/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4355615]

Is it possible for an intelligent and intellectually honest person not to be a Marxist?

[Anonymous No.4355623]

no, not really

[Anonymous No.4355626]

Marxism is outdated. Do you honestly believe in an international proletariat revolution? As if the international proletariat is even some unison entity.

[Anonymous No.4355632]

>>4355615
it is impossible to neglect the impact of material circumstances if you are intelligent.
But "being" a Marxist? Please, that school is too convoluted to mean anything specifically.

[Anonymous No.4355642]

I read the Communist Manifesto and thought that Marx's critiques of capitalism were great, His solution doesn't really seem to work though. Am I missing something? Is there another work of his that refines what's put forth in the manifesto?

[Anonymous No.4355645]

>>4355642
its not a comprehensive solution, nor does one exist

[Anonymous No.4355646]

I assume by intelligent and honest you mean retarded. I remember junior high ...

[Anonymous No.4355647]

>>4355615
Of course. Lets be honest, though, you're actually (jail)bait, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.4355648]

>>4355615
Marx as a prescriptive theory is genius. As a descriptive one it is obvious flawed.

[Anonymous No.4355652]

>>4355648
switch it. Descriptive is genius, prescriptive is flawed. Fuck I need to sleep

[Anonymous No.4355654]

>>4355647
yes it is

[Anonymous No.4355657]

Is it possible for my dick not to be hard at that girl(?)

[Anonymous No.4355681]

The reason communism never worked and never will work is because its autocratic leaders are not bound by any sort of moral obligation i.e. no belief in Divine Right as the state is officially atheist and not even a love of their country to keep them in line like with fascism, which is why every communist country to date has been fucked over by selfish corrupt men who only care about power and not losing it once they get it

[Anonymous No.4355685]

You seem to have posed the question using a "not", try to erase this word and it will be sound.

[Anonymous No.4355696]

Dear /lit/

This board is about literature.
That is all.

[Anonymous No.4355697]

>>4355696
define literature

[Anonymous No.4355699]

>>4355696
The mods let people post about political science and philosophy etc. so shlomoot von shekelberg doesn't have to make more boards

[Anonymous No.4355780]

No.

[Anonymous No.4355789]

Marxism used to be respectable but now it's basically a chick philosophy. Zero effort required, only there for ideological sloganeering on tumblr. It's the Level 0 of leftism. You have to develop at least to anarchism to get any respect.

[Anonymous No.4355807]

>>4355789
Marxism and libertarian socialism are far from mutually exclusive, though.

[Anonymous No.4355820]

>>4355615
>Is it possible for an intelligent and intellectually honest person not to be a Marxist?

Intelligence and intellectual honesty are attributes of the cultural expression of being. They're "superstructural" in the sense that they're ideological. This kind of phenomena rests on a base of the social relations of production. We cannot blame people for responding to their social relations of production in a moralistic sense.

Also Marxism is yet another bourgeois ideology.

Also there are other bourgeois ideologies that represent the partial self-expression of proletarian interest.

Also no ideology, including Marxism, is a praxis. Proletarian praxis exceeds ideology.

[Anonymous No.4355822]

>>4355615
It's a requirement, really.

[Anonymous No.4355823]

>>4355652
Which prescriptive theory in Marx?

[Anonymous No.4355836]

Smart people can be both Marxist and Non-Marxist OP you being stupid.

[Anonymous No.4355841]

>>4355836
Truth.

[Anonymous No.4355844]

Why are you touching your little lips with your little finger like that, little girl.

[Anonymous No.4355848]

>>4355681
eh i don't think a lack of moral obligation is really a specific feature of communism. i'm pretty sure the only time that would ever matter would be in systems where leadership is largely determined by hereditary (so a monarcy or an inherited dictatorship) . because in democratic and republican systems, generally the type of people who get into power are going to be pretty sociopathic in their actions (not referring to their personalities, but in the way most of their decisions will be determined by attempts to gather votes or funding); they just don't present themselves this way is all. that might not be apparent to you if you're american because youe political system is entwined with your country's christian values, but you guys are an exception in the first world.

although i guess perhaps the lack of moral obligation is more meaningful in communist systems, as most attempts to weaken hierarchy so far have ironically entailed giving absolute power to a few. with that said i still think it's simplifying the picture to say "it's all because of X" i mean there are a lot of factors, like communist ideals tend to be antithetical to best economic policies in a pre-scarcity world. or, you know, your empire just doesn't happen to be as strong as the next guy because your country has less natural resources.

