/lit/ - Literature

Diagnosis correct, solution incorrect.

>>11105740
Opinion uncorrect.

Break of those manifestos /lit/

>>11105740
This should be a pseud alert comment, since his solution is the logical conclusion to his diagnosis.
Anyone who uses this talking point has not read Marx

>>11105735
not going to celebrate him, and his books are a pile of trash and lies.

>>11105758
He only gave an impartial solution, he needs our help to finish.

>>11105758
You're right. It should be

>Diagnosis incorrect, solution incorrect.

>>11105762
Give him another chance, you have nothing to lose but your chains.

>>11105767
Are you claiming all those things about capitalism are actually good things? Even if you don't agree with communism you should realize that modern society is in no way perfect and could always use improving.

>>11105762
I also follow Jordan Peterson on twitter

State technocracy is terrible no matter what its prime motif is.

>>11105778
Same, he btfo marxists

Happy Birthday Marx,
I plan on picking up Capital again this summer.

>>11105787
Why do I find "her" attractive even though I am not gay

>>11105735
gonna celebrate his birth by putting on a sombrero and drinking many beers

>>11105787
Then lets remove the state

>>11105797
Because secondary sexual characteristics are an important component in illiciting arousal.

>>11105766
I agree, Maoist-Leninism is missing piece

>Google isn't celebrating it with a doodle
I'm genuinely surprised.

Read it today

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

>>11105798
I prefer Anarchs to anarchists tbqhwufamalam

>>11105797
because he is teeming with female hormones

>>11105805
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4mrkP3xgdc

We're at the late stage now right guys? Capitalist collapse any day now...

>>11105805
>ugu ^_^ i'm a special chinese snowflake and farmers can take the role of the industrail proletariat because I say so :)

>>11105811
Yea only coz pretending like the State doesn't exist is way easier

>>11105735
Reminder that Marx was a Republican and all true Republicans support Marx.

I don't know anything about Marx. Is it true that he hated my freedom?

>>11105829
He was a social democrat though

>>11105831
Yes, Karl the Marks invented the communism to destroy America because he was jealous of all their freedom and religion.
>>11105833
He supported Abraham Lincoln which makes him Republican.

>>11105735
where do i start with him? also do i have to read hegel?

Sorry--I don't celebrate arbitrary anniversaries, 200 is a very dull number indeed.

>>11105735
>How are you going to celebrate
I'm going to kill a pinko.

>>11105838
I would suggest being familiar with Hegel, because his dialectics are important

>>11105824
uwu just like my chinese revolutionaries!!

Do i have to have a beard to be a marxist?

The only thing impressive about Marx is that he somehow managed to survive his whole life mooching off of everyone around him. Generous friends.

>>11105859
you have to eat too much onions to be a marxist

>>11105868
don't bully neets

>>11105859
If you want respect in Marxist politics, you need a beard.

>>11105828
Look I don't have a messiah complex, I do not feel joy at "being a part of", I no longer attend parties nor identify as a member of subculture, the existence of a state can ironically enable me to act as a sovereign as it exhausts or a enslaves a huge number of my would be rivals or adversaries, mass movements in my experience are the collective expression of personal weakness and fear, and yes I have read all the relevant literature, I was on the spokes council at occupy wall street, I coordinated food not bombs in Richmond, VA, I hopped freights with gutter punks and added to the crew change manual, i organized street fighting tactical training under the guise of a weekly capture the flag game in downtown Spokane, WA; etc. etc. I am telling you from hard won experience, as someone who has been under investigation by federal agents for associating with ELF, as someone who has done prison time for felony assault on a government official--in the end all the anarchists do is all anyone does in peak capitalism. Live fearlessly and jettison the weight of the last two centuries of bourgeois "progress". It is not your problem

>>11105762
>his books are a pile of trash and lies
You wouldn't know that though. You've never read them.

>>11105844
what read then?

>>11105807
>If only Marx were still by my side to see this with his own eyes!

>>11105900
These two are good articles.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/

>>11105917
how did he get away with it?

>>11105917
yeah, I'd genuinelly want to hear what he would have to say about his theories being wrong

>>11105823
Never underestimate the ideological hold capitalism has on the average person.

>>11105937
He is more relevant in today's world than ever

>The Manifesto does full justice to the revolutionary part played by capitalism in the past. The first capitalist nation was Italy. The close of the feudal Middle Ages, and the opening of the modern capitalist era are marked by a colossal figured: an Italian, Dante, both the last poet of the Middle Ages and the first poet of modern times. Today, as in 1300, a new historical era is approaching. Will Italy give us the new Dante, who will mark the hour of birth of this new, proletarian era?

Who is the proletariat Dante?

>>11105960
Gramsci

Why does everyone hate Trotsky? Wasn't he just trying to avoid marxist-leninism creating an authoritarian ruling class by promoting the vanguard of proletariat?

>>11105880
>ex-smashie realized how futile smashing the state is
You literally proved my post

>in the end all the anarchists do is all anyone does in peak capitalism
Which is?

>>11105932
thank you

>>11105735
Shouldn't you be cutting off your dick and voting for Hillary or something?

>>11106024
>which is
Apparently think they can overthrow capitalism by posting memes on 4chan

>>11106046
Oh no I don't have the grand delusions you had when you were young. I actually think those things you did were great but futile in actually demolishing the state.

You are more of an anarch then than now

>>11105735
Oh! That's why we're being spammed with tranny porn . . .

>>11106073
Maybe you are right but i just don't think the world is worth fighting for.

>>11106083
Relly meks u think

>>11106103
The argument for anarchism is centered on the question whether the state should be dissolved not if people deserved it though.

That is why I claimed you were an anarch simply coz it is easier

>>11105987
He's an idiot, simple as that

>>11105758
>Anyone who uses this talking point has not read Marx

It's a common criticism of Marx that he devoted so much time to criticizing capitalism and his fellow socialists while giving only very superficial solutions and alternatives.

I mean labour vouchers, really?

>>11105944
>ideology is so powerful it can rule everything but i still adhere to marxist materialism guise

>>11105960
Giovanni Gentile

>>11105735
im gonna smoke a j and walk my dog

>>11106117
Life is easy in the first world.

>>11106181
but not fulfilling

>>11106336
>I'm a whiny faggot so everybody else is

>>11106341
I bet you have it all in life.

>>11105735
>what do you think of his works?
""""materialism""""
""""""""""""""""science""""""""""""""""

>>11106083
The trap poster has been banned; the spectre of Communism is defeated!

>>11105735
I didn't even until now.

What's to celebrate?

Haven't read any of his work.

>>11106566
He came up with a theory that explains reality and what the future holds.

