/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4845280]

am I the only one who finds it ironic that devotees of marxism, a political ideology of extreme conviction, should frequently choose to mix themselves up in in the uncertain wish-wash of postmodernism?

[Anonymous No.4845290]

Marx himself would probably lel and turn Monarchist nowadays

[Anonymous No.4845291]

how do i use capital letters please send help

[Anonymous No.4845302]

>>4845291

Just put in a second keyboard for the capital letters.

[Anonymous No.4845314]

>>4845302
>capital
>marx thread

[Anonymous No.4845319]

>>4845314
>le slow man

[Anonymous No.4845321]

Any Marxist who engages with neoliberal postmodernists is a revisionist and should receive self-criticism and reeducation.

[Anonymous No.4845325]

>the uncertain wish-wash of postmodernism

dat purple prose

[Anonymous No.4845330]

Are there actually people IRL who are older than 25, have a job and are Marxists?

[Anonymous No.4845333]

Neoliberals masquerade as Marxists but, just like the people they face, the neoconservatives, they are servants of the corporations.

[Anonymous No.4845334]

>>4845321
You can't deny there has been something of an affair going on in the leftist academia surrounding this

[Anonymous No.4845340]

>>4845334
I won't deny it. What has happened is that the bourgeoisie co-opted Marxist rhetoric and reoriented it in such a way that it was diffused and made null. In this way, they protect themselves by making Marxism about identity politics and feminism as opposed to societal development.

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.4845346]

from what i've seen marxists are pretty against pomo.

[Anonymous No.4845354]

>>4845321
Revisionists believed in external reality.

Any liberal bourgeois dilettante who tries to sully Marxism with post-modernism needs a kick in the cunt that renders her sterile.

[Anonymous No.4845359]

>>4845346
Exactly. I'm not trying to start a "no true scotsman" thing here, but the only "Marxists" who are into pomo are merely neoliberals in disguise.

[Anonymous No.4845360]

>>4845346
another reason why marxists should generally be referred to as clowns

[Anonymous No.4845366]

>>4845354
I'm afraid I can't understand your first and second statement in relation to each other. I agree with your second statement, but your first appears to be saying that non-revisionists, that is, actual Marxists, do not believe in external reality. Is this what you are saying?

[Anonymous No.4845371]

>>4845330
Yeah but none of them has ever posted in such a shit thread.

[Anonymous No.4845374]

>>4845360
Pomo is a bourgeoisie thing created in order to reorient the national psyche into directed effort at trying to appear that things are understood, when really things are already understood, and what is important is that the corporations are taking control. Pomo attempts to cause people to forget vital truths in hopes of appearing hip.

[Anonymous No.4845376]

>>4845340
now just wait a minute. You're saying postmodernism, a movement originating almost solely from children-of-the-60's academics trying their hardest to be critical of the underlying basis of absolutely everything, was directed from the top? What the hell? This is the same segment of society instrumental for the promotion of marxism as an ideology in the west

[Anonymous No.4845384]

>>4845376
Yes. It was astroturfed. What happened is that these academics promoted Marxism, but this was soon invaded by agents of the bourgeoisie. That is why I used the term "co-opted." They reoriented it and used a coordinated shift of Marxism in the national consciousness into multiple things: pomo on the one hand to distract the intellectuals, and to the masses they presented Marxism as an evil doctrine. In this way, they prevented the two populations, the intellectuals and the workers, from organizing around a common base and attacking the bourgeoisie.

[Anonymous No.4845389]

>>4845374
>Pomo is a bourgeoisie thing created in order to reorient the national psyche into directed effort at trying to appear that things are understood

yes, a decentralized movement of various authors stretched over different countries can be spoken of like it was packaged in a factory and mailed overnight. this board really is full of retards.