[Anonymous No.4355884]

every time i come to this forum i'm always impressed by the absolutely retarded threads that get created here.

[Anonymous No.4355890]

>>4355884
Blame marxists.

[Anonymous No.4355917]

Marxists are the bronies of politics.

Prove me wrong, faggot.

[Anonymous No.4355922]

>>4355917
Personally I think it's anarchists.

[Anonymous No.4355924]

> be prole
> Marxists tell you that you're being oppressed and should criticize the state
> w-whatever you say, Lenin/Stalin/Mao
> revolution comes along
> Marxists tell you that you should kill rich children because they're oppressing you, once they're dead, we'll be able to govern ourselves!
> workers paradise!
> kill a bunch of evil parasites that were oppressing me
> Marxist state enacted
> all you farmers get to live in ugly apartment buildings because the people in the cities live in ugly apartment buildings now
> wait, what?
> bunch of other stupid changes that don't really express "to each according to his needs"
> oh, I remember, I need to criticize the state apparatus!
> Marxists tell you that you're too oppressed to know how oppressed you are, they're calling all the shots from now on
> this is wrong, the state should be organized differently
> Marxists tell you that you're counter-revolutionary scum and Geist doesn't want what you want
> vanguard party kills you and 60 million other people because you did exactly what they always told you to do, criticize the state

Marxism? Not even once.

[Anonymous No.4355928]

>>4355917
>>4355922
>hating on anarchists and marxists
please shut up

[Anonymous No.4355931]

>>4355924
>strawman
Not even once.

[Anonymous No.4355933]

>>4355931
>strawman
kek
Stupid marxist.

[Anonymous No.4355940]

>>4355931
Except it's not.

Enjoy your bourgeois vanguard party.

[Anonymous No.4355941]

>>4355933
And now petty and witless abuse.

[Anonymous No.4355942]

>>4355940
> bourgeois vanguard party police state*

[Anonymous No.4355950]

>>4355940
The AAUD was a vanguard party?
The KAPD was substitutionalist?
PO was bourgeois?

"If you only had a brain."

[Anonymous No.4355956]

> The abolition of the market means not only that the consumers—that is all members of society—are robbed of virtually all choice of consumption and all influence over production; it also means that the information and communication are monopolized by the State, as they too need a vast material base in order to operate. The abolition of the market means, then, that both material and intellectual assets would be totally rationed. To say nothing of the inefficiency of production convincingly demonstrated in the history of communism, this economy requires an omnipotent police state. Briefly: the abolition of the market means a gulag society. - Leszek Kolakowski

Marxists really can't take any criticism at all. I'm fucking glad that the NSA spies heavily on them.

[Anonymous No.4355963]

>>4355642
>>4355645
>>4355652
These. Marxism's only merit is its thorough critique of early capitalism, and any intellectually sound person would see the truth and value in it. His ideas for how things would work out in the future obviously never happened and look even more impossible by the day. Overall, it's just as blinding as any other ideology when you're not critical with it, and calling yourself a Marxist is just another way of saying you're blocking larger truths that exist outside of Marxism from entering your consideration. Just admit you're trying to get laid/look cool/pretend to have values/holding onto a recreated past invented my capitalist entertainment.

[Anonymous No.4355965]

>>4355917
you're thinking of anarchists

[Anonymous No.4355968]

>>4355956
Leszek is an intellectual and has chosen his words with particular care. Do bother to look into socialisms where society itself controlled production. In particular I commend to you the documents of the Budapest workers council, or the limited production in free Spain.