>celebrate a writer who is single-handedly responsible for the most recorded deaths in history

I’m going to celebrate by wearing my American Flag cape and telling everyone Marx is a faggot

>>11106586
he coopted a theory that was only ever meant to explain the structure of reality in the past and treated it as though it could be used to divine the future

>>11106618
His attempt at a materialist turn was probably his biggest mistake, and the thing that ultimately made his theories go off the deep end. Should have read more poetry/10
I do give some credibility to his analysis of the dialectics of the transition from feudalism to the industrial age and his economic analysis in general though.

I’m going to watch my favourite BLACKED.com video
How about you, comrades?

>>11106661
The LTV is an incorrect way of viewing economics of course, so take Marx with a lick of salt

>>11105960
The joke is Marx quotes Dante a bunch of times in the Capital.
Thought it was worth saying.

Serious question: where do I start with Marx and should I read anything before?

>>11105735
He had valid criticisms of 19th century industrialism, but his solutions are garbage, and the period he is directed towards is no longer relevant to his writings.

>>11106676
>LTV is wrong
>can't describe oligopolies and monopolies!
>Jevons comes up with the demand theory
>literally can't properly explain quantity produced anymore
>they come up with the supply-demand theory of value
>research before mid-twentieth century basically says that oligopolies do price on markup, and not on supply-demmand
>people out there still assume supply-demand theory of value is completely right and criticize Marx
Truly the dysmal science.
Anyhow the way Marx defines labour is so strange that it's almost axiomatic. Saying it's wrong is properly speaking a contradition.

>>11106732
Unironically Adam Smith, Ricardo, and the whole of philosophical thought up until Marx.

LTV is wrong tho.

>>11106758
i haven't read anything written past 1920: the post

>>11106758
Not exactly. The Labor Theory of value understands population and the subsistence given to be constants, so only wages and rent(which is given by observation) are determined.

In the equation P= I + R + W, therefore wages and rent are already determined. Marx and everyone else thinks this is okay, but the mathematical economists realize and comprehend immediately the problem: from one equation you cannot determine two variables, mathematically, and logically, it would not make sense for me to try and determine the price if I do not know the ‘rate of profit’ (also known by Ricardo as interest which was also wrong ofc) or vice-versa

>>11105776
in das kapital (his only work i've read so far) he manages to make an analysis of capitalism without a moral judgment, he doesn't say something is good or bad although we know what is his standpoint
also
> hurr durr all methods of ''improving'' society should be celebrated just because their intentions are good

>>11106861
>hurr durr all methods of ''improving'' society should be celebrated just because their intentions are good

who are you quoting?

>>11106775
>literally mention studies of markup that happened after 1920
No idea why you specifically mentioned that year desu.
>>11106789
Ah, might as well give the long explanation.
Marx was, as anyone knows, a hegelian. Weirdly enough people forget this all the time when reading the Capital. So some things to keep in mind:
-Value is not a pre-capitalist concept.
-While the parallel between philosophical development and history isn't as strong as in Hegel, it's still there. If everyone (that is, Ricardo, Smith, etc) thinks that price is determined by labour, including, of course, factory owners and merchants (who had no one to read but the classicals) that's true, because once again, 'value' is dependent on its capitalist context.
-If the theory contradicts itself in surplus value, that isn't stupid, that's dialectics.

>>11106903
Thanks for giving me the ‘long explanation’ (lol) , but the price is not solely determined by labor in the Labor Theory of Value

>>11106926
You're mixing up your Marx and your Ricardo.
Nature (land, whatever) generates use-value, but only labour can produce exchange-value (in Marx, which ultimately is the subject).
Ricardo considers land, capital, etc as producing exchange value.

Marx only works through Hegel and Lacan like Zizek teaches us.

Which branch of Marxism are you /lit/?

Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Dengist-Jinpingist here

>>11106967
leftcom

Is it worth reading past volume 1 of Capital? I've read that they were mostly written by Engels (or cobbled together by him of Marx's half finished notes)

>>11105735
His analysis of Europe events during his time are wondrous, so are his writings on America. In some cases his thought is almost prescient, out of this world. Nobody today can dispute that commodity fetishism is the lifeblood of modern capitalism.

He is more relevant than ever and EVERYONE is pissed because of it.

>>11105787
She looks like a boy.

>>11107049
Looks like you got more reading to do kid

>>11105806
>a private company is not celebrating the birthday of the intellectual father of communism, HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE???

>>11107049
nice little quotations there
I see neither are in context nor have you provided links to the contexts nor probably did you consult them in their contexts before saving the picco to your computer for use on the dumb idiots of 4chan

>>11105823
it won't collapse until the middle class get definitely shit on. luckily we're approaching that moment it could degenerate into fascim tho

>>11107064
>Unknowingly conceding the point

>>11105960
me, just give me 5-10 more years

>Marx is relevant because he keeps pissing everyone off

>>11107064
>Disagrees and replies anyway
Like pottery

>>11106967
Marxist-Freudian-Lacanian-Althusserian-Deleuzian

>>11107045
im also curious

>>11106955
>Let me just add another two layers of pure,unfiltered obscurantist bullshit like Le quirky slovenian man says and it will totally work this time guys, trust me! xD

I went to the dedication of the new monument for him in Trier

>this whole thread

>>11106967
unironic ironic nazbol

Which book of the Capital I should buy?

>>11106967
Gothic Marxist-Humanist

>>11107729
Just do the Wage Labour and Capital + Value Price and Profit two pack, most people who try to start Marx with Capital lose steam and give up early. Read that and maybe the Manifesto, then the three-volume giant.

>>11107729
Piketty's

>>11105749
Evaluation incorrect

>>11105749
Opinion discarded.

>>11105735

>>11107045
Answer me, Marxists! It'll be a C-M-C exchange of your knowledge for my gratitude, with the (you) being the money.

>>11106903
Shift those goalposts harder.

>>11106124
What makes labor vouchers any more funny than paper money?

>>11108786
The idea that you can assign a monetary value as common between all forms of labor as opposed to something consistently quantifiable like debt, oil, or gold.

>>11106967
Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist-Jim Jonesist- Juche- Pol Potist- Zizekian- Chomskyist- Mugabeist- Strasserist- Cockshottist

>he isn't a stirnerian-marxist

>>11106967
Marxist-Aurelius-Evolian-Gramscian-Socratic-Pynchonism

>>11108786
They're supposed to replace money until money becomes obsolete. But there's nothing preventing people from using labor vouchers as money itself.

>>11106990
How does it feel to know that most modern communists are closer to fascism than Marxism?

