You're viewing part of a thread.
Yeah, we'll get right on that. /s
Eventually we will, or we will have fascism, yes. That's how it works.
Sure, I've read the Communist Manifesto too.
That one's kinda weak for learning why fascism is inevitable in a Capitalist system. Wage Labor and Capital and Value, Price and Profit both do a much better job of actually explaining the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism.
As fun to read as the CM is, it's ultimately a pamphlet to radicalize workers, it isn't really a solid overview of Marxist theory.
Marxism is a fun thought experiment, but changing a system of government popularized by a known antisemite while knowing it’s really never been successful anywhere else, is not really worth the damage it would create.
And before you think to argue, maybe look into what happened to Bulgaria when they tried socialism. Hell… even Russia isn’t socialist anymore.
Marxism is a fun thought experiment, but changing a system of government popularized by a known antisemite while knowing it’s really never been successful anywhere else, is not really worth the damage it would create.
Marx was of Jewish descent and advocated for Jewish liberation, so now this is just a pure lie. He even went out of his way to take down the author of The Jewish Question, which was one of the most antisemetic works of his time, specifically to argue against antisemitism.
Additionally, Socialism has absolutely been successful, especially when compared to where Socialist countries were before they transitioned. You know what happened when the USSR dissolved? Millions of excess deaths, a plumetting of life expectancy, literacy rates, GDP, and more, and only in the last decade or so has the Russian Federation began to approach quality of life metrics that the USSR had.
You're talking utter nonsense.
The only people that think Marx WASN’T an antisemite, are marxists. Imagine that!
But wait! Marx said he isn’t? Well I guess that settles it! He can’t be if he says he isn’t!!!
And Hitler was also…. Of Jewish descent, so by this example, it can’t ipso facto make him not antisemite.
I’m not arguing to change your mind here. So I’m not goin to argue the subject with you. I just wanted the opposing argument to your bullshit to be seen so anyone reading along can be informed on either side of this argument.
And currently there are no viable models that show that an pure socialist system will work in America.
The only people that think Marx WASN’T an antisemite, are marxists. Imagine that!
Any proof?
But wait! Marx said he isn’t? Well I guess that settles it! He can’t be if he says he isn’t!!!
Are you telling me that writing a book to deliberately take down one of the most antisemetic pieces of literature of his time isn't a pretty good point in favor of him not being antisemetic? What books taking down antisemitism have you written?
And Hitler was also…. Of Jewish descent so by this example, it can’t ipso facto make him not antisemite.
Let me know when you find evidence of Marx mass murdering Jewish people.
I’m not arguing to change your mind here. So I’m not goin to argue the subject with you. I just wanted the opposing argument to your bullshit to be seen so anyone reading along can be informed on either side of this argument
I can tell that you aren't interested in arguing, you've been doing nothing but vaguely gesture and vibe. Instead, you're doing an excellent job of showing how incoherent anticommunists are.
And currently there are no viable models that show that an outer socialist system will work in America.
Mind explaining why you believe that?
ROFL… I relay hope Everyone reading along are able to understand false-equivalency like I do. Because you seriously have no argument here.
You tried arguing that because Marx was of Jewish decent- he couldn’t possibly be antisemite. So I gave an example that argued against this, and you come back with- “well he didn’t kill the Jews!”
That’s not a point that favors your side. And it’s downright ignorant to think it’s even relevant to the topic.
Regarding the rest of the nonsense you babbled… as I said, I’m not going to argue with you on this. My purpose was to point out the absurdity of what you’re saying. Nothing more. I believe all arguments should fairly display both opposing points, and you were preaching nonsense. So… sense needed to be injected into it.
And the .ml by your name is pretty much a dead giveaway to not allowed the discussion to go any further as it’s pretty well known that most people from there tie up the discussion by trying to put people on the defensive by wall-of-text accusations and demands for “proof” that their theoretical pipe-dreams are utter nonsense.
Not arguing with you. Socialism is a fucking stupid idea for America and history has shown it has been pretty much EVERYWHERE it’s been attempted.
ROFL… I relay hope Everyone reading along are able to understand false-equivalency like I do. Because you seriously have no argument here.
Give me something to argue with, you are currently just slamming on your keyboard and sending whatever stream of consciousness happens to spill out.
You tried arguing that because Marx was of Jewish decent- he couldn’t possibly be antisemite. So I gave an example that argued against this, and you come back with- “well he didn’t kill the Jews!”