There are examples from Korea and China also.

>Marxists really can't take any criticism at all.

No, of course not, the vast majority of Marxist literature hasn't been comprised of attacks on other Marxist's thought in order to improve it. Its not like there's been a consistent anti-substitutionalist analysis pre-dating Lenin's monstrosity, oh wait, there was.

[Anonymous No.4355973]

>>4355968
People nitpicking about Althusserian obscurities isn't really being critical of Marxism. It's an academic dick-measuring contest of who can be the most obscure.

[Anonymous No.4355993]

Ayn Rand, 100 billions killed by stalin himself, fedora, etc

[Anonymous No.4356000]

look at this picture of a fat unattractive communist next to an attractive man representing my beliefs

[Anonymous No.4356005]

>>4355917
Also the Libertarians.

[Anonymous No.4356011]

>>4355956
>What is workers' self-management
>What are Proudhonian artificial markets

This is one of the most retarded liberal democratic critiques of leftist economics I've ever read.

[Anonymous No.4356016]

>>4355973
Man, 3rd world marxism (and 3rd world identity politics) criticized Marxism HARD

[Anonymous No.4356020]

>>4356011
there's no need to critique leftist "economics" because the labor theory of value is demonstrably incorrect

[Anonymous No.4356026]

>>4356020
>"why doesn't a mona lisa cost less money than a shit if I took longer on it, smart guy"

[Anonymous No.4356030]

>>4355615
>
Is it possible for an intelligent and intellectually honest person to be a Marxist?

Ftfy

[Anonymous No.4356034]

I oppose a Marxist state because it renders charity impossible.

Just read Aristotle, you fags.

[Anonymous No.4356035]

>>4356026
Not even leftists take it seriously.

[Anonymous No.4356039]

>>4356020
demonstrate it then bitch

[Anonymous No.4356040]

>>4355681

This. The only thing worse than an aristocracy of effete food who inherited more wealth than they know what to do with is an aristocracy of godless killers who murdered their way to the top.

Protip: the richest 50 members of the us congress are worth about $1.5 billion, the richest members of China's "People's Congress" are worth $95 billion.

Glorious equality, yes comrade?

[Anonymous No.4356044]

>>4356020
This. If Marxists want to be taken seriously they need to branch out.

[Anonymous No.4356045]

>>4356039

Labor is not interchangeable. It comes in qualitatively different skill-levels, therefore it is an extremely foolish over-simplification to treat skilled and unskilled man-hours of labor as if they're equivalent in value.

[Anonymous No.4356055]

>>4356034
Charity is awful

[Anonymous No.4356060]

>>4355963

Marx's critique of capitalism was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how economics works. Engels was even more retarded, admittedly, but the fact remains that anyone who had run a business would not write such dreck

[Anonymous No.4356061]

>>4356044
Why are there no Marxist economists? Are they content with dismissing the entire field as "ideology?"

inb4 Marx was an economist. No.

[Anonymous No.4356063]

>>4356045
You get that A. Kapital explicitly deals with this and B. for the entire capitalist era and only until very recently in the west, basically unskilled labour has been the base of the economy and the majority of all labour, right?

[Anonymous No.4356067]

>>4356063
>r-read X

[Anonymous No.4356071]

>>4356060
What fundamental misunderstanding do you think he had? I agree with you, but it seems to me that the fundamental misunderstanding is the existence of fiat money/capital which stops the wealthy from hoarding all the money, for lack of a better term, because there's no longer a finite amount of it. I'm not sure how correct that is though, so I'm interested in your opinion.

[Anonymous No.4356074]

>>4356071
>fiat money stops the upper classes from hoarding all the money


b
8

[Anonymous No.4356085]

>>4356074
> this is bait

This is 4chan. At least call it a fucking troll.

[Anonymous No.4356086]

>>4356067
>i-i'm refuting you

[Anonymous No.4356089]

>>4356085
b8×2

[Anonymous No.4356093]

>>4356074
>I'm not sure how correct that is though
>"He's clearly trolling!"
Nope, just admittedly ignorant on the subject and asking someone to clear it up for me, calm your paranoia and butthurt please.