[Anonymous No.4845397]

>>4845384
I'm not even opposed to believing this, but you're gonna have to provide some more credible evidence to back your increasingly generalized abstractions here bud.

this reminds me of of back when everybody was calling the tea party astroturfed. As if reactionary populism has not happened in the past time and time again. Not much of a stretch to realize their demographic was the leading edge of the same people who ate the alarmist shit up during the cold war

[Anonymous No.4845399]

>>4845389
This is the power of the bourgeoisie. They do not need to package in a factory, because they have the ability to condition entire populaces with advertising and the media. In this way they are able to orient world-views around the goals that most benefit themselves: consumerism. Astroturfing is a well-known diffusion tactic, and the bourgeoisie have perfected it. Their agents infiltrate dangerous movements such as academia and muddle the psyches of those involved. This is the cancer of modern society.

[Anonymous No.4845409]

>>4845399
The fun thing is, with that reasoning, you can prove that anything is bourgeois. Anything you don't like, at least.

[Anonymous No.4845413]

>>4845397
These are just things that I've picked up from carefully analyzing the media and extrapolating backwards and forwards in time. The tea party was astroturfed. Most political movements are, albeit in different ways. For instance, agents of the bourgeoisie infiltrated Occupy Wall Street. They muddled the psyches of those involved and made the outward appearance be that of college students desiring hand-outs. Then they used their media to further twist and reorient the grassroots movement to the public, resulting in most people remembering the Occupy movement be a stupid thing. They even go so far as to have individual agents stage their own "Occupy" movements outside areas like Post offices, to further cause people to see the manufactured inanity of the "movement."

[Anonymous No.4845420]

>>4845399
So how do a few French, German, Italian, etc. authors come into play here? Was there a meeting? What channel can I see the Derrida advertisements on?

[Anonymous No.4845423]

>>4845409
The bourgeoisie uses their conditioning to have everyday, untrained people become latent agents. Constant conditioning results in a populace that quickly quells dissent and frequently sides with their oppressors in a world-wide Stockholm syndrome situation. The bourgeoisie have made their HQ in America and their manufacturing plant in China so that they can ship consumerism back to the citizens and further control them. Other areas of the world are under less control, for instance the EU. They have increasingly taken stands against the extension of the power of the bourgeoisie. This has to do with the length of the development of the national psyche. It is reflected in this way: who would you trust with judgement, an experienced old wise man who has admittedly made mistakes but learned from them or a teenager who only knows how to shout thought-terminating cliches about the free market that he learned from the TV? This is the relation of the EU to the USA.

[Anonymous No.4845431]

>>4845413
right. So no matter how relevant your claims may be, there's no evidence at this point to say pomo was an inside job being funded straight from the offices of the IMF

next logical question:
Are you, or are you not a bourgeoisie shill?

[Anonymous No.4845432]

>>4845420
The bourgeoisie can distribute their message instantly throughout the globe through the media. It is clear that either pomo writers are active agents, conscious of their actions in advancement of the bourgeoisie, or latent agents, mere tools created through daily conditioning from childhood forward.

[Anonymous No.4845444]

>>4845431
I sincerely apologize for not being able to at this time cite my sources. Please believe me when I say that so far as I know the bourgeoisie have not gotten to me. I have attempted to resist the conditioning. I do not watch TV which is a primary means of disseminating brainwashing. In addition, I attempt to become conscious of the conditioning present in daily life through the exposure to the latent agents around me.

I will admit I'm am scared that the bourgeoisie will get me.

[Anonymous No.4845450]

>>4845432
>It is clear that either pomo writers are active agents...or latent agents

The very fact that you think writers in the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. may have even *possibly* been acting as agents goes to show how little you've thought this through.

The fact is that the media does have its various agendas, but there is no evidence to suggest that there is a unitary conspiracy and it is more likely a demonstration of the stranglehold advertising and ratings have over mainstream news than anything else.

[Anonymous No.4845466]

>>4845450
This stranglehold is merely an effect of the bourgeoisie's control. The appearance of decentralization is merely a deterrent to promote the idea that their is no unitary control. But do you know the level of incest between media companies? Comcast alone owns Universal studios and NBC. They are in turn owned by Viacom, which is owned by National Amusements, which owns Comedy Central and many other channels. This is merely a short example. When you actually get down to it there are few companies that aren't owned by other companies.

