20157856
>Just trust me bro, its not a dictatorship
>the book said it, so, it must be true!

[Anonymous No.20157895]

>>20157885
>i dont know exactly what you're trying to ask me,
what is there not to get? Im asking you how the marxist method of the dictatorship of the proletariat solves the problems of utopian socialism differentiates from what marx described as utopian socialism

[Anonymous No.20157902]

>>20157895
In the dictatorship of the proletariat the people command society, in utopian socialism society commends itself

[Anonymous No.20157903]

What's the difference between these so called Marxist states like China who love Marx and American capitalism anyways? It's all the same. The two party system rules or the one party rules. You have the elite, and you have the masses who bust their asses at work because they aren't good enough for more most of the time. China's working conditions are far worse too for the average person. "Real communism" probably can't ever work for big nations with actual worldly ambitions.

[Anonymous No.20157908]

>>20157885
The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is just a literal dictatorship. You can not be so retarded to believe you could have a mob run society without devolving into strong men and oligarchy.

[Anonymous No.20157910]

>>20157857
>Literally every fucking worker owns some stocks through his retirement plan. They work and own.
True. But in the U.S. those financialized retirement accounts rest on continued U.S. dollar hegemony.

[Anonymous No.20157911]

>>20157894
>i refuse to consider other ways of thinking about concepts i possess! i am superior.
>>20157895
utopian socialism has no game plan for how it is to come about and isnt backed up by rigorous materialism. 'real' socialism is, at least thats how i understand it

[Anonymous No.20157914]

>>20157908
a dictatorial system for running a communist state is a literal dictatorship. the dictatorship of the proletariat is meant to denote that under socialism, the proletariat will control the means of production with the same degree of authority and power that the bourgeoisie do right now

[Anonymous No.20157917]

>>20157908
>You can not be so retarded to believe you could have a mob run society without devolving into strong men and oligarchy

[Anonymous No.20157921]

>>20157911
so what is the game plan, and why is it different than relying on random chance like utopian socialism

[Anonymous No.20157922]

>>20157911
>>20157914
to add, i dont even think im a real marxist, but i dont understand why you refuse to engage in good faith and try to understand the concepts in play, then critique them after understanding them. youre not smart by focusing on the word 'dictatorship' like it means something that its the same word used to denote strongman states

[Anonymous No.20157926]

>>20157921
the gameplan is to raise class consciousness to the point where the proletariat rise up in revolution and take control of the means of production. but this clearly hasnt worked and the problem with marxism today is that the critiques are ever more valid while an actual game plan seems less in reach than ever before

[Anonymous No.20157930]

>>20157914
Proletarian and bourgeois are just bullshit made up terms. They don't mean anything. Marx's class theory was poor, and Weber had better theories. I'm not sure why should use or care about his terminology.

[Anonymous No.20157931]

>>20157662
That seems awfully like fatalism.
>>20157666
What do the trips mean by this?

[Anonymous No.20157935]

>>20157930
they mean what theyre defined as, i.e., production system owners and producers, if you think theyre not useful concepts thats fine, but they have a pretty clear and simple meaning, dude who owns the factory and dudes who work in it. i do agree that the terms are less and less useful as we transition into a weird fragmented service society

[Anonymous No.20157937]

>>20157926
>the proletariat rise up in revolution and take control of the means of production.
so its literally the same thing as utopian socialism

[Anonymous No.20157938]

>>20157922
There's no "good faith." You're promoting your fantasies your Marx. History shows the "dictatorship of the proletariat." its just a lie. Its just dictatorship by a single party. We don't live under a dictatorship, in the United States, because unlike the Soviets, we can elect our leaders in competitive elections. Under communism, only the communist party rules and no one else. There is no competitive elections. You don't own anything because the government nationalizes everything, and takes all your property through force. You have no civil liberties. You get killed if speak out against the government. You're just being really stupid.

[Anonymous No.20157947]

>>20157935
They're just made up terms. Sociology isn't even a real science. You're just being sophist. You're doing propaganda.

[Anonymous No.20157948]

>>20157926
thats anarchism not marxism, try again

[Anonymous No.20157951]

>>20157863
Or the third option where you work for yourself you weak willed faggot. God you communists are so worthless, that you are so unwilling to even live the lifestyle you espouse about being against slavery by choosing the easy way out. If you have skills, you can use them.

[Anonymous No.20157952]

>>20157937
the critical thing is that not all socialisms are materialist, i.e., fundamentally resort to materialist explanations of social systems and their progress, so utopian socialism doesnt understand this and imagines a society where things are distributed and classes go away without actually describing these things concretely, marxism has a robust materialist theory behind it, agree or disagree, thats the difference
>>20157938
i mean we are talking on two different levels here, i dont think socialism has succeeded but im trying to discuss the concepts, you are just pointing out historical facts about self-titled communist regimes and describing what a party democracy is to me like i dont understand it
>>20157947
all terms are made up terms, is there no such thing as an original concept then? ill start saying workers and owners if that makes you feel better
>>20157948
how so

[Anonymous No.20157956]

>>20157938
>History shows the "dictatorship of the proletariat." its just a lie
amazing how history can supposedly show that when there hasn't ever been a real communist country. your ignorance is showing lol

[Anonymous No.20157958]

>>20157287
>posts an anarchist
okay dumbass, please actually refute communism with any valid criticism otherwise you're perpetuating US state narratives

[Anonymous No.20157960]

>>20157951
im not a communist, i am going to make money by practicing law, but i think marxist critiques are legitimate
>work for yourself
youre bringing up individual choices and actions when the conversation is about social systems and structures
yes, some people can be small business owners, so what? the vast majority do and will continue to work for someone else, usually large corporations that increasingly dominate facets of our lives

[Anonymous No.20157964]

>>20157310
transpeople are working class and you were never interacting with marxist thought in good faith

[Anonymous No.20157966]

>>20157956
>it wasn't real communism

[Anonymous No.20157969]

>>20157964
this. transpeople are valid and that isnt even a debate .

[Anonymous No.20157974]

>>20157960
>the vast majority do and will continue to work for someone else, usually large corporations that increasingly dominate facets of our lives
You can blame communists for that.

[Anonymous No.20157978]

>>20157952
>all terms are made up terms,
So, what matter is your motive for spewing bullshit. Its because you don't want to fill out a job application, we know. Why learn all this garbage when its not even help you get a fucking job? You can't even pay your bills, and you're talking about stupid shit like this. How this going to help you start a family or put food on the table?

[Anonymous No.20157981]

>>20157966
are you trying to say that communism is wrong because it always fails in practice and cant live up its own theoretical requirements, or are you trying to say that communism is the same as what self-titled communist nations are?
>>20157974
how so?
>>20157978
as i said above, im going to practice law to make money. whats with the personal attacks? why are you even replying to me

[Anonymous No.20157982]

>>20157960
>i am going to make money by practicing law
So I was right to call you a sophist. Of course you're fucking lawyer - all you do is tell stories and lie.

[Anonymous No.20157985]

>>20157966
>it wasn't real capitalism where 500 000 000 people died regularly

[Anonymous No.20157988]

>>20157981
>Communists are used as useful idiots to push for the destruction of the middle class, small businesses and what rights people have left.
Gee, it's a complete fucking mystery my dude.

[Anonymous No.20157991]

>>20157982
and what do you do / want to do? you just want me as a pinata to vent your frustrations and resentments towards marxists and marxist theory? i guess if ive made your day a bit better so you dont have to punch walls, ill take it
>>20157988
when have communists ever had significant influence in guiding the policy of the usa?

[Anonymous No.20157995]

communism is legitimate, its just that no one has done the dictatorship of the proletariat e right. vangaurdism has failed, its time to give anarchism a try.

[Anonymous No.20157996]

>>20157982
also, so far ive used terms with concrete definitions and applied concepts while trying to explain them and defend myself. is that sophistry? im being rational and not attacking you, am i being a sophist right now? maybe my sophistry is just bleeding through the screen to you

[Anonymous No.20157999]

>>20157991
>Thinly veiled communist agenda being promoted by the mainstream and big corporations
>Being this disingenuous
Fuck off back to where you belong. Makes sense that you want to be a lawyer.

[Anonymous No.20158007]

>>20157999
how can a corporation promote communist ideas? are you just hinting at 'cultural marxism' here? communism is an economic system, marxism is a body of theory meant to describe class relations and imagine a different system. it has nothing to do with spooky trannies, interracial marriage, sexual liberation, or any of these other things that you seem to think constitute it, i assume this is what you consider the communist agenda

[Anonymous No.20158009]

>>20157931
I think it's better to think of Marxism as a politicized practical guide to navigating real-world obstacles -- combining theory with practice -- rather than a dogma. Ideology is in the service of work, rather than the work being in service of ideology. And the goal of "communism," as I see it, isn't to build a "great party" or a "great organization" instead of the real goal which is to make everyone into a revolutionary so people can liberate themselves -- not "us" liberating "them."

And what I get from Lenin is a rather pragmatic set of decisions that could be read as tactical compromises but they also implied a vision of a different kind of state and society, yet a willingness to be exposed to historical contingency with the "true" party line not coming down from on high but emerging out of a zig-zag of subjective decisions with "necessity" constituted in practice. Theory also informs investigation and the principles proceed from the investigation in an iterative feedback loop.

There's also the theory of alienation which comes from Hegel, Feuerbach and then Marx. Like "man makes God, then assign to him their powers of creation, and then subordinate themselves to this non-human entity they created." In Marx's version, that's capital. You see this with "people must sacrifice to save the Economy." Economy is like God and we must cower before it, pay tribute to it, and serve it, in the hope that one day we'll be Saved. The same is true for Nation. Or the Vote in liberal democracy. Or Ideology or the Party. People merely become a means to various ends -- which we created but had become alienated from us -- rather than people becoming an end in themselves so these things serve people, who become the masters of their society and can project themselves into the future.

[Anonymous No.20158012]

>>20157956
>when there hasn't ever been a real communist country
you are not the arbitrator of "real communism", there have been multiple communist experiments and some that are still existing today even though their conception has been fought tooth and nail by the US and western imperialist powers through economic sanctions, coup d'état's and outright military interventions.

[Anonymous No.20158015]

>>20157921
>why is it different than relying on random chance like utopian socialism
It's underpinned by Marxist historical analysis which views class conflict as inevitable. We have already observed a drastic paradigm shift from societies dominated by the upper class to societies dominated by the bourgeoisie across most of the developed world. Marxists hold that a similar such shift will occur when the working class bands together. Because ultimately a smaller elitist class will struggle to maintain power indefinitely when the mass of people they're exploiting become aware of the situation and develop the organisational skills to resist. That's essentially what was going on throughout Europe during the Enlightenment. I think there are solid arguments you can make against this premise but it's certainly not 'random chance' nor is it utopian, especially because revolutionary warfare is practically embedded in the ethos where the utopians are often reformists.

[Anonymous No.20158017]

>>20157938
You can change parties in the United States, but can you change the policies? Do you think the masses of people in America have a say in macroeconomic or foreign policy? Most people want a public healthcare system if you go according to polls, but is voting going to make that happen? It might be a tool people can use, but the healthcare industry is set up on for-profit principles for the most part and I hardly think it serves the interest of public health as opposed to insurance companies.

Are these even real "parties?" They seem more like conduits for donor money to flow to candidates, whose job is to then deliver the voters to the donors by appealing to their tribalistic self-regard and prejudices. The more "proletarian" elements in the lower House (the AOCs, Marjorie Taylor-Greens etc.) are checked by an oligarchic Senate like Rome.

More practically speaking, if you ask what my fantasy idea of an American proletarian dictatorship might actually look like, it'd be to flip that on its head, with a proletarian Industrial Senate comprised of representatives from labor unions -- not directly elected -- with a lower House that includes elected representatives from both proletarian and non-proletarian classes (perhaps even a few capitalists to provide technical advice and expertise). So this would create a "checks and balances" system but with the decisive power held in the hands of the laboring classes instead of the ownership classes.

[Anonymous No.20158019]

>>20158012
lets agree that there are perhaps nations attempting various socialisms, but not true communist countries, they are still fundamentally state-controlled, and the people who live under that state have no bearing on it, communism is stateless, classless, china for example has both a very robust state and well-defined classes, even a bourgeoisie

[Anonymous No.20158022]

>>20158007
>ow can a corporation promote communist ideas?
promoting class consciousness while simultaneously dividing the working class with "progressive" ideas regarding issues like race, moral values, religion, culture, does more harm than good for working class communities

[Anonymous No.20158026]

>>20158007
>I'll redefine words to suit whatever I mean whenever it is beneficial.
How big is your nose? How about lobbying for regulations and policies that are in the name of benefitting "the working class", but in reality ends up with the elites relinquishing more power and wealth? Minimum Wage is a good example.
>Where does Marx explicitly talk about Minimum Wage
Doesn't matter, communists push for shit like this.
>It can't be hecking communism at that point even though communist thinkers are the ones always advocating for it!
Really fucking funny how communists always advocate for "Not real communism".

[Anonymous No.20158032]

>>20157999
>thinking some random user on an imageboard means anything
>>Thinly veiled communist agenda being promoted by the mainstream and big corporations
i want you to give examples of this, and define what communism is. Because it sounds like what you're experiencing is boldfaced liberalism with a focus on capitalist friendly identity politics.

[Anonymous No.20158033]

>>20157999
Corporations don't promote communist agenda though. This doesn't even make any sense. Their existence is antithetical to Marxists who view them as fundamentally exploiting their employees, regardless of whatever nominal benefits they provide.

[Anonymous No.20158038]

>>20158022
please explain more about how corporations promote class consciousness, i do agree with you that so to speak 'progressive' ideas are often weaponized to divide the working class
>>20158026
i have defined my words one single time, and have not strayed from that definition.
the minimum wage is an enlightenment idea based in humanism, and even if socialists push it, its not a fundamentally marxist idea, they just push it because they care about the plight of the lowest level of workers in society. next youre going to tell me that huge corporations exist because of the minimum wage
>hecking communism
i want everyone to have a sandwich, and im a libertarian thinker. ergo, it is part of libertarianism for everyone to have a sandwich.
this is what you sound like right now

[Anonymous No.20158039]

>>20158019
>china for example has both a very robust state and well-defined classes, even a bourgeoisie
It's interesting to hear how this guy talks about it:

https://youtu.be/_wBLQZLsbNs?t=482

[Anonymous No.20158041]

>>20157799
That's why I'm not a leftist period, why Simp for someone who is stealing land off me

[Anonymous No.20158048]

>>20158032
>>20158033
>Retards literally incapable of reading the very answer I gave
Why are every single one of you communists so disingenuous? I should make a mental note to never ever respond to dimwits like you.
>>20158038
>B-but muh definitions
Fuck your definitions, use common sense which is the definition that everyone uses, not the one you only use to win an argument while missing the point. I'm done with fuckwits like you.
>i want everyone to have a sandwich, and im a libertarian thinker. ergo, it is part of libertarianism for everyone to have a sandwich.
And you wonder why even the working class hates people like you, you can't even accurately represent what was actually said. What do you actually gain from being a piece of shit?

[Anonymous No.20158068]

Anyone who unironically calls themself a "Marxist", "communist", "Leninist", "Maoist", or any variant of these in the 21st century is larping, and I say that as someone who is disgusted with capitalism as it exists today and is not against engaging with the ideas of these movements and adopting some of them. That being said, I really think we need new terminology and aesthetics. I am so sick of the annoying autists who wear 1910s "communist" clothing and talk about Marx this, bourgeoisie that, proletariat that. I thought the aim of socialism was going from capitalism to something more humane and livable, not jacking off to your dead heroes and posing for credit. Take their ideas and meld them into your own life and situation. This is not 20th century Europe. We can express ideas that are communist without calling ourselves communist, and we don't have to wave gay ass Soviet flags either. This is supposed to be a living movement goddammit.

