Is time proving the philosophy of Marx to be correct?

>>2364177
Nope, time is proving Hitler was right. The kikes and non whites must be gassed in our white homelands. Let us have our people and countries again. You have yours, why can't we have ours?

>>2364177
Quite the opposite.

You aren't going to get any informed responses on this question. Marxists are going to say yes and people who are not Marxists are going to say no. No one will point to any thing that time has vindicated and instead will just parrot their position entirely unsubstantiated. If by some chance someone does point to something time has proven correct/incorrect people will disagree on whether or not it's accurate to frame Marx in that way and that won't get resolved by the time the thread ends.

Revolutionary communism only caught on in underdeveloped agrarian shitholes, even people living in trailers on $25k a year in advanced capitalist countries live in enough comfort that they're wholly disinterested in any kind of violent revolution, the only people keeping Marx alive are circle jerking sociology and philosophy majors with well off parents, therefore Marx was wrong about literally everything.

>>2364214
>le neutral stance
*tips fedora*
Marx was correct to a large degree about the future, but he wasn't a Marxist himself. His history of class warfare and power/wealth driving the world is wanting but its in a general sense kind of accurate. Not everything is money and power, but money and power are very large things in most people's lives. Marx and Nietzsche agreed upon the depravity of the bourgeois, however, Nietzsche said it must be a revolution of the soul and Marx said it must be a revolution of the classes. Nietzsche was closer to Christ, Nietzsche was right.

If you take this as in any way religious then you're probably stupid, but if you think the divine hand has no part then you're probably really stupid.

>>2364177

Will marxists ever realize that post-scarcity is a meme term?

We've already achieved the technological level necessary for a post-scarcity economy if we take the average lifestyle of 1870 as the base level.

>>2364192

i think you're looking for >>/pol/

File: 1486943476811.jpg (39KB, 500x380px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x380px

>>2364266
>marx wasn't a marxist

I've heard it all now

leftypol, you've gone too far

>>2364281
Marx was a Marxian.

>>2364270
>the average lifestyle of 1870
Which is by no means anything they were striving for.

Hell, their shitty lifestyles is the REASON Communist ideas were popular at those times in the first place.

>>2364266
>Marx wasn't a Marxist

File: 1486925373423.jpg (36KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 512x512px

>>2364266
>Marx
>wasn't a marxist

>>2364177
How is Karl Marx right about anything? Communism is obviously wrong, isn't it?

I mean, you had all these revolutions with communism and none of them worked efficiently or soundly, considering they had a tough time competing with capitalist nations

How come no one ever mentions Marx's shitty prose? It's wordy garbage.

>>2364270

Its not a meme term. We have only really automated office jobs and factory jobs. What do you think will happen when service jobs and construction jobs are automated too?

Government jobs are already brimming with people doing absolutely nothing...slowly. Just for the sake of employing people.

There will always be things for some people to do. But there won't always be things for most people to do. When that happens wealth will be taken from the ones who make all the money, and given to the people who don't.

I work in automation btw

>>2364177
I think it shows him to be insightful in some areas, and mistaken in others

>>2364284
What the fuck is with this newspeak, Jesus Christ /leftypol/. This is why nobody wants to talk to you, you're like that autistic kid making sure people check his pronouns.

>ACKSHUALLY he wasn't Marxist, he was Marxian
>ACKSHUALLY it wasn't real socialism, it was state capitalism
>ACKSHUALLY dictatorship of the proletariat is not a real dictatorship
>ACKSHUALLY everything authoritarian right of Lenin is fascism

Literally 99% of arguements with Marxists consist of nitpicking semantics like a total autist, the rest is ad hominems and appeal to authority.

>>2364177
>>2364317
All of the Communist states were shaped after Russia and Moscow (Stalin) set the notes everyone had to play.

There has never been a Communist regime independent of the influences of the USSR, so how can it be a surprise that they all were of similar nature and came crashing down after their flagship crumbled?

I doubt Communism will ever get a second chance. It's only chance was before 1922 when Stalin gained power.

But to be honest it was Lenin that set the seed for the inevitable takeover of one man totalitarian state because of the way he organized the party. He had a hard-on for a disciplined and highly organized party and coupled with his autocrat tendencies it was foreseeable (as predicted by Trotsky) that the power over the party would first fall into the hands of the controlling organs, controlling organs into the hands of the central committee and the central committee into the hands of a single dictator.

Maybe even this garbled version of Communism could've worked, but perhaps only under a level headed dictator. But alas it went into the hands of a lunatic who since day one was more concerned with dealing with his political opponents, actual, potential or imagined - didn't matter, than with building a Communist state. Most importantly, he abandoned the idea of a global revolution and the only expansion of the ideology that occurred was a result of imperialist calculations. Even the Communist International was made into the extension of Stalins hand, a tool to be used for the benefit of maintaining USSR, and most importantly, his personal rulership, at the expense of the success of Communist parties worldwide (most notably in Germany, with huge consequences).

Communism may have had some merit but it got cucked of its legitimacy by impersonators.

>>2364428
There's actually a pretty simple solution - we can just outlaw it. Develop a new technology that leads to automation, you'll get prison time.

>>2364450
nations that restrict technological advancement will be conquered by nations that foster its growth

>>2364450

why not embrace it?

>>2364468
Embrace mass unemployment and the collapse of society as we know it? What's the benefit?

>philosophy of marx
No such thing.

>>2364481
Early factories had a nasty habit of producing wide scale unemployment
society has no collapsed

>>2364488
It has.

>>2364281
Commenting on the french marxists, the first recognizable group of such, Marx had to say "all I know is that I am not a marxist."

>>2364490
idk I'm pretty comfy right now
if this is societal collapse then we should probably have some more of that

>>2364507
No amount of societal collapse will make you into a non-virgin neurotypical.

>>2364482
what about Hegel whom he based his own philosophy own

>>2364507
>I'm pretty comfy right now
Then you're a part of the problem and a tiny minoryt.