In addition, it has been proven that America is not running as a democracy anymore. There is the question that it might never have. America is an oligarchy controlled by a combination of economic elites and lobby groups acting in the interest of businesses. The citizen no longer effects any change in the political machine. We are merely pawns.

[Anonymous No.4845473]

>>4845466
So there is a conspiracy?

[Anonymous No.4845493]

>>4845473
It would most likely be safe to say that there could be a conspiracy, but it's more accurately described as the normal functioning of the machine that was constructed over the course of 200 years going back to the original colonies. Taken away from the protective apparatus of tradition, the colonists constructed something that was supposed to allow for a freedom of the individual. Over time, however, this unrestricted area allowed the growth of massive individuals known legally as corporations. These corporations, although staffed by humans, transcend their parts in an emergent fashion. This can be seen in that corporations can be sued without necessarily individuals being sued, and individuals within a corporation can be sued without the acknowledgment of the structure around him. What is most important is that in the construction of the corporation interest was in the fact that individuals forming the corporations would be protected should bankruptcy occur, etc. What happened is that the corporation became an individual in its own right for tax purposes and then became an organism in its own right. The drive of a corporation is profit. The corporation influences all people within it to strive for profit, and this is the source of the negative influences. Corporations are a cancer that are slowly consuming society. The influence of a corporation weakens as you go down the "corporate ladder" so that the CEOs are massively interested in profit but the janitors are less so.

[Anonymous No.4845501]

fuck antifa

[Evola Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Kid: Th(...) !vKJYJAzBlI No.4845506]

>>4845280
>am I the only one who finds it ironic that devotees of marxism, a political ideology of extreme conviction, should frequently choose to mix themselves up in in the uncertain wish-wash of postmodernism?

I find it hard not to, post modernism is a creation of marxists

[Anonymous No.4845509]

>>4845366
>I'm afraid I can't understand your first and second statement in relation to each other. I agree with your second statement, but your first appears to be saying that non-revisionists, that is, actual Marxists, do not believe in external reality. Is this what you are saying?

I was suggesting that even Revisionists were not as bad as Post-modernists. Both Marxists and Revisionists believe that external reality exists.

[Anonymous No.4845521]

>>4845509
Ah! Now I see. Thank you. Yes, I would agree that revisionists aren't as bad as postmodernists, because they merely changed a few things, whereas pomos change everything.

[Anonymous No.4845596]

>>4845325
dat reading comprehension

back to reading beer labels, pleb

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4845923]

I thought Marxism was about being non-ideological, non-dogmatic and scientific?

[Anonymous No.4845938]

>>4845923
> non-ideological, non-dogmatic and scientific
That hardly fits with a majority of people identified with Marxism. By this account they were very few Marxists, if ever.

[Anonymous No.4845957]

>>4845938
"Identified with Marxism," why don't you just come out and say it instead of fucking strawmanning: you believe bourgeois propaganda.

I've know a shit load of rank and filers from Tankie parties, and they were undogmatic, unideological (praxic) and scientific.

The problem is you're wanking over "leaders" and "intellectuals," like some first year bourgeois idealist who hasn't even responded to, let alone transcended, Feuerbach.

Thesis 11 fuckwit. Most working class Marxists lived that.

[Anonymous No.4845959]

>>4845923
Science is an ideology so your definition contradicts itself.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4845962]

>>4845938
>The tacit assumption underlying the Lenin-Trotsky theory of dictatorship is this: that the socialist transformation is something for which a ready-made formula lies completed in the pocket of the revolutionary party, which needs only to be carried out energetically in practice. This is, unfortunately – or perhaps fortunately – not the case. Far from being a sum of ready-made prescriptions which have only to be applied, the practical realization of socialism as an economic, social and juridical system is something which lies completely hidden in the mists of the future. What we possess in our program is nothing but a few main signposts which indicate the general direction in which to look for the necessary measures, and the indications are mainly negative in character at that. Thus we know more or less what we must eliminate at the outset in order to free the road for a socialist economy. But when it comes to the nature of the thousand concrete, practical measures, large and small, necessary to introduce socialist principles into economy, law and all social relationships, there is no key in any socialist party program or textbook. That is not a shortcoming but rather the very thing that makes scientific socialism superior to the utopian varieties.