[Anonymous No.4356105]

The best countries in the world are capitalist
There's not a single communist or ex-communist country that works properly.
Capitalism > communism.
QED.

[Anonymous No.4356131]

Why is /lit/ such a marxist shithole? Is it due to the higher ammount of art and english majors?

[Anonymous No.4356142]

>>4356131
It's due to the higher amount of mature and/or intelligent people.

[Anonymous No.4356143]

>>4356060
Marx's attempt wasn't to succeed in business, it was to see the mechanisms of capitalism at work, and that's what he did.

[Anonymous No.4356144]

>>4356131
I'm an art major and I'm highly critical of Marxism and theory in general.

> posts a comic book

Confirmed for DYER.

[Anonymous No.4356148]

>>4355615
They have to be SOME kind of Marxist, yes.

[Anonymous No.4356163]

>>4355681
You're confusing marxism with stalinism there, bud.

[Anonymous No.4356165]

>Marxists think Marx was right about everything ever and Marxism means accepting Marx as the infallible prophet of socialism
Why do people accuse Marxists of this when Marxists have clearly never thought this, nevermind Marx himself?

[Anonymous No.4356170]

>>4356020
>If I say it in every single thread people will eventually parrot me

[Anonymous No.4356176]

>>4356067
You got #rect

[Anonymous No.4356178]

>>4356131
>I'm losing! Switch to Damage-Control!

[Anonymous No.4356196]

>>4356142
>STEM people drive the world
>STEM people made sure we're not living in caves
>Arts people still claim intellectual superiority

[Anonymous No.4356210]

>>4356131
>>4356142
I find it hilarious that people on both the left and the right claim to be intellectually superior to each other when in actuality the true intellectuals are from both the left and right and discuss politics civilly without resorting to petty name-calling.

[Anonymous No.4356217]

unless your copy of Capital looks something like this, you really have no business posting in this thread.
[not a Marxist]

[Anonymous No.4356223]

>>4356210
>Being indecisive means i'm better than both!

[Anonymous No.4356228]

>>4356223
Where did I mention anything about being a centrist or saying centrism was superior?

[Anonymous No.4356234]

>>4356223
>strawman
Not him, but in reality I like the idea of a cohesion of ideas from both the left and right while trending to the right.
Limiting oneself to one ideology instead of seizing everything you read in an eclectic manner is just retarded.

[Anonymous No.4356238]

>>4356163
>it just hasn't been tried yet!

That's what libertarians say...

[Anonymous No.4356245]

>>4356045
With the increase of automation on production, I don't think skilled labor will remain viable for long.

[Anonymous No.4356252]

I always found it odd that such an anti-establishment political movement would be so comfortable with turning over control of production to the state or some such political unit.

Why would you trust a socialist government anymore than your capitalist overlords? Why would you empower the political apparatus to such a degree?

[Anonymous No.4356265]

>>4356217
>can't process thoughts
>has to write them down in the book he's reading

[Anonymous No.4356268]

>>4356252
This is a question I've always wondered myself. Whenever I ask, they generally say that Democratic Republics make the State accountable, but I think that's pretty flimsy. Anybody got a better or more comprehensive response?

[Anonymous No.4356286]

>>4356217
http://www.english.txstate.edu/cohen_p/irish/O'Brien.html

[Anonymous No.4356296]

>>4356061
Kondratiev, Resnick, Wolff, Polyani, Wallerstein, Frank.

[Anonymous No.4356299]

>>4356210
>muh civility

real intellectuals don't play by the same rules as high school tier english classes

the language of civility itself comes with imperalist, racist, and classist baggage

by asking people to be civil, you ignore the material importance of discourse and its disproportionate impact on oppressed groups

it's hard to be "civil" when the discussion is about whether or not children go to bed hungry, or innocent people die in the chair, or people in other countries get bombed

requiring that people be civil is a requirement that everyone be callous as you, when that's precisely what's wrong with the world

in short
fuck you
graduate from high school before you try and act like you know more than anyone else

piece of shit

[Anonymous No.4356305]

>>4356268

It might lead people to substitute a political entity like the state for a social entity like the community. That seems impracticable for even moderate sized populations though.

