Marxists advocate for the destruction of capitalism but still are hyper capitalists in nature. Are modern marxists not aware that it is because of modern capitalism that their moronic outdated ideology still exists? Pic related. The core of their ideology is still centered on books pubished and spread by trillion dollar capitalist companies.
I think capitalism and marxism both serve a tiny elite minority, in different ways but at the end the individial is always a perpetual slave to the system. We need a new meritocratic system that benefits the people and not the tiny 1% elite, this has always happened on communist societies as well but commie fricks will never take responsability and just claim it wasnt actual communism.
Discuss
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
>The core of their ideology is still centered on books pubished and spread by trillion dollar capitalist companies.
actually the books are widely available for free, this is probably for non-communists and/or posers who want physical books on their shelf they've never read
In this same book - Lenin says the US Postal Service is a example of socialism. I can't believe people took this shit seriously. Its non-sense. Lenin lived in a mansion, and owned 9 rolls royces after the revolution. Stalin had a mansion. So did Mao and Castro. Communism always leads to a tiny elite owning everything. It doesn't lead to the utopia these morons are talking about. Differences in class, status, wealth and power remain the same. People still have to depend on selling their labor to pay for their survival. Life goes on. Communists are people who simply live their heads and not in reality. They use Marxism is an excuse to be envious and resentful of the successful to ignore their genetic shortcomings that explain much of their failures in life.
Saying marxism when talking about communism is like saying darwinism when talking about evolution. It's a hostile or ignorant term.
Capitalism is a necessary step towards communism. A natural conclusion to feudalism, and the prerequisite to socialism.
All the wasted human labor, which we call capitalism, will be redirected to liberate human labor.
The core premise of Marxism is that as capitalism develops it progresses towards socialism.
By buying Iphones and drinking Starbucks really you're stimulating the economy and accelerating the consolidation of economic power by corporations i.e developing capitalism. So really consuming product is the most Marxist thing you can do.
>So really consuming product is the most Marxist thing you can do.
Talk about mental gymanstics in order to justify the capitalistic actions and lifestyle of most of these communist gays
>hur dur communism is when no phone or $1000 laptop
Yeah homie, you're participating the system you despise while buying shit produced by literal slaves in china and third world countries, 99% of marxist midwits have no moral or ethical consistency.
Well you may not know this but socialism, communism, and anarchism are all ideological evolutions of the radical democracy that emerged in late 18th century France, and so they are all oriented toward an end point of absolute human freedom. Marx was especially considered with the expansion of human freedom, even beyond the limits set by a particular social system (he gestures toward a human freedom from the constraint of subjectivity in The German Ideology). Further, they are all universalist ideologies, so it is impossible for them to privilege an elite.
Communists et al. contend with the world as it exists (that's the whole point) and so they must work within certain limits. Part of being limited in this way means using machinery and technology produced under capitalism for the dissemination of propaganda and for organizational purposes. This isn't undesirable or contradictory because it's an obvious fact of life that applies to all social movements across all historical epochs.
So whats the end goal? Its very convenient when most communists quickly disregard and excuse themselves from all criticism regarding the atrocities, corruption and millions of deaths commited by commumist regimes by just claiming that " it wasnt real communism", yet they always support stalin, lenin or some other marxists dictator. Talk aboyr hypocrisy
The "end goal", as in "what society would look like" varies wildly depending on which ideologue you're talking to. Part of the reason why 20th century Stalinism is still so popular is that it's the only systemization of a communist ideology that managed to establish itself as a major political force. Broadly speaking they all agree on the basic principles of classless society, the abolition of private property, the end of the state, the rationalization of production and distribution, and few others.
I'll agree to the extent that it's unlikely for any sect that presents themselves as the enlightened vanguard of the working class to concede power or otherwise disadvantage themselves. That those sects rely primarily on student recruits, i.e., prospective members of our management class and intelligentsia, only amplifies their elitist orientation. But I think it's a symptom of the death of the left as a mass movement rather than an insurmountable problem.
Can you please explain why most communist shills still continue to claim that communism wasnt actually communism? Specifically when confronted about the genocides, starvation and other atrocities.
Please list all "communist" projects that had a classless society, the abolition of private property, the end of the state, and the rationalization of production and distribution.