>The socialist system of society should only be, and can only be, an historical product, born out of the school of its own experiences, born in the course of its realization, as a result of the developments of living history, which – just like organic nature of which, in the last analysis, it forms a part – has the fine habit of always producing along with any real social need the means to its satisfaction, along with the task simultaneously the solution. However, if such is the case, then it is clear that socialism by its very nature cannot be decreed or introduced by ukase. It has as its prerequisite a number of measures of force – against property, etc. The negative, the tearing down, can be decreed; the building up, the positive, cannot. New Territory. A thousand problems. Only experience is capable of correcting and opening new ways. Only unobstructed, effervescing life falls into a thousand new forms and improvisations, brings to light creative new force, itself corrects all mistaken attempts. The public life of countries with limited freedom is so poverty-stricken, so miserable, so rigid, so unfruitful, precisely because, through the exclusion of democracy, it cuts off the living sources of all spiritual riches and progress. (Proof: the year 1905 and the months from February to October 1917.) There it was political in character; the same thing applies to economic and social life also. The whole mass of the people must take part in it. Otherwise, socialism will be decreed from behind a few official desks by a dozen intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.4845963]

>>4845959
Althusser's definition of science is of a theory that proceeds from praxis. The common use of "scientific" in Marxism relates to an experimental epistemology rooted in class ontology, not in a system of ideology.

YMMV, read more, especially more outside of the staid refuse of Bolshevism. (Yes I did just say that about Lukacs and Adorno).

[Anonymous No.4845969]

>>4845962
Luxemburg?

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4845970]

>>4845959
Ideology is determining an ideal before sufficient empirical data.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4845976]

>>4845969
Yeah

[Anonymous No.4845978]

>>4845970
>sufficient
>empirical
And yet you don't see how science is an ideology? Are all tripfags stunted?

[Anonymous No.4845979]

>>4845970
>An ideology is a set of conscious and unconscious ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions.
The Empiricism of science is such a set of goals, expectations, and actions

[Anonymous No.4845980]

>>4845970
>Ideology is determining an ideal before sufficient empirical data.
But you're aware that the criticism of science by historians and philosophers of science is that "science" as practiced in the hard and soft sciences is inherently and fundamentally ideological; not simply contaminated but at its root an ideology. Marxism practiced by workers differs from this in that the grounds of knowing are ontologically problematised in working class struggle.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4845985]

>>4845980
>science
>inherently and fundamentally
>as practiced

[Anonymous No.4845996]

>>4845957
Aggressivity will get you nothing. Close your eyes, take a deep breath, and start typing again more calmly.

But before, perhaps you would take the time to read my post again ?
If I take the time to type "identified with marxist" rather than simply "Marxist" it means that I wanted to point at an ambiguity as to what is understood by "Marxist". Making assumptions about what I am supposedly "wanking over" and throwing around the world "bourgeois" (I guess it is the equivalent for "faggot" in your vocabulary ?) isn't really helping in this respect, I'm afraid.

>Thesis 11 fuckwit.
Namedropping and namecalling, without taking time for proper explanation: I see that your strategy is getting better by the line. I suppose that being a superior person enlightened by praxis you can't be bothered to go down to the level of poor "first year bourgeois idealists" like me (you could even risk conviceing people !).

Thank you for your "undogmatic, unideological (praxic) and scientific" answer, I guess.

[Anonymous No.4846002]

I <3 you, Feminister

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846003]

>>4846002
You based patrician taste, anon.

[Anonymous No.4846004]

>>4845985
Existence precedes essence. If you want idealism then you could cobble together something out of Bakunin, Proudhon and Althusser.

[Anonymous No.4846007]

>>4845996
Or maybe you were strawmanning by not naming the people who hold that position. By begging the question by inserting an uncited strawman. And by showing such fucking ignorance of the social phenomena that you were commenting on that you have to come back with an, "I was only pretending to be retarded" now.

Take a deep breath and blow your frontal lobes out.

