What is inherently bad about Communism? if the working class is a rising power than they would demand all power, it's nature. If the workers build and know how to maintain all the infrastructure then it's their world that they built already.
>>18506059It's never about the workers, it's about the party wonks and theory nerds. Closest to what you're describing might be something like the Limerick Soviet which folded in the span of a couple months>inb4 N-NOT REAL COMMUNISM!
>>18506059>if the working class is a rising powerLets stop right there. Communism is NOT about the working class rising to power. Communism is about collective ownership of the means of the production. What does this actually mean? A vanguard party seizes power of the state and then nationalizes industries, so the means of production are controlled not by private interest, but by the state which itself is under the totalitarian control of the party. The Party holds the power on behalf of the workers. There is NO WHERE in communist ideology or law that says "the workers" or "the proletariats" own the means of production, its always the state.
>>18506059Race is more of a class than class is. You have much more in common with a rich businessman who's the same race as you than you do with an immigrant who's not your race and who just happens to earn a wage just like you.
>>18506059>>18506152From the first part of the Constitution of the Soviet Union. Repeated over and over that it is the STATE, not "workers" or "peasants" or "proletariat", own the land and industry or the means of production and it is the state that controls the economy. This is all in line with standard Marxist thought.
>>18506059Inherently? Nothing.Critics conflate the flaws of a particular implementation with Marxism but these are easily shrugged off.
>>18506154Not even remotely true. A black guy who owns a liquor store 10 miles from me has a lot more in common with me than a South Dakotan rancher 2000 miles to the west
>>18506174Nope
>>18506154Definitely untrue if you consider class economically.Also pretty untrue culturally. People frequently express disgust at how Zuckerberg, Gates, or Musk come across because they're so alien and weird.
>>18506163From the Constitution of Cuba. Title I; Chapter I; Article 5 lays out that the Communist Party, acting as the vanguard of socialism, is the "Superior driving force" of the stateTitle I; Chapter II; Article 19 says that directs and regulates the economy. Article 20 says that workers "participate" in the process of economic planning. Its Cuban law that the communist party, acting as the vanguard, owns and directs the economy, not the workers. Again, this is all in line with orthodox Communist thought.
>>18506176Nice argument. Go travel to Serbia and see if le volk are just how you imagined them to be
>>18506154I'm a certified terminal poorfag, complete with low income and debt. I used to date a woman that was rich by proxy of her rich parents bankrolling her life. The difference between the two worlds is enormous, I hate to burst your bubble. Completely different ways of looking at the world, even the basic logic is different because their thinking and logic is centered around a foundation of an abundance of money. The differences are what most of all led to the relationship not working out.I say this as a person who finds communism absolutely abhorrent and fundamentally evil.
>>18506187Also from the Cuban Constitution. Title I; Chapter I; Article 11. The state, not the "workers", holds soverignty and control over all the land, waterways, and natural resources in Cuba. Again, as Title I; Chapter I; Article 5 says, the Communist Party, not the "workers" is the "superior driving force" of the state.
>>18506059>What is inherently bad about Communism?Because the only way to implement it is via a Command Economy, which is partially the same reason Fascism is bad>Why are command economies bad?They aren't bad on paper but in practice, it leads to a slippery slope where the state demands more and more oversight into what people are allowed to purchase and how they consume products. Even countries like China that have leaned more into mercantilism in recent decades still suffer from weird censorship laws and economic restrictions. The Chinese literally product products for the west that they aren't even allowed to buy themselves. That's some insane form of cuckoldery
>>18506187>>18506201The leader of Communist Countries are never elected Presidents or Prime Ministers either. They are always simply the head of the communist party, which acts as the vanguard, and this position is chosen by an inner circle of party elites. Lets take a look at Fidel Castros upbringing>Father was a rich sugar cane farmer from Spain>Fidel was sent to fancy private schools in his youth and excelled at sports>entered into law school and got involved with left wing political organizationsSo Castro was not working class at all. He was a rich kid who help establish a system in which he held complete power and his family lives a luxurious life while the actual working class people of Cuba live in abject poverty. The State-Party-Industry Chimera dictates their lives for them, gives them a penance, and complaining about any aspect of this system is considered treasonous, counter revolutionary, and reactionary.
>>18506232more criticism please, this is all very interesting.