>classless society, the abolition of private property, the end of the state, and the rationalization of production and distribution.
If you set up something that is impossible to create in the first place, and then demonstrate that by having movements failing to do that, that pretty proves you're a failure. You remove any ability for your beliefs to be falsified or even challenged - making your arguments and beliefs nothing more than either a religion or pseudo-science.
you claim it's impossible to create, yet you base that on the failed attempts. that's pseudo-science, unless you have fundamental proof.
you have to analyze why the respective movements failed, and if they even wanted to establish communism in the first place or if they just used it as a means to an end, i.e. grab power for their own benefit.
>You claim an hypothesis is false because the conclusions end in failure! That's not scientific or fundamental proof. Creating excuses and post-rationalizing my failures are.
Its utter delusion. You're like a flat earth believer trying to explain why the Earth is still flat even after observing the horizon of the sea. For you, even with undeniable proof there is still a possibility you are not wrong.
Flat earthers can't create an Earth model that follows reality; Marxists can't create an economic model that follows reality. No amount of evidence against your position will ever change your mind because dogma is more important than facts to you. You care more about feelings than the facts. Synder and Applebaum didn't just write their books for fun.
The obvious reason is that no one who isn't already drastically alienated from society is willing to associate themselves with Stalinism and genocides. I think this is only a problem if they don't take 20th century communism seriously or if they don't justify their disavowal of it in some way.
Its a symptom of them not reading anything that challenges their world view. They're groomed into being told what to do instead of thinking for themselves. When you create a system where you can not be wrong; where dogma matters more than facts, all forms of critical thinking dies and nothing else remains besides spiritual death through conformity.
The Italian Renaissance and the Greek Enlightenment contained within in the positive forces of Western culture and society in which we owe everything we enjoy today. The liberation of thought, the disdain for centralized authority, and the triumph of scientific progress. The unshackling of human ingenuity above dogmas. Marxism, Communism are nothing more than one of the many more counter-revolutions that seek to undo that progress out of the pure spite and envy of the low and few who's genetic limitations, lack of intelligence and culture that make incapability of enjoying the fruits of these creations through their own abilities.
Only the most motivated, ideological, or otherwise driven elements will survive the death of a mass movement, which is why the surviving communist sects operate like cults. It's telling that when the left was a mass movement (1st, 2nd international) there was constant, sometimes existential, disagreement between factions on fundamental issues of strategy and policy. It's the difference between a living movement, which is proactive and productive, and a sect, which is protective and conservative.
The other half of your post is a typical defense of enlightenment rationality, public reason and all that. It's a discussion into itself but thankfully it's irrelevant since communists and Marxists fit neatly within that intellectual tradition. The bit about genetic limitations sounds like a pretty dubious political motivator so that would need to get fleshed out a lot more to warrant discussion, let alone for it to be a convincing argument.
>The bit about genetic limitations sounds like a pretty dubious political motivator
Not really, its been increasingly shown genetics can predict peoples' wealth, political views and even fate in life.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/
https://www.nber.org/papers/w24642
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5945301/
Genetics determine literally what you let your self believe and do, and has a significant impact on your actions life. Its literally the only thing you'll never hear a leftist, or Marxist, talk about because this relationship is consistent when looking at society. Its always a certain sector of races, and people, who achieve the most and do the most in society and its not a coincidence or by design.
I'll save myself the trouble of reading through and criticizing those studies (two of which have nothing to do with political orientation, and the one that claims to has absurd definitions and categorization of ideologies + conflates them with legal policies) by dealing with the moral argument that's slowly beginning to take shape here. Let's pretend for a moment that I've skipped ahead in time and all of the gaps in your moral argument have been resolved and that you have connected this idea of an immutable meritocratic hierarchy of humans in society to class society and capitalism in general and to the specific capitalist societies that exist today. The moral argument, then, is that successful people, where the criterion of success is the acquisition of money or something similar, deserve what they have while those that are less successful and even those who are failures also deserve their circumstances. And that each person is genetically predisposed to different degrees of success/unsuccess. The problem with communists, then, is that they are attempting to overturn the natural order of things by levelling the ground and that indeed the communists themselves are doing it out of envy and spite (thus they are immoral).