[Anonymous No.20158070]

>>20158048
>muh common sense
>board: /lit/
leave
whats more common sense than "person who owns factory" and "person who works in factory"?

you said:
>communist thinkers are the ones always advocating for it
and by that you means:
>the things that communist thinkers advocate for are the things that are integral, or at least formally part, of communism
this is akin to the libertarians and sandwiches example i gave. no?
to go into more depth, all these 'cultural marxism' things are just understood in a circle. i call them cultural marxism, therefore they are marxism and their advocates are marxist, even though all these social issues are often advocated for by liberals who have nothing to do with communism proper

[Anonymous No.20158075]

>>20158068
im with you there, to an extent
current-day marxist optics and self-professed marxists generally range from the out-of-touch to the deluded

[Anonymous No.20158077]

>>20158048
What answer? This one? >>20158026
Literally nothing you have mentioned is characteristically Marxist. They're just basic tenets of worker rights and are likely only lobbied for and supported because it ends up deepening corporate exploitation in the first place.

[Anonymous No.20158079]

>>20158038
both Marxism and private capital thrives on internationalism, you "workers of the world unite", above all things, it is literally the single most important thing in the world to the domination of private capital. ideals of class consciousness specifically as an extension of internationalism are literary just a conveyor belt for exploitation. it deconstructs working class communities and installs every single form of division it possibly can, divisions of race, morality, sexuality, culture in general. its the kryptonite of real class solidarity. real class consciousness can only stem from nationalism.

[Anonymous No.20158083]

>>20158039
eh, this is flawed, its integral to marxism that the material base determines the superstructure, you cant have a market economy as the material base without the flaws of capitalism pervading the superstructure, there is no difference between a capitalist structure and capitalism in marxism proper

[Anonymous No.20158084]

>>20158019
>but not true communist countries, they are still fundamentally state-controlled, and the people who live under that state have no bearing on it
they are attempting to achieve true communism under the conditions of American and Western capitalist hegemony, they need a state and some integration of capitalist markets in order to participate in the global economy and to deter imperialist/reactionary forces from toppling their governments and dissolve their ideology. This is what Marx meant by Dictatorship of the State and the focus on the gradual waning away of the State.

That they're engaging within a capitalist economic system is through no fault of their own and the various communist experiment's ideological foundations are largely marxist-leninist or ML-Maoist for china's sake.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here but i definitely do think that there have been actual several successful communist countries.

[Anonymous No.20158085]

>>20157705
Congratulations you managed to make an even more retarded than the commtards, well done. Yes Amazon is funding communists makes total sense.

[Anonymous No.20158086]

>>20158075
not to mention children. Anyway what's the extent to which you're with me?

[Anonymous No.20158091]

>>20158068
you are a radical liberal dont talk like you understand what Marxism is, who's it for and what needs to be done. Just from reading your post i know you haven't actually read any Marxist works.

[Anonymous No.20158094]

>>20158086
marxist critique: scathing, legitimate
roadmap for the future: lacking, confused at best
marxism needs fresh ideas and fresh plans and adaptation to current needs, traditional marxism is insufficient for our current, much more complex world
>>20158079
marxist internationalism is about spreading marxist ideas and uniting as class first, everything else second. nationalism puts nation before class, so is not truly class conscious imo. marx also thought that the internationalism of capitalism paves the way for communism because internationalism is a requirement of it
>>20158084
sorry, i cannot really argue with you. i am very skeptical of china, since it seems to be falling into the same capitalist and imperialist traps as the west did and does, just using different language for it. inequality is up, market economics is an ever-increasing driving-force, imperialism is pervasive

[Anonymous No.20158097]

>>20158094
to add, i cant really argue with you because i dont know enough about china* and the things i do know im sure you will perceive as western propaganda so im not sure how to go about this

[Anonymous No.20158099]

>>20158009
Thanks for the insightful reply anon!

[Anonymous No.20158102]

>>20158091
once again, you are confirming the belief that "Marxism" is a religion by insisting that you read material that is only in The Canon specifically approved by your Marxist Liturgy. Why are you stuck in the 20th century?

[Anonymous No.20158103]

>>20158070
>>muh common sense
>>board: /lit/
>NOOOOOO, YOU MUST BE CONVOLUTED AND PERFORM MENTAL GYMNASTICS BECAUSE YOU READ
You do not belong, so you leave.
>and by that you means
>the things that communist thinkers advocate for are the things that are integral, or at least formally part, of communism
Strawmanning, I haven't went to law school, but you would end up as the shittiest lawyer.
>this is akin to the libertarians and sandwiches example i gave. no?
Complete non sequitor
>to go into more depth, all these 'cultural marxism' things are just understood in a circle. i call them cultural marxism, therefore they are marxism and their advocates are marxist, even though all these social issues are often advocated for by liberals who have nothing to do with communism proper
I never brought up cultural marxism you fuckwit. Why are you blabbering on about shit no one said you fucking schizo?
>>20158077
>Communists constantly advocating something because they think it will lead them closer to their goals and ideals even if it isn't explicitly stated in their dogma
>NOT REAL COMMUNISM HURR DURR
>Christians attack another christian nation and sack their own city like retards in one of the Crusades
>Why yes, Christianity is a religion that advocates killing other people
Oh wait, I bet you would argue that is real christianity even though their dogma states you should not kill other people. So then why not hold yourself to the same standard and admit communists are pushing agendas that backfire on them (and the working class) because they are the useful idiots of the elites they despise, irregardless of if its fucking """REAL COMMUNISM""" or not? If you can't understand what has been said, this is the last time I will post in this thread to dimwits like you.

[Anonymous No.20158108]

>>20157856
Read history

[Anonymous No.20158110]

>>20158102
>strawmanning
literally never said or insinuated any of that. Do you need me to stick to the script so you can be right?

[Anonymous No.20158112]

>>20158079
A unity of workers around the world doesn't mean the complete dissolution of any kind of regional or cultural identity. It means that a successful worker's uprising over here can provide arms and expertise to one over there and that they should view each other as brother movements.
>real class consciousness can only stem from nationalism
Elevating national identity above class means blinding yourself to exploitation if it happens from within your country. This is basically the contemporary model for China.

[Anonymous No.20158114]

>>20158103
first, define common sense.
second, then explain exactly what you mean by the statement i mentioned. if im wrong, correct me. youre throwing around logical fallacies like a first-year, why dont you instead explain why im strawmanning by clarifying what you mean?
>complete non sequitor
okay friend. your argument, as i understood it (correct me)
communist thinker promotes A, so A is part of communism
Pa --> Ca
libertarian thinker promotes S (sandwich), so S is part of libertarianism
Ps --> Ls
non sequitor?
>never brought up cultural marxism
yet you never explained what you were talking about, so i was left to guess, my guess was cultural marxism, and i dont think im far off

[Anonymous No.20158116]

>>20158068
I agree with you about LARPing and over-using jargon phrases (although I'm about to use some). But one reason why I think the left collapsed in the West after the collapse of the USSR is because they did exactly that with the "we're not communists anymore... we're not going to talk about Karl..."

That didn't happen in the third world so much. I'm interested in what Chinese theorists call "Sinicized Marxism" where they adapt it to their own history, traditions and national and cultural context. And also Indians who express these ideas in their own particular form while keeping the "substance." It's party congress season over there right now btw.

https://youtu.be/kYR2TPFxrJE

This relates to the distinction between the "private and the common." Or in a Marxist phraseological way, "revisionism and dogmatism." The private refers to specific things, phenomena and ideas. The common refers to aspects, factors that exist in many things and phenomena.

So... dogmatism is what happens when we focus too much on the common and ignore the private. Revisionism is what happens when we ignore the common and only see the private. So, LARPing as a dogmatic communist would be like failing to account for changes over time, secondary contradictions (particular characteristics of one's society), or wearing a Lenin hat and thinking you're living in 1917 Russia. This leads to self-imposed isolation and cringe. But then we have revisionists who spend too much time focusing on individual scenarios without recognizing commonalities. These people end up capitulating which is what Eurocommunism was, which lost any sense of the "common."

But the common and private (or the general and particular) have a dialectical relationship with each other.

[Anonymous No.20158118]

>>20158114
>first, define common sense.
Go fuck yourself, were done here, I am not going to waste my time with a sophist defining a word that everyone universally knows.

[Anonymous No.20158119]

>>20158094
>>marxism needs fresh ideas and fresh plans and adaptation to current needs
or why don't we just inject some marxism into our ideas and plans and adapt it to our current needs. Or just take what's good in Marx and meld it in with other ideas, and leave the rest behind? If it works, it works.

[Anonymous No.20158121]

Hi, I'm Joseph Stalin. I and people like me are the reason communism will never come to pass. Because people like me will always be lurking in the background of the transitory phase after the workers' revolt, ready to stab their fellow revolutionaries in the back and seize absolute power for themselves.

And you'll never get rid of us.

[Anonymous No.20158122]

>>20158108
history shows me that the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are real classes, and that the bourgeoisie control the means of production and the proletariat dont

[Anonymous No.20158125]

>>20158083
I think they'd say that modes of production are determined by objective historical forces and not the subjective choices of governments, and the relations of production should correspond with the level of social productivity, which is simply why a big macroeconomic and governance focus there is on improving social productivity.

[Anonymous No.20158127]

>>20158094
>>20158097
it depends on what you're skeptical on china about. Also China is not imperialist, I'm going to need you to define what imperialism is because that is a communist word.

[Anonymous No.20158131]

>>20157221

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

Labor's theory of value is wrong (see link above) + Dialectics is pseudoscience + Marx's theory on the origin of state is wrong

[Anonymous No.20158134]

>>20158110
Okay then let me ask you this: what led you to believe I'm a radical liberal? Whatever that means. Because you definitely did make that claim. Also, going back to my original point, if something isn't "Marxist", but it works to get us out of the hole we're in, then who cares what it's called or what thinker it comes out of?

[Anonymous No.20158142]

>>20158103
>if corporations advocate for something that Marxists advocate for, then corporations are Marxist
The determinant for whether something is Marxist is if it advocates for characteristically Marxist policies. There is a whole scope of ordinary things that people from all across the political spectrum would advocate for. Say climate change. Even many capitalists, fascists, and monarchists are concerned about the health of the planet. But nobody would say this makes a green tech company inherently monarchist, because they reject the fundamental principles behind the ideology. As far as minimum wage law goes, heaps and heaps of non-Marxists believe this is a good idea.

>Oh wait, I bet you would argue that is real christianity even though their dogma states you should not kill other people.
No? I would argue that is a corruption of Christian dogma for people far more interested in acquiring wealth and power than satisfying the tenets of their religion.

[Anonymous No.20158143]

>>20158118
dimwit.
"common sense" is the recourse of those with no argument.
>>20158119
well marxism determines that capitalism is flawed to its core, so im not sure how to take it piecemeal, though im of course open to new ideas, my gut sense with marxism is that it needs something fresh and new, a new paradigm shift
>>20158125
i feel like saying that modes of production must correspond to objective historical forces is a bit of a copout, then you have to admit that youre not actually instating communism or socialism? idk
>>20158127
im skeptical because i see a society that for all intents and purposes i see a market economy, the same inequalities as other capitalist states simply with a stronger welfare safety net, which is of course a good thing but isnt even fully implemented in all parts of china, i see a repressive government that inhibits democracy, i see a government repressing ethnic groups and its own people, i see these things and it makes me doubt that china has figured out a solution or is even trying to

[Anonymous No.20158150]

>>20158103
i didnt really respond to the second part of your post since i didnt think it was directed at me, and i doubt youll reply since youre quite mad, but i guess i do want to be thorough
communists do not think feminism or racial justice or any of these other things will lead them closer to communism, they are just also things communists generally agree with. i think id just disagree with you that things like feminism and racial justice, as advocated by a communist proper, have any negative effects on society. maybe if youre a racist/misogynist. liberals advocate for these things in ways that do harm the working class though. but just because billy hates black people doesnt mean we should accept that billy hates black people, even if it alienates him from the movement

[Anonymous No.20158153]

>>20158118
a sophist uses words for effect without concern for their meaning, which words are often hollow and nebulous
whos the sophist here?

[Anonymous No.20158155]

>>20158118
>sophist
Trying to define a commonly held notion that people think they know but don't is more in line with Socrates who argued against the sophists.

[Anonymous No.20158157]

>>20158134
You are dealing with shitty chatbots and not a real human being with any intuition ability, this is why they will struggle to categorize or generalize people, these NPC's have no algorithm in their mind in order to facilitate such a thing, which is why they will accuse you of being part of a group and will be wrong 95% of the time. These people are no different from progressives calling everyone to the right of Stalin a Nazi. Notice how most of these cultists struggle to comprehend what you think even as you spell it out to them? It's never actually worth conversing with people like that.

[Anonymous No.20158167]

>>20157221
>how fucking unironically retarded and backwards do you have to be to read marx and not become a marxist?
this is so improbably rare that it's not even worth talking about. I'm yet to see a non-Marxist who can correctly describe the basics of what Marx wrote.
>>20157903
>What's the difference between these so called Marxist states like China who love Marx and American capitalism anyways?
China loves Marx only as far as using his imagine serves them ideologically to pretend that the state functions in the interest of the working class rather than being just another bourgeois state whose main goal is to sustain conditions for the most brutal exploitation of the working class for the benefit of accumulation of capital
>"Real communism" probably can't ever work for big nations with actual worldly ambitions.
sure, communism abolishes imperialist competition between states, not serves the sides in that competition
>>20157926
you're being incoherent. the ultimate point of what you call "the critiques" is that capitalism inevitably produces its own gravediggers. if you don't think this is true then you can't see them as ever more valid
>>20158131
you're a retard
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm
>By what is the price of a commodity determined? By the competition between buyers and sellers, by the relation of the demand to the supply, of the call to the offer.
>>20158134
not him, but if you're really curious then
>the aim of socialism was going from capitalism to something more humane and livable
is textbook left-bourgeois progressivism and
>bourgeoisie that, proletariat that
typical liberal class blindness

[Anonymous No.20158170]

>>20158143
>i feel like saying that modes of production must correspond to objective historical forces is a bit of a copout, then you have to admit that youre not actually instating communism or socialism? idk
Well, I don't think you can simply "force" history to bend into shape to an "ideal." We can only solve the tasks in front of us. And Marx predicted that socialism would emerge from an extremely advanced capitalist economy so that capitalism must realize its full potential. "No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed, and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society."

This prediction is not suggested by communist revolutions in China, Russia, Cuba, Vietnam... that feudal, agricultural economics "skipped" capitalism and "jumped" into socialism. That gap can, however, explain the fall of communism in certain countries and those "reforms" in the rest because social productivity could not supply the advanced system they imposed, almost like a 5-year-old kid being sent to a doctorate degree program and flunking out.

However, instead of making Marx a prophet who knew everything, we should get to the basic logic of Marxism which does -- as you pointed out -- demonstrate that economic substructure determines political superstructure which in return reinforces the former. Marxism also argues the relationship of production should correspond to social productivity. What they mean is that when social productivity is strong enough, socialism will come out to replace capitalism. Why? Because capitalism can no longer escape from its cycle of crises.

As far as the Chinese system, that's a different discussion. But the kind of capitalism they practice there is different in some fundamental ways from the United States. They have a bunch of state-owned industries. All land in the country remains state-owned. China has kept banking in the hands of government and Chinese banks don't lend for the same reasons that American banks lend. They basically run them as public utilities in which the objective isn't to make a profit but to create money to fund actual means of production, fund research and development, and build infrastructure. In the U.S., banks lend against collateral that's already in place, because they won't make a loan if it's not backed by collateral. China creates money through its public banks to create capital (to create the means of production).

Like... for sure there's stuff you can point to which makes it also look pretty capitalist. But even Engels in the Principles of Communism described socialism as a gradual and transitory process commiserate with the development of the productive forces.

[Anonymous No.20158181]

>>20158167
>you're being incoherent
i fully understand that communism is a historical process and cannot be properly said to be the result of any actions by any individuals
i was responding to him in a way that makes more sense and provides a clear explanation of what a communist wants, pursues, and desires
youre calling me incoherent
why?

[Anonymous No.20158184]

>>20158157
I'm the guy you're responding to and yeah I see what you mean in that Marxism can be a prison of ideology that allows you to only see the world through the eyes of "Marxist theory". Some of them have good ideas though lol, and I think it's worth trying to understand them and mold them into my own "philosophy".

[Anonymous No.20158188]

>>20158167
Isn't Socialism supposed to be something more humane and livable though? How would a working-class person not want something more humane and livable than the current conditions of capitalism they live under?