>>11108820
>he isn't a stirnerite neo-proudhonian

>>11105944
>>11107093
its coming soon comrades

>>11108892
who the fuck are these "modern communists" are you talking about and can you point them all out

>>11106967
leftcom material feminist

>>11106967
Marxist-Lennonist-McCartneyist-Ringoism

>>11107062
thats hot nigga

>Order Capital Volume I from Amazon
>Book arrives
>It's the fucking abridged version
>Amazon redirects to an abridged version when you switch from kindle to paperback when ordering
>It will be 1.5 weeks for me to get the real redpill

>>11105812
Looks like a boy in a wig.

>>11105778
Have you cleaned your room today?

>>11106967
National Socialism

>>11109356
shit dude

Check and mate, communists

>>11109493
How will commies ever recover

>>11109493
Someone should ask him if it's okay to celebrate Adam Smith or Milton Friedman.

>>11109493

It's like he never even heard of the 19th century

>>11109493
>The only legacy of Marx is Mao and Stalin

>>11109493
Holy....

>>11105735
Gonna print that pic out and take a big fat shit on it

>>11105735
Gonna print that pic out and take a big fat ejaculation on it

>>11105778
Im also a male feminist incel.

>>11105875
>Marx was living Moscow

Jesus Christ, can we ban /pol/ from 4chan already?

>>11105843
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>11107752
I always think Principles of Communism is a better introduction than the manifesto. Engels doesn’t get enough credit, he’s the one who bothered to turn their ideas into something the average working stiff might want to read after their 12 hour shift at the factory.

*Laughs

>>11109493
>it's a Jordan Peterson conflates communism with Marx's contributions to academia episode

>>11105845
>dies from hunger

I’m writing a paper on Marx today. I didn’t know it was was his birthday. Happy coincidence I guess.

>>11108086

Please respond to this.

>>11110537
It's another "Marx was only an academic and never shilled for communism despite writing one of the most consumed manifesto's in the world" episodes.

The man helped foster his political and economic theories into a movement that became widely adopted the world over. Just because it lead to disaster often doesn't mean you have to disregard him entirely. Influence is influence.

>>11106967
Marxist Christian Anarcho-Transhumanist

>>11110623
That's not what I was saying. I recognize that Marx promoted communism, but he also made pretty major contributions to academia - modern histiography and almost every other major social science is largely based on his thoughts. That's worth celebrating

>>11105787
>>11105812
god this pic is so fucking hot every time i see it what i would give to thrust into him(her)

>>11111001
>11111001
the binary for this post is "ù"

>>11105884
t. enlightened commie intellectual

>>11111064
neat

he aight, jewish boy
Dialectical materialism is absolute horseshit, but class-based analysis removed from a purely material framework is 10/10. Just need to recognize that class as Marx defined it (relationship to MoP) is very shallow, since classes other than bourg/prole can either arise naturally or be manufactured to serve the purposes of an actual ruling class

>>11106967
marxism-neofeudalism-reactionism
I will use the immortal science of dialectical materialism to stand athwart history shouting "back to the fields, my fellow peasants". And then we'll have kings back

>>11106967
Marxist-NeoFourierian-Utopianism. When the ocean turns into a tasty beverage it must be kept out of the hands of the capitalist class.

sup guys

>>11113195
based christcuck

>>11105735
I'm celebrating with studies for my ideological analysis of Mishima's Patriotism for an upcoming exam. One of the 'key concepts' in class was Marx's materialism and base vs. superstructure: so, Mishima's rejection of contemporary cultureless society by ritual suicide as the ultimate confirmation of its influence, and his wartime experience and factory period shaping all of his later works.
I'm adding Althusser's interpellation to the analysis as well, in how Mishima appeals to a generation of men and women asking themselves "why was I spared?" which is exactly what the officer in Patriotism asks himself as well. Not to mention his 'ideal of masculine beauty' being a man committing honour-suicide, and his following self-immortalisation in the same manner. Personally, I can sympathise with the man.
Thoughts boyos?

>>11113006
This was basically Pareto's take I understand

>>11113282
Yes it was.

Pareto viewed Marx's class struggle as the struggle to supplant the current aristocracy with a new one.

Most people were critical of Marx on that line, aside from the fact that measuring a good's price solely on the labor spent to produce it negates any sort of Georgian 'Growing' aspect of production.

>>11113282
Haven't studied any Pareto since I'm not big on economics, but the separation of much of Marx's work from his materialist ideology is essential for a conservative reading of Marx (i.e. actual conservatism, not murriclap republicans)

Just finished Capital vol.1. Marx is surprisingly funny.

>>11105735
Marx became a neoliberal before dying

>>11114541

Gonna need some sauce on that.

>>11113316

Yes, I think part of proper conservatism is understanding how capitalism disrupts the natural order of life and what can be done to reign it in.

>>11115978
>what can be done to reign it in.
And they say marxists are the idealists...

>>11106672
Gonna re-read my favourite book of his.

>>11116002

I know. Revolutionaries are revolutionaries because they see no other way out.

Not that I blame them.

>>11114530
Say what you will about Marx and Marxism, there's no denying the man had a certain way with words
>>11115978
>part of proper conservatism is understanding how capitalism disrupts the natural order of life
Absolutely, and I could cover several major contentions I have with the capitalist system
>what can be done to reign it in.
Three currents of thought on the dissident right for how to go about this, as far as I can tell:
1. Accelerationism - push through to get through (easily the worst option imaginable, capitalism/liberalism is like acid for the soul of a person and a society, and the longer and more intensely they are subjected to them the worse the damage is. Also, severe damage to the environment and physical well-being of humanity)
2. Decelerationism - do something with trees and go full Kaczynski, I think (the issue here is that the technoindustrial system is far too ingrained in modern society to be successfully removed, at least on the timescale they propose [i.e. within their lifetimes])
3. Secession/Reconstruction/Decentralization (ideal option, but relies on the assumption that the modern liberal world order will become weakened and/or collapse, thus allowing smaller-scale, but sane and ordered, polities to emerge from the ruins)

>>11110797
yes those "contributions" clearly outweigh the millions of bodies he helped stack

>>11116056
I'm willing to state with full conviction that hundreds of millions more will die before the fall of America's liberal empire is complete. At this point in time, the bodycount is hardly tallied

>>11116061
t. tankie

>>11116062
>if you don't love america and globohomo capitalism you're a stalinist

>>11116061
>hundreds of millions more will die
cultural marxism is highly effective

>>11116076
>cultural marxism
Do you consider yourself "right-wing" or conservative in any meaningful sense? By that, I mean, at a bare minimum that you view hierarchies as natural (possibly divinely instituted), beneficial, and worthy of being built up and defended?
If so, stop using the meaningless phrase "cultural marxism", this situation we find ourselves in is all liberalism, my man

>>11116088
context, friend
>meaningless
not sure about that. at a minimum, enemies are fueling this retard fire.