[Anonymous No.4846008]

>>4846003
<3333333333333

[Anonymous No.4846010]

am I the only one who finds it ironic that critics of postmodernism post on 4chan?

seriously it bugs the fuck outta me

[Anonymous No.4846012]

>>4846010
>ironic
Its just you.

[Anonymous No.4846013]

>>4846002


i dont <3 you feminister, im hard to get.

[Anonymous No.4846017]

>>4846013
You wish to be the little girl.

[Anonymous No.4846018]

>>4846012
do you mean that criticizing postmodernism in a postmodern cesspit is postmodern in itself? i can roll with that, but it's still annoying when they seem oblivious to it

[Anonymous No.4846020]

>>4846013
That wont do you any good, I'm hot as fuck

[Anonymous No.4846022]

>>4846018
Again, you're positing that there's some natural ideal form that dictates content. There's nothing post-modern about 4chan: read your fucking Debord.

[Anonymous No.4846023]

>>4845962
>>4845963

Now those are proper answers. Do you think that some of the experiences at national level inspired from Marx (in USSR or China for instance) qualified as scientific in the sense described here >>4845963 at any point in history ? Or have scientific marxism be set in motion only at local level (for instance in the kibboutzim, or within small communities of workers) ?

[Anonymous No.4846025]

>>4846017


h-how did you know?

[Anonymous No.4846030]

>>4846025
Because Japanese Bird is Yami o hikisaku OH DESIRE!

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846040]

>>4846004
There is no essence, learn2pomo

>>4846008
^_^

>>4846013
Being hard to get does not preclude <3; in fact it is a strategy of <3 to obtain <3 through artificial scarcity of <3

>>4846023
Virtually no instance of state capitalism has been Marxist (Tito doesn't get a pass either). When state capitalism ever actually comes to terms with, "Holy shit, this ain't working," they compromise with private capitalism

[Anonymous No.4846041]

>>4846030


doushio...

[Anonymous No.4846047]

>>4846023
>Do you think that some of the experiences at national level inspired from Marx (in USSR or China for instance) qualified as scientific in the sense described here >>4845963 at any point in history ?

The Moscow uprising and soviet was all party. The crushing of the 3rd revolution in Ukraine, Tambov, Petrograd (Kronstadt) and Moscow sealed the fate of the possibility of proletarian praxis.

Similarly, in China, the subordination of Yenan, the leadership alignment of most Red Guards, and the crushing of 1989 has destroyed the seeds of praxis of the Shanghai Soviet. We must expect an entirely new revolution to arise in China: the Party once again ate the seed grain.

Yugoslavia needs further extensive analysis, as an edge case of capitalism. Much like the UK welfare state does. Praxis here, again, was resistant not in the saddle. The same criticism applies to the failure of the Spanish revolution defend itself internally and externally.

>Or have scientific marxism be set in motion only at local level (for instance in the kibboutzim, or within small communities of workers) ?

Yes. And again in temporally limited cases, like in Hungary 56 or Czechoslovakia 1968.

Praxis is a (ha ha) practice. It only exists as a becoming. It grows daily in our workplaces and the scythe mows us down. The tall poppies get their heads chopped off and we learn to blunt the blade.

[Anonymous No.4846054]

>>4846007
Maybe you should stop with the paranoia and admit that over an anonymous imageboard there can be ambiguity and disagreeing and even (God may forgive !) sweeping uniformed statements without trolls and straw mans being involved.
Again you seem to not have read (or perhaps not understood) the part of my post about "identified as marxists" as your
>"I was only pretending to be retarded" now.
seems to suggest. I wasn't pretending to be retarded, I was pretending to be surprised and confused by terminology.

Now I'll make an effort and refrain for engagin in further cockfight. I apologize for making a hasty statement that could be seen as offensive, because offending wasn't my purpose, but rather questioning and getting to specifics. Claims of "X is not ideology, it is science" tend to make me defiant, particularly when it comes to politics, this is why I was a bit too wuick in my reactions.

I should have phrased my concern as a question I was curious about what was meant by marxism here, and I got part of an answer here >>4845962 and here >>4845963. That's still no reason to jump at me like I just raped a whole factory, but I can understand that the anti-marxist fags on /lit may have got you on edge.