[Anonymous No.20158189]

>>20158112
>A unity of workers around the world doesn't mean the complete dissolution of any kind of regional or cultural identity
objectively incorrect. "unity of workers" in this context means class warfare and class warfare means the placement of working class status first and foremost and the erasure of other identities and the division and destruction of communities.
>Elevating national identity above class means blinding yourself to exploitation
actual french revolutionary nationalism as seen in nationalist ideologies like fascism/national socialism means a nations economic growth is tied in to the growth of its working class and the production of real tangible results for that specific materially existing community, not promises of vague pipe dreams for an abstract community like the international proletariat that are perpetually over the next hill.

[Anonymous No.20158192]

>>20158170
thanks for the thought out response. i guess i in part respect and value a lot of the things china does, but isnt there to a degree a contradiction in how china functions and your stated analysis? in the sense that chinas transition to communism must then be revolutionary, since its a capitalist society moving towards a capitalism advanced enough to necessitate communism; but the state seems to relish its own power, play the same great power games as all the other nations, repress free speech and its own people *while still* remaining capitalism and thus necessitating the free exchange of ideas to develop social consciousness, things like that. what do you think about that? i guess im trying to get across that i dont see a continuity between existing china and a future true communist china, and the states parading itself as communist proper, communist with chinese characteristics, etc., seems to do more to obscure the goals of communism than anything else

[Anonymous No.20158200]

>>20158127
Just culturally appropriate it. Its our word now

Jokes aside, Daniel DeLeon is probably the closest leftist I'd align myself with if it wasn't for that dumbass "ballot box" initiative of his

[Anonymous No.20158204]

>>20158189
why does unity of workers mean the erasure of identity? it just means, class identity first. sure, far in the future in a hypothetical ideal communist societies, cultures and groups wouldnt exist as they do now, but that doesnt mean communists want to erase your identity or culture, just that they dont want these things to cloud or repress class identity, which is what happens in national socialism and fascism
>growth of its working class and the production of real tangible results for that specific materially existing community
but thats not the goal of communism and not what marxists envision, since that happens under capitalism too; and in fact fascist societies are capitalist societies still, even if we suppose that they genuinely make things better for the workers

[Anonymous No.20158206]

>>20158184
I can understand the mindset of "listen to the good parts and then take that for ourselves", but it just gets too tiresome dealing with the nonsense that commies and their apologists try to pull off, that in my opinion, is never worth actually engaging them in a dialogue. They expect you to use every single definition and word that they use while deliberately missing the point the other person is trying to make.
They want to try to convince people of communism, but like said, they will speak in the lens of "Marxist Theory" instead of being a normal person trying to convey what they actually mean, which especially to those that despise them, comes off incredibly out of touch and off putting. There's a reason why working class people refuse to associate themselves with communists and socialists, blue collar workers are blunt and straight forward, while commies are pretentious and sniff their own farts.

[Anonymous No.20158209]

Im not going to mock you OP, you seem like a guy who cares about people being treated unjustly.
Are you a young guy? I was a “communist” from ages 19-23. It was solidified by online communities like Twitter, bunkerchan, leftist YouTubers, other leftists in real life.
Then I got rid of social media, and started thinking for myself. All of these “theory” books I had amassed over the years I began to see as false. Instead of letting leftists online dictate what was a “racist/fascist” view and something I shouldn’t engage with, I did, and found that there was a lot of truth in anti-Marxism and leftism in general. It all correlated with what I had seen and done myself.
I knew many kind and religious people in my life, yet Marxists hate religion and want it violently destroyed. Most leftist today care more and more about identity politics nonsense than workers being abused. Transgender/black liberation are the hot talking points with most leftists/commies that solves precisely nothing.
Get out whilst you can. I mean that sincerely. It is a zero sum game. I was so bitter, angry, hateful, jealous…just mental and almost rabid with the ideas communism out in my head.
It’s never to late to be an anti-leftist. Better things are out there.

[Anonymous No.20158210]

>>20158127
it encourages the domination of its primary culture, it engages in neocolonialism abroad, it pursues its material goals with violence around the world. how do you/a marxist understand imperialism?

[Anonymous No.20158214]

>>20158206
im not even a fucking marxist, but the discussion is about marxist theory and i want to defend it and explore it, why come in to discuss marxism when youre against even considering things from a marxist perspective?

[Anonymous No.20158217]

>It is really amusing how true it is when people describe Marxism as a religion for atheists.

[Anonymous No.20158232]

Marx bros how do I understand the marxist position spending as little time on it as possible

[Anonymous No.20158233]

>>20158214
Because I like discussing things from the perspective of reality? My first post here was asking how private property was slavery, even though the ability to own yourself and your own property is the opposite of slavery? A simple question that probes into how they think. No communist actually wants answer these sort of questions.
Why? Because commies don't actually want to learn or explore ideas, they just want an echo chamber to mentally masturbate.
Why am I posting in a thread like this? Simply to see how they respond to any sort of inquiry. Yet personal attacks and disingenuous remarks is all you get back.
>Inb4 it happens to them too
I don't care.

[Anonymous No.20158234]

>>20158189
This isn't true in theory nor in practice. You can place class first without erasing other identities so long as you reconcile the two. This is why there are Marxist feminists for example.
>and the division and destruction of communities
Why? We can have a community invigorated by class consciousness without it being destroyed by it.
If you're so concerned about communities then you should be opposed to nationalism, which will sacrifice beautiful regional cultures in the forging of a distinct new national identity. Just look at how many regional dialects around the world are dying or dead because whatever language spoken in the nation's capital became the standard taught in schools, with a curriculum decided far away from the towns it was taught in. Europe prior to nationalism was far more communal.
>means a nations economic growth is tied in to the growth of its working class
Who just so happen to be laboring under a bourgeoisie given a monopoly by the state, thus perpetuating the exploitation of the working class.

[Anonymous No.20158238]

>>20158232
they're going to insist you have to read mountains of books probably, but I can almost guarantee you that is unnecessary as long as you grasp the concepts (which I admit, I do not fully understand myself)

[Anonymous No.20158239]

>>20158233
well all i got was personal attacks in this thread from people seething at me trying to explain myself
i dont think private property is slavery, slavery is a buzzword just call it exploitative and be done with it
i seriously am willing / want to have a good discussion and want to approach things in good faith, and where i dont ill try to fix that

[Anonymous No.20158247]

>>20158233
also i dont want to sound like a dick going
>define common sense
>define perspective of reality
but im not being facetious, i really dont know what people mean when they use these words, its like talking about human nature and stuff like that without rigorously explaining what you mean. its not good philosophy, its not rigorous thought, but if there is a concrete idea behind it then it can be put in other words and thats all i want. how can i respond to "its just common sense"? say no it isnt?

[Anonymous No.20158248]

Marx is to capitalism what Nietzsche is to nihilism. Both make exceptionally good critiques of those positions but also create pants on head retarded solutions for the issues they see. Marx's vision of communism is about as attainable as Nietzsche's vision of a civilization of ubermen, that is to say, not at all.

[Anonymous No.20158249]

>>20158170
>This prediction is not suggested by communist revolutions in China, Russia, Cuba, Vietnam... that feudal, agricultural economics "skipped" capitalism and "jumped" into socialism.
lmao, on what planet? they're only now reaching developed capitalism (and then only half of them really, since Russia is now regressing and Cuba is a backwards shithole), let alone fucking socialism.
>>20158181
>youre calling me incoherent why?
because you're denying that capitalism inevitably produces its own gravediggers while affirming that the theory according to which capitalism inevitably produces its own gravediggers is ever more valid
>>20158188
future society is supposed to be "more humane and livable" according to every single person, whether Lenin or Ronald Reagan. my point is that putting things in such nauseatingly abstract and vague way that it applies to anything and everything while at the same time scoffing at the slightest mention of real class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is the mark of a liberal.
>>20158204
it means the erasure of their identity with their oppressors, which is the reason modern nations were constituted in the first place and why national identity is constantly being shilled for.
>>20158209
>I was a “communist”
>Twitter, bunkerchan, leftist YouTubers, other leftists in real life
lmao

[Anonymous No.20158250]

Here's what I don't understand about Marxism. Marx claimed that ideology was just a method of concealing power relations and material processes, something that I would agree with. So why is it then that we shouldn't treat Marxism the exact same way? Is it not just an ideology used to describe material processes and used as a vessel for peoples innate power struggles? That's basically why Marxism even became so big in the first place, it was useful for people seeking a basis for their anti-imperialism and that's why all the most successful socialist movements come from the 3rd world. Marxism is just as hollow as any other ideology, and the only way they avoid confronting this truth is by insisting that it's am objective "scientific" analysis of society that cannot be false. lol ok

[Anonymous No.20158254]

>>20158233
I like you. I'm not the anon you're responding to but you seem very reasonable while still pointing out that Communism is most often used as an end of itself, and not as a means. I have started to think that Socialism should be used as a means to achieve a certain standard of living, but if it's treated as an end of itself, then it becomes hardened ideology, and people become blind.

[Anonymous No.20158257]

>>20158249
>denying that capitalism inevitably produces its own gravediggers
no im not, i am fully affirming that. it just so happens that those gravediggers are also consciously acting to dig its grave, and as such desire and aim towards its dissolution through attempting to cultivate class consciousness, sometimes artificially
>erasure of their identity with their oppressors
this is a good thing

[Anonymous No.20158259]

>>20158234
True

[Anonymous No.20158266]

>>20158250
ideology is inescapable, yes, but the whole point of marxist 'scientific materialism' is to describe the real foundations of society without recourse to any ideas that do not have their ground in the material. whether thats successful or not, do you agree that such a project would not be ideological?

[Anonymous No.20158270]

>>20157985
>People die regularly because of capitalism
lmao ahahahaha holy fuck

[Anonymous No.20158271]

>>20158250
Because Marx was ultimately a hypocritical retard who bragged about his stock market gains he made playing with Engels money?

[Anonymous No.20158278]

>>20158270
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/06/24/most-russians-say-soviet-union-took-care-of-ordinary-people-poll-a66125

[Anonymous No.20158279]

>>20158167
>I'm yet to see a non-Marxist who can correctly describe the basics of what Marx wrote.
This is >"I've yet to see someone agree with me. That means everyone is wrong, but me."
Commies are just people who do Solipsism. This is why there are many little communist parties, so many different types of "communists" and "communisms" because you retards can't even figure who are the "real Marxists." You people are a fucking joke.

[Anonymous No.20158280]

>>20158249
Ah, then you misunderstood me. I think (hope) I'm closer to Lenin's thinking than Reagan's. I'm not scoffing at the idea of real class struggle between the burgeoisie and the proletariat, I'm scoffing at the quasi-cultlike over-use of the terms "burgeoisie" and "proletariat"

[Anonymous No.20158281]

>>20157221
>how fucking unironically retarded and backwards do you have to be to read marx and not become a marxist?
>Marx is literally constructing heaven
where i come from, we call that a "snake oil salesman"

[Anonymous No.20158282]

>>20158239
>>20158247
>>20158254
If I were to talk about what the hell "real" communism is, it is what happened in REALITY. If I were to do a scientific experiment, have a hypothesis, but then a result that contradicts or does not align with the hypothesis, which one would you think is more real? The communists will be stubborn and argue their hypothesis is more real than the result they got, so discussing anything with them is just never fruitful because they are more interesting with their appeasing their idea than truly know what is happening.
Would I concede that communists do not exactly implement it in the way Marx has said? Of course I would. Does this somehow make it not "real" or that somehow, these were people that did not have the intention to implement communism?
Of course not. If something happens in the very front of your eyes and your intuition comes to what you think is a good judgement, then meanwhile someone is trying to mentally argue against that through some sort of logic and reasoning, but the reasoning from the other person is seen as flawed because it dismisses what had actually occurred in place of ideals, then of course a negative reaction would occur. Maybe people do not have personal bad grievances with communism today, but there are plenty within there family that has, so to dismiss the failures of communism as "Ehhhhh that wasn't a REAL attempt at communism" comes across as hubristic.

[Anonymous No.20158288]

>>20158278
>A single poll Russian state government poll with a sample size of less than 1000 people represent communism
lmfao, who the fuck believes shit like this?

[Anonymous No.20158295]

>>20158266
All of it is ideological because that premise just isn't true. Marx was a socialist because he cared deeply for the oppressed and downtrodden of his time. The idea that his project was entirely amoral is nonsense that completely folded as leftism developed throughout history and became more and more based on morality. Much of this comes from Lenin rather than Marx and Engels to be fair, however he was just as adamant on insisting he was not ideological or moral in the slightest. People become leftists not because they intensely study materialist theories and mathematical charts for economics, they became leftists because they seek liberation and want to fight oppression. Marxism became dominant because it was a strong critique of the modern world that came from the heart of the empire. Morality is what drives every leftist and that includes Marx, I completely reject the idea that Marxism is not an ideology.

[Anonymous No.20158298]

>>20158250
>Marx claimed that ideology was just a method of concealing power relations and material processes, something that I would agree with. So why is it then that we shouldn't treat Marxism the exact same way?
for the same reason you don't treat physics as ideology. Marxism is the name for the results of scientific inquiry revealing the true nature of social relations and material processes, whereas ideology does the reverse and conceals them instead.
>That's basically why Marxism even became so big in the first place, it was useful for people seeking a basis for their anti-imperialism and that's why all the most successful socialist movements come from the 3rd world.
it was useful for bourgeois revolutions, but it was only useful in so far as it was falsified to say the opposite of what it actually says, i.e. as far as it was converted from scientific results to ideology. so you're right in that sense, except what you're calling Marxism here is no longer "Marxism" but "bourgeois ideology plus red flags plus statues of Marx"
>the only way they avoid confronting this truth is by insisting that it's am objective "scientific" analysis of society that cannot be false
well, it cannot be false because it's true lol. are you offended by people affirming something is objectively true? are you a postmodern neo-marxist or something?
>>20158279
>This is >"I've yet to see someone agree with me.
no, I've seen enough people agree with me
>This is why there are many little communist parties, so many different types of "communists" and "communisms" because you retards can't even figure who are the "real Marxists."
no, it's because YOU can't figure that out. because you haven't even read Marx properly. lol. your lack of means of judgment means that you have to instead depend on people's self-identification as communists or Marxists and why you're inevitably so confused.

[Anonymous No.20158304]

>>20158189
>nationalist ideologies like fascism/national socialism means a nations economic growth is tied in to the growth of its working class and the production of real tangible results for that specific materially existing community, not promises of vague pipe dreams for an abstract community like the international proletariat that are perpetually over the next hill.
ha ha ha hilarious to talk about vague pipe dreams when the Nazi Regime was all about the vague promise of creating a completely classless society and of rediscovering a timeless transcendent sense of authentic Germanness. Fascism was snake oil to soothe a divided, insecure, and humiliated nation that had been decimated post WWI.
You also neglect to mention their economy recovered in no small part due to a massive rearmament program that set the country upon the warpath.

[Anonymous No.20158305]

>>20158298
not him but is there any short secondary literature for marxism that you would recommend?

[Anonymous No.20158308]

>>20158282
what issue do you then have with someone like me, who very closely agrees with the marxist critique but doesnt think traditional marxism provides us with a solution?
>>20158288
well then back up your meme with something better
my parents lived in communist ukraine and i am a first generation immigrant
>>20158295
well you are right in saying that there is a significant moral and emotional element to marxism, but its core argumentation is meant to be materialist and as i understand it is properly materialist, even if i disagree. i understand ideology to be systems of beliefs that let us understand the world on a political level, which beliefs are not fundamentally based on objective or material factors but cultural or baselessly abstract factors. how do you understand ideology?

[Anonymous No.20158311]

>>20158209
No offense, but it doesn't sound like you started thinking for yourself. It sounds like you replaced one extremely online community for another and followed whatever philosophy was in vogue from the former to the latter. Literally nothing about your post has anything to offer as a cogent critique of Marxism, instead it's another tired and lazy generalization of "leftism".

You're arguing by association which is a really common and really bad way to interact with the world. It allows you to collapse every ideology or theory down into a single issue which you then reject out of disgust. This is what people here do by making absolutely everything about trans people, which you have done yourself.

Ultimately, this methodology turns people into close minded idiots. You won't even accept that Marxists might have a good point here or there, because in you're head, they're all leftists which means they're all the same goons on Twitter with 20 genders in their bio.