>>11106967
Libertarian Market Socialism

>>11116088
Different anon, but. . .
Modern "liberalism" is what remains of Classical Liberalisim infused with heavy Marxist doctrine--the belief that equality is the solution to all problems, or that there should be little to no heirarchy in society.

Marxist theory obsesses over class whether the "class" considered be economic, gendered, social, racial, religious, etc. It demands equality and compensation of the oppressed, as if all men are equal, when in fact they are not.

Thus, it takes the original liberal thesis that all men are equal (originally thought in a European context) and concludes that if the initial nature of all people is an equal state, then all problems must stem from inequality.

This mentality's growth in mainstream western culture as well as the obsession over "bigoted" evils is why the cultural phenomenon is called "cultural Marxism." It is no spook, but the creeping presence and hegemony of influential figures and recent organizations in academia, politics, and media who enforce ideals that find their root in Marxist motifs.

>>11116132
*as if all men are fundamentally equall

>>11116132
>no spook
>recent organizations

Sun Tzu I prescrive for you

>>11116132
>gendered, social, racial, religious, etc
Wew lads

>>11116132

It's more that the intelligentsia were all in favor of a classical socialist revolution til they saw the conditions in the Soviet Union.

They then turned their attention to destroying race/sex/sexuality/gender identity hierarchies while post-structuralism attempts to destroy meaning itself without building anything in its stead.

>>11116132
I love /lit/ because no matter what anyone else says it seems like this is the board for actual discussion
>Classical Liberalism
I disagree with the common usage of that phrase, since it implies substantial differences between the "good, old liberals" and modern liberals who just took it a bit too far
>the belief that equality is the solution to all problems, or that there should be little to no heirarchy in society.
>It demands equality and compensation of the oppressed, as if all men are equal, when in fact they are not.
These are the foundational principles of liberalism. Hierarchy is despised by liberals, prior even to Marx, much less the 20th century philosophers at whose feet the charge of "cultural marxism" is laid. Remember the rallying cry of the freemasons as they slaughtered the Church's eldest daughter: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité."
Similarly, even the most ostensibly hierarchical of the classical liberals, Hobbes, despised hierarchy, seeing it only as a necessary evil to secure for men their "natural rights" (another disgusting, blasphemous turn of phrase). Also, if you're looking for the basis of a materialist philosophy, you'll find that in Hobbes as well. What you call cultural marxism, I call liberalism, and identify it in the very foundations of the modern western world.
>>11116239
This is one of the problems I have with classical Marxists. Judging from your response, I take it you hold to the analysis of: bourgeoisie owns MoP, exploits proletariat for the surplus value produced, and so on down the line (disregarding the lumpen and petty-bourgeoisie).
The issue with this is that the means of production have become so obscured in the post-industrial west that it is increasingly difficult to assess relationship to them. Consequently, under the classic Marxist thesis, the barista, the construction worker, the computer programmer, and the unpaid intern are our proletariat, even though they each have diverse relations to the means of production. Similarly, who, besides the obvious answers, are the bourgeoisie of the modern age? Have the lumpen and petty-bourgeoisie decayed and disappeared since the mid-1800s?
Classes can also arise or be manufactured out of other cloth than the merely economic. Shared interest groups based around identities, preferred perversions, and geographical location exist and are simply avoided by classical Marxian analysis.

>>11116319
>even though they each have diverse relations to the means of production
How so?

>who, besides the obvious answers, are the bourgeoisie of the modern age?
Those who owns the means of production.

>>11116349
>How so?
What are the means of production which a computer programmer makes use of to create value? In a similar vein, are the means of production merely physical (e.g. factories, land, mines, etc.) as they were a hundred years ago? As a thought experiment, imagine that I have come into full possession of ebay, a (very profitable) facilitator of transactions between two other parties. Is that website the "means of production" in the same way that Marx identified the private property of the bourgeoisie? Now run through the same thought experiment, but this time, I'm a black, illegal immigrant tranny from Peru who intends to funnel my ebay money to the Shining Path in an attempt to reignite the People's War in the Peruvian countryside.

>>11116385

>means of production a computer programmer uses

The physical computer and the interlinked system of hardware and software that has already been completed this far, i.e., the production, test, and development environments.

Some programmers need business people to identify what value needs to be added, where, when, and why, or else they will be unable to put their skills to use.

Some are self-starters who need no such guidance.

>>11116385
>What are the means of production which a computer programmer makes use of to create value?
Hardware and software, also the office. Basically all of a computer programmer needs to do his work.

>In a similar vein, are the means of production merely physical (e.g. factories, land, mines, etc.) as they were a hundred years ago?
Means of production don't have to be physical.

>imagine that I have come into full possession of ebay, a (very profitable) facilitator of transactions between two other parties. Is that website the "means of production" in the same way that Marx identified the private property of the bourgeoisie?
Yes. Private property is property that is not personal property.

>I'm a black, illegal immigrant tranny from Peru who intends to funnel my ebay money to the Shining Path in an attempt to reignite the People's War in the Peruvian countryside
I'm not sure to understand, what's the peruvian job?

>>11116319
I don't see how the increasing relevance of petite-bourgeoise, labour aristocracy and lumpenprolertariat have to do with including race/sex/religion into class analysis

>>11116132
>Modern "liberalism" is what remains of Classical Liberalisim infused with heavy Marxist doctrine--the belief that equality is the solution to all problems, or that there should be little to no heirarchy in society
this is the mental level on which modern conservatism operates

>>11105735
God, I wish that were me

>>11106041
>Shouldn't you be cutting off your dick and voting for Hillary or something?
easily one of the most autistic comments ive read

>>11116132
turns out words just mean anything and you can put them in any order you want cause they mean nothing, apparently

>>11116774
He's perfectly right.
Egalitarianism has become the dominant position in society. The only difference between the acceptable political positions today is how much they want equality and how violently they want to pursue it.
That's it.
For example "dirtbag" commies are indistinguishable from neoliberals when it comes to social issues.

>>11110797
His histography was bull. Historicism is poor form just by itself, but Marx's "historical materialism" manages to be both absolutely eurocentric and deficient in explaining European technological developments whose importance he stressed so much. His and Engels anthropology is also empirically wrong - non-state societies are nothing like they described.

Teaching Marx in sociology is like teaching Freud in psychology: they are historically significant icons, but their work itself is mostly just referenced by philosophers and artists, rather than serious social scientists themselves. Weber's work is much more up-to-date and ex-Marxist sociologists tend to become Weberians the longer they hit the books. Likewise, practicing psychologists and psychiatrists owe more to William James and Skinner than they do to Freud or Jung. The names with the most cultural projections are hardly the most consensually respected in academia.

>>11105818
Also :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz0yvngSW-M

>>11105735
>celebrate

Yeah nah.