>>2364516
Hegelian folks were into all sorts of politics, from marxism to soft liberalism to prussian supremacy.

The latter is a hilarious one, Hegel wrote very positively of the Prussian state, though some scholar's believe that was to avoid scrutiny by censors. But hey, when you're popular, whatever you write down is going to be taken seriously.

>>2364177
no the disappearance of the labor market in the west in favor of the service economy made Marx obsolete

maybe he'll be relevant again when AI replaces everybody

>>2364533
Hegel knew that Prussia was the best state to ever grace existence.

>>2364515
I wasn't aware that was a requirement for being comfy.
I still feel comfy, tho.
>>2364518
Idk if I'm comfy now, it seems to be in my own self-interest to retain this comfyness by what is apparently societal collapse.
Nothing wrong with that, is there?

>>2364542
So did Spengler.

>>2364542
And even if he didn't like the state itself, Marx was pretty adamant about prussian germans being in every way superior to the average englishman.
It got him into a few barfights.

>>2364546
>purely acting out of self-interest
Individualists should be lined up and gassed.

Captcha: civi Syndicat

>>2364177
he was right, and anyone who understands the material and phenomenological reality understands that he was right, but the time frame in which the trend will occur is in the thousands of years. human organisms will eventually develop themselves as singular entities of neutral automation power, with nobody acting over their heads. anyone exacting power over anyone else in such a technological situation will either be destroyed or destroy those they are enacting power over, and eventually it will settle out and you will more or less have communism, though it won't look anything like that "communist" nations have appeared like in the past. this is the inevitable reality behind genetic engineering and automation technologies. people will spout their uneducated opinions though. literally most of the people who respond to this thread have never read even an essay from kaaru-chan.

>Karl Marx: "Industrialization will lead to class polarization, immiseration and revolution."

>Reality: "Industrialization leds to middle-class society, DEINDUSTRIALIZATION leads to class polarization and immiseration instead"

Few people have ever been so wrong. The only reason Marx is still relevant is because the intelligentsia is obsessed with him in their own lust for power as a caste.

>>2364583
I always felt the materialist argument Marx made is a load of horseshit. Like today, in the current year, the countries with the largest abundance of material wealth (to the point they manage to feed and house every citizen), tend to be absolute monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Brunei). Yet according to Marx absoltue monarchies should've completely vanished with the emergence of capitalist mode of production. Marx was a fucking dumbass who basically saw the shit that happened in the 18th and 19th century Europe as a pattern for all history rather than a complete anomaly.

>>2364583
>blah blah blah I'm right and you're wrong but I won't bother explaining why

>>2364598
>Yet according to Marx absoltue monarchies should've completely vanished with the emergence of capitalist mode of production
Marx very explicitly says in his late letters that the model he presents is for western europe and western europe alone, and that different analysis and explanations were necessary outside of such.

And in any case, you know how citizenship works over there, yeah?

>>2364481
the benefit is people would be happier if they didn't have to work a job they hated all week to eat.

So there would be less crime, more time for arts, more time to spend with your children etc.

What is the benefit of forcing people to work if they don't really have to?

>>2364598
your sense of time frame is limited to decades, I already mentioned the scale of millennia.

>>2364599
obviously you didn't read my post.

>>2364448
>All of the Communist states were shaped after Russia and Moscow (Stalin) set the notes everyone had to play.
>"it wasn't a real communism"
No. Hierarchy is part of any living creature's nature - the strongest specimen will always dominate the rest and take the lead. The idea of a "real communism" is purely impossible and [the dictatorship or coming back to monarchy/democracy] dilemma is inevitable. It is not important where the first successful communist revolution would had happened, the outcome would be almost the same, but possibly on a smaller scale.

>>2364639
Marx's sense of time frame was limited to 150 years. Literally everything he wrote was limited by his 19th century thinking, there was barely anything visionary.

>>2364630
>Your idea what will happen
Work will become obsolete because WE WUZ ROBOTS N SHIT and everyone will have state-guaranteed basic income and live like a king without lifting a finger.

>What will actually happen
Robots will be owned by a tiny group of wealthy elites, all possible revolutions will be automatically quelled by military robots, work will become obsolete and 90% of mankind will just starve to death.

>>2364639
you stated your positions without saying why they are correct. you just said it's obvious to people who understand x, that eventually human society will settle out at more or less communism given y, and that it's the inevitable reality because z. You didn't make/explain the connects, you just stated your positions.

File: 1431221905700.jpg (97KB, 671x639px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 671x639px

>>2364583
That's some disturbing sci-fi shit you wrote, anon.

old: Marxist Communism

gold: Fully-Automated Luxury Communism

>>2364655
Marx was not an anthropologist or a historian, so I fail to see why it would be necessary for him to do so.
And in any case, you're flat out wrong, insofar as the extensive notes Marx wrote on Lewis Morgan's work on Iroquois social relations formed the basis for his own writing on the subject.

>>2364687
>>2364665

>>2364665
>Work will become obsolete because WE WUZ ROBOTS N SHIT and everyone will have state-guaranteed basic income and live like a king without lifting a finger.

A lot of what people do now is already obsolete. And I never said people getting the handouts would live like kings. But they would live better than they do now. The people at the top that control the means of production would live even better than them. Perhaps like kangs. Therefore they would have motivation to continue to work despite a big chunk of their money being taken away.

You're an idiot if you don't see that happening now. It isn't going to slow down or get better.

>>2364655
>Marx's sense of time frame was limited to 150 years.
[citation needed]
his time frame was "inevitability".

>>2364667
obviously you didn't read my post, or your reading comprehension is awful. there is support for my claim within it, pretty obviously actually, only real answer is you're retarded or aren't reading. if you can't connect the dots, I'm not really interested in holding your hand. I'm sorry.

>>2364665
So you're saying we ought to take over now instead of waiting

>>2364699
>But they would live better than they do now.
They wouldn't live at all, they'd fucking die of hunger.