[Anonymous No.20158315]

>>20158305
no, but there's some secondary literature I would recommend against: all of it
>>20158308
>what issue do you then have with someone like me, who very closely agrees with the marxist critique but doesnt think traditional marxism provides us with a solution?
that's not even a coherent position to have. what you term "the critique" already includes the solution, meaning it already specifies the conditions of the proletariat's liberation

[Anonymous No.20158316]

>>20158204
>why does unity of workers mean the erasure of identity
in a nationalist context class consciousness = class harmony, unity of workers means collective representation of workers within a greater community and insurance that the fruits of a community result in investment into that community. but within a leftist internationalist context, ie. marxist ideology, anarchism, every leftist ideology, CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS = CLASS WARFARE, class as a united intentional identity that crosses borders and culture and races, which promises to bring about a literally impossible utopia that benefits no one. thats the entire point of those ideologies; class warfare means the disillusion of all other identities in favor of an internationally unified class identity, thats literally where the whole "workers of the world unite" thing came from...
>which is what happens in national socialism and fascism
the working class under national socialism saw more influential representation and prosperity than other any other ideology specifically because nationalist identity DEMANDED dignity for the nations people. not even the most prosperous modern Nordic nations match the level of labour representation, workplace standards and regulations, and benefits of notional socialism. while communists where tricking people into working in sweat shos and "ending homelessness" by stuffing people into commie block housing units with one single kitchen because one kitchen "helped deconstruct the family unit" according to engles ideals, national socialism had the labour guild taking the government to court resulting in all industrialists in the nation paying for the construction of 3+ bedroom single family homes for all of their workers, and
ALL homes in the could be purchased by newly we couples with interest free loans with -25% for every child they had during the duration of their mortgage (decades). nationalism demands a degree of dignity for a specific materially real and existing people, it demands real tangible investment into a specific community that actually exists, it demands real results, while internationalist leftism makes vague promises of a utopia for an abstract international community that doesn't actually exist and the government has no actual obligation to fulfill (Xi jing ping will totally turn over the means of production any day now and the chinese people will stop living in the horrors of sweatshops and embrace a stateless classless society any day now, just trust me bro!)
>but thats not the goal of communism and not what marxists envision
i know, marxism is an explicitly destructive force in the working class and outside of maybe the 19th century specifically, it only serves to lower standards or straight up enslave working class people

TL;DR in short: nationalism creates real obligations to real communities that produce real results while internationalism deconstructs communities and has no actual obligations to any specific interests

[Anonymous No.20158319]

>>20158295
>Marx was a socialist because he cared deeply for the oppressed and downtrodden of his time.
Its so hilarious shabbos goy fall for this non-sense every time.
>"We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces—Socialists, Anarchists, Communists—to whom we
always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule
(of the solidarity of all humanity) of our social masonry."
>"We are interested in just the opposite—in the diminution, the killing out of the goyim. Our power is in the chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker because by all that this
implies he is made the slave of our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength or energy to set against our will. "
>"This hatred will be still further magnified by the effects of an economic crisis, which will stop dealings on the exchanges and bring industry to a standstill. We shall create by all the secret subterranean methods open to us and with the aid of gold, which is all
in our hands, a universal economic crisis whereby we shall throw upon the streets whole mobs of workers simultaneously in all the countries of Europe. These mobs will rush delightedly to shed the blood of those whom, in the simplicity of their ignorance, they have envied from their cradles, and whose property they will then be able to loot. "
>"Ours they will not touch, because the moment of attack will be known to us and we shall take measures to protect our own. "

[Anonymous No.20158322]

>>20157221
You will never matter again. You will never get to kill people and countries again.

[Anonymous No.20158323]

>>20158234
>This isn't true in theory nor in practice.
objectively incorrect
>Why?
because class warfare implicitly means the destruction of all communities not explicitly class-based

[Anonymous No.20158324]

You're a retarded faggot and none wants to ally with you. Also I'm more anti-capitalist and oppose megacorps more than you.

[Anonymous No.20158325]

>>20158308
I have an issue with the attitude of people more than the actual ideology they subscribe to themselves, which generally just makes people deny observable truths in place of fantastical delusions. Believe whatever you want, that really is up to you fellow anon, I don't bother trying to armchair psychoanalyze people on each view point, but just realize that most people will personally have a bigger problem with communism and be antagonistic reason because of circumstances (maybe they already have good circumstances and don't see the need in radical changes), their family may have had bad history with living in a communist country or simply like the idea of earning capital even if they are not at the top.

[Anonymous No.20158328]

>>20158308
>The polls are true
Polls aren't evidence of anything. They're wrong all the time. Who the fuck believes polls anymore?

[Anonymous No.20158331]

>>20158308
All ideologies seek to fill the vacuum left behind by religion by rationalizing technological and material processes that emerged in the modern era. These ideologies are then used to interpret politics and orient states into exemplifying their values. At their core though, most modern developed states are quite similar. It is only ideology that stabilizes them and controls the populace. All of them are inherently ambiguous and malleable for that reason. Marxism is a variant of socialism that is used for those exact same political purposes even though there is genuine materialist analysis to it. There's no reason why we shouldn't consider it in the same camp as other ideologies. At the end of the day, having statues of Marx and Lenin on every building fulfills the same function as having statues of Catholic saints on every church.

[Anonymous No.20158342]

>>20158298
>no, I've seen enough people agree with me
All the unemployed people on Discord you hang out with yeah

[Anonymous No.20158343]

>>20158266
>but the whole point of marxist 'scientific materialism' is to describe the real foundations of society without recourse to any ideas that do not have their ground in the material. whether thats successful or not, do you agree that such a project would not be ideological?
What does it mean for an idea to not be grounded in the material? Define material? Any point of view has some relation to the society and environment around it, so the notion of a strictly non-material idea doesn't make much sense.

[Anonymous No.20158344]

>>20157457
Utopian socialism is basically anarchism, and scientific socialism is more realist, in that Marx correctly predicted there would have to exist a state or organization controlled by the working class that establishes communism.

[Anonymous No.20158349]

>>20158192
>but isnt there to a degree a contradiction in how china functions and your stated analysis?
Yes! But Marxists deal with contradiction. To answer this in a roundabout way, I think the dichotomy of markets (capitalism) and planning (socialism) is a false one. Nothing is black and white since that's just not a dialectic. While they still do a lot of planning, I think one judgement about the USSR is they had a metaphysical style to things, where planning = socialism and they ended up subordinating themselves to that. But planning is just a tool as are markets. We should make these things work people, not people working for "markets" or working for "plans."

To follow the thesis-antithesis-synthesis logic of history, you could say that socialism first negated capitalism, which then reformed itself and negated socialism, which failed. So the synthesis is the "negation of the negation" of capitalism and failed socialism. But it's not absolute negation but "dialectically" negating the bad elements of the preceding stages, while taking the good things and synthesizing them into the next stage of the thing, so history moves on, tortuously progressing toward replacing capitalism with socialism.

>>20157648
>Nietzsche was absolutely correct to describe Marxism as the personification of slave morality.
Well there's a lot of power in it, and taking back the virtues which belong to people -- strength, intelligence, and independence -- but which they project in alienated form onto "God" such that human beings become weak and pathetic have to worship that "God" to regain the virtues that actually belong to them. And this is what Marxism contains to help people see this and liberate themselves and that makes Jordan Peterson cry.

https://youtu.be/tyaR5_-MmRU

[Anonymous No.20158360]

>>20158344
I know that, I fully understand the initial premise of the separation, but what I'm asking is: in practice, how is gambling on a completely and utterly totalitarian dictatorship (entity with full control of all capital) magically ending up in a classless stateless society any less naive and utopian then gambling on the basic anarchist notion of a regular nation of any design magically turning into a stateless classless society

[Anonymous No.20158364]

>>20158360
I'm wondering that too, to be honest

[Anonymous No.20158375]

>>20158349 (me)
(In other words, there's a Promethean element to it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus

[Anonymous No.20158378]

>>20158315
>not a coherent position to have
well the conditions have been met, and global communism hasnt been achieved. post-war marxism and the frankfurt school tries to tackle that. do you understand how someone can see the insight and accuracy of marxisms description of class society and its functions, and its details of the difficulties of capitalism, yet see a failure in its assessment of the revolutions occurrence?
>>20158325
thats fair. but i like thinking in grand ideas and currently i am thinking about such grand social forces and the future of humanity; i certainly can pivot to considering individuals but im not really doing that right now. furthermore, average peoples wants and needs are largely determined by external forces, so theyre not always reliable in being a gauge for whats good, or bad, or necessary
>>20158328
what do you believe in then? i suggested looking at statistics, and i identified myself as someone with a close connection to a communist country, albeit too young to have lived in it. what do you want to see?
>>20158331
here i to a significant degree agree with you; the only counterargument i have is that its attempts at marxist thought and process that falls into the trappings of ideology. but thats pretty no true scotsman

[Anonymous No.20158383]

>>20158344
>in that Marx correctly predicted there would have to exist a state or organization controlled by the working class that establishes communism.
You're an absolute retard. Marx thought communism was possible the because Christian communes that existed in the US and England at the time were popping off. Like a lot of socialist retards today, he thought it was because of the capitalists as to why the communes failed , and the state had to be used suppress them because of this. That wasn't even the case though. They failed because required an unstable amount of social coercion just get people to not accumulate property or to actually contribute in common. You socialists are so dumb. The greeks literally made plays mocking the idea of communism because it was so fucking stupid as a concept. Haven't the last 100+ years of failed attempts at socialism, through the state, shown it is failure on even a national scale? How fuck could you even argue socialism, communism could exist on a large scale when it even failed on small communes? You people are dumb. You either are willing ignorant, or, will fully malicious.

[Anonymous No.20158385]

>>20158343
i think its the idea that its describing things not top down, but bottom up--not from abstract concepts of god, justice, goodness, etc. but from concrete things such as how material is distributed in society and what structures determine how material is organized (physical stuff, goods, objects). in marxism there is the idea of base and superstructure, where base is the material and superstructure is social, cultural, political, etc. so marxism sees stuff that explains and deals with the base as materialist and things that go from superstructure to base as non-materialist

[Anonymous No.20158386]

>>20157221
I would be a marxist but I'm not retarded and I don't have a small penis

[Anonymous No.20158394]

>>20158349
its just so far from traditional socialism/communism that i dont even know if we can call it by that name. and none of the socialism, failed socialism, new capitalism, failed failed socialism, whatever, has gotten rid of the fundamental capitalist class structure, so im not sure we actually made any great leaps in that regard

[Anonymous No.20158397]

>>20158009
>There's also the theory of alienation which comes from Hegel, Feuerbach and then Marx. Like "man makes God, then assign to him their powers of creation, and then subordinate themselves to this non-human entity they created." In Marx's version, that's capital. You see this with "people must sacrifice to save the Economy." Economy is like God and we must cower before it, pay tribute to it, and serve it, in the hope that one day we'll be Saved. The same is true for Nation. Or the Vote in liberal democracy. Or Ideology or the Party. People merely become a means to various ends -- which we created but had become alienated from us -- rather than people becoming an end in themselves so these things serve people, who become the masters of their society and can project themselves into the future.
Nice post, very well written. I can see hints of Kant in this idea that people should not be merely a means to an end, but ought to be an end in themselves. There's also some similarity to Nietzsche there as well with this notion that we delay gratification in the hopes of a non-existent future reward. Only that for Nietzsche he uses this idea to criticize Christianity and Platonism which finally empties out the real world of all meaning. Your post also highlights an interesting tension in Marx's thought that is never truly resolved: between a kind of individualism on the one hand very characteristic of Western thought and on the other a kind of collectivism.
However, honestly I don't really find the analogy between God and economy all that convincing. People treat each other as a means to an end because we're extremely limited fragile creatures highly dependent on each other and because we can never truly know the intentions others have. We are all intuitively very good at sorting out friend v.s foe, at displaying partiality towards those that help us and remembering those that hurt.
Finally, I think the notion of alienation suffers from internal contradiction. He criticizes other ideas--nationalism, God, liberal democracy--as being abstractions that alienate us from our true interest and are used to dominate "people" but what is the notion of "people being an end in themselves" but also a ill-defined abstraction? What would a government policy that treats people as a whole as ends in themselves actually look like? Politics is the art of partiality, learning who is on your side and who isn't, and helping those that serve your ideology, party, or whoever you view as similar to yourself. So it's unclear how a policy of treating people as ends in themselves would ever actually work given people's inherent factitious nature.

[Anonymous No.20158399]

>>20158378
You didn't cite "statistics." You cited a propaganda poll from the Russian State government. A single poll. and polls are not reliable evidence because they are easily manipulated by the methodology. You can simply harvest polls until you get the result you want. Its meaningless. That's why the Communists in Russia don't control the Russian government and why popular policies don't get implemented even though "DA POLLS" show they have support. Reality must different than what you believe. Polls don't represent real people who actually do things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cef_3sfMIGY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB9Ec-hdy64
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r33Q8cl87HY
These are real people who you won't poll because they will tell you the truth.

[Anonymous No.20158400]

>>20158316
*sniff* pure ideology

[Anonymous No.20158418]

>>20158375
This guy is a massive psued and run of the mill twitter Stalinist doing Orwellian newspeak. There's so many of these losers on twitter that are dysgenic like him. They're just target practice.

[Anonymous No.20158420]

>>20158400
Except it was ideology turned into real concrete policy, unlike leftist utopias, it actually happened in real life. a literal world war, the most destructive conflict in human history, was waged because its policy regarding interest, currency, and international trade agreements meant the complete and utter destruction of both national and international high finance money-lending industries and the greatest wealth redistribution in human history.

[Anonymous No.20158425]

>>20158385
>i think its the idea that its describing things not top down, but bottom up--not from abstract concepts of god, justice, goodness, etc. but from concrete things such as how material is distributed in society and what structures determine how material is organized (physical stuff, goods, objects). in marxism there is the idea of base and superstructure
Right, but this is also still an abstraction and one created by human beings. How material is distributed and the relation between ideas and power is in no way concrete. It's incredibly abstract and hard to objectively determine. Just think how even at a micro level in a family for instance how fundamentally interpretative and changing power is.

[Anonymous No.20158452]

>>20158360
For that question Marx's initial idea ws that because the proletariat owns nothing, it is the only class who is willing and able to abolish capital which for them is only the face of their oppressors. And since at this stage of history capital is the basis of class conflict, eliminating it will lead to a marxist society automatically.
>>20158383
I am not an absolute retard, I am a relative retard

[Anonymous No.20158464]

>>20158452
I think its safe to say that working class society in 2022 does not view capital as some alien abstraction of oppression, especially since society has inflated dramatically and is more and more dependent on EXTREMELY complex methods of production and distribution

[Anonymous No.20158467]

>>20157221
>take all the power away from the government
>gives it all right back to another
>expects them to give it back again
how retarded do you have to be to become a marxist?

[Anonymous No.20158474]

>>20158467
People choose Marxism because they need an alibi as to why they are degenerate, and to justify their negative impacts on society at large. They're people who reject agency for a shallow sociological world view from state universities that handwaves any criticism of their behavior, and to use a permanent victim complex to justify their sociopathic actions and deeds. If you dox these people, plenty of communists are people who are meanest, dumbest and worst people society has to offer. That's why Marx was fucking bum who cheated on his wife with his maid. That's why Lenin was a public defendant who protected criminals. That was Stalin was a child rapist who lived off of petty crime, and why Mao was a pedophile with concubines. These people are using their ideology to compensate for their profligate existence, but they can't help to let their innate psychology still override their loafy ideals.

[Anonymous No.20158505]

>>20157705
Communism doesn’t equal western progressivism. Homosexuality was illegal in the Soviet Union. Western progressivism comes out of the postmodern liberal Crowlean “do what thou wilt” tradition. It’s a weapon used to subvert left wing movements and have them focusing on irrelevant issues.

