>>61226131 A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
Completely unsustainable on account of human nature and man's inherent thirst for power and gain in spite of his fellow man. If man was perfect perhaps it could work. But we don't live in such a world. It's followers can easily be described as "idealists".
>>61226318 >Completely unsustainable on account of human nature and man's inherent thirst for power and gain in spite of his fellow man. So this cannot work just because man always want all the power for him?
Leon Trotsky's concept of eternal revolution altered Marxism significantly. At first his detractors called this Trotskyism, but plenty of people later embraced it and became self-proclaimed Trotskyites. This ideaology is a virus. At its core is the belief that social revolution will never end. It goes far beyond a desire for economic equality - this incorporates cultural Marxism, of the sort peddled by Saul Alinsky. Someone is always the victim. The powerful are always in the wrong. The word aristocrat, which comes from the Greek Αρίστος, meaning "best", has been altered by Marxism to indicate haughtiness, undeserved influence, and so forth. Trotskyism or cultural Marxism if you prefer is the constant dethroning of the superior. Trotsky drew his inspiration from the life and work of Weishaupt, the Bavarian-Jewish founder of a sect of freemasonry which was implicated in the French Revolution. Trotsky himself admits this in his autobiography.
>>61226131 Marxism is a mechanism of social control that relies on telling the majority that they are being abused by the minority and thus getting them to do what you want them to do even though you are also a minority who is obviously abusing the majority.
>>61226635 Because of economic reasons, people here are reactionary. Basically they don't want good stuff to happen, because it means they'll just be equal to everyone else, while they currently are, or want to be, financially superior to the rest of people.
>>61226635 Because it's 100% kikeshit, it always ends in failure it's legacy is 100 millions dead and kikes use it to overthrow legitimate goverments and position themselves in power, even after decades of failure because dumb morons in this thread exist
>>61226131 Essentially it is the theory that the kikes (bourgeoisie) have control of the means of production and the the workers (proletariat) are exploited, all profit resulting from their exploitation. Marx was reacting to by the epic changes in social organization wrought during the industrial revolution. OP go to marxists.org It is the largest online collection of marxist writings. Go straight to the source. Do not trust /pol/ to know anything accurate about marxism.
>>61226762 You don't know what you are talking about. After the death of Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky vied to succeed Lenin, with Stalin coming out on top. From exile Trostky criticized what he identified as beauracratic degeneration of the USSR under Stalin. He attributed this to the fact that the building of socialism could only be done on a global scale, to limit it to one country wouldpervert the process. Thus he argued for a "permanent [global] revolution" to socialism. Stalin argued that socialism could be built in one country and that communists should consolidate their gains in Russia.
Followers of Trotsky call themselves Trostkyists, never Trotskyites. Trotskyite is a pejorative.
Also, cultural marxism does not exist. It describes the liberalization of society which /pol/ attributes to the frankfurt school an associated thinkers but in fact (I would argue) stems from the atomization of society under neoliberal capitalism.
Marx actually wrote this shit in his Manifesto. It's not an interpretation, it's actually there in black-and-white, bulleted points, and he said "If anyone ants a definition of communism, it's essentially this."
Next time someone says they're Marxist, ask them about the Ten Planks.
>>61226131 >>61226131 Go Straight to the man himself, who better to explain marxism then marx? Preamble to the Communist Manifesto" >A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
>Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
>Two things result from this fact:
>I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.
>II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.
>To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.
>>61229673 Communism is a religion. It makes rules so vague that they could apply to almost any government, so that when some of the noodles they throw against a wall stick, they claim the whole theory works.
Any communist country that is a dictatorship can be brushed under the rug as "not a true dictatorship of the proletariat," as Marx actually called it.
>>61229858 Remember the manifesto was published in 1848. Chapter One: Bourgeoisie and Proletarians >The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
>Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
>In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.
>The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.
>Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.
>From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.
>The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.
>The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.
>Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.
>Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
>We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.
>Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune: here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
>The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
>The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
>>61229881 It just blows my mind people still spout this shit. After the fall of the USSR, after how much communism has royally fucked up Africa, hell I can't see Africa ever recovering without a complete overhaul. Lastly it's slowly killing Europe and the west with communism-lite (socialism) which started out with sound ideas but didn't know when to quit
It's right up there with Islam in insanity to me, yet it's fascism that's the boogeyman of political ideologies.
>The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
>The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
>The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.