And you have to forfeit the benefits of mass mobilisation of means of production (i.e. economies of scale, specialisation of the labour force).

[Anonymous No.4356307]

>>4356238
Is this really the only thing you can come up with? The same recycled little catchphrase? Stalinism was from its very inception consciously intended to be diametrically opposed to anything that can be found in marxism.
And i think you're using the term 'libertarian' incorrectly.

[Anonymous No.4356309]

>>4355615
Yes. More current, since marxism is long dead, is it possible for an intelligent and intellectually honest person to be a New Leftist?

[Anonymous No.4356313]

>>4356252
>Why would you trust a socialist government anymore than your capitalist overlords?
Because a socialist government is run by the workers, not the capitalists. That you have to ask why a person should trust himself, his coworkers, and class equals instead of some guy whose goal is to get profit from exploiting you is odd.

[Anonymous No.4356320]

>>4356299

>Not knowing about burdens of judgement
>More interested in being ostentatiously righteous

No one is interested in your jejune passions. Civility in discourse is simply showing basic respect to others, and if you refuse to accord people that basic respect, why should they listen to you?

[Anonymous No.4356321]

>>4356313
Since when is the state run by workers? It's generally run by elected representatives with power and profit incentives.

[Anonymous No.4356322]

>>4356299
>oppressed groups
>not the oppressed group
Petty Bourgeois garbage.

[Anonymous No.4356326]

>>4356321
>Since when is the state run by workers?
>Why would you trust a socialist government

[Anonymous No.4356324]

>Marxists call themselves intelligent
>yet they also support gun control/confiscation
wow those fedora's of yours must be on way to tight

[Anonymous No.4356327]

>>4356321
That's why marxism aims at ultimately overthrowing the state.

[Anonymous No.4356328]

>>4356324
Americans

[Anonymous No.4356334]

>>4356309
>since marxism is long dead
???
Pretty sure Marx's critique of private property has never become irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.4356336]

>>4356320
>implying burdens of judgement are remotely relevant
1. there is no objective truth, so within my subjectivity they are still completely wrong
2. there is no reason to care about reasonability, disagreement with what is right is disagreement with what is right, regardless of whether or not their eloquent, their views come with material consequences

>>4356322
go away manarchist, don't you have some windows to smash?

[Anonymous No.4356337]

>>4356326
I must be thinking of Stalinism. Apologies.

Honest question. How do workers practically run all of the functions of government?

[Anonymous No.4356348]

>>4356313

First of all, there's that odd Marxist assumption that value can only be created by additional (usually exploited) labour again...

So, the claim amounts to something like: 'the government would be far more benevolent and trustworthy if only union leaders called all the shots! After all, they're our colleagues and class equals!'

I remain sceptical.

[Anonymous No.4356353]

>>4356328
I'm not American, I just believe that if the nation is run by workers it should be defended by the workers, ergo no organize military during peacetime and no regulation whatsoever regarding the sale, distribution, modification of firearms

[Anonymous No.4356357]

>>4356336

In the same breath as you deny that there is objective truth, you assert that wrong is wrong irrespective of discourse on the matter.

What does it feel like to be so muddled?

[Anonymous No.4356358]

>>4356337
I think it's more to do with the fact that the functions of government are not there to service the interests of the holders of private property and thus wealth.

[Anonymous No.4356361]

>>4356357
I'm guessing he gleefully rubs his hands every time he gets a reply.

[Anonymous No.4356369]

>>4356299
>Ad hominem after ad hominem.

You know nothing about the level of education I have reached, nothing about whether or not I take part in direct action in an attempt to improve the conditions of people less well off than myself.

I take it from the vitriol that I touched a nerve.

