Why did practically all countries with a communist revolution either became failed economies or reverted back to capitalism ?Marx's idea was that capitalism, in the late 19th century, had exhausted all of its potential, and consequently would be overcome by the proletariat, acting upon their class interest. In contrast, the bourgeoisie would try to maintain their status and would eventually enter a class war which they would loose. This operates on the basis that production constantly gets developed to fulfill humanity's needs, but is eventually restrained by the organization of said-production. This took the form of the LTV generating recurring crisis and immesiration, which lead to class conflict.How did this idea transform in such shitshows that were the eastern block or maoist China ? There's a lot of potential critique for marxism in-and-of itself but it seems odd that it generated monumental failures rather than the occasional failed communes like anarchists do. Imo, it stands to be a combination of the following : >statist ideology that explicitly emphasizes the absence of morals and ethics for revolutionary purpose>wrong premise that capitalism has exhausted its purpose>revolutions occuring in third world countries with no democratic traditions.
>>18402795politicians are too dumb to implement a planned economy, people try scamming the system, bureaucrats always try to amass power for themselves under a planned economy, take your pick of reasons
>>18402795Because communism is seemingly impossible to achieve
>>18402795Marx's inaccurate understanding of economic exchange and historical "progression"
>>18402795Because Communism wasn't supposed to start in the semi-feudal shithole that was Tsarist Russia. Classical Marxism without any modification and revision was made and tailored specifically for industrialized west Europe which already had the industrial base to produce abundance which is KEY to achieving communism fortunately or unfortunately it didn't happen and the Communists in Russia had to first create industry and then move through a transition phase and eventually achieve abundance and THEN only communism would be achieved and turns out making the transition phase into a fucking Million Year process makes the revolution susceptible to revisionism and threats within the state itself. I believe that Marx was right about capitalism exhausting its purpose, he just wasn't able to predict that liberalism would prolong the death of capitalism.
>>18402795People are fast to declare the specter of Communism dead, but AI is literally being sold on its assumed ability to destroy the working class for good.Explain that.
>>18402795Trotsky was right on one point- the degenerated workers state. USSR and friends took so many liberties with Marxist thought that they became revisionist and died
>>18402795Marxism wants people to abandon their cultural, ethnic, or religious identity for the identity of the "worker". These are far more powerful mobilizing forces than being a worker
>>18402858>cultural, ethnic, or religious identityImaginary, ephemeral bullshit that usually amounts to being whatever the ruling class wants you to believe because it suits their material interests >the identity of the "worker"Unlike those other things, this isn't some abstract "identity", its a concrete material reality that you inhabit that determines your relationship to your very means of sustaining your existence.
>>18402858>for the identity of the "worker".Well most adults are workers five days a week, believers two times a year and citizens once, and their ethnicity only ever comes up when somebody with money has designs on their fortunes.
>>18402795Leninism. The whole brutal totalitarian dictatorship, vanguard party, collectivization, etc were the Bolshevik's ideas. It's thirdie-coded ideology from the backward people of Russia. Marx and his ideas isn't as crazy as you think. He was rather reasonable and grounded, and he thought communism would rise from the more prosperous and civilized western European country not uncivilized Russia.
The true eschatology of Communism requires a revolution within the individual to change their mindset to look past money and productive property as an individual goal.Requiring a country to suddenly not participate the the fractured global system makes it nearly impossible to get out of it, and factor in the greed and power chasing makes it a near impossible task.
>>18402897>Imaginary, ephemeral bullshit that usually amounts to being whatever the ruling class wants you to believe because it suits their material interestsOk but the ruling class right now doesn't want you to believe in those things
Because there was a superpower and its vassal states actively going around the world, doing everything they can to make socialist states fail
>>18402897>Imaginary, ephemeral bullshitFuck off, the gods are real.
Not making enough money for Freemasons is the only real reason. Communism was much more popular for the same qualifier being met.