>The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
>The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
>>61226762 >At its core is the belief that social revolution will never end
This idea of never ending-ness is pure Abrahamic evil, and is right at the diseased little heart of Judaism and its spinoffs. The People wander and endure eternally; their "holy" texts can be interpreted interminably; whatever ideologies spawn out of it are like unkillable viruses.
It-- and they-- simply do not participate in any natural understanding of things with a beginning having a natural end; does not participate in healthy, normal understanding of victory and defeat.
These compulsive ideologies spread and contaminate forever and require bloodbaths to even temporarily dissuade them.
>>61230426 Fascism is no better, but ever since the Germans tried it it's the boogeyman. Iirc fascism has no well-recognized central book of authority like the Manifesto, so if you want to debate the merits of fascism people go right to Hitler quotes as if he was the only one to ever try it. And if a fascist state ever works, it's attributed to the socialist part of national socialism.
>The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
>The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
>The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
>The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.
>The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
>>61229299 >abolition of private property >confiscation of property rights
So which is it? Confiscation or abolition of property?
>heavy progressive income tax
There is no income in communism. No wages. No rent. No profits.
No need for banks because no money.
>all that government
"Government", or the state, is a necessary outgrowth of capitalist, class based society in which there are groups of society that are in fatal conflict to one another. Get rid of class, there is no state or government as you think of it. Just administrative, working bodies.
>Collective Farms and Regional planning.
Planning how we make the most basic good to survive? The horror!
Not sure that pic is entirely true, Methods for mass production of penicillin were patented like anything else. Up to that point the world literally had NO real antibiotic, it was like when they invented the car.
The 2nd guy who increased drug prices was a literal douchebag, and completely screwed not only himself, but his company as well, as people flocked to other options. It'd be like McDonalds charging $100 USD for a $1 McChicken, people will just stop buying them.
No it's not. You're dead wrong. I wish I had stopped reading here. Marx was a Jew. Lenin was a Jew. Trotsky was a Jew. The Soviets out-lawed antisemitism.
I don't need a history lesson on Trotsky. I've read his book while clearly you have not. You're conflating two of Trotsky's main tenants but they're not the same thing. Global revolution is not the same as permanent revolution. To write "permanent [global] revolution" is slight of hand. Are you a Jew? You argue like one.
Regarding your claims about social degeneration resulting from the atomization of society due to capitalism - instead of saying "I would argue", make an actual argument.
>>61230761 CONT. >We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
>Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.
>A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production.
>>61230956 CONT. >...Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
>The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
>But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.
Marx used to love Capitalism, following the french revolution he was glad that it would be a big step for humanity to overcome the issue of socialz class and realize that everyone should have a chance and that everyone must be equal. After a while though Marx realized that the revolution has failed, because although people revolted against kings and lords, they now have the rich which also control the country by the means of money. So Marx stated that there should be an evolution when it comes to economy, that Capitalism is not the answer but it's the obstacle that the people have to pass in order to reach a better economical system, now his thoughts were the following: > Instead of making it a free for all scenario, we start caring more about the society as a whole and we start county the community (instead of an individual) as the building block for economy > we support the workers instead of the rich, because the people who give value to any item are the workers not the rich guy behind the desk > Giving value for human life, because in capitalism human life is treated as a material (you hire workers just like you hire a machine, if it no longer works or is sick.. the just get anothet one) He rarely taloed about how to achieve this tho
>>61226635 this is /pol/ you fucking retard if you expect people to actually provide intelligent discourse about the merits of a stateless society, you are sadly, sadly, mistaken. no one who wants a fucking wall built to keep people out is actually going to properly research the ideas behind a stateless society.
by the way, i dont actually think Marxism is the way to go at all, because it's implied that Marx wanted to use a state to force people to become communist before then dismantling the state, which lead to marxist-leninism and stalinism. if you want to actually know how a stateless society might work, here you go: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html
anyone who can't be assed to read all of the explanations there when they have a question before arguing about it is too stupid and willfully ignorant to be worth your time discussing it with them.
>>61226131 basically it's forced equality under a state that shouldn't exist, where there are two classes of people even though one should exist, and those in the lower class are made "equal" by force, as in everyone's equal in slavery, whereas those in the upper class (the aforementioned state that shouldn't exist) hoard all the wealth and power, and kill those in the lower class who aren't devoted enough to the cause
>>61232232 Human nature can be bad, and it requires a set of rules to control, and we set these rules, for an example rape and murder, these are also part of human nature but we need to control it in order to build a functioning society
>>61232429 a real marxist would actually dismantle the state after they are done "fixing" everything, but that's exactly why anarchists don't think marxism can work, because that's never going to happen. furthermore, the idea of using the state to force people to be equal and accept the idea of having no state is absolutely absurd in terms of it going against all of the moral principles marxists have to begin with. It's silly.