>>18506242This boils down to a major misunderstanding of what communism actually is by a lot of young people in the west. They have vague ideas of it as some sort of hippie cooperative of sharing. Its not that. They might dismiss someone like Stalin as a brutal tyrant in polite company and distance their beliefs from him but Stalin was the zenith of what a communist actually is. People like Lenin, Stalin, or Mao understood the ideology much more completely than the average internet bernie bro who makes some sort of "that wasnt REAL communism" argument. Yeah, it was and the weird tankie chuds are at least ideologically consistent and understand the ideology better than that crowd. The brutal and totalitarian nature of communist regimes is not them failing at the ideology, its them perfectly implementing a core component of the ideology, pic related. To go back to OP, it was NEVER about giving power to the workers, its about an inner circle of elites who "know the truth", seizing complete power, and then wielding brutal and totalitarian power of the state in order to usher in a new era socialism on behalf of the workers.
>>18506152The local used bookstore files The Communist Manifesto not in Economics, or Philosophy, or even History, but Fiction.
If youre talking about the working class, I assume that you are a left leaning person who supports things like Workers Unions and the ability to go on strike and in collective bargaining for better wages and working conditions. You have to consider that in the western market economies, the state, the various political parties, and the industries are all separate entities. When a workers union is in conflict with an industry, its those two separate parties with the government as an uninvolved third party along with the various elected officials all belonging to various political parties. The state CAN get involved on either side, but they are a separate entity which is important to remember. In Communism, all unions are controlled. The Soviet Union had the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions which was the mega union that all other trade unions HAD to belong to. The ACCTU was controlled by the communist party and again, the party is the vanguard of the state which controls all industry. So in this scenario, workers can only join the official party-controlled union when they are in conflict over wages or work conditions...at industries that are also owned and operated by the state, which is controlled by the party...which controls the union. You get the point. The workers means were defined for the by the party elite "for their own good" you have to suck it up and deal with the longer hours and longer wages because that is your patriotic duty to the peoples socialist workers republic. Doing otherwise is reactionary and borders on treason. btw, this is the exact same system that Nazi Germany had.
>>18506059
The Sumerians had collective farming with quotas and rations and it worked fine
>>18506324Im not even sure the collective ownership thing is the real issue with communism as much as the sort of dysgenic freaks it attracts to power
>>18506154Rich white people don't like retarded white trash like (You).>b-but /pol/ said...Lol
>>18506176You’re a dumb nigger. I would know as I’ve lived in the south my entire life. As a lower-middle class white man, I have more in common with niggers and spics than I do with northern yuppie wasps. I know exactly how niggers feel about being niggers because that’s exactly how wasps treat anyone who isn’t in their immediate social sphere.
>>18506059Command economies don't work for anyone except the party, plain and simple. Everything else is window dressing to hide this fact from the serfs.>>18506154So why don't you live around those upper class White people then?
>>18506327Collective farming was shit everywhere it was implemented in the 20th century
>>18506269https://youtu.be/VAOrWAD5b0Y?list=RDVAOrWAD5b0Y
>>18506059Its not practical nor is it accurate to reality, it also does not adapt.Communism was a legitimate form of analysis in the 1800s. It is no longer."Workers" are not a coherent group."capitalists" are only coherent in so far as they are above the normies, but the son of a capitalist who owns no capital and works a wagie job, is still more apart of the capitalist class than the working class.The Capitalists themselves are also not organized around being capitalists, they are organized around not being normies.Normies are organized around their own concentric spheres such as men and women, upper and lower class, White and non-White, region, political view, religious view.>>18506154I dont know this post makes the mentally ill so angry.Its obviously correct.Your kinship groups is FAAAR more comfortable for you to be in and organize around than something as nebulous as da worgers of da werld.>>18506174>A black guy who owns a liquor store 10 miles from me has a lot more in common with me than a South Dakotan rancher 2000 miles to the westno they fucking dont, those two dont even know each other and they have differences in religion, personal association, method of work, work ethic, and personal behaviors and interests.You WANT them to have common interests because theyre both non-capitalists, but in the final analysis, being a non-Capitalist is not a practical organizing principle.I am working class, I do not want to be anywhere near blacks no matter how working class they are.
>>18506189>different ethnic group is different from youYou just proved his point.If what you said was true, he could go to Serbia and feel right at home among working class serbs.he wouldnt, and you just admitted as much because he is a not serb and therefore wouldnt be comfortable around ANY serb working class or capitalist.>>18506416>ahm a heckin racialist and communist sympafizer, you nevah met a souferner like mefuck off with the larp.Youre not racist, you pretend to be racist because you know that being anti-racist is cringe as fuck.>I have more in common with blacksyou absolutely do not.