[Anonymous No.4356376]

>>4356336
>there is no objective truth
a sentence later
>what is right
And you don't see why your entire reasoning is wrong?
You play to subjectivity when it's convenient to you but then claim that your beliefs are somehow, truer than others' beliefs.

At least have a spine, faggot.

[Anonymous No.4356377]

if you are a Marxist you are either edgy or misinformed
I mean, cmon, marxism is more than 100 years old, there are currently dozens of socialist theories that make more sense than marxism, if you are a marxist you are a marxist because being a marxist gives you a certain amount of social capital while being, lets say, a social democrat doesnt makes you a speshul revolutionary snowflake

[Anonymous No.4356379]

>>4356377
This is the problem with you straight white males who say you're "leftists": you refuse to recognize your own privilege, and are blind to the ways the current system favors you, which makes you as bad as shitlord fascists.

The first thing you need to do is admit and check your privilege. Especially when you're around anyone who's oppressed b/c of their gender and race. You let them speak first. You listen when they speak. You DO NOT try to speak over them or tell them what wave of feminism was "OK" and what waves weren't.

[Anonymous No.4356386]

So, does this thread proves that's not possible to be both intelligent and a marxist?
I won't count intellectual because that's meaningless today.

[Anonymous No.4356387]

>>4356377
Well I think OP is misinformed, many of the leftist ideas go back to the enlightenment where they proposed that if a man does something on command, we may respect his labor but we despise who he is.

Marx's idea of a revolution is obviously silly

[Anonymous No.4356391]

>>4355917
No, the tea party is

[Anonymous No.4356392]

Still curious to hear from the many self-identified Marxists who have posted why they think a proletariat state apparatus would be anymore competent, incorruptible, or beneficent than any other political authority.

[Anonymous No.4356393]

>/lit/ - Tumblr 2.0

[Anonymous No.4356403]

>>4356392
Eh. They'll probably just barf a rehash of that "noble savage" thing which they supposedly disregard until it fits their views as always.

[Anonymous No.4356404]

>>4356379
nah, you gotta treat them the way you treat other white males and the way other white males treat you. Call them names, slap them on the ass. insult their culture and family, just the way you do with your buddies. Otherwise you're just systematizing prrivilege and excluding them from the discourse with rejectionist courtesy and pseudo sensitivity.

[Anonymous No.4356405]

>>4355615
>Is it possible for an intelligent and intellectually honest person to be a Marxist?

Fixed

[Anonymous No.4356408]

>>4356379

I'm sensing a lot of bait here.

[Anonymous No.4356418]

>>4356392
I still haven't heard anyone explain how an obviously corrupt government who's sense of morality is below average, if replaced by the average moral sense, would not be an improvement overall.

You HAVE to accept that sociopaths thrive in government, in this age of medicine it's imperative that we start screening for it.

Also man, really, the "all people are evil so trying to fight for a better world is futile" is the most pathetic argument in existence.

[Anonymous No.4356429]

>marxists

[Anonymous No.4356432]

>>4356418
>all people are evil so trying to fight for a better world is futile
Why not take the first part into account and plan accordingly?
There's no guarantee that the people is going to be any more honest than the government after a shift in power.

[Anonymous No.4356443]

>>4356432
well certainly SOME governments are more honest than others, which is why I'm saying it's so retarded to pretend change is futile.

Like I said, with modern medicine it's much easier to identify true psychopathy, it's time we started screening officials for it and begin to make the record public so people can elect to vote against the psychopath candidate

[Anonymous No.4356441]

>>4356392

Oh, and with the added bonus of a hugely expanded portfolio of powers, to boot.

>>4356403

Hypothetically, how would the concept of the noble savage make benevolent socialist government seem more plausible?

[Anonymous No.4356459]

>>4356418

This invokes some really weird beliefs about class and morality.

You think that the proletariat are more moral than other segments of society? How do you figure that?

Or if you just think that the political class are conspicuously venal, then why favour the proletariat as replacements? Why not an academic revolution with professors and scholars in charge?

This is all assuming that class divides really represent anything essential about people, rather than simply the station in society that they inhabit.