>>18402795>What made marxism be such a failure in the 20th century ?Marxists expected their revolution to be international. Not necessarily all at once but that it would happen pretty quickly with revolutions following from the others but that did not happen. It did spread to China later, but Russia was isolated and it was a relatively underdeveloped country and they were like ugggh fugg what do we do now (also much of the working class itself died in the civil war), and to make a long story short the result was that the government there turned into something that didn't live up to its ideals, and Orwell was generally right although maybe he neglected the extent to that which horrified him was a tragic if historically generated adaptation to the circumstances of a failed revolution shifting into survival mode:https://youtu.be/2QrhhaWp-0oThe USSR did spread its system into Eastern Europe at the end of World War II but that was by military conquest, i.e. by force, which also ran counter to the idea that what was happening was the self-emancipation of the proletariat. Maybe in Czechoslovakia the communists did have majority support among workers but the attempts at rerforming communism in the 1960s ran up against another Soviet invasion.>How did this idea transform in such shitshows that were the eastern block or maoist China ? You laid out Marx's expectations quite well. I think the answer is that the expected subject (the proletariat) didn't do what it was "supposed" to do as history didn't unfold in a way that allowed Marxist goals to be realized. So Marxists ended up substituting for that lack with "the party," the USSR, and with ideology, and within the USSR by trying to force history forward from the top down. I think it's possible Marx might be proven right in the end, and also we have no idea what the world will look like in 200 years or 500 years, but the 20th century won't repeat itself and what that "was" is dead.
>>18402897>>18402907Keep coping, man is an inherently tribal creature. Anyone who has to interact with the "marginalized minorities" you worship knows that class consciousness is bullshit, which is why Communists are all either Turd Worlders or upper middle class """Whites"""" who live in majority-White areas. Oh, and some advice: Just because you don't believe in the tribal elements that influence us doesn't mean that workers of minority background(s) will follow suit. Westerners have abandoned all ethno-nationalism because of "muh Nazis", yet the immigrants who live in their countries have not and frequently form parallel societies. Good luck convincing a Syrian in Germany that Islam is actually an opiate for the masses and that the traditions of his people are worthless.The "Bourgeoisie" is on your side btw, so keep cheering for Browns flooding the West so your masters can continue getting cheap labour.
>>18402971>Waaaa we dindu nuffin we wuz weak n the US wuz strong n shietYou lost a fair game, faggot. The USSR thought it was a big bad superpower that could beat the US and its incompetence led to a pathetic end.
>>18403124>Good luck convincing a Syrian in Germany that Islam is actually an opiate for the masses and that the traditions of his people are worthless.Maybe that is more of a problem in Germany. Can't speak for that. But here in the U.S. the number of people raised Muslim who leave Islam is understated really, something 1/4 of them have left the religion. Also people raised as Muslims in the U.S. have social views that are roughly comparable with Evangelical Christians, which is conservative, but that makes them raging liberals by the standards of Muslims raised in Muslim-majority countries.
>>18403135Yeah, I've read a bit about Muslims in the US and I frequently wonder what's so different there to make them more open to integration. I reckon it might have something to do with the fact that European countries have had large numbers of them since the 1960s, making the creation of parallel societies easier. On the ither hand it could just be that studies on what you mention focus on non-Muslim Arabs/Middle Easterners who'd probably be even more willing to join American society fully.But if it truly is like you say, it would also provide a stark contrast to Blacks and Latinx who, after decades or even centuries of American citizenship, still cling on to parallel societies while being overrepresented in welfare statistics. Pretty funny how Brown people will always moan about the oppression they suffer at the hands of the White man while also benefiting from the welfare made possible by him.
>>18402858And that's exactly why Marxism-based movements always coexist with nationalism.
>>18402971And yet many, such as Cuba, didn't. The collapse of the Soviet Union is but one example, and even then, the Soviet Union collapsed because of it's own fault and the faults of Marxism, not any thing the United States did. In the end, the Russians lost the Cold War thanks to poor leadership.
>>18403124>racism is a good thing>e-except when the jews do it to me/pol/tranny cope
>>18403166Uhh yes that's the point of human conflict in general?>class struggle is a good thing>except when capitalists defeat me
>>18402858>These are far more powerful mobilizing forces than being a workerNot really. By your own admission in >>18403153, you can't explain why muslims living in the US, which is far more personal and less "material" belief than what muslims in the middle east believe in (as in that it implies more social and material realities there than in the US), dwindle in numbers. Marx isn't saying that nationalities are worthless, but only that they exist in regards to material conditions. He predicted they would fade away and was essentially correct : as the west developed and religion stopped playing a pivotal role, people left religion.>>18403217Marxism is descriptive, not normative.
>>18403242>Marxism is descriptive, not normative.Marxism is actually normative, but the bourgeoisie are supposed to be the good guys. Few understand this.
>>18402858Anons seethe at your comment but you're obviously right. Being a worker is simply not a powerful mobilizing force. Nobody really cares about it. You can mobilize antivaxxers, troons, QAnontards, literally any group you can think of, easier than workers.