>>18506398but do modest White people like other modest White people, because that is what /pol/ said.>>18506419>So why don't you live around those upper class White people then?We all live around upper class White people.You dont? hm....
>>18506193rich and poor within a group being different does not mean that being poor translates across groups.The social strata difference only rivals ethnic difference at the absolute and utmost extreme level like seven figures vs under poverty line.The vast majority of people, from poverty line to six figures, all have much more in common due to shared religious beliefs, ethnic background, and political views than two people from different ethno-religious groups who make the same amount of money working the same job.Racial differences between say Japanese people and Congolese pygmies are so extreme, the wealthiest Jap and the poorest Jap have more in common than either does with their pygmy counterpart.
>>18506327>the real issue with communism as much as the sort of dysgenic freaks it attracts to powerThis is why National Socialism works and has attractive White people like Dicky Spence and Aarvoll while Communism has fat goblins and brown monkeys like Baush and Haz.The only serious communist around today, Caleb Maupin, formed his own breakaway party citing leftists are degenerate freaks who larp as revolutionary because theyre unemployable.
>>18506445Communism is still a legitimate form of analysis, the economy is still one that doesn't provide for needs. There are homeless everywhere and our generation has both a housing crisis and a property crisis where rent keeps increasing and housing is borderline unobtainable even for college graduates. The market for jobs and careers implodes every 5 years, Loads of people currently have healthcare and healthcare issues on their personal insurance etc. The subject, the proletariat, has become a lot more weak in comparison to how it used to be but the primary problems are still currently there, even the basic goods americans have that capitalism is able to provide, food and gas, both of them have heavy ties to imperialism on third world countries (especially gas), the food americans eat is all garbage and the american car infrastructure is not sustainable.
>>18506247I think the point of communism was for the proletariat to achieve political rule, but that failed, and that's the problem. There are communist regimes though (still a few) which are totalitarian (or at least seem nice on the surface but are evil and totalitarian on the inside), but what the tankies (orthodox Marxist-Leninists) do is basically construct an ideology to lower expectations and justify the rule of these party-states that became focused on economic growth and industrialization in a military competition with the capitalist states, which might have been understandable in the circumstances but isn't really the exact same goal of proletarian emancipation on a global scale. That's why these groups spend most of their time glazing these states, but in their own ideological imaginary they get to feel like they're doing something, even though it's not like the Chinese government has any use for their advice. I'm not making a "that wasn't REAL communism" argument though. There were communist revolutions with armed proletarian organizations that participated in them. But what happened is they just degenerated, a bunch of workers died in civil wars, a bunch of industry was destroyed, and then there was a general collapse in morale and hopes among a lot of people regarding the future while living in a destroyed slum. That was the soil in which Stalinism emerged. But what tankie chuds will do is like hell yeah that's awesome, there's a civil war in which millions of people die and you get this crackpot dictatorship take power, and that's how we'll be masculine and based, and that's real communism, that's awesome, that's what we're about. It's like thinking the FARC-EP is based, and then they wonder why "the workers" are just not interested in this, so they come up with conspiracy theories as an alibi, the CIA made everyone gay, etc.
>>18506451Maupin is literally a fascist he is not a communist at all
>>18506059Part of communist theory is that the Party will overthrow self-interested regimes and create a transitional government that will guide the citizenry to the workers' paradise, and then dissolve itself. In practice, the Soviet government was no closer to this handoff in 1989 than it was after the Russian revolution. Governments and bureaucracies have a tendency to self-perpetuate. This is just one of the impracticalities of communism, how it's built on many hypotheses that call themselves theories but aren't backed by history.
>>18506486>communism is when there are no ruleswhy are they like this?
>>18506457No it is absolutely not legitimate at all anymore.Not with the transformation of capital and the fluidity of upper mobility into the lowest level of capitalist.>the economy doesnt provide for needsno, non-Whites dont provide for themselves.True Communists want to liberate the proletariat from the dead weight of the intellectually and physically and behaviorally inferior.Superior workers owe NOTHING to inferior "workers" who parasitize the value generated by more skilled more dedicated more capable labor.Communism emerged at a time when labor was a monolithic, monoethnic, monotheistic bloc.We just do not live in that world anymore.The proletariat is weak because Whites are weak.a strong proletariat necessarily proceeds from a strong people, you cannot have a weak people, brought down by diversity and the erosion of culture and tradition, and expect a robust movement of organized labor.Communism is a bad analysis because it expects organized labor to be drawn from a hat.National Socialism is closer where Communism SHOULD be if we are to take a materialist dialectic and apply it to 2026.