This ideological edifice has more than a few problems, not least of which is its complete irrelevance to the communist movement and communist society. It may well be that there is a genetic predisposition for success, by whatever criterion we choose, in any given society. I imagine that the strongest and fastest had a better time of it in the primitive societies where warriors and hunters dominated, and no doubt that the same is true for the most intelligent today. But what does this have to do with communism? Surely there will be people who are genetically predisposed for success, albeit under a different criterion, in communist society? TBC
>two of which have nothing to do with political orientation, and the one that claims to has absurd definitions and categorization of ideologies + conflates them with legal policies)
I posted studies that show the relationship between political views, wealth and genetics. They found that people with certain genetic traits tended to value more social spending, more immigration and other liberal values over those who didn't. They found that people who commit more crime have lower intelligence, and particular genes, that make them more likely to commit crime. These were consistent, statistically significant findings in twin studies and generational studies. The moral argument is irrelevant when the facts show us what the implications of what peoples' genes do - you speak of morality, hypothetical because you don't want to address the reality of what happens when we ignore the effect our genetics have our society, and you don't make convincing arguments as to why we should ignore that for your hearsay. I want policy to be informed by evidence, and not mere theories that have no basis in material reality - like Marxism.
I'll skip ahead a bit, although I do want to mention that most communist and (especially utopian) socialist ideologues have been concerned intellectuals and visionaries who thought of capitalist production as a fetter on human flourishing. That's really quite a different motivation from resentment and the revolt of the mob, the resentment of which is often mobilized by nationalist, populist, fascist, and other political swindles.
But anyway, the point is that it's all irrelevant because it's a moral argument against the amoral proposition of communism. Communists don't really care if the movement is just or unfair or if it's driven by altruism or resentment. None of that matters when one takes the broad historical perspective and interprets the communist movement as another phase in the unfolding of human social development. Individual wills and the moral consciousness that accompanies them are historicized along with anything else that is incidental to the process of social transformation. That's where the real debate takes place, but for that you'll have to find a Marxist who is willing to defend historical materialism.
>But what does this have to do with communism?
How do expect to have a society that is functional without intelligent people? How are you going to have an effective bureaucracy that manages economic planning, enforces regulations to ensure classes don't form again, along with money and private property, without people who have the ability and intelligence to do it - something that is largely due to their genetics. Do you think people with down syndrome, people with autism, or who selfish would have the emotional intelligence to carry out or follow the demands of a communist society? Do you honestly believe anyone could just become a communist or a decent one? Why the frick do you think Marx, Engels and Lenin spent all their time attacking socialists who were different from them and excluding them from their parties? There is a type of elitism that goes along with that implies Marxists are not universalists, non-privileged people you claim them to be, and there very well may be a genetic explanation for who makes a good communist party member or worker if your society or even party requires certain traits or people to be successful.
>they are all universalist ideologies, so it is impossible for them to privilege an elite.
This is hilarious considering through out history they've been used to create an elite. The irony is lost on you - the French Revolutions' victims were mostly the poor and middle classes; strikingly similar to the ones' established by communist regimes. Pharisees have used all sorts of lies, promises of equality, to dupe the useful idiots into their fold only for them to die under the guillotine once they have the power to ensure they have enough yes men for their power not to be challenged.
>they are all universalist ideologies
The bourgeois society of today was built on the universalist ideology of cosmopolitanism and equality - yet Marxists would argue its tyrannical and gives power to privileged elite. Communists call for the same type of social engineering through ungodly amounts of state, and expect their beliefs not to reproduce the same result. The massive amounts of resistance to your ideas would create the feedback loop, like it did in France and Russia, to consolidate a regime under the terror of elites.
Soviet Union was communist
Cuba, Korea and China are
"Holodomor" is western propaganda
Planned economy is the best
Bukharin lost
Trotsky lost
Hitler lost
Trump lost
/qa/ lost
Black lives matter
>Taiwan is a country.
The ROC disagrees.
I mean, you'd probably find some non-western Marxists and communists sympathetic to the view that western marxism is centred around books rather than action. I believe people on leftypol call it "armchair".
>white liv-ACK!
thank god we defeated communism
Homos like Mark Fisher think so
Capitalism is a good thing in Marxism, it's a necessary step in the development towards socialism/communism.