>>18403121This. The libertarians that screech about property rights don't realize that the vast majority of people already work in "collectivized" work through their firm. Objectively, the bourgeoisie doesn't do much except invest, which is something that seems completely realizable with socialized banks or whatever. In fact, I was reading about the Commune the other day and their economy was very different than what other socialist economies had been. The Commune was essentially more akin to modern day Rojava with a partial market dominated mainly by co-ops. If we take the basis that Marx had the Commune's model as his inspiration, the socialist economies of the 20th century could hardly be considered "socialist", except maybe for yugoslavia.>I think it's possible Marx might be proven right in the endIf we at some point reach post-scarcity then yes probably
>>18402858>>18403267This, especially since work is inherently unequal, someone working on a factory floor isn't going to feel any unity with a cashier at McDonald's even if both get payed minimum wage
>>18402858I think you're missing the most important vector of human conflict, which is sex/gender.
>>18403153United States being much further away and behind a giant body of water usually got the more agreeable of Muslims as a result (not always mind you). You can see it in Latin America as well where educated and secularised Middle Easterners oftentimes achieve very high standing in society. Europe on the other hand receives the dregs of the Muslim world - criminals, religious fanatics, sexual deviants, junkies, lunatics, problematic minorities, in general people so shit that even their own countries don't want them.
>>18402795A few books talk about thisA major factor is that Marx failed to predict the stock dividends, investment bankings, and the rise of the middle class. All this came about a few decades after he died
>>18402795Marx was a poet who delved into a topic he knew literally nothing about (economics) then supposed that he was some sort of expert on it, built his entire worldview around it, and crafted an insane pseudo-science cult around it where he honestly believed that he could predict the future if you studied his specific take on economics enough. Hes not an economist, hes never study economics, he never worked or managed a factory or worked in any capacity in that field. Instead of realizing that he was wrong, his deranged cult of crypto-fascist maniacs simply retooled and remade Marx's original outlook over and over and over again. After nearly 200 years of this Ship of Thessus act, "Marxism" is now brown rich bourgeois trannies who do recreational drugs shilling for the liberal globalist world order because it will give them the greatest leverage of welfare gibsmedats.
>>18402897>being a "worker" (not even a specific profession, just the fact that you work for a living) is more of an identity than your race, nationality, or religionThis is literally autistic retard zero humanity shit. Even within marxist circles, they all have to animate the base from an ethnic, cultural, national, or religious background. Every single marxist alive, without exception, is a Palestinian nationalist for example.
>>18403540>Every single marxist alive, without exception, is a Palestinian nationalist for example.Surprisingly, this is incorrect. Here in Germany there's a schism between pro-Palestinian and Zionist Marxists. Just a few months ago they beat each other up during a protest. Either way, your point still stands.
>>18403166>Racism is bad when it's ungrateful welfare queens and the people who imported them being racist to youftfyAlso, I'm pretty sure it's *your* side cheering for trannies, so kindly stop with the friendly fire.
>>18403783>Here in Germany there's a schism between pro-Palestinian and Zionist Marxists. Just a few months ago they beat each other up during a protest.lol I didn't know they got into a fight. But yeah I've known for a long time that Germany has a distinct pro-Israel subculture on the left that feuds with the pro-Palestinian ones. I actually think there are more people like this in other countries who are quiet about it, but Germans being Germans and therefore unable to do anything except in an autistic way with no nuance allowed will show up waving Israeli and American flags with slogans like SOLIDARITY WITH ISRAEL -- FOR COMMUNISM!
>>18403783>Zionist MarxistsWhat
Really, mostly it was done in countries that were basically stuck in the 19th century.1950s onwards it became more a Nationalist project rather an a "Socialist" one. Especially post 1965 when the USSR functionally dropped any pretense of Central Planning, yet didn't bother to liberalise the economy in any other way.Rafts of TERRIBLE leaders, I would argue that the USSR had a run of the worst leadership of all time starting with Khrushchev and for all the gains of Stalin, arguably the seeds of destruction of the USSR were already sown as the Great Purges hit genuine communists, while Nationalists/Liberals knew to keep their mouth shut and bide their time.They all attempted central planning during a time period where all the computers in the world didn't even have the processing power of the phone in your pocket, not only that, because Soviet institutions were hilariously enough, ironically designed to be hyper-competitive with eachother, this lead the Ministry of Finance completely defunding Cybernetics/IT and declaring it a psuedo-science because they thought it would cause the Bureau of Statistics to overshadow them. Hence countries that were based around CENTRAL PLANNING, didn't use even rudimentary fucking Computers.