[Anonymous No.20158519]

>>20158505
most progressive ideals were heavily associated with communist movements back in the day. funny enough, marx was literally kicked out of one group because he was claiming that all these feminist/homosexual/ whatever movements would dilute the class struggle, but the utopian nature of socialism none the less attracted all sorts of degenerates who thought that their niche struggle was intersectional with class struggle, and that intersectionalism remains the dominant brand of leftism today

[Anonymous No.20158523]

>>20158505
I dunno Soviets were cool with women soldiers and people in the politburo advocated some fucked up shit. look at Kollontai

[Anonymous No.20158525]

>>20157221
>how fucking unironically retarded and backwards do you have to be to read marx and not become a marxist?
Most anti classical marxism do not have read Marx. They have watched internet videos about Marx, saying that he is a jewish satanist kabbalist. But they haven't even read one book from Marx, except perhaps sometime the communist manifesto, because it's the shortest.
Some anti classical marxist have read Marx, but they haven't fully understant him, or, they think surplus value is justified. At one point, it's a point of view (surplus value being justified or not).
>being free and embracing marxism
Marx's thought is classical marxism. It's important to make the difference between classical marxism, and marxism, as they are opposites.

[Anonymous No.20158527]

>>20158425
well yes, in this sense no one is free from ideology--human systems of thinking--but the idea of starting from the base, the material, and trying to understand culture, politics, etc. through how material is organized vs. starting from culture, politics and either ignoring or explaining the material through them, that is a sort of abstraction but it is a difference. consider for example national socialism, which can seem quite close or even overlapping with some marxism or socialism when you look at it externally, but when you understand it as something that does not move from base to superstructure but is entirely grounded in superstructure of cultural ideas and concepts separate from the physical structures underlying them and in fact explaining physical structures, the material, in terms of those cultural and political ideas--in this sense, national socialism is the opposite of marxism. i dont really know if im defending rather than trying to explain, but well, i hope you get the idea even if you disagree.
>>20158420
an ideology that fundamentally did not change class structure. extoll it all you will--i was once a nazi too--but that element of class structure and organization of economy will forever put you at odds with the marxist, who understands fascism as false consciousness--redirecting class consciousness from bourgeoisie towards an enemy like a jew, or a foreigner/group

[Anonymous No.20158533]

>>20158474
This is ad hominem. Whether or not Marx was a morally upstanding guy is irrelevant. The points he made stand up. When you go to work, you and your fellow workers produce all the profit for the company. You do all that is necessary to run the company, manage the accounts, produce the product, keep the workspace clean and tidy, and so on. Then the money that you and your coworkers make gets given to the owners who did literally nothing to earn it. That’s just theft plain and simple.

[Anonymous No.20158540]

>>20158505
the soviet union was basically rescued by stalins more fascist-oriented cultural program from the insanity of Engels an other socialist thinkers ideals

[Anonymous No.20158543]

>>20158399
my grandma lived through the holodomor. i am closer to the horrors communism than you ever will be. my parents survived the collapse, and fled with me to canada. i am not an ahistorical idiot and i think the ussr was in many ways a travesty. yet i am here, discussing and defending marxism. what gives? i was just trying to get across that your meme about how every """survivor""" of communism knows the true horrors and hates it, unlike silly westerners--this is just inaccurate, there are probably more communists (proper communists, not what you call communists who are actually just liberals) in eastern europe than in the west.

[Anonymous No.20158544]

>>20158519
>>20158523
Ok but look at actual communist movements. China, USSR, Cuba, Vietnam. None of these countries support(ed) LGBT degeneracy. Then you also have fascism/nazism which also comes out of the left wing anti-capitalist tradition (not that I’m a Nazi).

[Anonymous No.20158560]

>>20158544
China is more tolerant towards LGBT than most people think. But nonetheless that’s not the point. The point is that those countries still follow a more classical Marxist tradition that derived from their 20th century revolutions. The overwhelming majority of other leftists in the worst are not influenced by their interpretations of Marxism. China wisely synthesized markets with socialism while still preserving their culture, but most other leftists are still dregs who whine about capitalism and oppression nonstop. Intersectionality is the dominant form of leftism and it’s only a matter of time before it reaches China assuming the CCP doesn’t crack down on it

[Anonymous No.20158565]

china bears the characteristics of fascism more than it bears the characteristics of socialism
>ingroup vs outgroup fundamentally defining politics
check
>propaganda and image covering up a bourgeois dictatorship
check
>military culture, strongman leader extolled and oriented around
check

[Anonymous No.20158568]

>>20158560
Intersectionality is a liberal, capitalist invention. It arose not in China or USSR but in America, with all the gay pride and civil rights movements. It exists only in the liberal capitalist west because it is a liberal capitalist weapon to destroy the left wing movement.

[Anonymous No.20158576]

>>20158568
I don’t disagree with you, but you at least must accept that most leftists are infected by it. Identity is far more important to them today than class, it’s just a fact. It blows my mind that leftists aren’t just imitating China’s interpretation of Marxism when it is demonstrably more successful than any other form of socialism.

[Anonymous No.20158579]

>>20158527
>an ideology that fundamentally did not change class structure
it wasn't meant to, it was meant to create a cycle of investment from one class into another, resulting in the prosperity of a nations production industries and working class families while elimination the high finance industries
>who understands fascism as false consciousness--
wrong, the false consciousness is in marxism, which opts for class warfare that ultimately not befit the working class, and in fact enslaves them to the dictatorship of the proletariat and dramatically reduces standards of living
>redirecting class consciousness from bourgeoisie towards an enemy like a jew, or a foreigner/group
class consciousness is not redirected anywhere, it is simple integrated into a greater community where labour has a seriously massive legally advantageous representation due to the nationalistic ideology valuing the volk above all else, which in turn maintains the support of government, which in turn maintains industry .

[Anonymous No.20158583]

>>20158576
Western leftists shouldn't imitate China because the conditions they're operating in are a lot different to those of China before the revolution.
>Identity is far more important to them today than class, it’s just a fact.
Yep, and it's sad. The weapon worked.

[Anonymous No.20158590]

i don't really care for an author that can't do simple math.<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/d3c674ba_monkaHmm.png">

[Anonymous No.20158593]

>>20158579
agree to disagree, we are functioning in two different paradigms of thought. i disagree with fascism on a philosophical level, nothing to do with marxism, maybe well fight about it another time

[Anonymous No.20158610]

>>20158593
well enough, my friend. have a good night

[Anonymous No.20158615]

>>20158610
night brother, stay reading

[Anonymous No.20158629]

>>20158295
>Marx was a socialist because he cared deeply for the oppressed and downtrodden of his time
that's not a reason for being socialist. every gay bourgeois reformer "cares deeply for the oppressed".
>The idea that his project was entirely amoral is nonsense that completely folded as leftism developed throughout history and became more and more based on morality.
irrelevant, communism is opposed to leftism and leftism has ALWAYS been completely based on morality (see Marx's criticsm of Proudhon)
>they became lefists because they seek liberation and want to fight oppression
you can acknowledge that class interest gets expressed as class morality without falling into retarded bourgeois abstract moralism. everyone wants to "seek liberation and fight oppression". this is true of both bourgeois morality and proletarian morality. the slogan "liberation" expresses different interests for the national bourgeois who needs liberation from the colonizer bourgeois, partially another for the petty bourgeois who needs liberation for his private property from big bourgeois monopolies and state taxes, and still a completely different interest for a proletarian who needs liberation from the tyranny from society premised on the guarantee of private property. collapsing them into one abstract principle misses the entire point in typical liberal idealist (and ideological) fashion
>I completely reject the idea that Marxism is not an ideology.
it isn't an ideology because it recognizes proletarian morality as an expression of class interest an explains it from material reality. ideology instead sanctions morality of a single class as universally binding normative principle that has primacy over particular economic interests.
>>20158324
you oppose megacorps so much that you defend that which gives rise to them in the first place, namely private property

[Anonymous No.20158633]

>>20158343
>What does it mean for an idea to not be grounded in the material?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch02.htm
>Proudhon begins by taking his ideal of Justice, of “justice éternelle,” from the juridical relations that correspond to the production of commodities: thereby, it may be noted, he proves, to the consolation of all good citizens, that the production of commodities is a form of production as everlasting as justice. Then he turns round and seeks to reform the actual production of commodities, and the actual legal system corresponding thereto, in accordance with this ideal. What opinion should we have of a chemist, who, instead of studying the actual laws of the molecular changes in the composition and decomposition of matter, and on that foundation solving definite problems, claimed to regulate the composition and decomposition of matter by means of the “eternal ideas,” of “naturalité” and “affinité”? Do we really know any more about “usury,” when we say it contradicts “justice éternelle,” équité éternelle,” “mutualité éternelle,” and other vérités éternelles” than the fathers of the church did when they said it was incompatible with “grâce éternelle,” “foi éternelle,” and “la volonté éternelle de Dieu”?
here's again the difference between ideology and science
>>20158349
Hegel was a mistake
>>20158378
>well the conditions have been met, and global communism hasnt been achieved.
no, they haven't been met.
>do you understand how someone can see the insight and accuracy of marxisms description of class society and its functions, and its details of the difficulties of capitalism, yet see a failure in its assessment of the revolutions occurrence?
not if they understand the description properly, no. the assesment of the revolutions isn't that the first proper attempt at a revolution will end in a complete success, nor that proper attempts at a revolution have a defined timeframe.
>>20158464
sure, the class conscious proletarians view it it as a very concrete thing that causes they daily oppression, not as some abstraction.
>>20158467
you simply have to understand what the conditions are for the existence of political power. if you don't understand that then I agree that it sounds retarded, but in that case it's just you looking in a mirror

[Anonymous No.20158634]

Marxists are basically dumb people larping as smart people<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/e9d526e8_frodo.png">

[Anonymous No.20158641]

>>20158519
>marx was literally kicked out of one group
yeah, this should be enough to tell you that such a group isn't communist and land your post into the trash because it's based on a wrong premise that liberal progressives who larp as socialists have something to do with actual communists
>>20158544
>China, USSR, Cuba, Vietnam. None of these countries support(ed) LGBT degeneracy
all regular bourgeois states. it was typical for bourgeois states to be anti-LGBT at that time. don't pretend it has something to do with communism. see e.g.:
>Paragraph 175 (known formally as §175 StGB; also known as Section 175 in English) was a provision of the German Criminal Code from 15 May 1871 to 10 March 1994. It made homosexual acts between males a crime, and in early revisions the provision also criminalized bestiality as well as forms of prostitution and underage sexual abuse. All in all, around 140,000 men were convicted under the law.

[Anonymous No.20158643]

>>20158634
thats literally it though, leftists are literally people who look at all the problems of the world and their solution is " what if we make a utopia lol"

[Anonymous No.20158663]

>>20158527
>when you understand it as something that does not move from base to superstructure but is entirely grounded in superstructure of cultural ideas and concepts separate from the physical structures underlying them and in fact explaining physical structures, the material, in terms of those cultural and political ideas--in this sense, national socialism is the opposite of marxism
Any movement, any idealogy is connected to what you call "the base"--in so far as idealogy interacts and moves in the world and must navigate different social forces and interests. I see a variety of different idealogical groups all trying to influence public discourse in any modern democratic society.
I'm still not sure what it means for an idealogy to be connected to the base and why that makes it correct. Imo people have differing underlying senses of affinity towards certain movements and groups, not always rationally and wish to move their society in certaun directions due to underlying pressuppositions about human nature and morality. Any effective philosophical and political debate should focus on those underlying assumptions and make a case for their particular political desired state of affairs, not on whether or not something is connected to "material".
You are right the Nazis very much created a mythology around their movement and used media to create a cult of personality around Hitler. But it was never disconnected from material realities. The Nazi government was not all powerful. They very much relied upon people's support, and in cases where there was particular hightened dissent among the German people would back down. And they very much tried to pander to workers.

[Anonymous No.20158665]

>>20158643
You can't trust a thing leftists say i've had many tell me they are not utopian idealists

[Anonymous No.20158671]

>>20158629
>ideology instead sanctions morality of a single class as universally binding normative principle that has primacy over particular economic interests.

congrats, you just described how most leftists and marxists operate today. Doesn’t matter if in theory it doesn’t function as a moralistic ideology, in practice that’s exactly what it became

[Anonymous No.20158676]

When Marxists speak they are practicing Marxist taqiyya<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/4623886c_HeavyBreathing.png">

[Anonymous No.20158677]

>>20158633
maybe ill rephrase (conditions poster)
postwar society and the new capitalist structure and its evolutions looks quite different from the capitalism of marx's day, even if it has the same fundamental structure. maybe its not that the "solution" (i know, wrong word) or prediction is wrong, but that it didnt fully account for the evolutions and contrivances of current capitalism. i still maintain the superiority of socialism, but i see traditional marxism as less capable than ever at being a realistic paradigm for people to accept and work off of. i just feel like something more, something new is needed, something that can account for the extremely robust defense systems in place in our current milieu, the way capitalism so effectively quashes and subverts real marxism, the uptake of marxism into the mainstream while neutering it, the prevalence of liberalism and liberal humanism as subverting and confusing the impulses towards real leftism.
>>20158663
hm, maybe by base im trying to get across a system of thought that first addresses the literal distribution of things in society, how they are owned, earned, created, and spread out, by what logic this is done, how its organized. this is the base, the 'material,' on which marxism tries to build its theory, and critically does not advocate communism but simply predicts that this base will evolve in a specific way, i.e., from a capitalist organization of material to a communist one. thats the 'materialism' part, and a marxist at least purports to explain and understand things first in reference to this 'objective' base. national socialism is disconnected from this base because its fundamentally grounded in superstructure--culture, abstract ideas of national identity or race. so thats what makes the marxist 'ideology' (what i would instead call analysis) correct. whereas a marxist rally that extolls working class as strong, powerful, ready for revolution, that bears aesthetics and propaganda and such things, yes i agree thats ideology. but marxist analysis and that kind of politicking are two different things if that makes sense. a marxist analysis according to marxs theory, but you can also call one who politicks for communism or something a marxist, and it gets kind of confused

[Anonymous No.20158680]

>>20158527
>redirecting class consciousness from bourgeoisie towards an enemy like a jew, or a foreigner/group
The jew, in the mind of nazis, is basically the Capitalist. But since nazis do not reject Capitalism, that have to isolate Capitalism bad aspects in the person of the jew, and blame it for it. In reality, the bad aspects of Capitalism are inherent to Capitalism. Whether it be "jewish" Capitalism, or "aryan" Capitalism. Exploitation is exploitation. Surplus labor is surplus labor. There is no difference between "jewish" exploitation, and "aryan" exploitation.

[Anonymous No.20158685]

>>20158641
youre missing the point though. marxism promises a utopian righting of wrongs, it promises the destruction of class barriers resulting in peace and harmony, which fascism also does, but marxism does without the christian moralizing. whether or not marx intended on it, its absolutely a fucking MAGNET for "intersectionalists" (basically the logical conclusion of nihilists) who want to destroy their own moral barriers and right their own perceived wrongs and who (ironically) view their various immoral bourgeois degeneracy social issues as intersecting with working class issues.

[Anonymous No.20158692]

very cool that after mountains of shitty empty threads we get a few non-retard posters on /lit/ at 5am

[Anonymous No.20158694]

>>20158685
moralization becoming integral to leftism was a fucking travesty for marxist theory

[Anonymous No.20158697]

>>20158665
many marxists will tell you they arent utopian but are actually super serious grounded scientific thinkers; in that case you just have to pose them with this >>20158360 question

[Anonymous No.20158698]

>>20158633
>What opinion should we have of a chemist, who, instead of studying the actual laws of the molecular changes in the composition and decomposition of matter, and on that foundation solving definite problems, claimed to regulate the composition and decomposition of matter by means of the “eternal ideas,” of “naturalité” and “affinité”? Do we really know any more about “usury,” when we say it contradicts “justice éternelle,” équité éternelle,” “mutualité éternelle,”
I agree partially with his point here in sk far as it aligns with my skeoticism towards sweeping statements about justice. The issue is that the underlying structure of any social system is not self-evident. A person's analysis of how a law-court works can be coloured by the starting assumptions you make about how you think it ought to work. Whether or not you think justice is served will be highly dependant upon the irrational choice as to who you sympathize with.

[Anonymous No.20158717]

>>20158533
“Did nothing to earn it”
Except for, you know, organizing everything you just listed.