>>18506059>What is inherently bad about Communism?communism is a jewish scheme to take powerit relies on delegating power to (((communes)))it's virtually the same as liberalism with it's (((capital))) except former is marketed towards poors and loser while later at upstarts
>>18506152And who owns the state?>what is communismIt's a STATELESS, classesless and cashless society.
>>18506059>What is inherently bad about Communism?It's obsolete made up from scratch totalitarian ideology that imposes state control like in eastern despoties and reduces people to bugman.
>>18506577>state control>stateless societyHave you read anything about communism?
>>18506059there is nothing inherently bad, unless massacring the entire genetic elite to achieve untermensch utopia is bad
>>18506541You don't go from totalitarian state to no state bro, even if this totalitarian state supposedly "represents" the people.>who owns the stateCertainly not the workers lul
the entire premise cooked up by Marx is wrong. Primitive communism where it was true at all was in mobile, low density foragers stuck in wastelands. And for tens of thousands of years at least they have been in the minority compared to semi or fully sedentary foragers that went on to give rise to agriculture and states. Every new cultural institution or technological innovation adds further layers of infrastructure that require leadership to maintain. And even the periodic collapses in the historical record fail to stop reinvention or adoption from elsewhere.>workers build and know how to maintainAnd the people overseeing these efforts become ruling class regardless their background. Never mind that socialist leadership in almost every case were intellectuals of middle class or lower aristocracy origins anyways.
>>18506059Iphone
>>18506059Communism is degenerate and ungodly because it begins with the false presupposition that man is matter in motion and ends with the false conclusions that social hierarchy is inherently wrong and that violence is an acceptable means to end social injustice.“And on this matter we denounce the Anabaptists, other anarchists, and in general all those who want to reject the authorities and civil officers and to subvert justice by introducing common ownership of goods and corrupting the moral order that God has established among human beings.”Belgic Confession article 36
>>18506059Its mostly an irrelevant and dead ideology. Pure Marxism was too hyper-specific. It was modeled specifically for the rich industrial west europe not for the semi-feudal Tsarist shithole that was Russia. Which is why Lenin had to revision elements in Marxist theory giving birth to Marxism-Leninism.
>>18506670Jewish ghosts aren't real. Sorry, but the Communists were correct on that part.
>>18506675I wasn’t seeking commentary from imbeciles and fools
>>18506611>Certainly not the workers lulYes, they do.
>>18506677Neither was I from people that believe in Jewish ghosts
>>18506059> What is inherently bad about Communism?No democracy No freedom of speechNo religionNo property rightsState enforced poverty Political persecution GulagsDestruction of culture Starvation etc
>>18506611>Communism is NOT about the working class rising to power>communism is a statelss, classes and cashless society>You don't go from totalitarian state to no state bro>socialism to communismIt's not a totalitarian state, where all power is concentrated to one individual, it's a dictatorship of the proletariat.
>>18506539Based anon knows "they" are responsible for both completely dysfunctional extremes, both of which ultimately result in that society's destruction, morally and/or physically.
>>18506768Yes comrade you are very useful idiot very good
>>18506486>>18506511Fascism might be a stretch (also a term of abuse) but he's a culty guy who likes the Moonies, he also doesn't call himself a communist anymore. He was in the Workers World Party though but I think what these sectarian ML groups do is mostly imprint in people a certain style of political discourse and behavior, political strategies, and preferences. But the idea that they represent some unifying, theoretical understanding of Marx is nonsense because such a thing doesn't exist. People think it's like some overarching ultimate vision but it's not, people in history just do whatever, and Marx wasn't consistent either, he was just responding to whatever situation he was in front of.
>>18506766>but enough about capitalism
>Communism is a bad analysis because it expects organized labor to be drawn from a hatThis whole Popular Front approach kinda backfired on communist and socialist parties in the long run. Instead of pulling liberal elements gradually towards socialism it instead resulted in liberal elements gradually pulling socialists closer towards liberalism and away from class struggle. The end result being, most of socialist parties nowadays subscribe to a neoliberal economic model, with a red coat of paint on top.