>>18402897Except if its Russian, Chinese, Indian or Jewish identity. We know who you are serving traitorous marxist scum
>>18403785Since when did the alt-right suddenly start morality fagging? Cut the bullshit into pieces and ingest it into your throat because if killing and stabbing Trannies and Jews is "not bad" what makes reverse-racism suddenly immoral and bad?
>>18403308Sex/gender exists more as a dynamic rather than direct conflict and opposition.
>>18403124Ah.... yes the "Bourgeoisie" would be on the side that actively wants to strip them of every power they have, the simple truth is that the "Bourgeoisie" is on everyone's side simultaneously EXCEPT the side of Marxists.Modern day Marxism is dead, infested with liberals and third worldists.Thinking that Modern day Marxism=Classical Marxism is like thinking The Ottoman Empire=The Roman Empire simply because they owned Constantinople.You're not fighting with Marxists here, you're shadow boxing against confused liberals in an empty room and its really funny.
>>18403153The accord with the Catholic Church applies to all recognized religions in Germany, meaning they offer significant financial benefits to people who organize along ethno-religious lines. So you get a mosque for the Syrians, one for the Turks, one for the Kurds, two for Saudi preachers, ect, all largely funded by taxpayer's money, a lot of it probably being misappropriated.
>>18403540>>18403267>>18403124>>18402858Marx isn't saying that nationalities are worthless, but only that they exist in regards to material conditions.He predicted they would fade away and was essentially correct : as the west developed and religion stopped playing a pivotal role, people left religion and other identity markers. This idea that your race or sex defines you is senseless in a society where these stopped defining your place.
>>18403895>Cut the bullshit into pieces and ingest it into your throatwhat was that supposed to transliterate to in your native tongue, ESL
>>18403242>Not really. By your own admission in >>18403153 (You) #, you can't explain why muslims living in the US, which is far more personal and less "material" belief than what muslims in the middle east believe inFair enough, though some other anons did a pretty good job explaining it. Either way, you still see phenomena similar to Muslims in Europe in Blacks and Latinos in the US. They benefit immensely from welfare programs the government has in place, are favoured by DEI programs, and occasionally get lenient punishments when commiting crimes (iIrc the killer of that Ukrainian girl was already arrested multiple times before his latest murder). All this is especially true in blue states (though republican ones aren't much better) where leftists have even more influence in local institutions. Yet still, said minorities insist on being the victims of a system that favours Europeans. A system that, in real life, teaches Europeans that ethno-nationalism is evil, that their ancestors were barbaric slavers, that Third World immigration is both a net benefit *and* a just punishment, and that they are a privileged people that should be ashamed of it.
>>18402858Trvthnuke
>>18404031People tend to still identify as their nationality though
>>18403897It's a dynamic of constant cold conflict that occasionally turns hot
>>18402795Because Marx was simply wrong about the labor theory of value and class conflict. In reality value is subjective and the profit incentive helps allocate resources to more efficiently satisfy that subjective value.
>>18403153>>18403135Maybe but you ommit the fact Muslims are tiny minority in United States just like Latin Americans are in Europe. European latams are similar to American Muslims in their left wing political beliefs and straying from their people traditions. Meanwhile much more massive populations of European Muslims and American latinos are religious, nationalistic and keeping to their own traditions and people and do not care about Marxist rambling about religions being opiates and traditions being irrelevant. In short, Marxism can't work because it is unrealistic fantasy
The Revolution was supposed to have happened by the 1890s.
>>18404072>Blacks and Latinos in the US.Re: Latinos, it's weird and kind of depends on where I think. In California there's this whole subculture that emulates blacks (but I don't know how true this still is) like sup foo where u from loco, and there's an aggrieved minority movement that also comes out of that, but I'm from Texas and really have never seen that here. If anything the Latinos are more on the chuddy side and adapted to the conservative culture, and can mix in kitschy Americana with Catholic imagery in their houses while flying a USMC flag from the house because their son is in the Marines. I don't really know why it varies like that but it's a complicated social history with its own characteristics.
>>18404107The labor theory of value and to a lesser extent class conflict were probably some of his better reasoned ideas. Everything after that becomes nigh impenetrable without an extensive understanding of the philosophical works that informed his thought as well as the historical context from which he was writing.