[Anonymous No.20158728]

>>20158698
well a marxist analysis proper shouldnt call anything just or unjust, including usury. its understanding usury as unjust and against some moral or ethical purposes vs. understanding it as a function that is exploitative, exploitation being an amoral term. thats the 'scientific' part of it ig?
>>20158717
a capitalist organization of society has a needed space for owners who are organizers in that sense, but really are just owners. the actual needed organization is still done by worker managers as he identified. why cant it be conceived of workers organizing themselves? coops are a real thing that really works

[Anonymous No.20158729]

>>20158579
Do you even know that Rockefeller (standard oil), AEG (Warburg, the same guy who created the american Fed), I.G farben, the bank of england, the american fed, literally financed Hitler's 1933 campain?
Profits made by your german "volk", went up, in the form of dividends, to Rockefeller (standard oil), Warburg (AEG), I.G Farben (Astor, Onasis, Rothschild, Rockefeller), General Electrics (american firm who owned the german commuication).
You fantasize with your german volk, because you, like most nazis, don't really know how international Capitalism work. During nazi germany, many major shareholder of german based companies were american oligarchs, often jewish (Warburg, Rothshild).
By the way, when Hitler invaded the Czech Republic, if i remember correctly, one of the first thing that was done, is to stole the gold from the Czech central bank, and give it to the bank of england (Rothschild).
Something else: when middle social layer and upper social layer german and polish jews were send to Konzentrationslager, there personnal effect and money was taken. Where did this money and gold end up? In Rothschild accounts in Switzerland.
>nationalistic ideology valuing the volk above all else, which in turn maintains the support of government, which in turn maintains industry,
Which in turn enrich, through dividends, the main shareholder of those industry, often international shareholders, which is nothing volkish, often even jewish international shareholders, even less volkish.
You can only be national socialism because you do not understand how it all really works. As you do not, in your mind, visualize from where profit comes from (exploited labor), and where does this profit go (shareholders, often billionaires international major shareholders).

[Anonymous No.20158738]

>>20158694
It's even more than that, it was a psy-op. CIA psy-op. And it worked, judging the vast amount of uncomprehending people who took the bait.

[Anonymous No.20158744]

>>20158738
this is why im so lost with current marxism, and dont see it as in its current state gaining significant traction, things either have to get much worse or it needs something fresh, its enemies and the defense systems of capitalism are insidious and extremely potent
im very close to becoming a third worldist

[Anonymous No.20158749]

>>20158744
the "real" current state of Marxism is the same as it was 120 years ago; people scrambling to interpret the dictatorship of the proletariat and translate it into real life in away that might actually bring about the stateless classless society. so far the only news is that china claims it will happen there by like 2050

[Anonymous No.20158754]

>>20158744
>things either have to get much worse
The rate of profit has reached it's critical limits. Markets are saturated. Central banks interest rates are negative.The whole thing only gives the illusion it's working through fictitious credit (money printing). It's over.
>defense systems of capitalism are insidious and extremely potent
Will see how the defense systems will work when Capitalism will invalidate itself. (internal contradictions, productivity increases lowering the rate of profit, which needs to compensate with an increase of sales, which in turn saturate the market, which makes production cannot be transformed into Capital, which breaks the whole mode of production).

[Anonymous No.20158763]

>>20158749
yeah, but capitalist organization is increasingly more complex, class lines are ever blurrier, what being a proletarian even means in the fragmentary gig economy that constantly folds in on itself and has absurd kafkaesque bureaucratic structures and organizations, all this contributes my feelings. consider the state of unionization and how its increasingly irrelevant, for one
>>20158754
well ill be watching, but i am also watching for something galvanizing, electrifying, the communist manifesto for the 21st century. maybe mark fisher impacted me too much idk

[Anonymous No.20158774]

Wow... Marxists really don't understand history at all.

[Anonymous No.20158778]

>>20158774
there is no history without marx

[Anonymous No.20158779]

>>20158778
How about you post where you live so I can rape and kill you, okay?

[Anonymous No.20158786]

>>20158779
you should save your virginity for a nice girl instead

[Anonymous No.20158789]

>>20157221
>that you would literally enslave yourself instead of being free and embracing marxism
Tell that to the prisoners forced to read Marx against their will as punishment.

[Anonymous No.20158794]

>>20158779
o-ok, as long as it serves the dialectics of history...

[Anonymous No.20158796]

>>20158677
> im trying to get across a system of thought that first addresses the literal distribution of things in society, how they are owned, earned, created, and spread out, by what logic this is done, how its organized. this is the base, the 'material,'

Most political philosophies make some attempt to relate their theory to descriptive realities. Most acknowledge the realities of class, status, and distribution of goods . For instance Aristotle examines what are the best arrangements between different classes under different types of government to ensure lasting stability arguing that in a polity (roughly a republic) a large middle class checks the extremes of the wealthy and the poor. I dont see how that theory is any less disconnected from the ways in which goods get distributed. Again I will emphasize that the ways in which you describe that distribution of goods will always be colored by underlying assumptions as to the way one thinks societal goods ought to be divided. There is a clear normative dimension to Marx's writings. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is not simply a disinterested description of how goods and services are distributed; it is a normative claim as to the way that distribution ought to work. And to contrast it again to Aristotle, we see he also makes ethical claims. Notably that distribution ought to be done more so on the basis of merit. I'm not sure why Marxists are so afraid, or so incapable, of defending their own desired state. They all pretend to have no beliefs and no morality whenever it is convenient for then to do so.

[Anonymous No.20158797]

>>20158754
>The rate of profit has reached it's critical limits. Markets are saturated.
Just two more weeks, goy. Communism is around the corner ahahahaha

[Anonymous No.20158808]

>>20158797

[Anonymous No.20158809]

Marx is a nigger just like Socrates is a nigger. Anyone who wishes to corrupt the youth and accelerate should be beheaded on public display.

[Anonymous No.20158811]

>>20158796
if youre right--that marxism has an inherent normative dimension--then marxism fails in its project. its integral to it that it is fundamentally non normative in its analysis, even if a marxist can treat the theory normatively. "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is used normatively, but it is not fundamentally normative as it is simply describing in a very short, flippant way a system of organization. if youre right, i repeat, marxism fails. any normativity in a marxist or marxists or marxism must be based in a non-normative, explicatory foundation. if you take away the idea that communism is a natural evolution of organizational history--desirable or not--then marxism loses one of its critical elements. hate it or not, its integral

[Anonymous No.20158814]

>>20158692
>I love fellating myself
Thanks for telling us.

[Anonymous No.20158819]

>>20158809
who should i read to reach your level?

[Anonymous No.20158821]

>>20158754
>The rate of profit has reached it's critical limits.
lol....lmao. exploitation is going to reach new limits soon thanks to jews and nihilists. this isn't even the fucking beginning. marxist internationalism will manifest in the form of a bastard rootless cosmopolitan slave race that erases all unifying culture and heritage on the planet which comes before it, and technology will allow them to be exploited in ways we dont even comprehend yet. this isnt even the fucking beginning of profit lmaooooooo

[Anonymous No.20158823]

>>20158814
not talking about myself at all, just saying that there are some decent posts in this thread compared to 99% of other shit on here. miserable faggot

[Anonymous No.20158827]

>>20158819
Edmund Burke

[Anonymous No.20158830]

>>20158827
were you the guy i regrettably replied to in the burke thread

[Anonymous No.20158835]

>>20158796
Aristotle made the first arguments against communism on the basis of merit and human nature. Plato was a proto-communist, and was accused of being one for centuries. Karl Kautsky himself claimed communism's roots start in Plato. Common ownership is not a new concept. It was ridiculed for centuries. Marxists are just people who cling unto an outdated world view superseded by behavioral genetics and statistical economics. People don't need to waste their time with sophistry. Societal differences, down one's politics actions, can be explained largely by one's genes. We have enough case studies from history rule out socialism as viable economic alternative. This isn't a serious discussion with serious people. This is a stupid discussion with very gullible and willfully ignorant people.
>>20158808
"Class War" isn't a thing, retard. People are not monoliths. Labor isn't factor that determines peoples' beliefs. My race, my language, my personal experience, my culture, my religion, my family, history, nationality et cetera, my genetics especially all impact what things I seek in life. Reducing everything to just class struggle is just nihilist non-sense.
>Ah, nothing matters in life but my fighting someone for a higher paycheck
You're just fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.20158840]

>>20158830
No, but I can agree that you're a very annoying individual. I suspect you're an incel too.

[Anonymous No.20158844]

>>20158728
>its understanding usury as unjust and against some moral or ethical purposes vs. understanding it as a function that is exploitative, exploitation being an amoral term. thats the 'scientific' part of it ig?
Also (one last point) exploitation here clearly is a word that comes charged with a negative connotation. Any word choice you choose comes laden with assumptions. Why wouldn't you describe usury purely in terms of the practices lenders employ? For instance saying "typically lenders charge x interest rates for y reasons. Z regulation limits the amount ..." etc. Instead you say it's function is exploitative. This is clearly a moral claim. Nothing wring with that but no need to avoid saying so.

[Anonymous No.20158852]

>>20158835
>calls things nihilist non-sense
>societal differences, down to ones political actions, can be explained largely by ones genes
thats more nihilist, if anything
biological essentialism is soulless
>>20158840
cant be as annoying as burke, how can someone write so beautifully yet in the end be blowing so much smoke up so many asses
>>20158844
well (im not equating exploitation to slavery here but) you can call something slavery, slavery is a morally charged term, but you dont have to be making a moral claim. A is the slave of B. A exploits the labout of B by doing X. if someone used someone elses good will and took advantage of it to benefit off of them to their detriment, thats exploitation, it doesnt have to be a moral term. but on the whole i dont know if im making it clear but i am just out here defending marxism and trying to explore / discuss it with skeptics and see what they say, i do not consider myself a marxist it is too restrictive, i just find the analysis compelling

[Anonymous No.20158857]

>>20158728
>usury as unjust and against some moral or ethical purposes vs. understanding it as a function that is exploitative, exploitation
in a christian/fascist sense, its the same thing. usury is immoral and unethical because its exploitative

[Anonymous No.20158866]

>>20158857
>>20158844
christianity and systems that take up christian morality to some extent have as a principle that exploitation is morally wrong. a competing moral system may see it as situational, or approve of it as the strong dominating the weak, for example. it only seems inherently moral because we are all functioning in the christian paradigm, not that we can escape it. there are many forms of exploitation that do not strike one as inherently immoral. if you exploit someones liking you to get an extra potato chip is that inherently immoral? perhaps exploitation is only immoral when it harms someone in a way they wouldnt want, or in a noticeable way? you get my idea. also i dont even know if i would agree with my previous statement of usury being inherently exploitative, it depends. usury as generally practiced certainly is though, since its a system that profits by taking advantage of an economic system most people have no choice but to buy in to, unless they want to live off the grid

[Anonymous No.20158868]

>>20158852
>how can someone write so beautifully yet in the end be blowing so much smoke up so many asses
You didn't understand him.

[Anonymous No.20158872]

>>20158868
well i used to agree with him, i dont anymore. i love the aesthetics of old world conservatism, its what drew me to the right in the first place. but my principles have changed, how i look at the world has changed, and it seems a paper tiger to me now. burke is worth reading though, for everyone. many people now dont understand the draw of conservatism and the right and burke is a great way to face contemporary liberals and leftists who have never questioned their beliefs with something that makes them doubt whether the right is all cletus and hitler

[Anonymous No.20158876]

>>20158872
I hate the way you type. Please act your age, you don't need to go out of your way to announce "I have aspergers" to everyone.

[Anonymous No.20158887]

>>20158852
>biological essentialism is soulless
Nililism is ignoring the reality of one's genes. Marxists do nihilism because they believe genes don't matter, and proceed with socially engineering genetically impossible outcomes. Its a complete denial of human limitations. Understanding your genes are important is not nihilism. Its actually the opposite because it means your genes do matter, and that we focus on our limited time on those who have the best genetic arguments for success than those who do not. Biological essentialism allows you actually curative greatness by focusing on those who have best chance in creating the best outcomes of humanity. Marxists instead ignore this, and primarily see everything through a non lens of "exploitation" and "oppression" - so they focus on people who will most likely not produce beneficial outcomes our species. You're interested in the advancement of human civilization to a higher plane, but your analysis lacks the tools and power to do so. Genetics and computational statistics, however, can do so much better and more accurately.

[Anonymous No.20158890]

>>20158821
>this isnt even the fucking beginning of profit
How good is a commodity, and profit, made on selling a commodity, if commodities cannot be sold because markets are saturated.
But you don't understand.
>My race, my language, my personal experience, my culture, my religion, my family, history, nationality et cetera, my genetics especially all impact what things I seek in life.
Yet you still wage slave 8 hours a day, enriching main shareholders of international companies, through dividends. Whatever your race, gender, religion, culture, ethnic background wathever. You are a cuck. Wage-slaving 8 hours a day. To enrich main shareholders, of international companies, through dividends. Your surplus labor, their dividends.

[Anonymous No.20158894]

>>20158857
>in a christian/fascist sense, its the same thing. usury is immoral and unethical because its exploitative
I didn't know usury was banned during nazi germany. Is an aryan usury good usury?

[Anonymous No.20158900]

>>20158876
i type how i think. you type to impress strangers on the internet and sound important / intelligent
i doubt youve ever read burke critically in your life
at least youre having fun

[Anonymous No.20158904]

>>20158887
>Genetics
>Capitalism, who imports cheap brown labor, in order to lower the wages.
Capitalism is dysgenic, as the Capitalist class (owners of the means of production) want a stupid, docile working class.
The author who got this right was Aldous Huxley, in whose book brave new world, he describe a working class deliberately rendered stupid, in order for them to never rebel, not having the mental capacity to do it anyway, and is satisfied with their mediocre condition.

[Anonymous No.20158914]

>>20158887
damn i wish i had the gene to agree with you

[Anonymous No.20158915]

>>20158900
>on the literature board
>thinks everyone isn't giving him the time of day his opinion deserves when they're actually doing just that
Keep digging yourself into that pit of entropy, narcissistic fag.

[Anonymous No.20158919]

>>20157221

[Anonymous No.20158924]

>>20158915
your brief sentences portentously punctuated are really intimidating me

You didn't understand him.

see i can do it too

[Anonymous No.20158927]

>>20158924
Maybe it wasn't obvious enough - you type like an idiot, and I'm treating you like an idiot.

[Anonymous No.20158930]

>>20158342
I've never used discord. nice projection though
>>20158671
>you just described how most leftists and marxists operate today.
no, I described how all leftists and anti-Marxists operate today
>Doesn’t matter if in theory it doesn’t function as a moralistic ideology, in practice that’s exactly what it became
if something doesn't function according to what Marxism reveals to be the interest of the proletariat, but instead according to what it reveals to be the interest of the bourgeoisie (such as preaching universal morality instead of explaining the world), then in practice it isn't Marxist, but anti-Marxist. Engels:
>We describe... economic relationships as they are developing, and we provide proof... that their development is at the same time the development of the elements of a social revolution.... Proudhon, on the contrary, demands from present-day society that it shall transform itself not according to the laws of its own economic development, but according to the prescriptions of justice.... Where we prove, Proudhon... preaches and laments.
if you lament and preach about universal moral demands, then in practice you're on the side of Proudhon and all the other apologists of the bourgeois society, not on the side of Marxism. simple as.
>>20158677
>but that it didnt fully account for the evolutions and contrivances of current capitalism
what didn't it account for? I guess "_fully_ account" is such a lame qualification that you can just say he didn't predict bitcoin or some equally stupid shit, huh.
>>20158685
>its absolutely a fucking MAGNET for "intersectionalists"
Marxism says explicitly that the liberation from oppression of races and sexes can only come from the abolition of capitalism by the proletariat. this repulses "intersectionalists" like nothing else, because they're just a bunch of petty bourgeois morons who want nothing else but recognition from bourgeois society and an equal access to the fruits of exploitation.
>>20158694
it has shit to do with Marxism. leftism was already moralized since before Marx knew how to write, because bourgeois ideology can never not be moralized. Riciardian socialists were writing books titled "An Inquiry Into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth Most Conducive to Human Happiness" in 1820s, and this title is already the condensed essence of leftist bourgeois-progressive utopian moralizing.
>>20158697
that retarded question only proves that the real utopian is the anon asking it, since he frames the issue from the standpoint of standing neutrally above history, and from that position making a choice between capitalist society and some other theorized society. but this is 1:1 the standpoint of utopianism.
also, it's super easy to claim Marxism doesn't explain things when you don't read Marx and just replace the actual explanations you didn't even bother to look for with "magically". it's as if I refused to read a physics textbook and then said physics explains everything through magic

[Anonymous No.20158933]

>>20158904
A bunch of vengeful paupers aren't going usher in a higher society. If anything, they will bring it down to where they started. If you want society to improve, you should improve and protect those with the best genetics and highest human achievement and potential. The working class nigger from Detroit is not going to make society better if they gain more power within society. However, the best artists, the best poets, the best scientists, the best writers, the best philosophers, and leaders certainly will. Elitism in society is something society should cherish- not the ridiculous egalitarianism of Marxism that downplays the limitations genetics put on people, and spites those with significant success in life. The idea we should waste our time on undesirables out of the sake morality, as Marxists put it, wastes valuable time and resources that could be used on people who actually advance humanity's progress. Societies' primary function is to have underclasses that ought to exist to only produce the needs, desires, and goods for the most cultured, intelligent and unique members of society so that they can advance human civilization forward. Anything less is suicide for our species. We ought to protect what us special, and advanced, not burn down it out envy of the gifted like Marxists would have us do. Marxism is up uplifting of the dysgneic at the expense of the rest of us. Its a cancer.
>stupid, docile working class.
Workers are naturally stupid because they don't have the genetics to be anything else but cattle. Classes exist because of this. The division labor is largely due to genetics giving people the abilities to have the skills they need to be their role in life. Marxists prey on mass stupidity of nigger cattle workers who they use for cannon fodder for their naive political purposes.