>His work

Created and spawned some of the most abusive governments in history unintentionally. Intentions good but over all ignores basic principles of both economics and human condition.

>>11105735
By finger-popping yo asshole

>>11116774
I'm going to go ahead and guess you are European. The thing about US politics is that liberal does not actually mean liberal. It is now taken to be synonymous with Democrat, which are moving to be more progressive than liberal. That's why the confusion among conservatives.

>>11116835
Using the old "But Americans are dumb!" Instead of an actual argument. Nice.

>>11105758
good post

>>11105987
>Why does everyone hate Trotsky?
Because they literally have never read a word he wrote. He was trying to explain, in a thoroughly dialectical and materialist way, why the degeneration of the USSR occurred, and what could be done to salvage the cause of socialism. Very few people have ever been as committed to a cause as Trotsky and it is laughable that moustache-posting incel tankies genuinely believe he was anti-Communist. He outlined what was to be done and predicted the fall of the USSR if that didn't happen. His writings are as relevant today as ever. Why don't you read some of his works, anon?

>>11117548
You’ve obviously never studied Trotsky with anybkind of seriousness before or you’d know that he was essentially a crypto-fascist. This is true but one must be careful not to read into it the negative connotations that word carries today. He was also bisexual, and if you read his notes as well as Frida Kalo’s, and read betwen the lines, you’ll see that he was having relations with his male body guard. There was actually quite a but of tension between the three of them and some speculate that this isnuktimately the reason his body guard wasn’t around when he fot assasinated. He WAS anti-communist but also sort of a raging homosexual, facts widely known but not really written about during that time, which accounts for why he wasn’t liked very much.

grats, karl

>>11105735
By encouraging people to not pay taxes, vote, respect the police or technocrats, which is what ive done for over half a decade now every single day

>>11105735
Hello gomrades! XDDDD Dis general is for disgussion of margsism-lebonnism, da ideology of revolutionary socialism and gommunism.

Gommunism is da next stage of guckery following real society.

Wat exagtly is gommunism according to gommies:

>Gommunism is a stage of guckery in which the produgtive infrustrugture runs away from gommie country, and no goods are produced and beeple starve. XDDDD
>Gommunism in full form is obressive, statist society dat follows maxim "gib gib gib!" :DDDD
>To achieve gommunism we must replace broduction with murderous obressive rulers liek me, fug working glass beeple. XDDDD Struggle while I liquidate you all lol. When capitalists run away we win and I kill you all. Eventually the functions of state cease and state becomes murderous and indistinguishable from other gommies. Da state withers away liek da people.
https://www.gommies.gom/fug/
https://www.gommies.gom/starve/

GL uses philosphy of gib and starve, see here:
https://www.gommies.gom/ohfugme/

It is recommend you kill yourself so you can avoid starving.

Resources:
https://www.gommies.gom/ohshid/
https://www.gommies.gom/1984/
https://www.gommies.gom/guck/
https://www.gommies.gom/probaganda/
https://www.gommies.gom/XDDDD/
https://www.gommies.gom/wheresfood/
https://www.gommies.gom/benis/

-----------------------------------------
Da sdages of gommunism.

>Sdage one
Bourgers aren't allowed to vode :DDD but otherwise da system is digtadorshib of gommies. Everything is stole by digtadors and digtadors rule all.

>Sdade two
Withering
All beeple who aren't digtador glass starve. XDDD Once glass disabears and we steal everything more beeple wither away. Bolice begome unnecessary as beeple are dead lol :DDDDD Central blanning begomes unnecessary begause sgarcity caused starving. Money is all ours.

>Sdage three
Gommunism.
No beeple. No food. My money. Much benis

>>11117661
Communism is the opposite of objectivism so i reject it. Take from me to give to lazy bearded communist cucks who’ve never worked a day in their lives and breed like rabbits? That’s a philosophy for women who have the instinct to shove milk from their big titties down everyone’s throats.

>>11105735
Take a shit.

>>11116905
no he's not
his idea of "classical liberalism infused with heavy marxist doctrine" is worthy of a lobotomy
the two aren't compatible, it's like talking about a democratic hereditary monarchy
what he's talking about is the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" crowd because he thinks that being pro gay marriage makes someone a marxist

>>11106967
Juche gang

>>11116132
>heavy Marxist doctrine--the belief that equality is the solution to all problems, or that there should be little to no heirarchy in society.
THAT'S NOT MARXISM. READ GOTHA PROGRAM, YOU FUCKING BRAINDEAD IDIOTS. REEEEEEE

>>11119309
>what he's talking about is the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" crowd because he thinks that being pro gay marriage makes someone a marxist
It does, at least when it comes to social issues, if your talking points for social liberalism are indistinguishable from those made by marxists.
>>11119336
Yes it is.
Marxists are radical egalitarians who almost always support blank-slatism.

>>11119548
your woke as fuck

>>11119552
Thank you.

I ate some bread and thanked him for being a stepping stone on my journey to anarchism.

Marx was right.

>>11119548

>>11119652
>I ate some bread
Fucked it up straight from the start

>>11119901
>I'm so different from neoliberals, this is why my social platform is indistinguishable from that of fortune 500 companies
The epitome of dirtbaggery.

>>11120015
>neoliberals
>social platform
>indistinguishable from that of fortune 500 companies
you're just hopelessly dumb, the fortune 500 company does whatever it must to increase profits
making a "progressive" ad while pushing your product doesn't have shit to do with marxism
but how could someone who is unable to distinguish between saying you're doing something and actually doing something (a thing even children can conceptualize) understand that
or someone unable to understand that neoliberalism and marxism aren't political parties with set "social platforms" instead of economic theories

>>11119652
How many transsexuals with anime avatars are on your Discord friendlist champ? :)

>>11120043
>you're just hopelessly dumb, the fortune 500 company does whatever it must to increase profits
And when have I stated anything to the contrary? As it turns out, that way coincides with progressive social positions.
>between saying you're doing something and actually doing something
They do plenty. Setting aside that advertisement is today's propaganda, they repeatedly acquiesce to pressures from socially progressive groups.
>neoliberalism and marxism aren't political parties with set "social platforms" instead of economic theories
Both neoliberals and marxists tend to have certain beliefs about subjects that haven't go to do with economics.