>>18404481Texan spics are an embarrassment. They all claim to be descended from Tejanos who rebelled against Mexico in 1830 when in reality 99% of them are sons of wetbacks who crossed the border illegally in 1997. It's like the right wing version of leftist chicanos in California who claim to be descendants of 19th century Californios. So like, that means we wuz always here o algo, ese.
>>18405098>The labor theory of value and to a lesser extent class conflict were probably some of his better reasoned ideasPossibly but still very wrong.
Neoliberalism is a mental illness that forces capitalists to interfere with societies on the road to communism demanding they open up their economies at the risk of sanctions and war.
>>18405321Stfu chud.Let more immigrants in NOW.
>>18405281Surplus value felt cogent to me, class conflict much less so. Tell me in particular what you find disagreeable? I should clarify I'm in no way a leftist and do not have a personal stock in Marx or his correctness. I view him more neutrally, as a philosopher.
>>18405599The most obvious reason why it's wrong is that value is subjective, including the value of labor. The fact that people value things differently is how any voluntary transaction works. If I voluntarily buy a pocket watch from you for $100 then I must value the pocket watch more than $100 and you must value it less than $100. The same goes for your labor. Different people will place different value to the same work and you'll only be able to hire people who value that work less than you're willing to pay.The next most obvious reason is that people have time preference. That is to say that people value having something now over having someone later. And wage labor involves getting paid for your labor now without having to wait for the goods you produce to turn a profit. There can even be endeavors that require months or years before coming to fruition.And finally there's risk. There's always the chance that the goods you produce don't sell as well as you thought which means getting paid less than you presumably thought your labor was worth. Getting paid a wage for your labor offloads risk which you'll place some additional value on.
>>18404107>>18405281>In reality value is subjective Marx is not denying this. In fact, the marginalist revolution is not contesting and directly contradicting the LTV. What the marginalist conception of value brought is the shift towards a micro focus on what brings value rather than operating on an aggregate.This is also why the neoclassical conception also accepts that the rate of profit under a perfect competitive system is small, which the LTV also builds upon. This is like the 1000th time this has been said on the site and it's insane that most of you still haven't picked that up.>>18405098>Everything after that becomes nigh impenetrable without an extensive understanding of the philosophical worksI mean that's practically every philosophy possible. That's why he wrote the manifesto
>>18405682You are incorrect. The idea that profit is surplus labor value being syphoned away from the workers by the owners of the means of production is the basis for Marxism. There is no compatibility with the subjective theory of value.
>>18405321>>18405323“National sovereignty” is a fascist conception.
>>18405680>The fact that people value things differently is how any voluntary transaction worksMarx developed the LTV to answer what brings value to a good on a aggregate level (i.e. why does the price of a thing always hover around a given value). The idea being that when you price a good with the intention of profit, you always price above a certain price of production including a margin of profit (unless you're desperatly trying to rid off stock). This is central to marxism not because it says "labor explains why prices are the way they are", but because it allows to understand how the profit evolves and changes over time. >The next most obvious reason is that people have time preference>And finally there's risk.This has nothing to do with marxism and is quite retarded because it operates on the premise that anyone has capital to invest but some people "choose" to be paid in wages rather than risk their capital (which they don't even have).>>18405693>The idea that profit is surplus labor value being syphoned away from the workers by the owners of the means of productionYes because marx's LTV presume the goods to be bought. This is why Schumpeter critiqued marxism for presuming every good to be bought in a perfectly competitive environment. Marx had these premise because he precisely tried explaining that there were fundamental tensions within the capitalist framework. And if you indeed apply them, you notice that the workers' wage is constantly less than the value of their production (assessed from the market).>is the basis for MarxismThis is simply incorrect. The basis of marxism is dialectical materialism, historical materialism, and arguably alienation.>There is no compatibility with the subjective theory of value.There is, they just operate on different levels. This is why economists like Oskar Lange sought to reconcile both by using the tools developed by the marginalist revolution to marxian economics.
>>18405703>because it allows to understand how the profit evolves and changes over time.Which is much better understood by the subjective theory of value. >the premise that anyone has capital to invest but some people "choose" to be paid in wages rather than risk their capital (which they don't even have). They have their labor. If I make a chair and then bring that chair to market to sell, I have invested my labor into the chair. Whatever I expect to get for the chair, there is a wage less than that that I would prefer.