[Anonymous No.20158938]

>>20158927
your self importance is delicious

[Anonymous No.20158954]

>>20158904
Importing brown people isn't the problem. Its just they are given rights by socialists. If they were kept as slaves, not given preferential treatment - it would be fine. Socialism sees brown workers as a universal brotherhood because they're "workers", and don't see the damage caused by them having political power. And its not capitalists primarily pushing immigration. All the abolish borders people are hard-line communists and socialists and anarchists.

[Anonymous No.20158957]

>>20158930
>what didnt it account for
i concretely mentioned those things in my post
furthermore, see >>20158763
and it just feels like a different set of issues to overcome, what does a proletarian uprising even look like now? peoples brains are permanently fried with information, irony, confusion
im not necessarily disagreeing, but do you imagine a 1917-style deal? a paris commune? something else?

[Anonymous No.20158967]

>>20158938
Self-important, he says. Get a clue kid.

[Anonymous No.20158972]

>>20158954
If your job can be "stolen" or "replaced" by an a brown person; you're not going to be very successful to begin with. Nobody should really care about you. Honestly, browns should just have any political rights. They can work though for people who are successful in society though. No affirmative action, no rights of citizenship. We need to start limiting the rights people have, and start limiting the benefits society provides them. Welfare should based on genetics, race and human achievement. We should not bail out people who can largely be replaced like manual, lower class workers. Automation is the way to go, and we shouldn't over-pay people for doing such jobs as Marxists would have it be.

[Anonymous No.20158977]

>>20158967
Get a clue kid.

beautiful
keep going, please

[Anonymous No.20158989]

Marxism is the belief that rule by mobs and rabble will produce a stable society and not madness. Its ridiculous. You just increase your chances of potential problems by amplifying the amount opportunities in which it can happen.
>>20158957
The suppression of the Paris Commune was one the greatest events of past centuries. Its the perfect example of how to end socialism before it ruins your society. You have to crush it before it can spread. That's why France didn't fall to communism, but Russia did because sadly the whites did not massacre the Soviet councils with bayonets.

[Anonymous No.20158992]

>>20158933
>Societies' primary function is to have underclasses that ought to exist to only produce the needs, desires, and goods for the most cultured, intelligent and unique members of society so that they can advance human civilization forward.
But you already have such an elite. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk aka the real "iron man". Bill Gates the computer "genius". Rothschild, the genius moneyman. Rockefeller, the genius industrialist, making it with the famous standard oil. Bill Clinton, the genius politician, loved by the masses (who of course ignored that he is a pedophile). Tom Hanks, genius actor, and pedophile. Raphael Nada, genius tennisman, who is pro-vax. etc...
Why are you seething? You have your society of geniuses. Oh, i think i get it. You are angry because you are not one of (((them))). Implying that with you, it would be any better. Knowing nazi germany with the jewish Hitler (Schicklegruber), incompetent Goering ("No enemy bomber can reach the Ruhr. "). Occultist Himmler (is it okay if it is the Nazis who are occultist?).
"Elites", are rotten by default. Because their main objective, is not to create beauty, like you think. No, their objective, is basically to maintain the class based status quo.
> The division labor is largely due to genetics giving people the abilities to have the skills they need to be their role in life.
That's untrue. Many genius inventors, Athletes, mathematicians, or scientist, came from the working class. Ideas do not come from genetics. They come from an individual, not because of his genetics, but from his particular life experiences. Genetics have an importance, but they do not suffice alone.
Also, who said that in a classless society, there would be no genius inventors, mathematicians, athletes? Marx was well aware that people are not equal. See Critique of the Gotha program. Classical marxism is not about forced equality, but the end of exploitation, class based society.

[Anonymous No.20158998]

>>20158954
>Importing brown people isn't the problem. Its just they are given rights by socialists. If they were kept as slaves, not given preferential treatment
They would not come if they were kept as slaves. Thus they couldn't be exploited.
>All the abolish borders people are hard-line communists and socialists and anarchists.
This has nothing to do with classical marxism. It is the opposite of classical marxism.

[Anonymous No.20159013]

>>20158698
>Whether or not you think justice is served will be highly dependant upon the irrational choice as to who you sympathize with.
and? the point is exactly that to avoid ideology, your demands CANNOT be downstream from justice.
Engels:
>The justice of the Greeks and Romans held slavery to be just. The justice of the bourgeois of 1789 demanded the abolition of feudalism because it was unjust. For the Prussian Junker even the miserable Kreisordnung is a violation of eternal justice. The conception of eternal justice therefore varies not only according to time and place, but also according to persons....
Engels & Marx:
>Wherever the class struggle is thrust aside as a distasteful, “crude” manifestation, the only basis still left to socialism will be a “true love of mankind” and empty phrases about “justice”.
Engels
>According to the laws of bourgeois economics, the greatest part of the product does not belong to the workers who have produced it. If we now say: that is unjust, that ought not to be so, then that has nothing immediately to do with economics. We are merely saying that this economic fact is in contradiction to our sense of morality. Marx, therefore, never based his communist demands upon this....
etc.
>>20158957
>i concretely mentioned those things in my post
I don't see it. please assume I can't read and tell me in one sentence which of that wall of text is supposed to be the unaccounted for things.
>furthermore, see >>20158763
but Marx and Engels have accounted for the growing new middle class and for the increased role of state bureaucracy.
as for unions being weak, that just means that the proletariat is currently losing hard to the bourgeoisie and remains disorganized. it's ridiculous to say they didn't account for it when the situation in England was the same during their lives and they expressly wrote about it lol. here's Engels for example:
>The truth is this: during the period of England’s industrial monopoly the English working class have, to a certain extent, shared in the benefits of the monopoly. These benefits were very unequally parcelled out amongst them; the privileged minority pocketed most, but even the great mass had, at least, a temporary share now and then. And that is the reason why, since the dying-out of Owenism, there has been no Socialism in England.
the socialist movement being barely alive is nothing new. you're doing what 99% of people in these threads do and project gaps in your own understanding as gaps in the understanding and the theories of other people.
>what does a proletarian uprising even look like now?
increased association of proletarians within independent class organizations and the seizing of political power once they get strong enough. what else do you think?
>peoples brains are permanently fried with information, irony, confusion
don't project the middle class condition onto the proletariat. people can get over irony when they suddenly can't afford to pay rent and go to the doctor.

[Anonymous No.20159020]

Marxism has successfully been integrated into capitalism and popular culture to serve its growth and domination. the function it provides to capitalism is an ironic one, its about opening the minds of working class people to all sorts of other utopian retardation which alienates everyone and pits the working class against each other with an infinite pool of irreconcilable petty grievances and cultural and ethnic divisions all stemming from deranged fixations with utopian thought

[Anonymous No.20159025]

>>20158992
Yes, western civilization has strong base as it is. We just need to eliminate, minimize the influence of the lower classes so they don't corrupt the rest of society with their envy and resentment. You do that by curtailing, limiting the political rights of lower classes of people such as drug addicts, homeless people, trannies, blacks, hispanics, lumpenproletarians and proletarian workers who have jobs that can be easily replaced or automated.
>hat's untrue. Many genius inventors, Athletes, mathematicians, or scientists, came from the working class. Ideas do not come from genetics.
Its their genes allowed them to have those achievements. Being from the "working class" has doesn't have any relation to achievement. In fact, what type of "working class" you belong to is decided by your genes giving the potential to take certain jobs in society as it decides your potential abilities. Genetics always have been more important than class since genetics largely determines what class of people you have the ability to join in life
>Also, who said that in a classless society, there would be no genius inventors, mathematicians, athletes? Marx was well aware that people are not equal.
Marxists aren't consistent. I know. You do want equality - abolishing classes, states, and money would make everyone equally a pauper. If you admit that this impossible, that genetics would still play a role even after this, then there's no reason to be a Marxist. Equality is impossible. Your beliefs, goals are impossible. You can't even usher in a society in which class, the state, and money will never exist again because our genetics won't allow us to adopt to your egalitarian beliefs since those differences would create the need for classes, a state, and a means of exchange to allow society to be productive and to actually function. It doesn't make sense to uplift the workers, as a whole, when even you can admit the genetically gifted will stand out. Why waste all that time on workers when can focus on what nature produced best and improve upon that dice roll?

[Anonymous No.20159033]

>>20159013
the middle class is growing and the proletariat is shrinking, though. if you want one sentence for what i think, its that. those middle class problems are and will continue to characterize those marxism is meant to speak to more and more.
>rent, doctor
are you saying the material conditions have to worsen for people to develop class consciousness? what if we live in this sort of enough limbo indefinitely, fed bullshit and brain fried from here on out? will it just not happen then? or do you think the sort of scarcity you refer to is inevitable? also the comments about the English working class werent me.

[Anonymous No.20159034]

>>20157221
>Marx is literally constructing heaven
How can you, with complete sincerity, write this and not see yourself apostatizing in favor of a new faith?

[Anonymous No.20159043]

>>20158998
>They would not come if they were kept as slaves.
They would if their conditions, from their own genetic shortcomings, made it impossible for them make a society worth it. Its a simple cost benefit analysis, and I'm opposed to forcing them either, if it comes to that.
>This has nothing to do with classical marxism.
Yeah, yeah, not real communism. Whatever. I don't really care about your specific, doesn't exist in reality "marxism." This is what Marxism is reality, and that's the standard I'm going to use - not your no true Scotsman non-sense.

[Anonymous No.20159048]

>>20159013
>>20159033
to add, youre right. things like liberal humanism subverting marxism are already accounted for and discussed. id argue that theyre more prevalent, but you are correct that some or many of the things i mentioned are discussed

[Anonymous No.20159055]

>>20159013
>What Engels Said
>What Marx said
This is just book worship, and it's not reflective of reality. It doesn't matter. Marxists can't avoid their ideology because appeals to slave morality is how they get power in the first place. You have appeal to peoples emotions because they're not these fucking robots you make them out to be.

[Anonymous No.20159081]

>>20158992
Even more so, biological remediation is actually much more feasible than globally eliminating, even nationally, all class, state and money distinctions. We largely have these hierarchies in place in most European countries. Countries with the most problems, like the United States, will require an undermining of the democratic method. That's extremely easy to achieve. Its already done - communists don't support democracy and won't get people to vote. Right-wingers have the ability to coup at anytime, and they have the media eco-system to enforce it. Liberals are too weak decadent to fight back. This is something that could be in less than 10 years, maybe five. Communism had a 100 years get to get it work even once and it failed every time. Putin is already dealing with the East. China is already there with its Han nationalism and Confucian values. When America becomes revolutionary reactionary, the rest of Europe will follow.

[Anonymous No.20159099]

>>20159033
>the middle class is growing and the proletariat is shrinking
he says in the midst of an enormous crisis, probably without even realizing that the first effect of a crisis is the proletarianization of segments of the middle class
>those middle class problems are and will continue to characterize those marxism is meant to speak to more and more.
no, they will never do, because the essential interest of the middle class is in the preservation of private property, while the essential condition of the proletariat's liberation is the abolition of private property. and Marxism is the name for the body of knowledge of the conditions of proletariat's liberation.
>are you saying the material conditions have to worsen for people to develop class consciousness?
I'm saying the workers have to experience on their own skin that bourgeois society can't satisfy their human needs. after all, they aren't pushed towards communism as a result of doing philosophy but as a result of their material conditions of existence.
>what if we live in this sort of enough limbo indefinitely
for that to be true, capitalism would have to be able to create a stable condition indefinitely. but Marx shows how that's simply impossible. he proves that capital can't function smoothly without at the same time undermining the conditions for its own smooth functioning
>or do you think the sort of scarcity you refer to is inevitable?
yes, I think crises and wars are inevitable in capitalism because they're inevitably produced in the regular course of capital accumulation
>>20159055
>This is just book worship
no, it's an illustration of the Marxist position on justice. how much of a fucking snowflake do you have to be to get this triggered over a book quote, on /lit/ of all places
>it's not reflective of reality
it's reflective of the reality of what the Marxist position is. lol
>You have appeal to peoples emotions because they're not these fucking robots you make them out to be.
sure, but I don't know what that has to do with anything. if your material interests as a proletarian are unrealized, you're going to be frustrated and angry at that which is the cause of this, and those emotions are part of the mechanism that will make you fight for those interests of yours. but this has shit to do with ideology as long as the cause is correctly understood in the actual functioning of capitalism instead of being shifted to some spooks like the evil moral character of particular capitalists.

[Anonymous No.20159117]

>>20157221
I'm not a gnostic nor do I worship the anti-christ.

[Anonymous No.20159129]

>>20159099
>no, it's an illustration of the Marxist position on justice.
Its an illustration. You're right. Its a complete embellishment. You couldn't have used a better word to make your point.
>snowflake
Who is triggered? You're here furious typing and quote spamming garbage nobody is going to take seriously.
>it's reflective of the reality of what the Marxist position is. lol
You just called it an illustration, so, not really. Its just non-sense.
>if your material interests as a proletarian are unrealized, you're going to be frustrated and angry at that which is the cause of this
You don't know the cause of it. You blame the rich, and not yourself, for actually putting in the effort to become successful in life. You're frustrated at your genes, and lack of potential, and Marxism gives you an alibi to ignore your personal responsibility and acceptance of fate. You're not fighting for your interests by talking to people on 4chan. You don't present the interests of anyone but your inflated narcissism. You're just inflaming your ego by spamming at us what you've been indoctrinated with from a freshmen new left college professor or some twitter nobody. Its not very interesting because you demonstrate you have no original thought besides what you have been programmed and taught. Its easy to dismiss you because of that.

[Anonymous No.20159133]

>>20159099
well, aside from you being a bit of a dick, thanks for the response

[Anonymous No.20159138]

>>20159099
>to some spooks like the evil moral character of particular capitalist
Yeah, you just shift them to spooks like "historical materialism" , "class struggle" , "communism" and "bourgeois." You haven't really relived yourself from spooks. You're just using the spooks from schizo Jew as Talmudic truth, and you're preaching it to us, insisting people must accept it. You don't have ability to bend the world the way you wish so you argue with us all day instead of doing something useful with your life. Its sad.

[Anonymous No.20159163]

>>20157221
Marxism is a shell game.

