How did communism get entirely co-opted into an ideology of resentful third-worlders and non-white ethnonationalists?
>>18414711don't forget the irony-poisoned white chapotistas
>>18414712>>18414711Karl Marx was a "resentful third-worlder and non-white ethnonationalist". Engels was a "white chapotista", but worse because completely unironic.
>>18414711I mean what else can you do with it. Already with Lenin you practically had third-worldism emerge, it's the logical next step for communism
>>18414715I wonder how lenin coped with russia and the soviet union being an unindustrialized shithole despite having enourmous land and natural resources due to imperialism.
>>18414718the plan was to use the post-WW1 turmoil to bum-rush germany and set off the REAL proleterian revolution, and once that failed they devolved into the third worldist cope that ackchoally the real proletariat were chinese rice farmers not blue collar aristos working in english or german factories
>>18414711Marx warned us about this. He believed third world countries shouldn't become communist until they mastered liberal capitalism first. He believed that communism should only succeed capitalism.
>>18414711Bolshevism is the ideology of the White Man. It's the shitlerites who are all brown
sincere communism pretty much died when collectivization in the soviet union was a disaster and all the communists were left standing around saying "well now what"?
>>18414711Because national, ethnic, racial and gender identity is more important to people than class divide and once whitoids rejected it all they could do was appeal to brown and trans people
>>18414711that's what's it always been
>>18414733>political party of a bunch of jews (non-white people) in russia (non-white country)>ideology of the White Man
>>18414711This is bait but nonethelessMarxism's idea is that the world as we know it, our "metaphysics", should focus on "praxis", which is political confirmation. As such, when Marx is saying that he is a "materialist", he is not claiming that he rejects Hume's skepticism or Kant's noumena, but rather that he believes that knowledge should be submitted to (political) practicality. However, Marx goes further and rejects Hegelian and theological conceptions of the world, because they imply some principle underlying the world and bringing about fixed pseudo-metaphysical essences. As such, when Marx's "dialectical materialism" (a word which he never used but was invented after him by Plekhanov) is simply a rejection of non-praxis oriented metaphysics and a rejection of reality as being secundary to fixed structures, principles and "ideas".The "dialectical" part comes from Marx being a left-hegelian. These were a collection of post-hegelian students who rejected Hegel's conclusions as the liberal order as the End of History, but still agreed in his dialectical method. In a word, this consists mainly in understanding the core mechanisms which makes a system or thing real, and analyzing which conditions are created for it to change. Despite his later rejection of the left-hegelian movement and his critique in "The Holy Family", Marx still very much used this form of analysis, notably in the Grundrisse and the Capital.Now, Marx operated this method in a praxis-oriented manner (see above), by which he attempted to analyze which mechanisms and underlining structure made "change" occur in societies. His results were that the economy determined most of society, and that "change" was in reality social revolution. You have to understand that although this sounds very debatable nowadays, he was writing at a time where revolutions seemed imminent, having himself witnessed the european-wide 1848 revolts. (part 1)
>>18415226This begs the question however, which condition makes change possible ? Here, we delve into Marx's more early works, most notably the 1844 manuscripts. In this work, Marx posits the individual to be a social animal (living in society), and to be self-realizing animal (humans consciously set out objectives to be realized in order to fulfill their needs/desires/ambitions etc). For him, when humans could not perform this realization, they were "alienated" from the product that they sought to create. A worker could not work to create his own objects, to perform social activity, to control his destiny etc. All of these were laid in the hands of the "bourgeois", which owned production and consequently the means of self-realization. Albeit this "alienation" conception is severely underdeveloped, it ought to be more clear if it is presented through the lens "options". When a worker cannot work for himself, but is faced with necessity, there is a somewhat rational element here. He cannot work for himself because of immutable constraints. However, when the worker can work for himself in a possible alternative, but is deprived from doing so because of XYZ reason, he is "alienated" from this potential, from his "species-being".As such, the natural proclivity of marxism towards disenfranchized class is precisely a result of this mechanism. Marx's critique is that you're being robbed of your potential. This resonates with people who have little agency over their own lives and who see their countries as alien to themselves.
>>18414711The Soviets purposefully exported it to the third world in order to weaken Western colonial empires.
>>18415429Western colonial empires were long dead before the proxy wars of the mid to late 20th century. You're just some yurotroon trying to cope with simply being told by America that you were no longer an empire.
>>18414982Russia is White (unlike Poland or wherever you're from)