>>61232207 Yea but that shit doesn't work, considering that human beings are not perfect, but he was right about capitalism, and that we need to evolve and think of better ways to improve our society as a whole and not just ourselves
>>61226131 It, like communism in general, is literally impossible to implement When commiefags say "true communism has never been tried" they are right because man would have to be inherently good for it to work but that is not the case
>>61226590 >Social circumstances produce men. Reality disagrees. If you don't seek to be better, get stronger and have more in terms of either material, financial, political or any other capacity, then there is something wrong with you, not the world. Socialism does not allow that.
That's an awful description of Marxism. Basically the idea is that the proletariat or masses would seize the means of production from the property holding class and private property would be abolished. A lot more but the basic idea is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
>>61226131 Marxism is a lot like accellerationism.
Marx essentially predicted that there would eventually be a ratio of input (labor) vs Output profit that there would be no point in having a capitalist (that is to say Old-money) class would no longer be necessary for the economy.
You are asking the wrong board, there is another one both on this site and a few others that could answer your question, just avoid reddit, they tend to be full of bullshit.
>>61226762 but Saul Alinsky was a capitalist, he wanted people to stand up for their rights, and build economically stable/strong communities. he actually kind of disliked the 60's civil rights movement because they didn't understand the issues in the northern states.
there is a general failure to realize what the fuck was going on in the mid 1800's when Marx was doing a lot of his writing.
The industrial revolution saw the depopulation of the countryside as landlords consolidated farmland. The Peasants who might have very well been of distinct ethnic or national backgrounds were pushed into the meatgrinder that urbanization brought. They melted together culturally speaking, into many of the nations and ethnic backgrounds we have in (most) developed countries today (with exceptions). I'd advise you the OP to read some of marx's work, what he actually said (or translations of it) and keep in mind a sort of breaking-point scenario for capitalism.
>>61233608 I'm not who he responded to, but I generally try to avoid conversations where I have to explain evolution drives humans to be incrementally less communal as genetic similarity shrink to propagate their own genes.
In laymans terms- you love yourself more than your family more than your extended family more than your fellow citizens more than other races et cetera
I'm a little rusty, but I remember Marxism having at least two essential points to make:
1) Unfettered capitalism results in inequality and slavery of the common worker. 2) To avoid or prevent this, we need the state to create equality through getting rid of the notion of private property and the competition necessary to get there.
He was obviously wrong about the solution, but he was correct in diagnosing the ills of Capitalism. I am paraphrasing someone here - I'm not sure who, either Chomsky, or David Simon.
>>61234245 You can seriously develop your own theory on how to achieve it, because there is no guide book on how to do it, there is no such thing as > Step one: capture the state > Step two: force socialism > ??? > Step four: profit
At first everyone who followed Marx thought that they have to take over the state in order to control the capitalists and force socialism, and this turned it from being an economical theory to a political one, and to be honest once these guys seized the state... they didn't know what to do with it, they didn't know how to apply socialism
>>61234555 Lol look at it this way, you and I work in a company, you're smart and briliant and I'm rich, is it fair that I have the bigger share in the company because I own most of the money? Shouldn't you have the biggest share since you're contributing with ideas and plans to improve the company? In capitalism we value money over skills and hardwork, hell I could've got my money through inheritance and I didn't even work a dime for my money, but I'd still be somehow better than you
>>61234766 You aren't describing even Marxism, In Marxism neither of you would own any share of the company, neither of you would have the opportunity to contribute ideas or plans to improve the company; do you even into central planning?
There's a few reasons to be against Marxism. You can think it's economically unsound as the Austrian school did, you can think it's Utopian as SocDems do, or you can just hate it on the basis of social Darwinism as the Nazis did. Most people who are anti-socialist though meet none of these categories and just hate it because they have no idea what Marxism is.
>>61226131 After capitalism builds and sets up a society, the idea is for the benevolent state to swoop in, sieze control of everything, and make sure that everyone is well off. Of course it doesn't work and won't ever work.
Thread replies: 113 Thread images: 28
Thread DB ID: 454360
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.