>>2364702
I'm saying we should roll back our technology back to 15th century, forcibly, Butlerian jihad style.

>>2364690
One little error, "his" should have been "Engels". Haven't had my morning coffee.

>>2364707
Splendid idea, with what tools shall we do it? Firearms? Jet-powered aircraft?

>>2364713
Halting production and maintenance of all those would be a start. Jets become useless after just a few years if they aren't constantly maintained.

>>2364701
once again you're just saying that it's "obvious" that you supported your claim. it's not that you aren't interested in holding my hand, it's that you're not interested in providing support for your positions

>>2364716
And how will we go about convincing well paid and technologically savvy maintenance staff that they'd be better off as cavalry?

>>2364703

nah, only if there was anarchy which will never happen. The people controlling the means of production would rather have part of their money taken and maintain some infrastructure than have a total collapse.

Plus what would the point of starving people be if food was cheap? What would the point be to put people on the street if a machine could build a house in a day for $500?

>>2364723
By promising them legal privileges and lots of land.

>>2364177
Partially. It remains to be seen if the solution to the problem is socialism and if such a solution could actually sustain the economy until post scarcity

>>2364741
It's like you don't understand artificial scarcity at all.

>>2364598
Literally every state you named are rich becouse they sit on oil...

>>2364765
Yes and...?

>>2364765
That's the point retard

>>2364749
And that'll make up for not having a cell phone and a neat apartment?

>>2364787
>people won't give up cellphones for monstrous estates
Ok Yankshit.

>>2364798
Well, why would they?

>>2364499
High IQ post.
>>2364281
I'm not a lefty.
>>2364302
>>2364306
Low IQ posters, probably both named Lamar.

>>2364177

Marx is right to an minor extent in which Capitalism can't necessarily sustain itself. (Global financial crisis, Great Depression, recessions etc) though considering that his economics were written during the 19th century, I wouldn't advise putting them in practice today.

People like Richard Wolff, in my opinion would be the better economist, Marx can be a good reference point as the basis of left wing though

>>2364192
this

>>2364598
Extracting oil wealth required nothing like the restructuring of society seen during the industrial revolution. Not even a commie, just saying.

File: 15978039_1278757195552157_2369833941130977085_n.jpg (33KB, 540x432px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 540x432px

Capitalism can't sustain itself, it is exploitative and destructive by nature, people fall for the trickle-down economics theory, you don't live if you don't play the game, bureaucracy everywhere, power and money centralizes solely at the top, the people begin losing rights, and the government and the corporations are basically one and the same.

Plus now there's homeless people on every corner of the Super Walmart. Shit is depressing, dude.

>>2364887
He said he wasn't a marxist if the people gathered at whatever conference were marxists, basically it was a polemical point to backhand them for misinterpreting him.

Anyway, there is another way that it may be true that Marx wasn't a marxist. A lot of theoreticians had a hand in popularising and developing what we refer to as marxism now. Some of it was nonsense.

Your post was good if we exclude this point.

>>2364978
That's caused more by government than by capitalism. Sometimes I wish America was a free market capitalist nation.

>>2364445
>>ACKSHUALLY he wasn't Marxist, he was Marxian
This is meaningless nonsense though.
>>ACKSHUALLY it wasn't real socialism, it was state capitalism
The USSR was socialist, China now is somewhere between state capitalist and socialist. It does however remain a dictatorship of the proletariat.
>>ACKSHUALLY dictatorship of the proletariat is not a real dictatorship
Every state is a class based state. Every state is a dictatorship of some class. That's the basic premise, now in the US we live in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, why? Because the only interests represented are those of the capitalists and electoral democracy is just oligarchy with a paint job.
>>ACKSHUALLY everything authoritarian right of Lenin is fascism
Don't know who has ever said this.

>Literally 99% of arguements with Marxists consist of nitpicking semantics like a total autist, the rest is ad hominems and appeal to authority.

It's not always semantics, theory matters friendo.

>>2364177
No

>>2364597
You sound like a christian trying to show how obviously wrong Darwin was. Little do you know that you know too little.

>>2364948
>extracting oil
Wouldn't even be possible on that scale without some seriously sophisticated technology, dumbass.

File: qq6N1zm.png (757KB, 2880x2020px) Image search: [Google]

757KB, 2880x2020px

>>2364177
Yes.

>>2366150
Why do people actually believe in a linear trend?

>>2366150
States are a naturally occurring human phenomenon, Anarchical societies are impossible bro. Just face it, mankind is destined for slavery under capital. That is, until the elite replace us with robots and then kill us all

>>2364719
Most communists don't, they just tell you to read the Bibl- I mean, Das Kapital over and over again and then shoot you if you still don't get it.

Nothing better than the left shooting itself in the foot over and over again though lyl

>>2366162
Humans are trained to see patterns, and when they're only shown the successful trends in liberalisation they don't realise how many new liberal ideas are rejected for flat-out being shit.

How many people in the 60s thought their new ideas like nudism would inevitably catch on, or the stupid shit done during the French Revolution?

>>2366147
To begin with they imported that technology from other countries and sold oil at high prices to industrialized countries that consume large quantities. They didn't have to undergo social changes and develop a large educated middle class before they achieved high standards of living and stability, thus retaining a monarchy.

If you don't understand something it can be due to 1 of 2 things.

1: they're wrong
2: you don't understand the argument

However how can you tell which it is if you leap to conclusions?

>>2366176
In response to criticisms in the IWA that the system proposed by the anarchists was just another form of a state, one anarchist (I think Malatesta) responded as something like "whatever, call it what you want, it's still the system we want."

>>2366162
Because they're broad patterns defined by centuries of gradual shift.

Social stratification peaked with the great slave owning empires of classical antiquity and since then class distinctions have been gradually dissipating. We're down to only two now: Bourgeoisie and proletariat.