So I'll rephrase my concern more precisely: who do you concern properly marxist (and as such unideological) and on what grounds ? Do you have example from personal experience ? Do you have counter-example ? To which extent do you think marxist is spread among workers, and among social movements in general ?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4846059]

>>4845978
BEFORE. Before sufficient empirical data.

Science is AFTER, after sufficient empirical data.

[Anonymous No.4846064]

I knew Butterfly would show up. You know she's been competing with you, Feminister? You'll always have my <3 though, don't worry.

[Anonymous No.4846066]

>>4846054
>So I'll rephrase my concern more precisely: who do you concern properly marxist (and as such unideological) and on what grounds ?

>concern
You mean consider. Also your French punctuation marks you in English. It is as bad as using le France arrows instead of "quotation marks." Remember: this is a nasty fucking website and people will analyse your typing.

>So I'll rephrase my concern more precisely: who do you concern properly marxist (and as such unideological) and on what grounds ?
None. Written material is produced by bourgeoisified individuals. At best it can have been informed by existing praxis. I'm going to recommend the non-dogmatic Left-Communist line, through the KAPD (Rühle, for example), and then through the factory (Johnson/Forrest and Autonomia, try Tronti, Bologna, etc.). These expressions, and factory self-investigation reports, labour history at the lowest level, express instances of concrete class practice, but crystalised in time.

>Do you have example from personal experience ?
That time we went on strike and XXX got their leg broke by a cop.

Lukacs's interview over 1956 done at the time published in Poland, when he was being ridden by the class.

>Do you have counter-example ?
That time we went on strike and handed out pamphlets.

Most of Lukacs' aesthetics and academic work.

>To which extent do you think marxist is spread among workers, and among social movements in general ?
Generally, as far as people informed by their concrete working experience and reflecting on it. To about 2% of the population in terms of reading "Marxist ideologues."

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4846068]

>>4846025
Is this postmodernism?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4846070]

>>4846064
>You know she's been competing with you
I am competing FOR her.

(I do wish I was as well read and expressive of course, so there's some aspiration)

[Anonymous No.4846072]

>>4846054
*consider marxist
Damn

[Anonymous No.4846073]

>>4846070
She's still underread in ideological Marxism though. Which means you've got a fair way to catch up.

[Anonymous No.4846080]

Butterfly u have a pretty dimple <3
(I only saw one)

[Anonymous No.4846106]

>>4846068


im a post-modern against post-modernism.

[Anonymous No.4846139]

>>4846047
>>4846040
>>4846066
Thanks for your answers. I have so many questions right now, but it's a bit late, so I'll try not to get confusing, focus on the essentials, and hope this thread is alive and not derailed tomorrow:

1. If state capitalism could never (at least until now) be really marxist, what would be the role of the state in achieving a marxist society (if it is to play any role) ?
2. Can there be such a thing as a marxist society or is it a purely abstract construct ? If there can, how could it be achieved and on which scale ? Do you believe in small autonomous communities ? Or in small communities integreated in greater, non-marxists systems ? Do you think it would be better to try and have a general overhaul of big capitalists countries ? Do you believe in creating workers organizations (not necessarily unions in the traditional sense) over various and distant workplace, or do you think this would detract from practice and eventually led to movements governed by ideology ? Lots of question I know, but they run around the same problematic, so I hope they can be answered in reasonable time.

3. You >>4846047 say
> Praxis here, again, was resistant not in the saddle. The same criticism applies to the failure of the Spanish revolution defend itself internally and externally.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean. What prevented the Spanish revolution, for instance, to survive ?

4.You >>4846066 say
> Written material is produced by bourgeoisified individuals.
isn't it possible to have printing engine collectively (and perhaps clandestinely if you fear the intrusion of the state) owned by workers ? Illegal printed press is a thing, after all, so why not worker-owned printed press ?

I started writing this post before >>4846066 was posted, and I had to retype it entirely, so I have yet to answer to all of it. Nevermind, I'm asking those questions to all of you. Thanks in advance for taking some time in answering them.

>>4846066
Don't worry, I'm not ashamed of being French, and if people are willing to correct my writing, it's all the better.