>>11116132
>Modern "liberalism" is what remains of Classical Liberalisim infused with heavy Marxist doctrine--the belief that equality is the solution to all problems, or that there should be little to no heirarchy in society.
>Marxist theory obsesses over class whether the "class" considered be economic, gendered, social, racial, religious, etc. It demands equality and compensation of the oppressed, as if all men are equal, when in fact they are not.
> I haven't read even a word of Marx in my entire life

>>11116132
so this is the power of american education

>>11120090
>As it turns out, that way coincides with progressive social positions
no it doesn't. using superficial "progressiveness" to cover up your unsavory practices isn't "progressive", you just want it to be so it fits into the narrative you've built for yourself.
>They do plenty. Setting aside that advertisement is today's propaganda, they repeatedly acquiesce to pressures from socially progressive groups.
yes, they acquiesce because it's good for business, as I have already said - the only important thing is the bottom line. that's not "doing". it's pretty clear what I meant by "doing" - actual labor/finance-related practices of the companies - but you're too caught up in the internet retard playbook that everyone is using these days to figure it out. because the only thing you are able to wrap your head around is identity politics, so you constantly try to diverge discussion to it using either word games or sheer stupidity.
>Both neoliberals and marxists tend to have certain beliefs about subjects that haven't go to do with economics.
yes, beliefs which depend on the cultural zeitgeist. otherwise stalin wouldn't have banned homosexuality in the USSR, since by your dumb logic gay acceptance is supposed to be fucking inscribed into marxism.
neoliberalism, on the other hand, will follow whatever the mainstream or "center" opinion is. so you can have hillary and bill clinton "protecting the sanctity of marriage" 10-15 years ago and advocating legal gay marriage today.

>>11119914

>he doesn't conquer bread after making it

>>11120046

None.

>>11120371
>no it doesn't. using superficial "progressiveness"
"superficial" my ass. They're full on progressives on social issues by any standard of the word.
>that's not "doing"
Yes, that is doing
>because the only thing you are able to wrap your head around is identity politics
I love how dishonest and arrogant you guys are.
First of all, it's extremely easy to just talk about economics. It doesn't take a big brain do realize that "they do it for the profit maaaaan". Yes, everyone know that, but what is that "it". It's social progressivism. So, de facto, they're progressives on social issues.
Also, everyone from the left who accuses the right of doing "identity politics" is just hypocritical beyond belief. It's not that you don't care about progressive identity politics, you do, you just want to not talk about it and not have right wing people call you out on it.
>yes, beliefs which depend on the cultural zeitgeist
wow, what mind-blowing concepts you're proposing. All completely useless to the topic at hand because we're not talking about 1950 russia, we're talking about modern day marxists who are all die hard social progressives, with opinions on the topic that are exactly the same as those of neoliberals. At best, you find some marxists who care a little bit less about identity politics than economics, but even they shut up and submit if they're called out on it by other leftists

>people think American democrats are leftists or liberals or progressive in any way

They care about minorities only to the point where they can exploit them equally.

>>11120831
Whether they sincerely care about them isn't the point. If they support policies for "gay rights", "trans rights", abortion and so on, they're progressives on social issues. That's it.

>>11116088
>stop using this phrase that describes what it is

>>11120789
>modern day marxists who are all die hard social progressives
See this is how I know you know fuck all about what your talking about. Marxist theory is pretty far from the middlemanaging idpol liberalism you will not stop whining about and you'd only have to spends minutes in some lefty forum or another to notice the constant infighting.
>B-but they both disagree with me in similar ways, therefore they are the same thing and it's a conspiracy out to get me

>>11105758
Too bad his writings are still retarded

>>11105771
Well, my dignity, I suppose.

>>11105735
I celebrate by growing a fresh beard just like him.

>>11105843
edgy

>>11121444
>B-but they both disagree with me in similar ways, therefore they are the same thing
I never said that, you can't even read.
>you'd only have to spends minutes in some lefty forum or another to notice the constant infighting
There is no infighting concerning social progressivism (aside from, like, terfs, all twelve of them).

>>11106178
Brutal honesty and underrated congratulations, i owe you a free dick succ from one of that them there good ol hooker wid no teeth, yessir step right up, fuck this one in the wrong hole and youll get aids undoubtedly, meth gets this one going, yessir, good ol meth hookers ah gotta love em

>>11121593
>There is no infighting concerning social progressivism
Loathe though I am to say this, google 'Brocialism' and then get back to me.
Yes, it is stupid

>>11120789

Not the guy you are mud wrestling with but I have to say that this:

>we're talking about modern day marxists who are all die hard social progressives, with opinions on the topic that are exactly the same as those of neoliberals.

It's just bullshit. I understand that you must be american and have zero idea of what marxism means. Go check the unions and communist parties in countries like France, Portugal, Spain or Italy. The asociations which had to hide under the rule of fascism. The ideas and the fight they did and still do for the workers have nothign to do with american non-binary queer safe spaces in your colleges.

What you call in America social justice warriors or cultural marxism is just another side of the same neoliberal strategy of pandering to the harmless and useful consumers.

But that's what happens when your idea of marxism is so warped from years and years of cold war propaganda.

eww smelly communists

>>11107080
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50559139/t/look-back-gun-control-history/

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

The marx quote is specifically in reference to worker uprising and not necessarily standard life under socialism. Nevertheless, that image is silly

fuck communism

>>11109169
Says increasingly nervous revolutionary larper

>>11105948
How about that falling rate of profit buddy? Oh wait....

>>11122181
Its reality itself.

>>11120789
>Also, everyone from the left who accuses the right of doing "identity politics" is just hypocritical beyond belief. It's not that you don't care about progressive identity politics, you do, you just want to not talk about it and not have right wing people call you out on it.
I didn't accuse the right of doing identity politics, I accused YOU of seeing only identity politics because that is the only thing you've been yammering on about

>>11105735
>dialectical materialism
>materialism in general
>LTV
>ruining Hegel
>people still consider him anything other than a footnote, let alone subscribe to his theories wholesale
I honestly don't get it, it's like being a Lamarckian. Why do people like him so much?

>>11121852
>I understand that you must be american
No.
>and have zero idea of what marxism means
Again with the arrogance. Marxism isn't a particularly exotic thing. It belongs to the list of basic bitch political beliefs.
>Go check the unions and communist parties in countries like France, Portugal, Spain or Italy
They're either dead or close to dead and they're already infected by "idpol" stuff. In fact, saying that they're infected is completely wrong as that presumes they're two separate entities.
>>11122566
>I didn't accuse the right of doing identity politics, I accused YOU of seeing only identity politics because that is the only thing you've been yammering on about
Maybe because I was talking about the parts of your ideology that are indistinguishable from liberal ideology? You fucking moron. Of course I'm not talking about the economic aspects because those are not the same. Jesus christ how braindead do you have to be to not realize that.

>>11122954
He didn't ruin Hegel, he completed his system for the material world

>>11123676
>Maybe because I was talking about the parts of your ideology that are indistinguishable from liberal ideology? You fucking moron. Of course I'm not talking about the economic aspects because those are not the same. Jesus christ how braindead do you have to be to not realize that.
what you're talking about isn't marxist ideology AT ALL
there may be people who are/were influenced by marxism or use marxism as an approach in developing their social positions but it doesn't magically make the stances they comne to marxism the same way the existence of prosperity gospel doesn't magically make christianity capitalist or capitalism christian

Marxism would only work once all production becomes fully automated.