This is primarily technological: we no longer need to enslave people to run on a treadmill to pump water out of a mine. We no longer need to use legal trickery to force massive numbers of people into doing menial but essential farm work. And even now the age of selling your labor to bourgeoisie property owners is gradually unraveling as automation forces us to confront new realities about the way we organize labor.

>>2366277
No, all of this is nonsense. You see that Saudi Arabia or Qatar have access to the same technology as for example France, yet they not only aren't a bourgeoise democratic republic, they're absolute monarchies with outright slavery. At the same time you have places like Chiapas or Rojava or whatever the fuck that are backwards agricultural shitholes yet they're attempting socialism/communism. Political and economic relations evolve mostly evolve through memes (real memes, not meme memes), the base doesn't really dictate the superstructure like Marx thought.

>>2364887
You do know IQ is based off your problem solving not how much you know right?

>>2366292
> You see that Saudi Arabia or Qatar have access to the same technology as for example France, yet they not only aren't a bourgeoise democratic republic,

They're exceptions. Nobody said that the process happens cleanly or evenly. Saudi Arabia is a case where a western power is propping up the monarchy because they're friendly to western interests. Look how long the west propped up the Shah before it was overrun by a Theocratic Republic. Monarchy does not seem likely to return to the west any time soon.

Just because there's fewer classes doesn't mean that people are less repressed. Improving technology makes it easier than ever for power brokers to control and dominate huge numbers of people, so even in a society where there are only two classes (as opposed to the slave empires of antiquity which could have almost a dozen) you get regimes like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany able to exert influence over its citizens in a way that no God-Emperor of antiquity or Medieval manorial lord could possibly fathom.

>>2366381
>they're exceptions
They aren't an exception, they're direct proof that Marxist theory is bullshit. Instead of being an exception to the rule, it proves that there is no rule at all. Marx EXPLICITLY predicted that a successful communist revolution can only happen in modern, industrial, heavily urbanized countries like Germany, France, America or England because of strong class consciousness, union organization etc. Engels even went as far as to say certain nations like the Slavs are naturally reactionary and will thus prevent not only socialism, but also capitalism.

Then what happened? The only successful communist revolutions happened in 3rd world peasant semi-feudal shitholes like Russia, China, Cuba or Cambodia, not in developed western states. That alone should completely refute Marx.

The only developed, industrialized states where communists took power were East Germany and Czechoslovakia and in both cases it was forced on them by an invading army rather than a result of a workers' revolution.

>>2364177
Marx based his political hypothesis on the idea that primal man had all his belongings equal to everyone with their surrounding tribes, and the sense of ownership was a social construct, but archaeology and sociology disproves these claims.

>>2366292
Having access to technology is not the same as having the means to implement it. You need massive long term capital investment, a skilled organized workforce and educated middle class, etcetera...

>>2366441
>means to implement it
Ever been to Qatar, UAE or Saudi Arabia? They're more modern and apply more advanced technologies than America. Fucking NYC looks like 3rd world compared to Dubai.

>>2364798
I sure as fuck wouldn't give up my comfy life for some big patch of grass I'd have to work my ass of to turn into somewhere livable. Russia is already handing out free land, don't see people rushing to get it

>>2366401
No, all it proved is that you can't 'force' communism any more than you can force your knights on horseback to use Apache attack helicopters.

They thought that they could accelerate the process by building a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and all they did was end up with a society where all of the capital and wealth was concentrated in the hands of government bureaucrats instead of robber barons. Still a two class system, still not really that much closer to a classless society, and even more repressive than life under the robber barons.

As it turns out, the best way to actually accelerate the process is to invest in education and technology. In other words, people building new technology which drives an ever larger percentage of human labor obsolete. That's whats bringing us closer to socialism.

>Marx EXPLICITLY predicted
Einstein was wrong occasionally as well. Does that discredit relativity? No, it means that future thinkers tweak the theory when new circumstances force a revisit of the issue. What modern Marxists recognize is that violent revolutions are counter-productive, that eliciting change gradually through the democratic process can ease the transition and make it so that it doesn't have to be disruptive.

>The only developed, industrialized states where communists took power were East Germany and Czechoslovakia and in both cases it was forced on them by an invading army rather than a result of a workers' revolution.
And yet now basically all of Europe is some kind of Democratic Socialist or Social Democrat. They've got universal healthcare, Public education, and are talking about implementing things like Universal Basic Incomes.

>>2366475
But I'm not claiming that the revolutions in Russia or China failed - quite the contrary, I'm saying they were successful. Meanwhile there was no communist revolutionary takeover in western Europe or America. I mean this is serious empirical proof that Marx was wrong, either dialectical materialism is nonsense or it doesn't work like anything Marx thought it does.

>>2364177
Marx was operating with limited knowledge and wasn't able to finish his work before dying, and I don't know what your understanding of Marx is as you didn't include it in the op.

>>2364177
COMMUNISM = SATANISM!!!
FREE OF CHARGE = SATANISM!!!

>>2364177
The opposite.

>>2364598
>the fact that a couple of monarchies (that were created in the 19th century no less) managed keeping their shit together thanks to a single resource is WHAT'S TAKEN FOR THE NORM
>the fact that EVERY SINGLE monarchy AROUND THE WORLD declined and was overthrown (physically or legally, as in UK) in the span of a century is TAKEN FOR THE EXCEPTION
Dude you've cucked your critical thought for the favor of retaining your opinions.

Once oil runs out/becomes obsolete these monarchies will collapse back into dark age, and once they've followed the evolutionary path of the rest of the world they'll reach a stage that if there's any monarchies at that moment, they'll be overthrown.

Their case is highly exceptional.

>>2364779
Fite me

>>2366489
As I've said earlier, Marx explicitly said his model was for Western Europe only. He wrote that if Russia were to have a go at revolution, it would and ought to do so from a different basis than the Western European model.

>>2366752
I mean you don't get it do you? The very argument he makes for revolution in western Europe completely falls apart. It's a matter of principle.