[Anonymous No.4846148]

why the fuck are you marxists shitting up my thead with theory again

[Anonymous No.4846160]

>>4846139
>1. If state capitalism could never (at least until now) be really marxist, what would be the role of the state in achieving a marxist society (if it is to play any role) ?
The state can't play a role in achieving socialism, only in dispersing bourgeois. In Marx "the state" is the repressive power of one class over all other classes. Necessarily armed workers councils will repress the bourgeois, but this isn't socialism, this is repression of class enemies. Socialism begins in production by equals: socialism begins in society not in the state.

At least this is the line of the left-communists and communist anarchists.

>Can there be such a thing as a marxist society or is it a purely abstract construct ?
There are no guidelines in Marxism for social organisation. There will be communist societies, but not "Marxist." Communist societies must be global in scope: they develop only out of the most advanced capitalism.

>Do you think it would be better to try and have a general overhaul of big capitalists countries ?
Do you think dog shit is tastier than cat shit?

>Do you believe in creating workers organizations (not necessarily unions in the traditional sense) over various and distant workplace, or do you think this would detract from practice and eventually led to movements governed by ideology ?

Democratic and social organisation must be global in its extent. I think this is possible despite the corrupting influence of organising within capitalism.

>What prevented the Spanish revolution, for instance, to survive ?
Arms blockades, stalinists murdering revolutionaries, a failure to force the revolution in 1936.

>> Written material is produced by bourgeoisified individuals.
isn't it possible to have printing engine collectively (and perhaps clandestinely if you fear the intrusion of the state) owned by workers ?
How does this change material being written by individuals? Individuated consciousness is bourgeois consciousness. The press might be collectively run—the words arose from a single mind, not from struggle.

>Illegal printed press is a thing, after all, so why not worker-owned printed press ?
There are. See the Lawrence & Wishart scandal over Marx Engels Collected Works in English. But this isn't about the press, this is about thoughts in capitalism.

>I'm not ashamed of being French
No worries.

[Anonymous No.4846168]

>>4846139
>What prevented the Spanish revolution, for instance, to survive ?
Raw force (incl. defense), the biggest problem of anarchism in general.

[Evola Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Kid: Th(...) !vKJYJAzBlI No.4846197]

Daily reminder calling the USSR/China/North Korea state capitalism is being intellectually dishonest

Also Capitalism is just as bad as communism

[Anonymous No.4846200]

>>4846197
North Korea is a hereditary fascist state. They don't even have any Marxist terminology in their constitution anymore. You'd love that sort of dribble.

[Evola Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Kid: Th(...) !vKJYJAzBlI No.4846203]

>>4846200
>North Korea is a hereditary fascist state.
no

1.) It is not meritocratic.

2.) It is not corporatist.

3.) Total self reliance is not exclusive or necessary to Fascism.

4.) Xenophobia does not make something Fascism.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4846206]

>>4846197
>Evola Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Kid: The Usurper & President of The Club for Kids Who Like Kings or Whatever.

Though I'd prefer
Evola Ӝ̵̨̄ Kid: The Usurper & President of The Club for Kids Who Like Kings or Whatever.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4846213]

>>4846203
North Korea is actually a hereditary monarchy
Who's that in your picture again?

[Anonymous No.4846219]

>>4846213
>Who's that in your picture again?

You're dumber than Evola, apparently.

[Anonymous No.4846225]

>>4846203
1) Has any state in history been truly meritocratic?
2) Yes it is. All activities are coordinated in state interest. They no longer have the pretense of class interest. This is corporatism.
3) Fascists advocate economic autarky through protectionism, isolationism and national self-sufficiency. North Korea advocates economic autarky through protectionism, isolationism, and the goal of national self-sufficiency.
4) How so? Xenophobia is a fear or hatred of something strange of different. Fascism emphasizes ultranationalism combined with militarism, and that stronger nations can displace weaker or different ones.

North Korea is an example of a Fascist state.

[Anonymous No.4846234]

>>4846225
>communism inevitably leads to fascism

We know, dear.

