As I'm sure everyone who posts on /his/ knows. Karl Marx was an enormously influential thinker; he created a system of analysis which highlighted perceived issues and instabilities of the economic/political system of his day, and both advocated and predicted its imminent collapse, and the ushering in of a new, more vibrant and stable form of society.
However, despite quite a bit of time passing, and the pace of political life increasing exponentially, widespread capitalist collapse has not happened and does not seem as if it is likely to happen anytime soon, and seems to require fundamental re-alterations of things even beyond what Marx predicted in order to unseat capitalism, such as the acquisition of post scarcity.
This then brings the question of why. You have entire reams of academic papers about why it hasn't happened, why Marx was either dead wrong, or why he was right but the appropriate conditions for capitalistic collapse and replacement have not happened.
Most of these analyses focus on Marx's economics. They have focused on the economics and generally spun in circles, not getting anywhere.They instead, should be focused on the politics: While it's true that economics and politics are interrelated, they are not the same thing, and it is possible to some degree mix and match political systems and economic systems. Back in feudal eras, you had republics, and monarchies of many different stripes, ranging from elected to absolute, and this did not suddenly change with the replacement of feudal manor economies to more urbanized trade economies.
1/3
>>2025405
Marx's political analysis is relatively simple. Following the economic patterns of whatever society we're talking about, you have a dominant economic class, and a subservient exploited economic class: Currently, the dominant economic class are the owners of capital, and the exploited is pretty much everyone else. The dominant economic class sets up a system of governance that primarily speaks to their interests, tossing just enough of a scrap to the marginal class to keep it from destroying the system and potentially instituting something else. Obviously, these systems are not perfect; you do on occasion have violent overthrows, but so far, not enough of a lasting one to lead to the collapse of the current system.
Implicit in this is an assumption that turns out to be wrong. Marx assumes that once a given class assumes control over the economic destiny of a polity, they seize power, and use that power to further their own economic advantage. Nobody ever seizes power. It is impossible to do so. Power, at its most basic, is the ability to get someone else to do something because of your will rather than their own, and with this understanding, the idea of "seizing" power is ludicrous, one either has it and can enforce one's will, or one does not have it.
2/3
>>2025405
>>2025407
People are GIVEN power, by the people at the bottom rung of the society. There are a number of reasons why anyone would consent to this, but the subordination of will happens from weak to strong, not the other way around, and as enough of the weak give power away, then the people in whom it is given have the means to acquire more. The upper class is politically dominant not because they've clawed their way to the top, but because they're pushed their by the lower classes.
Marx envisions class struggle as that between a whip cracking slave owner and a slave. He is wrong. The true analogy is that of a cuck and his bull. The lower classes fetishize their own impotence and enable others to oppress them, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE OPPRESSED, even if they can't admit it to themselves. They don't revolt and form a freer society where they will not be oppressed, they merely wish to exchange one set of oppressors for a different set of oppressors, depending on the exact level of oppression they desire.
We will never, ever have Communism, because deep down, the mass of the proletariat want to remain as such, and won't tolerate an egalitarian society. If you try to build one in spite of them, they'll tear it down the first chance they get.
3/3
I will admit, OP. Your post really made me think. I love /pol/ now.
Name one thing the ancients did better than the Medievals.
>>2025306
Paganism.
>>2025306
Infrastructures and architecture
>>2025308
>implying the Catholic church didn't outdo them in even that
What makes American Protestants so bad ?
>>2025044
They actually believe the bible
>>2025086
This.
>>2025086
Yea, this is the answer. It is mostly their literal interpretations that makes them terrible.
Is ww1 the worst conflict in history?
It was amazing.
It was better than the huge meme that was WW2, in my serene opinion.
Irish Civil War, in which "I hate the Brits" vs "I really hate the Brits" duked it out for superiority, killing their own best and brightest holds the crown currently
Notable mention - Lebanese Civil War, where factions backed by Israel, USA and Iran had a three war tag team battle royale
No
Didn't see a thread and I always get a kick out of them.
>>2024980
Munster?