>>2366746
not >>2364598 but they have invested in their nonoil economies enough that they likely won't go back to the dark age short of some kind of global catastrophe, the monarchy might be reduced to a figurehead though

No.

>>2366771
Diamat isn't voodoo, nor is it a predictive science. In Marx's own words, though a paraphrase, histmat is no excuse for a poor study in history. Similarly, diamat ain't no replacement for political organization.
Given the size of the second international before the war, revolution in Western Europe was not unthinkable. This remained so even years into its collapse, during the war time and immediate post war years.
But of course, we can very clearly identify what politicians failings were made by the associated parties and movements that made for the collapse of the workers movement in Western Europe.
Look, what I'm getting at is that you're taking Marx to be a prophet, a role he only played in a shitty little pamphlet written for a shitty little party when he was 30. You're ignoring that he was a person engaged in actual politics and trying to a e problems involving, y'know, doing things, and of course wrote in that vein for the rest of his output.

>>2366794
>excuses: the post

Communists are insane and out of touch with reality.

>>2366798
Not an argument

>>2366808
Neither was your post.

>>2366817
Sure it was, your idea of diamat doesn't stem from anything other than the manifesto, and therefore can't be looked at as a reliable indicator of what it is or is not.
No fan of diamat myself, but even less a fan of intellectual laziness.

>>2364284
>>2364281
kek

File: quote-what-is-the-secular-basis-of-judaism-practical-need-self-interest-what-is-the-worldly-religion-karl-marx-250994.jpg (70KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 850x400px

>>2364177
Yes. The SJW dogs will join their (((capitalist))) masters against the wall.

>>2366138
>2000 years in the future someone will reference the Force Awakens as an accurate representation of ideal and natural relations between BMWF and the impotency of white men

Good to know we're on the right side of history.

File: leftcucks cringe.jpg (446KB, 1000x2022px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 1000x2022px

>>2366976

Why is lefty/pol/ so cirngy?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
>The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got

Marx is indesputably influential and integral to western academia even if you disregard
communism, his work touches on many subjects and if it weren't for the soviet union
you'd see him grouped more with people like Max Weber or Sigmund Freud.
It's sad that people attack him and the Bolsheviks as if they were one and the same.

>>2366096

We had something close to that during the Industrial Revolution. Kids were working 16 hour shifts for pennies trying to feed themselves and their families. Their hands got maimed in the machines. Monopolies were also heavily prevalent. Without some form of government intervention, capitalism would be unbearable. It still is for the vast majority of the world who has to produce things for us on the cheap.

>>2366489
>I'm saying they were successful.
They were successful in obliterating the market economy and switching to a command economy, not realizing that the technology simply wasn't there for a command economy to function effectively. The inefficiencies compiled until the system collapsed under the weight of its own hypocrisy.

Fighter jets are a great asset in warfare, but if all you've got is biplanes then nothing really changes just because you called your biplanes "fighter jets". What modern Marxists understand is that the technology needs to be in place before you can start implementing these sort of sweeping political reforms.

File: What's Wrong With Feminism.png (125KB, 1344x1263px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1344x1263px

>>2367142
>Why is lefty/pol/ so cirngy?
He's not wrong in criticizing SJW's at least.
>https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/pump-and-dump/
>https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/fair-sex/
>http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/04/the-sexodus-part-1-the-men-giving-up-on-women-and-checking-out-of-society/
>http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/09/the-sexodus-part-2-dishonest-feminist-panics-leave-male-sexuality-in-crisis/
>https://whoism3.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/confessions-of-a-reformed-incel/

>>2368486
>all that fake news

into the trash it goes

>>2366301
your autism is the reason why you're still there analyzing the finger instead of looking at the moon

>>2368536
>all that fake news
>Not reading
>Not an argument

>into the trash it goes
>I'm not going to read because I'm offended

>>2368548
>>I'm not going to read because I'm offended
I'm not going to read because those are blatantly biased sources.

When Trumpanzees start taking articles from the Huffington Post seriously then I'll believe that you're not completely full of shit.

Until then, if you want your opinions to be taken seriously post credible sources based on objective research and rigorous methodology and don't waste our time with your rag

>>2368561
>I'm not going to read because those are blatantly biased sources.
No you're not going to read because all you have agianst what I posted is that you're offended and not any actual argument. And the only reason you're even saying the bullshit you are about my post is you didn't read it.
>When Trumpanzees start taking articles from the Huffington Post seriously then I'll believe that you're not completely full of shit.
And when you read my post I'll believe your not. You have have no right to claim I'm full of shit if you're going to keep claiming you're not going to read and come back with an argument to what it is I posted rather than how you feel about it
>Until then, if you want your opinions to be taken seriously post credible sources based on objective research and rigorous methodology and don't waste our time with your rag
And if you want yours taken seriously actually read what I posted before spouting bullshit about what I posted, that indicates even further that not only did you again not read all you are is offended and triggered at what I posted; with no actual argument

>>2364177
>My perfect, infallible brand of capitalism is great!

What we have is capitalism, plain and simple

>>2368598
>t you're offended
for fuck's sake stop projecting. I'm not "offended" by the fact that you're posting fake bullshit.

I'm "disgusted" with your inability to do real data gathering and trying to pass off your blatantly biased sources as credible.

Remember in your history class when your teacher would scold you for doing reports that were paraphrasing a Wikipedia article? It's the same thing except worse because at least Wikipedia is peer-edited and makes a good-faith effort to be impartial

> that indicates even further that not only did you again not read all
I read as much as I needed too
>hurr SJWs
The worst SJWs are the "muh degeneracy" right-wing SJWs infesting /pol/ because they're the ones who feel the need to shit up every thread and conversation with off-topic rants about Muslims, Niggers, and women (who won't put out) and scream "cuck" at anyone who comes at their idiotic theories with facts and evidence.

>>2368739
>idiotic theories

Which ones specifically?

