Which view is correct? Does history follow a pattern or not?
>war creates slaves>also socialists: lets have a global war
>>18128184What?
>>18128189The origin of slavery is war captives, meaning slavery is as old as humanity, in northern europe slaves were made into thralls which were basically tenant farmers. Feudalism was the centralization of war power and the use of financial institutions and taxes on farmers to pay for wars rather than farmers being the direct source of your military. Communists argued for global revolution, which means global civil war to install socialist governments. Are the people now in that socialist government slaves?
If history was as cyclical as he claimed, the Middle East would be the center of civilization again.
Marxism is fucking stupid. Communism is the most primitive system, which is why humanity evolved away from it, not towards it.
>>18128222He does a pretty good job observing what imperialism is without ever actually forming a comprehensive theory of imperialism through his complaints about capitalism. But he had pretty shit takes on specific issues
For starters, Marx does not view history as cyclical. Class struggle is simply the driver of all conflict and the greatest contradiction within each system, and the victory of one class over the other results in a new system.Marx is objectively correct on how the contradictions within a system will inevitably result in a new one taking its place. Feudalism didn't die because someone said so, feudalism died because it sewed the very seeds of its own destruction. As towns developed, it created a new productive merchant class that the rigid feudal structure couldn't compete with. This class eventually overtook and destroyed the feudal system post-enlightenment.Capitalism, however, is hard to kill. There are contradictions within it, but capitalism is revolutionary and ever-changing. It adapts consistently to anything you throw at it and is inherently amorphous. It's so permeating, omnipresent, and adaptive, that we cannot even imagine an alternative. Socialism is not inevitable, but a conscious and artificial structure Marx believes would be imposed in capitalism's place once the workers realized they didn't need the "parasitic" bourgeois the same way feudal lords disrupted the lives of the bourgeois and were unnecessary. However, all attempts at achieving socialism have been rigid, artificial, and degenerated back to capitalism.
historial materialism is calvinism for atheists
>>18128240Lenin, DuBois, and arguably Mao are really the big names in the Marxist interpretations of imperialism, Marx himself really just set a primitive groundwork. The word didn't even really exist in his time.
>>18128250“Feudalism” didn’t even exist nigga. Marxism is so fucking outdated, literally only relevant because some states and people serve it as a religion.
>>18128250postmodernism is just communist jews' brains snapping in half in the post war era as material conditions continued to degrade while implementing socialist policies globally which simultaneously weakened revolutionary causes as they theorized the entire global economy would orient towards an information based service economy. And yet these people are called conservatives for some reason. I find it less of an actual belief system than communists taking another gut punch and then stumbling around
>>18128180Historical materialism is correct but Marxism is false. Postmodernism is correct.>the base steers the superstructureMore or less, yes.>this means that history is predictable, follows a neat pattern and that it leads to the working class overpowering the capitalist mode of productionNo.
>>18128250>the "parasitic" bourgeoisWhat is the difference between the "bourgeois" and a socialist planner? How is the latter not a parasite, when it literally lives off extortion (taxation) and has a forced monopoly over all industries?