That was one part of what I said, and the least important. I specified that Marx was of Jewish descent to add context, as Jewish Antisemites are far more rare than non-Jewish Antisemites.
Your reply was that Hitler was of Jewish descent too, which doesn't say anything about Marx. The fact that people of Jewish descent can be antisemetic does not mean that people of Jewish descent are antisemetic, which is what the Hitler point meant.
Additionally, you keep dodging the fact that Marx wrote an entire book defending Jewish people and criticizing one of the most vocal antisemites of his time, while offering no proof or evidence of his supposed antisemitism.
Regarding the rest of the nonsense you babbled… as I said, I’m not going to argue with you on this. My purpose was to point out the absurdity of what you’re saying. Nothing more. I believe all arguments should fairly display both opposing points, and you were preaching nonsense. So… sense needed to be injected into it.
What part is absurd? Can you make a coherent point, so that we can have a conversation? You're continuing to vibe.
And the .ml by your name is pretty much a dead giveaway to not allowed the discussion to go any further as it’s pretty well known that most people from there tie up the discussion by trying to put people on the defensive by wall-of-text accusations and demands for “proof” that their theoretical pipe-dreams are utter nonsense
I am indeed a Marxist, I think anyone can tell that by now given that I have recommended people read Marx. I don't think having a .ml account makes much of a difference at this point.
Not arguing with you. Socialism is a fucking stupid idea for America and history has shown it has been pretty much EVERYWHERE it’s been attempted.
In what manner? If Socialism has been shown to drastically increase housing rates, life expectancy, literacy rates, and the majority of people living in post-Socialist states wish to go back to Socialism, and the people living in currently Socialist states continue to support their governments and economic structure, in what manner is Socialism a stupid idea that has been "a fucking stupid idea?"
We’re done bud.
A lot of this writing has the same flaw that many other analytical texts have: great at diagnosing or discussing a problem and absolutely shit at coming up with any solutions to it.
The "what is the problem" part of the text is like 95% of it, then it's "what we can do about it" is the remaining 4% before the author thanks his wife.
The "what is the problem" part is full of cogent analysis, data, and decent hypotheses and is well researched.
The "what can we do about it" is weak ass half-thought out ideas that never wind up getting implemented in whole or even in part because of their obvious flaws.
I personally think that's because actually organizing people to do anything about any problem is infinitely harder than identifying one.
Critique of Capitalism was just one of Marx's 3 major pillars, the other two being Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and Socialism.
If you think Marx simply ignored the process of what to do, then you aren't understanding why he didn't fully. Marx believed that every country would have unique circumstances, and that there is no one size fits all solution. That being said, he also did believe these would have Socialism in common, as well as revolutionary means.
If you want to see Marx give his thoughts on how to get to Socialism and then Communism, Critique of the Gotha Programme is a good place to reference. Marx talks about a weak Socialist program, and what they ought to do instead. As for Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels goes over past failures of Socialism, and how Marxism and Marxian philosophy solves these issues.
Calling Marx and Marxist contributions "weak ass half-thought out ideas that never wind up getting implemented in whole or even in part because of their obvious flaws" is just plain silly. There's tons of coherent thought in how to achieve Socialism, and why. Analysis of Capitalism was Marx's focus because everything else hinged on it, and is why he devoted so much time and energy to Capital.
Calling Marx and Marxist contributions “weak ass half-thought out ideas that never wind up getting implemented in whole or even in part because of their obvious flaws” is just plain silly.
Thinking that we'll take down capitalism with some revolution and then go through a temporary period of single-party state socialism and then eventually move to communism is a weak ass half-thought out idea that'll never wind up getting implemented in whole. So, I stand by my characterization there.
Thinking that we'll take down capitalism with some revolution and then going through a period of single-party state socialism and then eventually moving to communism is a weak ass half-thought out idea that'll never winds up getting implemented in whole. So, I stand by my characterization there.
Why do you believe it is weak ass and half-thought out? Have you read the texts I linked? I'm not even asking you to read every Marxist text by every major Marxist who ever lived, I just think currently you have very little idea of what you're actually trying to talk about and would be better off getting some idea of what the source material actually states and see how it has panned out in context would be better than just resorting to ad-hominem and dodging.
Why do you believe it is weak ass and half-thought out?
Because it predictably goes the same way it always goes. You start with your "temporary period of single-party state socialism" after a half decade of bloodshed, and then the party never wants to give up power. So again you're just following what some stupid asshole / dear leader wants to do and that's never the real actual communism™.