>>11123700
Imagine all christians either believed in the prosperity gospels or just shut up and took it when the christians who very strongly believe in the prosperity gospel told them that it's a very important issue.
What would you surmise about it? Probably that the prosperity gospel, at this point in history, is not really separable from christianity, regadless of it being a traditionally orthodox belief.
Similarly, the set of marxists who don't believe in all that socially progressive drivel is either null or so small that it gets shut down by all other marxists 10 times out of 10.

>>11123682
>for the material world
See point two.

>>11122954
>ruining Hegel
lol

>>11105735
Profit didn't hit zero, not everything is a commodity, value isn't determined by labor.

>>11123750
so your reasoning is "a huge amount of marxists are socially liberal which means that if any political party/group is socially liberal they're marxist"
how are you so fucking stupid

>>11105735
Marx believed in post-scarcity what an idiot.

200 years and ignorant fucks still can't get that value =/= price.

>>11105944
can't even make it work on a small scale. pathetic.

>>11123811
>so your reasoning is "a huge amount of marxists are socially liberal which means that if any political party/group is socially liberal they're marxist"
No you moron, I've never said anything of the sort.
>how are you so fucking stupid
Pretty ironic considering that apparently you can't even read.

>>11123920
"socially progressive drivel"

lol, such as...? yes, marxists favor gay marriage and free gender reassignment surgery and reparations. yes, these positions are specifically marxist.

you're conflating all of this with like, a large black person yelling "CULTURAL APPROPRIATION" at a skinny white person with dreads marxists are on the forefront of criticizing the use of identity politics by corporate powers to obscure their political agenda. marxists are against things like the black supremacist internet groups. but the state is the biggest enemy, conversative groups within the state are the biggest enemy and by and large they are racists whp would like to see us all killed.

so the state and it's right wing supporters are the only one of all of these issues that actually matter in a meaningful sense to us.

also the guy you are arguing with is close to as stupid as you are, and he already started conceding points you such as that "progressive drivel" was in fact "drivel" which, if he agrees with, by default makes him a fascist in effect even if he supports the abolition of classes in theory.

>>11123972
>you're conflating all of this with like, a large black person yelling "CULTURAL APPROPRIATION"
No, I'm not, I've never mentioned anything of the sort. You're debating something in your mind rather than my point.
>by default makes him a fascist in effect
If I had a penny for each time a marxist complained about people misusing the word "communist" and then turned around and used "fascist" in completely meaningless ways, I'd be rich.

>>11123920
>No you moron, I've never said anything of the sort.
that's the point of what you're writing, the fact that you aren't able to recognize it yourself just makes you even dumber

>>11123972
>also the guy you are arguing with is close to as stupid as you are, and he already started conceding points you such as that "progressive drivel" was in fact "drivel" which, if he agrees with, by default makes him a fascist in effect even if he supports the abolition of classes in theory
conceding a point == not replying to every single line of retarded shit that he writes
dumbshit, I'm not conceding shit, it would take posts the size of an essay to explain anything to him since you have to start from the literal beginning (as in, "words have meaning") and I don't have the will for that
>yes, these positions are specifically marxist
this is you not just conceding a point to him but AGREEING WITH HIM
and also you're wrong

>>11124039
>that's the point of what you're writing
No, it's not, you're just too dumb to understand anything that isn't a very easy to defeat strawman.

>>11124049
you've written post after post after post pushing that idea, even if you don't understand that you have
if that's not what you meant then say what you mean simply and explicitly

>>11124107
>you've written post after post after post pushing that idea
No, I've written post after post defending another an idea which you've strawmanned into oblivion.
I've alread said what I mean: that if you were to talk about social issues with a man without knowing his ideology, you would have a hard time differentiating from liberals and marxists, because the former have assimilated so much of the latter rhetoric and talking points (and to some degree, the same has happened in the other direction) that they're barely distinguishable on those topics.
So talking about how, on social issues, liberals nowadays are effectively marxists, is perfectly reasonable.
This isn't particularly strange because both liberals and marxists are different branches of the same modernist, egalitarian tree.

>>11124131
you're again positing social liberalism as inherently and exclusively marxist without giving any reason why it should be considered as such when practically noone sees it so
that is the actual point of this long and tedious shouting match

great discussion you're having guys, very intellectually stimulating, hm.

>>11124149
>you're again positing social liberalism as inherently and exclusively marxist
First of all, I'm talking about social progressivism, not liberalism. Saying that social liberalism is an inherently marxist thing would be an oxymoron.
Secondo, no, I'm not saying that social progressivism is inherently marxist, I'm saying that social progressivism is a marxist thing AND a liberal thing and that marxists have significantly influenced the type and degree of social progressivism that contemporary liberals espouse.

>>11124166
this sounds kinda reasonable until I remember that your interpretation of this is that gay marriage is marxist

>>11124212
>is that gay marriage is marxist
I didn't say gay "marriage" is marxist.

>>11124218
here:
>>11119548
or will you now say
>well I said "being pro gay marriage" not "gay marriage"
which doesn't actually change shit

>>11124230
>if your talking points for social liberalism are indistinguishable from those made by marxists
That's kind of the relevant part coupled with "at least on social issues".
I'm referring to the fact that it's not a misnomer to call you a marxist on a certain issue if you share the same identical view as marxists on that issue AND you use the same rhetoric as them.
It's a way to point out what I previously talked about, that is the heavy influence on progrssivism that marxism has head.
Kind of like the sentence "we're all [movement/political idea] now" which you've certainly heard before. It doesn't mean that we're actually all that thing, just that we've been so heavily influenced by that idea that we're all sort of, functionally, subscribers to that idea.

>>11124249
>I'm referring to the fact that it's not a misnomer to call you a marxist on a certain issue if you share the same identical view as marxists on that issue AND you use the same rhetoric as them.
but it is, since you can arrive at the same conclusion ffrom different viewpoints
this is where your addition of rhetoric kicks in but I don't trust you as a source on what is and what isn't marxist rhetoric

>>11124283
>>11124249
>>11124230
>>11124218
>>11124212
>>11124166
>>11124149
>>11124131
>>11124107
>>11124049
>>11124039
>>11124015
>>11123972
>>11123920
>>11123811
>>11123750
>>11123700
>being this dumb

>>11109169
>the inevitable revolution is coming any day now, c-comrades...
kek

>>11116088
>If so, stop using the meaningless phrase "cultural marxism", this situation we find ourselves in is all liberalism, my man
Serious question... why do so many people respond by questioning the semantic validity of "cultural marxism"? Under any other circumstance, left wingers would be the first to be a descriptive grammarian, but because it is seeking to describe/explain your favoured political tribe from the perspective of another worldview, it is considered "not a real thing" or in this case "a meaningless phrase". By quibbling with the semantics, you are just avoiding the discussion.