>>18405682The problem I have with Marx is translating his theory into reality. If we look at historical examples it usually falls apart somewhere between applying the labor theory of value and actually achieving abundance. Even the intelligent leftists I have met usually prefer to talk about the political theory associated with Marxism because of how shameful the ML and Maoist detonations were. The problem is that if it cannot be applied, and cannot be translated into a viable economic model, then maybe the entire philosophy is not as descriptive as he imagines it to be. I still find his work to be interesting and not entirely without merit though.
>>18402858Correct.>>18402897>Imaginary, ephemeral bullshitIt's been a hundred years and marxists seemingly never learn. That's why you dumbasses always lose.
>>18405720>Which is much better understood by the subjective theory of valueLol I know you've read some wiki pages and watch a lolbert on youtube OWN marxism but the subjective value has stopped being in opposition with the LTV for a while now. Most economists understand that they analyze 2 different things and provide different analysis with different frameworks. Besides, since the 1950s it's been understood with Sraffa that neither theories are complete wholes but rather represent 2 distinct things.The LTV explains surplus extraction on a macrolevel and is used to infer claims upon the sustainability of capitalism, whilst the marginal revolution offers tools to analyze why individuals value things. >there is a wage less than that that I would prefer.No ? What are you even talking about ?>>18405735Yeah I mostly agree with you. I think Marx will be proven right, but only in a very long time once capitalism has truly exhausted its usefulness. As it stands, it is still probably the best system available as long as it operates within certain conditions.>>18405781He's right. Even when nationalities seemingly play a role, it's because they have an overly material aspect in life. Marx thought nationalities would eventually wither away because they stopped being the dominant and integral part of one's life. To that end, he's mostly right. I speak from a country in the EU but in general there's been a noticeable decline in inter-european nationalism because it stopped playing such an important role in life as the union has become more prevalent. Ironically, the return of nationalism occured precisely because the material aspect of "the nation" was being endangered by immigration.
>>18405817>Ironically, the return of nationalism occured precisely because the material aspect of "the nation" was being endangered by immigrationNo it hasn't. The return of nationalism occured because of aesthetic reasons, not material ones.
>>18405817No Marxist-Leninist state (or any state for that matter) ever managed to make ethnic nationalism "wither away", even under the most enduring and authoritarian regimes. That such form of kinship is related to material conditions doesn't make it a mere appendice of these conditions. The economic dimension of life doesn't erase shared historical experience, culture and institutions.
>>18402795Because communism, at its very core, denies human nature. The concept of:> to each according to their need, from each according to their ability... relies on the idea that people will only ask for what they need, will always produce to their best ability; and will enthusiastically work harder to make someone else better.
>>18405817>The LTV explains surplus extraction on a macrolevel and is used to infer claims upon the sustainability of capitalismWhich are all incorrect because the theory is incorrect. >No ? What are you even talking about ? Follow very closely because I'll only explain this one more time. 1. People have time preference. 2. People have risk tolerance. 3. A person uses labor to produce a good. 4. Goods have an expected market value. 5. Bringing a good to market takes time and risk.From these premises, we can deduce that for any expected value that a person would produce a good for to sell at market, there is a lower value they would produce that good for for a wage.
>>18405821lmfao no and besides what you call esthetic is material>>18405827>That such form of kinship is related to material conditions doesn't make it a mere appendice of these conditionsIt does. It is born out of those practice.>The economic dimension of life doesn't erase shared historical experience, culture and institutions.It has. But that's besides the point. You think that marxists have a vulgar materialist conception of the world which is not the case. Marx's materialism is not a vulgar materialism where everything is simply reduced to its physical appearance, hence making subjective perception "false". Iirc he even warned against that. More over I don't get why this argument is always used. His internationalism was based on the idea that capitalism transcends borders and that this would lead the the notion of the nation-state to be eventually a relic. So far, most countries have fulfilled this and have gone in favor of more cosmopolitan unions. Nationalism plagued soviet countries because they were actively repressing said-national cultures, not because there was an imaginary identity being robbed of its pure essence like a platonic ideal.
>>18405845>no argument against the LTVYou could at least try to engage lol>there is a lower value they would produce that good for for a wageNo ? It's also completely irrelevant given that this answers nothing of the capital which is required to make a good in the first place.
>>18405321I love this post because it mentally accelerates libtards into realizing the ideal government they strive towards is basically national socialism.
>>18402795I blame secular postmodernism.The idea that reality is subjective, and everyone is in it for themselves causes a statem of cooperation like this to collapse.Tldr; people are selfish.