>>18506059>What is inherently bad about Communism?Lots of things, but let's start with you. You did the low intelligence thing and automatically assumed that what communism states it is and wants to solve, is what it is and is capable of solving.Criticizing, crying about, and undermining the so-called "ruling ideology" doesn't make you actually have solutions, nor does it make you or your movement eligible to solve them even if we entertain the idea that the diagnose is correct. Especially if you're a so-called worker who has been preoccupied with stocking your fridge your entire life and have no experience or generational background leading groups of people let alone nations.>if the working class is a rising power than they would demand all power, it's natureClassical marxism is already disproven when it became obvious that the idea that western people working in factories would seize the political machinery wasn't going to happen. The neomarxists moved on to third worldism where there's some few people doing manual labor they can use for bolstering their intellectual narcissism and sociology where they can endlessly culturize "power relations" like they work for TMZ.What happened in the west instead is that capitalism made people so fat and rich that they started pretending to reject materialism altogether via some weird hippie bullshit and then they invented computers and sat at home doing pretend work up until the present day.>If the workers build and know how to maintain all the infrastructure then it's their world that they built already.The workers execute plans and visions created by more apt men which is why they're workers. Nothing wrong with that, but don't try to make yourself more important than you are, just because you are numerous. This alluring idea that manual labourers are somehow more noble and oppressed by evil is toxic and dangerous because you get groups of entitled retards who try to interfere with things they shouldn't.
>>18507155Tsmt
>>18506541>And who owns the state?The vanguard communist party, its been explained in detail and with examples in this thread
The problem is that communists are gigantic hypocrites, who will side with Muslim bourgeoisie over non-Muslim proletariat everytime. You will never see a communist criticize Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar, etc. for the sorts of abuses they’d go ballistic over in non-Muslim countries. Find me one case of communists standing up for non-Muslim workers against a Muslim elite. You can’t.
>>18507975All seeming contradictions within leftist thought are explained once you realize that anti white agitation is their main animating factor
>What is inherently bad about Communism?Because as opposed to an actual stateless classless society, it becomes an authoritarian hellhole. It is an unfix-able problem that every Socialist/Communist nation encounters.>If the workers build and know how to maintain all the infrastructureThey don't. Next thread.
Mu Factually 4 chan is communists. These so called "janitors" are actively inhibiting freedom of speech, and working for FREE. They make free capital but will small out of their own free will for the greater authority that is the party of 4chan. Also, these so called parties have no baloons or champagne. The actual rights are inherent to every monarch, including the Butterfly Pony Queen and all her subs. Equestria is a prime example of a good pony-driven society, without relying on any janitors.
>>18507998>stateless classless societyNo, it's a stateless, classless and CASHLESS society>They don't.Then who maintains everything?
>>18507975If there's hypocrisy it's towards abuses under state socialism, communists will happily criticize US-aligned bourgie regimes that treat workers like shit (i.e. all three countries you mentioned)
>>18506059>if the working class is a rising power than they would demand all power, it's natureThis. anticommunist arguments always circle around either making poor ad homs, reducing marxism to the USSR, or making simplified strawman.The core of marxism is just historical materialism, which is simply the idea that different economic positions lead to different and opposing interests. This leads to political conflict over said-positions as the underclass have an interest in overcoming the domination of the upper-class. That's it. There's nothing insane about communism or marxism, it's just the logical conclusion of materialism and individualism on a societal level.This is why arguments about class analysis not being outdated, the LTV being disproved by marginalists (it was by Sraffa actually but I digress), or XYZ error in marxist analysis, fundamentally don't make Marx's method of analysis incorrect. Marx's diagnosis of late-19th century capitalism is indeed outdated. Marxism-Leninism (the USSR's model) contains structural problems which makes it tend towards autocracies. However, Marx's method : that each society is composed of different economic class with opposing interests can culminate in political conflict is true.>>18506152>>18506269>le communism is ackshually just the ussr>>18506225Yup, communism failed because command economies are shit. Had the Prague Spring worked, we would probably witness succesful "socialis" countries in eastern europe.