>>2025157
Most likely
Satan is the most based character in the Bible, I wish I could sell my soul to him, everyone should sell his soul to Satan IMHO
Don't cut yourself with that edge.
>>2024809
Mooooods this isn't historical
I live to serve Satan.
Thread for discussion of Himmler's occult shit
WE
>>2024758
Was he a Japanese agent guys?
Nobody should spend multiple years in prison for a victimless crime.
>victimless crime
Name one.
>>2024865
the classic example is prostitution
>>2024865
>implying when I smoke weed at home alone someone else suffers
xD
Why did the Industrial Revolution start in London? Paris or Vienna seems a more likely spot.
Also, semi related
In the 1700's, France had a way larger population than britain, then Britain overtook them in the early 19th century. Why did British Birth rates boom but French fell?
I thought it started in... dare I say... Belgium.
>>2024692
It didn't start in London, but in England. One of the catalysts was the English iron/steel industry running out of charcoal/wood and having to switch to fossil coal, which changed a lot of things.
France was a feudal state at the time, private entrepreneurship was not high on the list, same goes for Austria.
Having an actual constitutional state made it a lot easier to set up companies.
Hence, you got Savery, then Newcomen, and then Watt, all producing steam engines, because there was a system capable of protecting their intellectual property.
At the same time, the Darby family is reinventing metallurgy and some other fag whose name I don't remember is revolutionizing the fabric business.
Is hip hop futurist art? It's fast-paced, macho, violent, and places a heavy emphasis on the new. Discuss.
>>2024320
There are like three female hip hop artists of any renown. Hip hop is distinctive for its emphasis on almost blind masculinity
Nationalist, non-moralist, pro-violence (on a state against state level) hip-hop with noise music in the background would perfectly be futurist, but I don't think such thing exists, sadly.
>>2024318
>"futurist art"
fuck what is it about dumpster fire leftist pseudo-int who make their home on 4 chan that fetishizes turning base meaningless shit into "meaningful thought provoking material"
Its literally just talking fast into a mic and using beats from other musicians to make your "songs" which most likely revolve around lyrics involving shooting innocent people, breaking laws for no reason, having meaningless sex, or other low brow narratives .
How was he a war criminal again?
The weak must fear the strong.
>>2024299
He was hanged for shitposting
JUST
>>2024299
>say mean things about Jews
>this is somehow equivalent to the industrialised mass slaughter of millions
Huh
please help /his/
i have a 300-memes memessay due tommorow on german unification and i havent even started yet
pls post memes
>>2023738
Why does modern civilization reject cannibalism?
mad cow disease but in human form
it's no coincidence it's rejected by almost every culture and even where it's not it's ceremonial and rare
civilization in general rejects it
>>2023283
Because it is the most degenerative action a human can act out.
>eating humans equates man with animals
>goodbye human rights
>hello slavery
>goodbye egalitarianism
>leftists would lose their gibs
>pretty much every religion dislikes it (other than pajeet hindus)
The only people who would honestly even attempt it if it was legal would be edgy tryhard satanists or podesta
Help me out, /his/. I'm at home with the flu and I'm bored as fuck.
That's a big shotgun.
>>2022985
For this girl
The Act of Killing
Why did Ancient Greeks think they were descendants from Phoenicians?
>Cadmus was the first Greek hero
>Initially a Phoenician prince, son of king Agenor and queen Telephassa of Tyre and the brother of Phoenix, Cilix and Europa, he was originally sent by his royal parents to seek out and escort his sister Europa back to Tyre after she was abducted from the shores of Phoenicia by Zeus.
>Cadmus founded the Greek city of Thebes
>Cadmus was credited by the ancient Greeks with introducing the original Alphabet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmus
Ancient WE WUZ?
did you read your post, also greatest wewuz were romans with Aeneas legend
>>2022215
Cretans (tjekker) settled near Phoenicians at Dor during the bronze Age and later during the later iron Age Phoenicians settled in Greece and coperated with Greeks, I think Eubeans if I'm Not mistaken
>>2022224
>Aeneas legend
Medieval Nobles liked to claim they came from troy aswell.