[Anonymous No.4846237]

>>4846213
King George III. He suffered from persistent mental illness and lost the American colonies. This is apparently an argument in favor of monarchy.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4846246]

>>4846219
>Missing the implication that Evola Kid would be right at home in North Korea
>This ding-a-ling
Is it late at night where you are?

[Evola Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Kid: Th(...) !vKJYJAzBlI No.4846252]

>>4846225
>1) Has any state in history been truly meritocratic?
yes

>2) Yes it is. All activities are coordinated in state interest. They no longer have the pretense of class interest. This is corporatism.
>They no longer have the pretense of class interest.
this is incorrect. Juche focuses on national and class interest.


>3) Fascists advocate economic autarky through protectionism, isolationism and national self-sufficiency. North Korea advocates economic autarky through protectionism, isolationism, and the goal of national self-sufficiency.

Total self reliance is NOT exclusive or necessary to Fascism.

>4) How so?
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
no where does it say Xenophobia is required.


>Xenophobia is a fear or hatred of something strange of different. Fascism emphasizes ultranationalism combined with militarism, and that stronger nations can displace weaker or different ones.

cool story, I agree

>North Korea is an example of a Fascist state.
Nope sorry

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846268]

>>4846225
>arguing with someone who is explicitly opposed to your welfare about why they're wrong

This is like trying to explain to a rapist why it's illogical to rape you

[Anonymous No.4846284]

>>4846252
>Yes
Prove it. Give me an example.
>Juche focuses on national and class interest
How so? Juche makes no distinction between classes and emphasizes 'the masses' as a whole to be led by a single unifying 'Great Leader'.
>Total self reliance is NOT exclusive or necessary to Fascism.
True, but fascist states have been autarkic. North Korea is autarkic. The other characteristics show that North Korea is a hereditary fascist state.
>Fascist propaganda doesn't say xenophobia is a part of fascism
Let's ignore what Mussolini said and pay attention to what he did.
>Implemented racial discrimination laws in 1938
>Closely allied to Germany and began restrictions on the Jews thereafter, denying them education, beginning propaganda campaigns against them
>Engaged in ethnic cleansing in occupied Yugoslavia
But to you, Italy wasn't xenophobic, because Mussolini said he wasn't xenophobic.

[Anonymous No.4846285]

>>4846268
>This is like trying to explain to a rapist why it's illogical to rape you
Yet bourgeois feminists keep trying.

[Evola Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Kid: Th(...) !vKJYJAzBlI No.4846312]

>>4846284
>Prove it. Give me an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Historical_examples
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Modern_meritocratic_states

>Juche makes no distinction between classes and emphasizes 'the masses' as a whole to be led by a single unifying 'Great Leader'
IS that not the goal of communism? Abolish all classes.

>True, but fascist states have been autarkic. North Korea is autarkic.
Self reliance != fascism, it might be a component but it does not make a country fascist.
>The other characteristics show that North Korea is a hereditary fascist state.

Incorrect. Although North Korea's leader have been related it does not make them "hereditary"
http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2013/08/30/kim-jong-un-tipped-to-win-in-latest-north-korea-poll/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rgyh8wu1nI

>Let's ignore what Mussolini said and pay attention to what he did.

So what part of what Mussolini DID made xenophobia a requirement?

>But to you, Italy wasn't xenophobic, because Mussolini said he wasn't xenophobic.
This is a straw man. I never said Italy wasn't xenophobic I said Xenophobia isn't required for fascism.

[Anonymous No.4846321]

>>4846312
>Takes North Korean elections seriously
dribble

[Anonymous No.4846347]

>>4846268


Hey buddy, I live by the golden rule; treat people how I want to be treated, and I want to have sex!

[Anonymous No.4846363]

>>4845409
the funny thing is, with that reasoning, you can keep sidestepping any string of words you don't like.

diaf

[Anonymous No.4846366]

>>4846363
Welcome to the Frankfurt School of idealist analyses of culture, now fuck off.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846372]

>>4846347
If you believe in the Golden Rule, then shouldn't you give away all your money and possessions?

[Anonymous No.4846378]

>>4846372


No need to fear, unprincipled exceptions is here!