Not the guy you're replying to incidentally.

File: 1475304537094.gif (3MB, 480x271px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x271px

>>2368743
ohhh man, where to start

>My Neanderthal genes are why I'm superior to niggers
>Rome fell because of Christcucks
>Rome fell because they got cucked by immigrants
>the Pope is a cuck and Martin Luther is based
>Martin Luther was a cuck and the Pope was right all along
>all religious people are cucks atheism is the way to go
>PRAISE ODIN CHRISTKEKS
>cuck cuck the cuck cuck cuck
>Life was better in the [insert "good old days" rant]
>Women were better behaved in the [insert "gold old days" rant]
>The American Founding Fathers were all small government conservatives who hated immigrants
>The Confederates were good boys dey dindu nuffin
>Niggers actually liked being enslaved
>The Nazis were radical leftists
>Niggers had it easy during Jim Crow
>Jews are the reason I'm not a winner
>The reason I'm still a kissless virgin is because women are whores but not whores for me but really it's society's fault
>Anything good about Scandinavian countries can be ignored because Muslims live there
>Donald J. Trump is the literal messiah who is going to throw out all the spics, Niggers, and Muslims, cut taxes while getting Mexico to pay for a wall which will totally stop spics from coming over in planes and overstaying their work visas while creating historically unprecedented levels of growth in the economy because muh invisible hand

>>2368871
>>Life was better in the [insert "good old days" rant]

Do you not think this is part of a generally stupid dichotomy where people either romanticize it or wholly condemn it as primitive and evil compared to "us super socially and morally advanced moderns"?

I mean the 1950s weren't a utopia, but I don't think it was the saccharine-coated misery of continual and endless wife-beating that liberals make it out to be either.

In many ways some aspects of life were better in the past. I understand that it's a problem for liberals to accept this given historical materialism, but there are both statistical measures we can use to confirm this (crime for example) as well as just general social dislocation, falling levels of trust, lack of faith in institutions, etc.

>Niggers had it easy during Jim Crow

I wouldn't say they had it easy, but I wouldn't say it was some sort of epoch-defining evil either.

>The American Founding Fathers were all small government conservatives who hated immigrants

They were certainly people who largely wanted a/an largely Anglo-Saxon state(s), I say this as a Southern European.

>Women were better behaved in the [insert "gold old days" rant]

They were statistically more likely to be virgins upon marriage and female promiscuity was less common. This is undeniable as we have figures from the 1930s and 1950s (Kinsey in the case of the latter).

>Anything good about Scandinavian countries can be ignored because Muslims live there

Don't you think this works both ways? I've noticed liberals ignore anything good at more conservative, authoritarian states like Singapore - which have even lower crime rates than the Scandinavian ones.

>>>2368739
>for fuck's sake stop projecting. I'm not "offended" by the fact that you're posting fake bullshit.

>I'm "disgusted" with your inability to do real data gathering and trying to pass off your blatantly biased sources as credible.
The why do you keep calling it, fake news, fake bullshit, blatantly biased and whining that you're not going to read it.
>Remember in your history class when your teacher would scold you for doing reports that were paraphrasing a Wikipedia article? It's the same thing except worse because at least Wikipedia is peer-edited and makes a good-faith effort to be impartial
Except what I posteds nowhere near that you even further proving my point that you didn't read of your going to equate what I posted to paraphrasing a Wikipedia article
>I read as much as I needed too
You mean you didn't read at all
>The worst SJWs are the "muh degeneracy" right-wing SJWs infesting /pol/ because they're the ones who feel the need to shit up every thread and conversation with off-topic rants about Muslims, Niggers, and women (who won't put out) and scream "cuck" at anyone who comes at their idiotic theories with facts and evidence.
>the "just as bad"argument again
Not an argument and your statement even further confirms my suspicions you haven't read at all
Also this>>2368743
>>2368871
And none of that prooves what I posted to be "fake bullshit", "fake news" or prove the criticism of SJW in my post has no merit

File: Violent-Crime-Rate-Chart1.png (13KB, 500x315px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 500x315px

>>2368892
>generally stupid dichotomy
look at it this way: when an engineer smashes a clock or a few atoms together in order to examine the pieces, is he doing it out of spite, or out of a genuine interest in figuring out how it works?

When we examine history we have to consider multiple perspectives and relativity. By the standards of 21st century people Ancient Rome was a brutal, appalling, horrendously dysfunctional mess. By the standards of the 1st century it was the pinnacle of civilization and really the only place in Europe you'd want to live. True maturity is letting go of agenda-driven research and letting the bad aspects of history teach us to appreciate the present without getting defensive

>1950s
>(crime for example)
Crime is the lowest its been in decades even before we take the larger population into account, and when we do it falls even lower. The 1950's were objectively shittier in this regard.

but the 1950's were also a time when Trade Unions were at the pinnacle of their political power, when the tax rate on upper income brackets was pushing 90%, Sherman anti-trust laws were vigorously enforced, when even Republicans more or less went along with New Deal style politics, and income inequality was at historic lows. I'm not saying we can't take lessons from the past, but needlessly lionizing it is foolish

>Singapore
But Singaporeans, like most asian cultures, are totally fine with having what we might call a "strong" or "big" government which taxes its citizens to pay for extensive public utilities. Singaporeans don't do this thing where they repeat that Ben Franklin quote about trading freedom for security, and in their minds the loss of freedom is the price they have to pay for a nice, clean city. So that door does swing both ways
>Don't you think this works both ways?
Absolutely. Every political movement has its share of low-information retards. But /pol/tards are a special breed of faggotry which goes far beyond anything liberals do.

>>2369064
>say 1950s were shittier thsn now
>posts a picture that doesn't even have the 50s on but heavily implies crime was lower than now

>that religion hate in the communist manifesto
I know that there's one thing I will never be: a Marxist communist.

>>2369079
Because it's an absolute measurement and not a per capita one ya dingus. It doesn't take population growth into account it's just the sheer number of violent crimes in a year.