>>18405866>statemSystem
>>18405847>It does. It is born out of those practiceThe overwhelming majority of contemporary historiography and the experience of Marxist-Leninist revolutions in the 20th century are against you. But one still has the right to be wrong. >It has. But that's besides the pointOnly someone with a most Eurocentric, superficial and culturally limited historical knowledge would affirm that. >You think that marxists have a vulgar materialist conception of the world which is not the caseThat was the de facto Marxist discourse on nationalism through the 20th century, even if not ideologically formalized into a single theory. You've either misread my post or are mistaking Marx's own works with those of the wider Marxist tradition, a mistake not one person who's familiar with Marxism would make.>So far, most countries have fulfilled this and have gone in favor of more cosmopolitan unionsThere's no such thing. Not even in the European Union. Ethnic nationalism continues to be the standard form of kinship everywhere in the world. >Nationalism plagued soviet countries because they were actively repressing said-national culturesThe early USSR was highly cosmopolitan and granted a large amount of political autonomy to its ethnic minorities, including those without an autonomous republic of their own. Had Marx been correct, this measure, coupled with the abolition of the capitalist form of production, would've made such national identities wither away and merge into a wider Soviet one. In the end they didn't, and only then the repression was set in place under Stalin.
>>18405877>The overwhelming majority of contemporary historiography and the experience of Marxist-Leninist revolutions in the 20th century are against youThe overwhelming historiography argues that identities are formed rather than fixed platonic essence. You're literally arguing that essence precedes existence anon. Do you know for how long people have stopped making this claim ?>Only someone with a most EurocentricAsean, CIS, African Union, Mercosur etc. Countries tend towards federation because of economic interests anon. >That was the de facto Marxist discourse on nationalism through the 20th centuryVulgar materialism was explicitly condemned by most marxists (Lenin, Lukacs, Gramsci, Engels etc). In fact, I could probably cite any known marxist thinker and they would condemn it.>a mistake not one person who's familiar with Marxism would makeIt's marxism101 that marx doesn't reduce things to "le physical appearance is all there is o algo". Materialism in marxism refers to an external world whose existence is independant of us, and who isn't bound by God or fixed essences.>Ethnic nationalism continues to be the standard form of kinshipYou're missing my point which is that marx isn't saying that nationalities are worthless, but that fit within a material scheme of reality and are not some otherworldy essence.There's countless examples of ethnic nationalities disappearing in favor of new collective identities. This is what occured in the US, in France, in Singapore, in Australia etc. Any country that didn't exist 500 years ago is probably a melting pot of nationalities who've come to identify as a new one based on shared cultural practices and common livelyhood.>the repression was set in place under Stalin.You mean the one which was put in place barely 10 years after the beginning of the USSR ? And the one which kept going for the entirety of the USSR's existence ?
>>18403272>The libertarians that screech about property rights don't realize that the vast majority of people already work in "collectivized" work through their firm.And it is shit
>>18403536>Hes not an economist, hes never study economics, he never worked or managed a factory or worked in any capacity in that field. Engles was a factory owner tho
>>18403783>Here in Germany there's a schism between pro-Palestinian and Zionist Marxists.That's because you guys have a, uh... Certain history with Jews.
>>18403901>Ah.... yes the "Bourgeoisie" would be on the side that actively wants to strip them of every power they have,Yes, they are. They make a lateral move to the politburo and they'll be the ones stripping rights away.
>>18404481>In California there's this whole subculture that emulates blacksThat's just every American, essentially. And by the extension of America's influence, the entire world.
>>18405098>The labor theory of value and to a lesser extent class conflict were probably some of his better reasoned ideas.Labor theory of value is entirely baseless. I would support it as an aspirational value, but there's absolutely no material truth in it. Class conflict is at least an observable behavior.