>>18508516>Marx's diagnosis of late-19th century capitalism is indeed outdated. Marxism-Leninism (the USSR's model) contains structural problems which makes it tend towards autocracies. However, Marx's method : that each society is composed of different economic class with opposing interests can culminate in political conflict is true.Marx was wrong that Socialism must come from a single spontaneous revolution. This idea is simply incompatible with the complexity of the modern world.Marx saw history as movement in which the material dialectic took place. Capitalism came from Feudalism, which came from the slave-based economies of antiquity, etc. But if you actually looked at these movements, none of them were spontaneous revolutions but rather slow and gradual movements birthed from the contradictions within these systems (like the bourgeoisie rising to power through free-trade towns progressively).If socialism does happen, it will be over a very long and gradual process.
>>18508516>You can’t judge muh ideology based on the real world applications of it and its subsequent failures >you can only judge it in a hypothetical box where everything just works outNo, this is a retarded cope. Either way the point is that the ideology is not about workers holding power, it’s about a vanguard elite holding power on behalf of the workers, in both ideology and in every time it was implemented. Communist are bootlickers by nature
>>18506445>"Workers" are not a coherent group.Based on... what? People still exchange their labor for wages.
(((communism))) is the lie sold to the (useful idiots) to implement the (((wealth transfer))) of the (((many))) to the (((few)))
>>18508623Vanguardism isn't Marxist. It's a Bolshevik thing. Nobody is saying you have to implement vanguardism in a socialist movement in the West. The underlying conditions aren't the same.
>>18508634Is the million sub only fan account as inherently valuable as the factory worker pressing bullet casings? Under communism it is Under fascism, the onlyfans model is liquidated while the bullet maker is glorified Under communism they’re equal Under capitalism the onlyfans model is glorified This is what they fear
>>18508516>However, Marx's method : that each society is composed of different economic class with opposing interests can culminate in political conflict is true.wow dude, Marx came up with the totally unique take that there are rich and poor people and sometimes they get into conflicts?!? lol this is the most pathetic goalpost move/cope I’ve ever seen from a marxist. No, Marx held to a near pseudo scientific idea that through completely understanding these economic issues you can basically hack into the matrix of reality and know everything else from culture, religion, sexual relationships, war, and even predict the future. It was about harnessing this new power and steering society into a communist ideal society through a specific brand of socialism in which an enlightened elite (the vanguard party) directs everyone else for their own good. You’re pulling it all out. The “not real communism!”, the “I (some lelddit 20 something nerd) understand Marxism better than Lenin/Mao/Stalin!” and the classic “Marx was actually just some social critic!” copes.
>>18508623>it’s about a vanguardDo you even understand Marxist-Leninism?
>>18508641>cashless societyDo you even understand what communism is?
>>18508435The only critique they have is that Saudi/Qatar/Pakistan are too friendly to the US, they have no issue with the various oppressive acts these countries do domestically (especially towards non-Muslims).
>>18508759North Korea, a Marxist State, sells out its workers as slave labor to the very same countries with horrible working conditions that you mentioned. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/nov/07/north-koreans-working-state-sponsored-slaves-qatar
>>18506541>communism is a stateless classless cashless society>where CREDIT is centralized in the hands of the STATE which has an exclusive monopoly on STATE CAPITAL>where communications and transport are controlled by the STATE>where factories and means of production are OWNED by the STATE?is communism just being logically fallacious at this point in order to mesmerize and confuse people and justify doing anything, is there anything coherent about your ideology whatsoever
>>18508795North Korea is still committed to atheism, which means that it at least follows the basic tenets of Marxism (Marx went on at length about how God was a cope). Pro-Muslim communists (by which I mean communists who consider Qatar and Pakistan to be historically progressive) are what refute the movement.
>>18508623>you can only judge it in a hypothetical box where everything just works outI don't, I'm perfectly critical of leninism, which tends to be authoritarian. Marx barely developed a "how-to" guide on the revolution, he was mostly concerned describing socio-economic movements>>18508654>Marx came up with the totally unique take that there are rich and poor people and sometimes they get into conflicts?!?Not what historical materialism is>you can basically hack into the matrix of realityI wonder if you think that marxism is some form of black magic or something>and even predict the futureHegelian historicism aren't about predicting the future, and marx practically abandons this hegelian lens in his later writings.>the vanguard partyYou're the fifth anon that mentions this so I'm beginning to think that you're a massive samefag. There was a similar anon on /lit/ who kept spamming retarded arguments. Are you the one that sperged last week because there was too many posts on marxism for your liking ?