It is pretty clear that "Cultural Marxism" identifies the redeployment of the political narratives derived from Marxism (namely the oppressed/oppressor dynamic between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie) into gender (male oppressors, cis oppressors), race (white oppressors), sexuality (heterosexual oppressors), and perhaps more.

The stuff about a conspiracy to destroy western culture, or about the degeneration of civilisation as a result of this, is largely misdirected rage that should really fall on global capitalism...

But the (mal)adaptations of collective/revolutionary politics to a globalised world are very blatant. Gone are the days of mass unionism and the threat of shutting factories and grinding economies to a standstill... Now, because organised labor has been slain by automation and slave labour, all you have is a weird rainbow/frankenstein consumer collectivism that holds sway through participating in capitalism and democracy with weird, shrill moral narratives.

The problem for you is that in embracing these narratives, you are stultifying and humiliating white men (young angry men with no prospects correlate very strongly with revolution, by the way) and leaving them to the political wilderness. Guess what kind of movement is going to pick them up? Yeah.

>>11124318
>The problem for you is that in embracing these narratives, you are stultifying and humiliating white men (young angry men with no prospects correlate very strongly with revolution, by the way) and leaving them to the political wilderness.
Yes, the best gameplan for the left is to absorb the retarded views of the right. That will in no way result in moving the Overton window even more rightward. Great advice!

>>11124318
>It is pretty clear that "Cultural Marxism" identifies the redeployment of the political narratives derived from Marxism (namely the oppressed/oppressor dynamic between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie) into gender (male oppressors, cis oppressors), race (white oppressors), sexuality (heterosexual oppressors), and perhaps more.
And it's fucking dumb. First, there is a whole materialistic philosophy of history behind the bourgeoisie/proletariat dichotomy. It doesn't just posit the dichotomy, but the dichotomy follows from the materialistic analysis of history. Second, feminism predates Marxism by a bunch of years and so does all the stuff about inequality (which goes back to the enlightenment, the utopian socialists, etc etc). The stuff about faggots and trannies largely follows from feminism. Racism is another issue entirely.
Calling progressivism "cultural marxism" because they superficially share a notion of oppressor/oppressed is as dumb as calling Marxism "economical feminism". Obviously "economical feminism" doesn't sound nearly as scary so you never hear that.
Not him nor a marxist btw.

>>11124341
>even more rightward
When and where has the overton window moved rightward in the last 10 years?

I am going to celebrate by starving myself

>>11124346
>the materialistic analysis of history.
i was reading this and i was pretty interested in the conversation about marxism in the liberalism but then suddenly after this words i feel like a bird in the sky wilderness and lose myself in my thoughts, like if someone "believe" in a materialistic analysis of history is an schizoprenic paranoid (within my own paranoid view of the world) and he live in a dream he wants to believe, you know?.
i am aware this have a long ideological tradition (the materialistic analysis of history) but now i feel is something so consciously biased and partial, so arrogantly and at the same time so subtly authoritarian based on nothing but words and ideas and concepts and not really materialistic.
and then i feel empty. like i feel is imposible to follow a materialistic curse of human beings and call it the Truth and at the same time be a human being not totally materialistic playing with concepts and shit.
dont know, i just want to share my thoughts.

>>11124446
>who are Thatcher and Reagan?

>>11124619
>the last 10 years

bump

>hurr durr couple bourgeois concentrate all the wealth, unfair
>why don't just let the State concentrate it instead? sure it will way better yaaaaay all d powr to de workr!!!!

>>11124566
lol what

>>11117176
I remember this from my youth

>>11126315
Oh my god you knew that communism is the removal of the state but you just wanted to troll

>>11126341
most communists nowaday accept the State phase, you should know that.

>>11126341
Communism is the belief that the handing over of state to the proletariat would lead to the removal of capital which would in turn mean the withering away of the state. So he's not wrong.

>>11126315
>sure it will way better yaaaaay all d powr to de workr!!!!
unironically yes. since i'm not an americlap i'm able to understand why elected officials are better than a private board legally bounded to maximize profit. obviously if you have the 2 meme party colluding it's not that great but still

>>11126446
that would give them an excessive amount of power over people, and they can be corrupted, the wealth would be in the hands of a couple of bureaucrats, actually

>>11126446
>conflating democracy with communism

>>11126467
>and they can be corrupted,
yeah better skip the middle man then also with strong enough rules you can limit the corruption eg. making laws restrincting civil liberties of the politicians like surveille them 24/7

>>11126475
>conflating democracy with communism
nice reading comprehension. point where i conflated democracy with communism.
also please tell me how a totalitarian government voluontarily resigning power is more strange than a pacific transition

>>11126315
The goal of communism is literally the abolition of the state

>>11126525
Aaaaaaaaaaand the people who has to surveille him could also be corrupted

>>11126525
You implied "elected officials" are a defining aspect of communism.

>>11126551
no. i mean wiretapping his house and phone 24/7 and makes all the videos pubic. in my eye a politicians is not a man while serving the public but the physical manifestation of the state, his rights are secondary to the office and well governing. punishment for corruption: life long sentence

>>11126640
There's always a cheat for a law, he just talks about corruption outside his house and gets a new phone, give them that amount of power and money will absolutely make him corrupt, and i am not blaming him, all man can be corrupted, even the most pure one.

*giving them

>>11126525
1. A majority can vote to opress a minority. If work assignment was democratic, the less popular people would be forced to do worse jobs for worse compensation - picture dissidents in reeducation camps being worked like slaves, as it happened in regimes so varied as Stalinistic Russia and Revolutionary Catalonia.
2. The majority of people aren't marxists and aren't opposed to wage labour and private property as institutions in principle. This is why revolutionary rule is conducted by armed goons lording over unarmed "lumpenproletariat" rather than being horizontally managed and self-perpetuating.

>>11126683
literally make them wear a microphone+cam 24/7. if he take it out/shut off throwthem in jail

>>11126714
>The majority of people aren't marxists and aren't opposed to wage labour and private property as institutions in principle. This is why revolutionary rule is conducted by armed goons lording over unarmed "lumpenproletariat" rather than being horizontally managed and self-perpetuating.
what do you think populism is?
i sustain both ai serving us and a degrowth economy since sooner or later we'll need to stop producing shit because reasons.
for my pov it's either communism or get an self-sufficient house on the mountains and watch you faggots burn