[Anonymous No.20159167]

>>20159129
>You blame the rich, and not yourself
I don't. your entire post is just retarded rambling that doesn't address anything I've said (and anything I haven't said too)
>You're not fighting for your interests by talking to people on 4chan.
I never claimed I was. stop making stuff up because you just end up sounding like a moron
>Its not very interesting because you demonstrate you have no original thought
ironic coming from someone who ends up sounding like GPT-3 by using seemingly relevant words but not actually addressing the other person or the points their made. you have no idea what I believe because you're illiterate and all your conceptions about the real world come from twitter people
>>20159138
>Yeah, you just shift them to spooks like "historical materialism" , "class struggle" , "communism" and "bourgeois."
no, not everything is a spook. those are grounded in concrete reality, whereas the main feature of moral principles is that they're supposed to float independently of that reality if they're to have a universal normative force.
>You don't have ability to bend the world the way you wish so you argue with us all day instead of doing something useful with your life.
full of high quality projection as always. I come here like once a month. I'd love to see how many mentally ill posts about the Jews you wrote here in that same time period

[Anonymous No.20159174]

>>20159167
Marxism is one the biggest spooks. Durkheim, Weber, Aristotle, Plato, Seneca, Christ, Buddha, Freud, Evola, Lacan had their own sociological theories. This is garbage anyone can make up on the spot. Again, ultimately, you are just a sophist trying to create alibi for your patheticness in life and inability to succeed. Marxism just isn't very persuasive. People know you're a tranny who is just looking for an excuse not to work. Its rather simple to understand.
>no, not everything is a spook. those are grounded in concrete reality
Those aren't grounded in concrete reality. Like you said, you're illustrating reality. You're embellishing for your cause. Its a spook. Concepts like that are nothing but spooks.

[Anonymous No.20159188]

>>20159167
>I don't. your entire post is just retarded rambling
Marxism is retarded rambling. I'm just giving the reality check your parents won't give you.
>I never claimed I was
You made the thread screaming about how mad you were because people did not accept Marxism around here, and now you're getting even madder people are rejecting your beliefs here even more.
>the other person or the points their made
You're not making anymore points. You're making apriori loaded statements. You're making assertions without much evidence.
>I come here like once a month.
Nah, you clowns raid here every day. Everyone knows leftypol raids here because its slow. They openly admit it. Its obvious who you people are.

[Anonymous No.20159190]

>>20159174
>Those aren't grounded in concrete reality. Like you said, you're illustrating reality.
you're acting like a superretard over someone quoting from Marx to show what the Marxist position on something is. you need to limit your internet use and go play outside

[Anonymous No.20159218]

>>20159188
>You made the thread screaming about how mad you were because people did not accept Marxism around here
I've never posted a thread related to Marxism on /lit/
>about how mad you were because people did not accept Marxism around here
why would I be mad that middle class manchildren on an anime imageboard don't accept Marxism? for a Marxist this is perfectly normal. what's more, for a Marxist it's a positive fact
>Everyone knows leftypol raids here
leftypol is full of leftards. no communist would be a part of that place. I wouldn't even know it still exists if it weren't people like you here constantly bringing it up lol

[Anonymous No.20159247]

>>20159167
>no, not everything is a spook. those are grounded in concrete reality,
"Communism" "historical materialism" "class struggle" and "bourgeois" are just ontological concepts. They don't any basis in reality. There isn't a way for Marxists to even agree what communism would look like, or to illustrate these concepts. That's why there's so many little sects of communists and their parties. Its garbage.
>Normative
Yeah, your entire argument is normative because you believe we ought to understand the world through the lens of Marxist "class" analysis. No one has to, and no one is obligated to do so. Marxism is simply the tool, a very poor one at that, that you're using to demonstrate what you believe is happening in our society. You shill it because you believe its in your "Interests", but you're not even intelligent enough to understand the implications of your beliefs. You just ignore all the historical evidence not in your favor when communism is applied, and hand wave with cherry piked quotes you've stringed together to legitimize your mentally 'ill obsession with Marx's kabbalic obstructionism and word salad. You're an NPC without institution. You can not demonstrate original thought. Its really sad bro. Morrowind NPCS got more substance than you.
>>20159190
>you're acting like a superretard over someone quoting from Marx to show what the Marxist position
You're not showing the Marxist position. You're trying to legitimize your own pathetic position no one respect or cares about anywhere but here to troll you. You just don't want to fill out a resume and get on with your life.
>I've never posted a thread related to Marxism on /lit/
Yeah, sure, buddy.
>why would I be mad that middle class manchildren on an anime imageboard don't accept Marxism?
Why would you come to a board like this to shill Marxism, and not actual fucking workers? You're proving my point. You're just arguing with people here because you seek social validation for your beliefs, and you're upset you can't get people here to brown nose you. I'm sorry this isn't twitter or discord, pal. Maybe you should leave.
>leftypol is full of leftards.
Like yourself. So go join them. Clearly we have enough Marxists wasting catalog space. We don't need another one you bums around here.

[Anonymous No.20159279]

Marxism, as an ideology, is to socially engineer people into accepting bogus, communist post-modernist, balderdash in lieu one's own intuition. That's the entire of Marxism point since its inception by Rabbi Mordecai.
Marx. Its just an ideology to engineer outcomes that benefit decadents who can not accept their biological limitations. Intelligent people don't fall for it.

[Anonymous No.20159337]

>>20159081
>. Putin is already dealing with the East.
>Putin
Young leader
member of the world economic forum
Member of the agenda 21
Friend with jewish billionaire abramovic
Citizen of the City of London
Member of the masonic Ur lodge golden dawn eurasia, along with western "elites".
Validates the covid narrative (quarantines, health pass).
Has graphen oxide in the sputnik V vax.

[Anonymous No.20159340]

>>20159043
>Yeah, yeah, not real communism. Whatever. I don't really care about your specific, doesn't exist in reality "marxism." This is what Marxism is reality, and that's the standard I'm going to use - not your no true Scotsman non-sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Marxism

[Anonymous No.20159344]

>>20159247
>They don't any basis in reality
yes they do.
the real basis for communism is the commonality of experience between people living as wage workers.
for historical materialism, it's the fact that what people do and how societies function is going to be determined by the natural conditions for producing and reproducing the stuff they need to continue living.
for class struggle, it's the contradiction in terms of material interests between the wage workers (working as little as necessary while satisfying one's needs as much as possible) and the bourgeois (making the wage workers work as much as possible while satisfying as little their needs as is necessary to keep the arrangement going)
for the bourgeoisie, it's the the fact that society is currently so organized that there exists such class position as the second of the two described directly above.
>There isn't a way for Marxists to even agree what communism would look like
Marxists agree what it looks like. it's the independent, political class movement of the proletariat. it includes all that which furthers the proletarian class interest, as scientifically uncovered by Marx, and excludes all that works against it.
>That's why there's so many little sects of communists and their parties.
no, the reasons for that are 1) that the counter-revolution currently prevails over the proletariat by a long shot, and 2) that bourgeois politics have a left wing expressly dedicated to keeping proletarians away from independent class positions by turning them to faux-socialist left-bourgeois class positions.
>Yeah, your entire argument is normative because you believe we ought to understand the world through the lens of Marxist "class" analysis
no, you're free to understand the world however you please. I'm just saying that some ways of understanding it correspond to what the world really is, while others don't. as a Marxist, in fact, I don't believe that I can overcome your interest in misapprehending the world by the sheer force of pure logic and reason transmitted through optical fibre
>Marxism is simply the tool, a very poor one at that, that you're using to demonstrate what you believe is happening in our society.
no, the tools are in this instance my keyboard, my laptop, my web browsers, 4chan servers, etc. Marxism is not the tool I'm using to demonstrate my beliefs, but the content of my beliefs that I'm demonstrating.
>You shill it because you believe its in your "Interests",
no, I shill it to have fun with reading retarded people try to respond
>You just ignore all the historical evidence not in your favor when communism is applied
such as?
>You're not showing the Marxist position.
yes I am. I clearly showed what the Marxist position on basing your demands on the sense of justice is
>Why would you come to a board like this to shill Marxism, and not actual fucking workers?
I spend a miniscule amount of my entire free time on /lit/. ur projecting again
>Like yourself.
no, I'm a communist

[Anonymous No.20159383]

>>20158933
What makes you think you are genetically superior?
Have you accomplished exceptional athletic or intellectual prowess in your life?
What makes you think some proles not only have higher IQ than you, but also better athleticism?
What makes you think there isn't some mexican who has higher IQ than you, but also higher athletic prowess?
As a classical marxist, i'm against multi-culturalism, as was Karl Marx himself.
However, the genetic argument is poor, because how can we know for sure that someone is superior or inferior genetically? Only by putting him through the test of living. You cannot decide if someone is superior or inferior before putting him in real life survival condition, which are chaotic, and unpredictable.
E.G: the skinny manlet seem to be a genetic dead end. But what if a major catastorphy happened in the future? His low calories requirement, due to his small stature, would make him fit for a food scarce environement.
Other example: The Asian high IQ guy seem to be superior. However, in a chaotic world, what makes you so sure that the brazilian mutt, with his high fertility, and adaptability, wouldn't be superior?
The negro, seem to be lower on the genetic scale. However, it is undeniable that the negro is the best suited to live generations after generations, thousands of year, in high intensity sunlight and heat. Whites would get skin cancer in africa in harsh conditions, and perish.
Determining who is and isn't genetically fit, before the fact, is dysgenic.

[Anonymous No.20159460]

>>20158298
>Marxism is the name for the results of scientific inquiry revealing the true nature of social relations and material processes
The absolute hubris of Marxists to pretend they understand human nature and social interactions this clearly is astonishing, you people are a cult and Marxism’s stinking corpse has held back genuine socialist reform for decades. People don’t hate you because you threaten their world, they hate you because you’re unbelievably conceited.

[Anonymous No.20159633]

>>20159460
stop acting like a humanities student around me. it's not "absolute hubris" or conceit to assert that you're making correct judgments about the object of your study. it's what every serious scientist does, except for those who are cucked by the bourgeois conception of science, that is:
>Any judgment given on an object is thus subject to the very principled doubt as to whether it is correct. One cannot know whether the thought is correct because it is claimed as a characteristic of every thought that it is possibly wrong. Mistakes are no longer errors in thinking, or faulty thoughts, but a conditio sine qua non of thinking in general. In this way, philosophy of science paints the picture of a science that is constantly being tinkered with and in which one can never - and this is something that Mr. Philosopher of Science now knows exactly again - be sure of having brought to light any valid knowledge. "The course of science is trial and error and trying again." (Popper) It is thus demanded of the subject to adopt a hypothetical attitude to its thinking from the outset. It should face every thought sceptically, because it cannot exclude a possible error. And this fundamental deficiency of thinking, that it can never know whether it has thought correctly, is supposed to lie, of all things, in the fact that it is the subject that thinks. Because thinking is human, it is not objective, is the reproach to any judgement of an object. A reproach that is just as unfounded as the call to doubt justified by it: Why should it be a defect that thinking is an activity of a subject? Who would do that for it instead? This is a rather cheap trick: because the subject thinks, the content of the thoughts is merely subjective. With the "criticism" that knowledge is "a product of man" and thus "all theory is the result of ideas", science separates thinking from objectivity and, after the deed is done, raises the question of how the two can come together again. They are searching for a criterion that could identify the thoughts produced independently of the examination of real objects as objective anyway, and find it in the image of the uncomprehended object itself.

[Anonymous No.20159777]

>words words words
yeah, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.20159805]

Marxists: is there any social problem that cannot be solved by equal distribution of resources?
lol

[Anonymous No.20159810]

>>20157221
I'm not converting to marxism bro, and neither anyone else here. Shill it somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.20159861]

>>20158298
>well, it cannot be false because it's true lol. are you offended by people affirming something is objectively true? are you a postmodern neo-marxist or something?
Marxism doesn't adhere to the scientific method like proper physics or chemistry does. And btw even physicists who actually understand what science is about can not claim to have discovered the ultimate "truth" since this is not what the scientific method actually encompasses.
One can not analyze human society and make "scientific" predictions about its future like one can with the trajectory of a point mass that moves through space with a certain velocity.
There are way too many unknown variables and way too much missing information and lack in caluculation power to analyze human society through an actual scientific lens like physics.
By constantly asserting to be scientific, you marxists again and again clearly show yourselves to be midwit ideologues.
You make loads of extraordinary claims in regards to the supposedly inevitable communist future yet when someone asks for hard scientific evidence you provide none and still expect people to take you seriously.
Reminder that there is ZERO scientific proof that societal development will ultimately culminate in a classless, moneyless and stateless society.
There is ZERO proof that the misery and """"contradictions"""" that capitalism creates will ever be resolved.
Citing Hegel or Marx is no scientific proof.
>>20159633
>stop acting like a humanities student around me. it's not "absolute hubris" or conceit to assert that you're making correct judgments about the object of your study. it's what every serious scientist does, except for those who are cucked by the bourgeois conception of science, that is:
There is no bourgeois science as there is no jewish or aryan or white-hetereonormative science. There are only flawed scientists who put their own idelogical bias before reason and rationality like dear comrade Lysenko for example.

[Anonymous No.20160107]

>>20159805
epic /lit/ strawman Marxists:
>is there any social problem that cannot be solved by equal distribution of resources?
actual Karl Marx:
>Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution.
>>20159861
>Marxism doesn't adhere to the scientific method like proper physics or chemistry does.
yes it does
>And btw even physicists who actually understand what science is about can not claim to have discovered the ultimate "truth" since this is not what the scientific method actually encompasses.
I'm not talking about "ultimate truth". I'm talking about examining your object and making judgments about it that derive from this examination. if you do that, then you're judgments are going to have the form "X is Y", or "it is true that X is Y". now, if it's the case that you already take the issue with such statements in their abstract form instead of attacking the concrete statements and showing that, for example, X is not Y, then you're fucking retard who's too lazy to do actual work and instead wants to solve everything with an abstract formula.
>One can not analyze human society and make "scientific" predictions about its future like one can with the trajectory of a point mass that moves through space with a certain velocity.
sure, one can't do it like with a point mass, one can only do it in a less accurate and less specific way than with a point mass.
>There are way too many unknown variables and way too much missing information and lack in caluculation power to analyze human society through an actual scientific lens like physics.
not enough if you want to determine whether Korea will unify before 2050, enough if you want to determine whether capitalism can ever put an end to wars, crises and violent proletarian class reactions to those that threaten its existence
>You make loads of extraordinary claims in regards to the supposedly inevitable communist future yet when someone asks for hard scientific evidence you provide none and still expect people to take you seriously.
it's in the book in the title of this post. have you read it?
>Citing Hegel or Marx is no scientific proof.
what would count as proof for you if you disregard citing the work containing the results of a thorough scientific examination of the subject?
>>20159861
>There is no bourgeois science
there's a bourgeois conception of science, which is what I was talking about. there's also bourgeois science, which is simply all science done in and around the institutions of bourgeois society, such as universities or research departments of enterprises
>There are only flawed scientists who put their own idelogical bias before reason and rationality like dear comrade Lysenko for example.
true, people sometimes go full retard for the glory of national capital

[Anonymous No.20160123]

>>20159081
>biological remediation is actually much more feasible than globally eliminating, even nationally, all class, state
Honestly just as retarded as the larping communist. "Biological remediation" thats a very nice way to say forcibly sterilizing people. I dont know why I come on here its always just retards arguing with other retards. Have fun with your forced steralization programs weirdo. You have the same bitterness and bloodthirstyness as the average communist.

[Anonymous No.20160189]

>>20159013
>If we now say: that is unjust, that ought not to be so, then that has nothing immediately to do with economics. We are merely saying that this economic fact is in contradiction to our sense of morality
So it's not unjust ... We just think it's immoral? You cannot avoud making ideological and normitive statements, but do keep trying.

[Anonymous No.20160228]

"I am eternally butthurt because the NKVD stole my greatgrandpa's feudal estate and slaves 100 years ago, and then ran a train on his daughters. And now I have to work at a desk at an insurance company instead of being a leisured feudal landlord."
This is an example of seething, petite bourgeois anticommunism. Very common on 4channel.org. Unadulterated cringe.


"Nothing is sacrosanct to Bolsheviks, they would destroy the fruits of western civilization that we rely on for moral instruction blah blah blah"
This is smug conservative elite anticommunism. The type you read in the National review. It's far more entertaining.

Know the difference, it could save your life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpV5xr3tQoE

[Anonymous No.20160323]

>>20160189
>So it's not unjust ... We just think it's immoral?
no, you can't read

[Anonymous No.20160456]

>>20157999
That pic reminds me of the Protocols- allegedly a false flag, but it's exactly what they're doing in real life.
Nice digits.

[Anonymous No.20160461]

>>20160323
> We are merely saying that this economic fact is in contradiction to our sense of morality
I see so explain to me how something contradicting your sense of morality is different from saying X is unjust.