You get "
SocialismCommunism with Chinese characteristics" (aka fascism with a different name and aesthetic).EDIT: It's communism that supposedly has the chinese characteristics of being actually capitalism with an emperor...my apologies to the CCP.
Because it predictably goes the same way it always goes. You start with your "temporary period of single-party state socialism" after a half decade of bloodshed, and then the party never wants to give up power. So again you're just following what some stupid asshole / dear leader wants to do and that's never the real actual communism.
This right there is why I recommended you read Critique of the Gotha Programme. Socialism being temporary never was meant to mean it was supposed to be a short term sacrifice, but an improvement on Capitalism and with the continual goal of improving production to get to the stage where Communism can be accomplished.
"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
It's not that there's a secret cabal that never wants to give up power, but that government cannot simply dissolve and become Communism. Marx was no Anarchist! There has never been a point in time that the entire world has been made up of Socialist Republics, free from Capitalist interests, and thus trying to say that every single Socialist state should have simply collapsed themselves into magical Communism is nothing but idealism and speaks nothing of the Material Conditions of society.
Socialism being temporary never was meant to mean it was supposed to be a short term sacrifice, but an improvement on Capitalism and with the continual goal of improving production to get to the stage where Communism can be accomplished.
That doesn't happen either. You get "Communism with Chinese characteristics". You get the USSR that falls apart and was never really communist to begin with. You get Cuba with great food and nice looking old cars, but in an otherwise isolated and somewhat dire state and in consistent poverty. You wind up with Russia with sham elections and an international alliance of creeps including North Korea. You get czars and emperors masquerading as "presidents". It's all a worthless facade: still authoritarianism but comrade-chic; dictatorship but by che guevara wannabes.
I don't like capitalism either, and I think Marx's critiques of it are well founded. He just doesn't have a prescription: exactly like many other analysts throughout history and various wanton technocrats today.
I'll stick with democracy until the cossacks come knocking at the door thank you very much, and I'll do it while reading whatever I please instead of useless theory.
EDIT: I think the actual prescription is labor unions, worker protections, state administered social welfare and safety nets, etc...monopoly busting...all the new deal stuff basically. At least we have a historical example to point to of that shit working.
There is no viable plan or solution for full-blown socialism to replace our economical or political system. It’s been pretty much unanimously agreed to be a bad idea.
The only people that seem to be suggesting it as a viable option are college kids and washed up economists that no one takes seriously.
America adopting pure socialism is a dream many have that will never happen.
There is no viable plan or solution for full-blown socialism to replace our economical or political system. It’s been pretty much unanimously agreed to be a bad idea.
Vibes and mysticism, lol. Do you have an actual point? None of what you said here is true or backed up by anything.
The only people that seem to be suggesting it as a viable option are college kids and washed up economists that no one takes seriously.
Definitely not true, and again not a real point, nor is it backed up by anything.
America adopting pure socialism is a dream many have that will never happen.
Back to vibes and mysticicm.
Can you explain the why or how of any of what you just said? It's all vibes.
ROFL… so, you accue me of “vibes and mysticism” for saying that socialism is a failed experiment- which is pretty much accepted as fact if you take 30 seconds to look, yet offer no proof that it could work aside from some shit paragraphs worshipping an antisemite’s theories on how to achieve a perfect system?
Nope. That’s not how this is going to work. You have to provide your own nonsense and let me attack the sources and poke it full of holes with long drawn out nonsensical rebuttals and paragraphs of quotes from my long dead theorists before I let you do the same….
ROFL… so, you accue me of “vibes and mysticism” for saying that socialism is a failed experiment- which is pretty much accepted as fact if you take 30 seconds to look, yet offer no proof that it could work aside from some shit paragraphs worshipping an antisemite’s theories on how to achieve a perfect system?
Yes, you are operating on vibes and mysticism. You keep saying phrases like "pretty much accepted as fact" without referencing anything factual to point to. Additionally, as discussed in another comment, Marx was of Jewish descent and advocated for the liberation of Jewish people, and wrote a hit piece on the writer of The Jewish Question, which was one of the most antisemetic works of his time.
Nope. That’s not how this is going to work. You have to provide your own nonsense and let me attack the sources and poke it full of holes with long drawn out nonsensical rebuttals and paragraphs of quotes from my long dead theorists before I let you do the same….
I have listed sources previously in this thread that I recommend you read. Since I doubt that will actually happen, I'll have to ask you what you genuinely mean by "Socialism doesn't work," because clearly you don't care about metrics like Life Expectancy, Literacy Rates, Housing Rates, median hours worked, and more.