>>2369064
>Ancient Rome was a brutal, appalling, horrendously dysfunctional mess.

The problem with liberals is that they confuse material progress, i.e. technological progress, for human progress. Yes, Rome wasn't as advanced or comfortable. But the average Roman circa 100BC had far more physical courage and sense of duty to the general and state than the average modern day westerner does. He was also more family orientated and less tolerant of deviant, dysfunctional behavior

Your graph proves my point, it also omits the 1950s when crime rates were even lower and is obfuscated by the fact that homicide rates (your chart is just an aggregation of homicide) are not a good metric for violent crime over long periods owing to increases in medical technology. There are a couple of good papers on this. See:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124155/

Crime rates were quite literally lower in the past, significantly so, than they are now.

>and income inequality was at historic lows

A more heterogeneous population is going to lead to more inequality by default.

>which taxes its citizens to pay for extensive public utilities

Wut? Singapore spends less of its GDP on public services than just about any western nation, likewise for most East Asian economies. Income tax is lower in virtually all of them than it is in Western Europe.

Singapore's tax rates have nothing to do with the crime rate anyway.

>the loss of freedom

I don't think Franklin was referring to allowing revolving door prisons or delinquents throwing trash everywhere the "freedom" to be dysfunctional. Why do you extend his meaning? Do you believe the constitution is a "living document" too?

>But /pol/tards are a special breed of faggotry which goes far beyond anything liberals do.

Liberals unironically believe everyone is equal. Materially equal. And that because of this a priori assumption any inequality of outcome is driven by phantom discrimination.

>>2369103
>not a per capita one
>offenses per 100,000 population

You are seriously fucking dumb dude

>ya dingus

Do libs use this because of that Tarentino movie?

Why do libs love the cuckold Tarentino so much?

>>2364266
>Marx was correct to a large degree about the future, but he wasn't a Marxist himself
>Nietzsche was closer to Christ
>current events are proving anything but that capitalism goes through periodic crises
*pukes*

>>2369103
It's a per 100k picture you sclerotic fucktard which is the statistical standard rate to measure crime in, nice job BTFOing your own argument with that picture.

>>2369111
>>2369125
liberals are so fucking dumb holy shit.

>>2364665
>>90% of mankind will just starve to death
lol no. If 90% of the populace is food insecure revolution will happen and no amount of robots or security services will be able to stop it.

I haven't read Kapital but Marxist Historiography, especially on the classical period, is really bad. Muh gift economies and all that.

>>2369156
>get exposed as a monumental idiot
>N-NO Y-YOU'RE THE DUMB ONE
I bet your mother is ashamed for not aborting you.

>>2366176
>>Just face it, mankind is destined for slavery under capital.
>>working for a wage is slavery
derp

>>That is, until the elite replace us with robots and then kill us all
Yeaaahhhh no. This shit ain't happening.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (191KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1280x720px

>>2364499
This post has to become a sticky.
dubs as well!

File: 0ce.png (226KB, 600x562px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 600x562px

>>2364266
>Marx was correct to a large degree about the future, but he wasn't a Marxist himself.

>>2364199
Nice insight there.

>>2364978
Who are the two on the bottom in the 'what you hope for' section?

File: Ben Franklin.jpg (146KB, 533x600px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 533x600px

>>2369106
>But the average Roman circa 100BC had far more physical courage and sense of duty to the general and state than the average modern day westerner does.
He had more physical courage because his entire life was being levied and marched to war and in the end it was the Romans' own bellicosity which caused the crisis of the 3rd century and the endless civil wars which ground their culture into dust.

>Your graph proves my point,
I'll admit that I was wrong and posting in haste

but the point still remains that crime peaked in the 1990's and since then has since fallen to rates not seen in decades (just not to 1950's rates, yet.) If increasing cultural heterization was the culprit, why would there be such a steep decline in violent crime rates and an even steeper decline in petty or property crimes?
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-trend/

>A more heterogeneous population
Because a smaller percentage of the population has to deal with ethnic hostility and economic exclusion

>Singapore
But their outlook is one where the government exercising a large amount of power is not seen as a bad thing. That's a distinctly different value than the United States. Their laws are more severe, which not all conservatives would be on board with importing into the United States if it comes at the cost of freedom. For example, they have among the toughest gun control laws in the world.

> revolving door prisons
You mean the huge number of people locked up for petty drug offenses for no good reason?
> delinquents throwing trash everywhere
Even as a liberal, I'd be fine with following Singapore's lead and having litterers caned
>. Why do you extend his meaning?
I don't, but conservatives repeat it ad nauseum like it was the only think he ever said

>Liberals believe everyone is equal.
I unironically believe they should be treated as such in the eyes of the law. When you make second class citizens of people you enable their economic extortion.

>>2369111
>>2369125
>>2369156
>>2369176
I'll admit it, lads. I was trying to do several things at once and posted in haste without taking a second glance and ended up putting my foot in my mouth. I'll own up to my mistake and apologize

>>2364630
People need to eat you retard

>>2364192
t. white mongrel American in the red man's homeland

>>2364481
FULLY
AUTOMATED
LUXURY
COMMUNISM

We wont know until industrial capitalism runs out of places to export its problems to. So long as we continue to rely on exploiting the third world we'll never be able to see if his theory of historical inevitability is true.

>>2364448
>All of the Communist states were shaped after Russia and Moscow (Stalin) set the notes everyone had to play.

>There has never been a Communist regime independent of the influences of the USSR, so how can it be a surprise that they all were of similar nature and came crashing down after their flagship crumbled?

So called "communist states" were never really communist states. Also, some of them were never under the influence of USSR.

>>2369685
which states do you have in mind?

>>2369620
>exporting problems
Exporting industry is what causes the problems, not what solves them. See the rust belt.

>>2369782
Automation is a much bigger driver of the rust belt's problems than offshoring labor.