[Anonymous No.4356462]

>>4356441
I wouldn't even consider such a stupid premise.
A lot of marxists imply that because the masses are composed of humble, working people then they will be morally better and more compromised than the usual politics; that's not how things work.

>>4356443
You really believe there's a pattern between corrupt leaders and mental issues?
That all corrupt politicians are actual psychopaths?
lel, get out

[Anonymous No.4356470]

>>4356429
The funny thing about that image is just how deeply the misconception is.

You see, people love to think of "government" as only the federal and state commissions that are elected.

If you were to describe government functionally, as the people who have power and control access to resources, then by far the corporations are a form of governance. They dictate when you go to work, what you do when you work, and they will ALWAYS pressure you to do as much as possible for as little as possible.

Granted, it's easy to do socialism in a overeager and hamfisted way, but a collective negotiation to limit the effect of the tyranny of coporate control would be fucking amazing

And government is only corrupt because government appeals to corporations, and the election process is broken. Fix those and the rest follows

[Anonymous No.4356477]

>>4356459
No, I'm saying that some people are willingly more immoral than others.

>>4356462
Do you really think that there isn't a huge cross-section? Then you're ignorant.

[Anonymous No.4356481]

>>4356477

So, you do believe that the working class are less willing to be immoral than other demographics?

[Anonymous No.4356482]

>>4356470
and the only way to combat a corrupt government is to arm the civilian populace

[Anonymous No.4356488]

>>4356481
No..

[Anonymous No.4356493]

>>4356482
Define "armed"

Also, proposing a life similar to 15th century Italy? no

[Anonymous No.4356501]

It's impossible for an intelligent and intellectually honest person to hold any strong belief about which socioeconopoliticosystemo is best, because it's completely impossible to know. Stupid and misguided people make up all kind of justifications for this system or that system, based on meaningless assumptions and incomplete evidence. Of course, it can still be worthwhile and interesting to discuss different possible systems.

[Anonymous No.4356504]

>>4356392
In theory a proletariat state wont be vulnerable to those maladies due to the fact that wealth isn't privately owned. A proletariat state is not a state in the modern sense ie institutions exerting coercive, disproportional power as dictated by the interests of industrialists.

However there is always the risk that the proletariat state transforms itself into another political machine of overlords. Which is why in order to achieve the abolition of private property and at the same time ensure a new class of wealth owners doesn't emerge, the anarchist model of 'revolution' is more desirable imo: no temporary proletariat state safeguarding the newly acquired means of production; just gradual but sure economic conversion. Anyway, he only 'state' that emerges according to marxism and anarchism isn't really a state since there is no monopoly of legitimate force, no private property and therefore no giant coorporations whose methods of attaining profit and thus perpetuating their existence means determining political policy through their influence in the representative democratic process.

[Anonymous No.4356512]

>>4356488

So if they're no less willing to be immoral, then why would replacing the political class as it stands with members of the proletariat and then hugely expanding the suite of political powers they can call on be any kind of improvement?

[Anonymous No.4356518]

>>4356501
>partial beings cannot know the totality

Wow. First year was fun for you wasn't it?

[Anonymous No.4356519]

>>4356512
Did I ever say it would? No, because you're insinuating alot of shit.

[Anonymous No.4356522]

>>4356493
well I agree with this post in terms of guns >>4356353

[Anonymous No.4356525]

>>4356504

So, to avoid totalitarianism an anarchic progression from state to mere community is necessary?

What about this?

>>4356305

And I hate to sound like Hobbes, but wouldn't the results of giving up a state monopoly on legitimate force be... chaotic? Indeed, nasty, brutish and short?

[Anonymous No.4356533]

>>4355626
Marxism comes in two parts: diagnosis & perscription.

Marx's analysis of unfettered capitalism is spot on. You can still claim to be a Marxist if you understand and agree with it.

His solution was ludicrous and obviously needed to be extended by lenin/mao/stalin/trotsky-isms just to get anywhere at all. And we all know where those led (although I'm a fan of the early Yugoslavian implentation).