>>18405919>The overwhelming historiography argues that identities are formed rather than fixed platonic essenceNo one said they're "fixed Platonic essence". Such a concept doesn't even belong in historical analysis. You're someone with no training attempting to support outdated notions through a philosophical lexicon. >Asean, CIS, African Union, Mercosur etc. None of these represent a form of kinship comparable to ethnic nationalism. And at least two of those (African Union and Mercosur) were not formed on an economic basis alone, but mainly for reasons of international politics. I'm a citizen of a Mercosur country, after all. Your own examples refute your reasoning.>t's marxism101 that marx doesn't reduce things to "le physical appearance is all there is o algo"That's the standard Marxist discourse and practice with regards to national identity through the 20th century. You repeated it yourself in your first reply. While it's true that what you call vulgar Marxism was disavowed by Engels and criticized by Marxist intellectuals, it doesn't change the stated fact: for most of history Marxist have interpreted kinship mainly as an outgrowing of economic relations (and often continue to do so).>There's countless examples of ethnic nationalities disappearing in favor of new collective identitiesThat kinship relations tend to become ever wider, spreading from band to tribe, and from tribe to proto-nation, is not a concept foreign to social sciences. It doesn't change the fact they're built upon shared culture and history, rather than being artificial constructs assembled under economic imperatives by the ruling class. >You mean the one which was put in place barely 10 years after the beginning of the USSR?So that's but a historical accident? So explain the case of the Turks in Bulgaria, Jews in Poland, Uyghurs and Tibetans in China, the Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique, the Isaaq in Somalia and the Bosniaks in Yugoslavia.
>>18405850Everything I'm saying is an argument against the LVT. >this answers nothing of the capital which is required to make a good in the first place We can apply the same logic to capital. Instead of making chairs you could make looms. You could invest your own labor into building a loom and then into producing textiles, or you could build a loom in exchange for a wage.
>>18405949In my opinion class and material conditions alone are rarely enough to do anything but catalyze already present and distinct tensions in society. That or an already present tension catalyzes class conflict, but I don't think it has ever operated alone and I also don't think the other tensions were somehow subordinated to class.
>>18406023>No one said they're "fixed Platonic essence"Then you do understand that it's material >None of these represent a form of kinship comparable to ethnic nationalismreread what I've said>it doesn't change the stated fact: for most of history Marxist have interpreted kinship mainly as an outgrowing of economic relationsTopkek I accept your concession. We're not talking about what some random soviets thought, we're talking about what Marx believed in. If you have no standard you might aswell reduce marxism to the shining path or to maoism.>It doesn't change the fact they're built upon shared culture and history, rather than being artificial constructs assembled under economic imperatives by the ruling class.Nobody is saying the opposite. You're arguing against a strawman of marxism that you've made in your head from your representations of how the soviets acted>So explain the caseOttoman hatred, pogroms, discriminations and reeducation camps, war waged against the locals, ?, religious issues and fear of replacementalso topkek are you really going to say that the portugese in Angola and Mozambique were cosmopolitan identities lmfaoYou've already conceded that identities are formed from material relations and customs amongst people sharing a common livelyhood. You might aswell concede to the rest since this was my argument (and not that the soviet layman was very educated)>>18406036>Everything I'm saying is an argument against the LVT.You've just said that value is subjective therefore LTV false but the LTV doesn't deny this.>or you could build a loom in exchange for a wage.1. You couldn't.2. This says nothing about capital. A worker which works in a factory isn't doing so because he prefers this kind of job to making looms, but because he doesn't really have any other alternative.
>>18403783You are talking about the Anti-Deutsche. Their roots were in communist subcultures, but their current iteration is neoconservative, pro-U.S. and pro-Israel. They are not left wing by any means.
>>18406486>You've just said that value is subjective therefore LTV false but the LTV doesn't deny this.Yes it does because that's how you get to the conclusion that profit is surplus labor value. You can alter the LTV to make it compatible with the STV, but in doing so it no longer supports Marxism. >1. You couldn't. Why not? >2. This says nothing about capital. A worker which works in a factory isn't doing so because he prefers this kind of job to making looms, but because he doesn't really have any other alternative. There can be specific economic conditions where laborers have a lot of choice or some choice or no choice. This is orthogonal to the relationship between the owner class and working class.
>>18406510>Yes it does because that's how you get to the conclusion that profit is surplus labor valueThis has already been said multiple time. Marx operates on the basis of a competitive environment where any goods produced are bought. Dude at some point you just need to read what has been said.>Why not?No distribution system, no capacity to expand, no ability to get the raw materials etc. Besides, the knowledge to make a loom is human capital too.>There can be specific economic conditions where laborers have a lot of choice or some choice or no choiceIt's not specific conditions, it's the majority of conditions. Most workers don't have the required capital to start a firm. The idea of time/risk preference only really applies to upper class workers who earn enough to start their own firm but choose otherwise. And even then, there is a lot of other technicalities which also come into play.
>>18404035The point still stands
>>18402795economic calculation. It's a shrimple as that, >>18402809and this, but this is also a problem in capitalist systems too. Anarcho capitalism is the only system worth pursuing in the long run.
>>18406671 >Anarcho capitalism is the only system worth pursuing in the long run.Kek