Literally the only stuff we outsource are the kind of cheap, disposable junk which is labor-intensive and lends itself to cheap Chinese labor which is why when you go down the aisle of Wal-mart looking at all the cheap, disposable junk it gives the impression that all of the manufacturing has gone away when the reality is more nuanced.

>communist countries are litteral shitholes
>socialist countries are stagnating
>this proves Marx was right

>>2364177
No. Not at all.

>>2369602
Yeah for the top 1%. Not for you.

>>2364177
He has been replaced by better communists

>>2366150
Still waiting for the fourth step, commies

Poor people are too stupid to rule over themselves. Do you think a janitor has the knowledge and skills necessary to run a firm?

>>2369311
>crime peaked in the 1990's and since then has since fallen to rates not seen in decades (just not to 1950's rates, yet.)
blame the 60s, thats when the whole shit started, hopefully it will die with the last sjws, good thing people are turning conservative again

File: 56fc0caagw1f9jc38p4wcj20jc0d0q3h.jpg (30KB, 696x468px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 696x468px

>>2371034
crime had been rising in line with population growth well before the 60's, and this decline in crime both violent and nonviolent was across the board in all 50 states both liberal and conservative.

In the 1990's young men started staying indoors at night playing video games instead of getting bored and sneaking out of the house to go running around in the dark getting into trouble, picking fights, and committing felonies.

Also, access to abortion led to more desperate single teenagers aborting their little Tyrones instead of trying to raise him in a broken home with an extremely poor quality of life and have him grow into a gangbanger with no future. For the life of me I'll never understand how conservatives are so friendly to eugenics movements except when they're implemented on a voluntary basis.

Either way technology is the driver of social change, not any precious ideology which can vary wildly from person to person. Every historical attempt to unite a society under a single ideology (whether it's religious or secular like communism) ends in spectacular failure.

>>2371025
Depends if the janitoral runs his own business

>>2364192
Your case for ethnic cleansing leaves something to be desired. Nice bait, though.

>>2368871

cool list of strawmen

>>2372679
It's a list of arguments that I've had with /pol/tards who unironically believed them. They especially like using the word "cuck" or "niggers" as a placeholder for actual substance

>>2369685
The reason why we call those states Communist is not because we believe Communists regarded those countries as Communist. In fact what they in their theory believe is irrelevant.

Why we call those countries Communist is because they're lead by Communists.

Simple enough, right?

And name the states that were never under the influence of USSR.

I only have one in mind: Cambodia.

>>2373428
Stalin->Mao->Pol Pot

>>2373655
I admit I don't know much of the Khmer rouge but wasn't it that even the Chinese were unsupportive of their movement?

I mean the whole country is kinda an irrelevant shithole and I guess the brutality and ineffectiveness of their regime wasn't really anything anyone would want to be tied with.

But even if this is true I must admit that it still doesn't mean they weren't influenced by USSR/China in what they took as their role model.

File: 1396976316785.gif (2MB, 1050x800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1050x800px

>>2364214
>>2364177
Marx said Capitalism was bad and would demean man, and he was right, but that doens't make HIS philosophy correct either since it is still the same materialist rubbish just with a red coat of paint.

Capitalists claim that only resources, labour and capital have value

Communists claim that only recources and labour have value

however BOTH are wrong, ideas and the will to bring them to bear is all that has value

labour with no purpose has no use, as the Soviet Union learned
resources not given value by collective will have no value. think of the relation between natural diamonds and man made ones, there is no difference besides a massive gulf in value.

Liberals of any streak, yellow or red are all part of the same rotten edifice.

No.

History has shown us that Leftists are insane authoritarians.

>>2364177
Marx is outdated 19th century pseudo economics.

>>2373702
China armed and trained members of the Khmer Rouge. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia and put a stop to the genocide, China invaded Vietnam in retaliation.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KB21Ad01.html

>>2373808
and both got btfo
only the UN was a little bitch as usual and told Vietnam to leave Cambodia

>>2373808
Oh so they were even closer than China-Vietnam.

Go figure, huh.

Why, tho?

Was China afraid Vietnam would become too powerful or what?

>>2373815
Western governments (with the exception of Sweden) voted in favor of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea retaining Cambodia's seat in the organization over the newly installed Vietnamese-backed PRK, even though it included the Khmer Rouge.

>>2373818

China mostly invaded because (summarized):

1) Officially to "punish" the Vietnamese for invading Cambodia, hopefully to induce the Vietnamese to pull forces from Cambodia. Deng also felt betrayed by the Vietnamese due to heavy amount of aid China had rendered to them in their war against Americans, including Chinese advisors who were killed in the war.

2) To prevent the Soviet Union from further consolidating power on China's borders. Deng had toured SE Asia before the war and repeated painted the Vietnamese as an expansionist Soviet client state who is a huge threat to everybody else in the region.

3) To score diplomatic points with Japan, South Korea and the United States by attacking their recent enemy. Which would strengthen China's position against the Soviet Union. By doing so, it makes China's modernization/reform towards capitalism process much safer in the geopolitical context.

4) Unofficially, it was also to test the PLA's capacities and if the war should go badly, it would allow Deng to blame the PLA leadership and thus weaken the PLA's political leverage and increase Deng's power over the generals. This is crucial because Deng realized that PRC's military spending was far too high and needs to be reduced. Weakening the PLA's domestic political power allows him to do this. If the war goes well, then Deng gets to play the role of a victorious war-leader.

File: 1486498476573.png (762KB, 1100x1000px) Image search: [Google]

762KB, 1100x1000px

>>2373874
Wow, good reply. Thanks.

It's pity to see how all ideology ultimately fails and falls down to the level of usual politics as soon as it leaves the paper.

Have a meme.

Hasn’t history proven that Marx’s vision of an egalitarian utopia is unattainable, inevitably creating an oligarchy more oppressive to the proletariat than the bourgeoisie it vilifies?

>>2367286
sane post desu