Ultimately Labor or Capital cannot be allowed to have supremacy over the other. It's either a leftist or rightist catastrophe when that happens. Right now we're in the Capitalist catastrophe.

I just read this essay by the creator of The Wire. It's a marxist viewpoint that actually makes sense in the American context:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-capitalism-marx-two-americas-wire

[Anonymous No.4356534]

>>4356470
Thank you.

I don't think you have to identify yourself as a marxist to recognize the validity of the idea that private property determines the political process.

[Anonymous No.4356540]

Quick, name a widely acclaimed Marxist intellectual outside of philosophy.

Protip: You can't.

inb4 appeal to authority, like /lit/ Marxists are intelligent toplel

[Anonymous No.4356546]

>>4356519

If you don't think the results of Marxist revolution would be an improvement, it doesn't sound like you really endorse Marxist revolution. In which case we agree.

Perhaps you endorse:

>>4356533

[Anonymous No.4356552]

>>4355615
Take this shit to pol, only the biggest of blow hards would keep posting here under the guise that they feel they need a more educated audience than a political forum

you don't

[Anonymous No.4356554]

>>4356546
Dude, I came into this thread announcing that Marx's theory of a grand revolution and Utopia are utter rubbish.

There needs to be serious left-wing changes in America, and obviously Marx's specific ideas are stupid, but the general idea is good: worker negotiations, social welfare, dismantling the insane power of the corporate tyranny.

However, these changes aren't coming from anything nice. It will require some form of revolution: protesting, activism, demonstration, etc.

I can't say when or if it will happen, but the current model of society and trajectory of wealth is completely unsustainable

[Anonymous No.4356557]

>>4356533
>although I'm a fan of the early Yugoslavian implentation

shit are you from former yugoslavia? those countries are doing fantastic aren't they?

[Anonymous No.4356559]

>>4356552

>/pol/
>Political forum

It is a vortex of racial epithets, ideologues, and violent fantasy.

I prefer it here.

[Anonymous No.4356566]

>>4356348
>First of all, there's that odd Marxist assumption
Not an assumption
>if only union leaders called all the shots!
Wasn't claimed

read some Marx

[Anonymous No.4356571]

>>4356533
>by David Simon

Uh-oh...

He regards the withering waway of the state as nonsense, yet criticises capital purchasing government. That's going to continue as long as the state remains, since the state enables such a process.

I can't stand this man.

[Anonymous No.4356574]

>>4355681
>>4356040
Everyone who thinks this is retarded.
Let me tell you an anecdote from the stalinist russia. It is said that after his discourses Stalin would not stand there and just receive the applauses, but rather join it and applaud himself a little. This is because he, and all communist leaders, believed they weren't leaders, but mere tools working for the great communist spirit, the historical need and so on and so on.
I think it is precisely this belief of a transcendent entity, a Big Other, that led to all cruel crimes of stalinism. Because essentially everything could be excused under the guise of being a necessary evil for pleasing it. No one was to blame for the gulags, the murders etc. Everyone was only working for a greater cause (and, of course, Stalin was the great prophet who could interpret and translate the needs of the cause). It is the very same phenomena observed in the existence of the Inquisition, just change the historical need for God.

[Anonymous No.4356579]

>>4356559
I thought a marxist, such as yourself, would enjoy bringing his message to the common man, which is no doubt the target demographic at /pol/.

[Anonymous No.4356605]

>>4356525
>So, to avoid totalitarianism an anarchic progression from state to mere community is necessary?
Who said anything about 'progressing' to community? It's private property and the political machinery that supports its interests that I suggested need to be addressed. Addressing them doesn't necessitate the conversion to 'community'.
And marxism and anarchism seek to avoid capitalist tyranny more than totalitarianism.

[Anonymous No.4356607]

>>4356559
>be a marxist
>refuse to post political discussion on the political board
>wonder why there's no marxist discussion there
It's probably because you insist on posting political discussion here instead. Also, /pol/ has communist/marxist/etc. threads very regularly. Please keep your political discussion there instead of here.