Marxism is just an attempt to accelerate contradictions to achieve the next historical stage (communism). It's concerned merely with how the means of production are assorted. It's value-neutral in terms of racism, sexism or homophobia, which might as well exist under communism too. Right-wing values survived the transition from feudalism to capitalism, there's no reason to assume they wouldn't exist in a communist society.
>>18771474>leftism is when gay people
>>18771481Gays, blacks, browns, women, et al., yes.
The Left-Right dichotomy is largely obsolete and inadequate at truly representing the political spectrum. The divide between different political ideologies is far better represented on an axis of collectivism vs individualism, free markets vs planned economies, authoritarianism vs liberalism, traditionalism vs progressivism and so on.
>>18771474Post-scarcity/ planned economy via robots and computers - that’s the inevitable end point of human progress. The actual specifics of Marx and Lenin and how they thought it would come about is incredibly outdated 20th c shit though.
>>18771515Yeah I'm kinda thinking this may be correct. Workers' revolution was always a larp, if communism happens it will be due to AI and automation
>>18771474Hegel was wrong unfortunately contradictions don't resolve nicely. It just gets worse. And worse.
>>18771474>It's concerned merely with how the means of production are assorted.Nah, not just that. That's an important part of it but it's also because how the means of production are arranged has an influence on everything else too, like the formation of the family in capitalism and the state. A lot of coercive things that limit people's freedom in various ways. So the defense that Marxism belongs to the left is because if you're going to radically transform the relations of production, then you're probably going to transform everything else too. That is the broader social relations around the mode of production which emerge from it and help sustain it.>Right-wing values survived the transition from feudalism to capitalism, there's no reason to assume they wouldn't exist in a communist society.Sure, yeah. I mean is communism when *poof* right-wing values go away, like magic? No, that's not realistic. I also think it also depends on how you define the left. Probably a good argument is to say that the goal Marx and Engels had in mind was not the same as any particular set of social or cultural values (which can constitute "the left") in a given country during a contingent historical period. What they were really about was the working class making a political and social revolution. >It's value-neutral in terms of racism, sexism or homophobia, which might as well exist under communism too.Marx explicitly wrote that the emancipation of the proletariat includes "all human beings without distinction of sex or race." Also equal pay for equal work regardless of the sexes. These were specific demands Marx dictated into writing that made their way into the programs of the early 19th-century socialist parties when he alive.
Also the stuff I said about a political and social revolution radically changing social relations is why people who are really animated by certain things which don't seem related to economics are attracted to Marxism. It's more clear in the case of say runaway female slave girls in China who became medics in the Red Army because they were economically exploited too. But people see all these transgender people calling themselves communists, and they're like what's up with that, but if you're a man who transitions into a transgender woman, you're kind of lowering your status in society if you think about it. But if what constitutes higher/lower status is thrown upside down or perhaps "abolished" altogether by a revolutionary transformation in the relations of production, then that might sound attractive. Marx didn't write about those people though but it follows. It can be in their material interest and that's not the exact same thing as strict economic interest although these are often conflated. "Materialism" here is more about people in their actual social circumstances.Also keep in mind that a classless society does not have a bourgeoisie but it doesn't have a proletariat either because those are social classes. How can you have social classes in a classless society? The proletariat's victory involves the self-abolition of the proletariat as a class because communism abolishes the preconditions of the proletariat's existence.
Marxism just gave a millenniarist religious impulse to the inchoate socialist grievance politics, and allowed the left to coalesce as a political force in the age of mass politics. This worked wonders for the SPD in Germany, who functioned like a religious church in an increasingly atomized society, who "ironically" called their weekly teachings sermons, and who fueled an evangelical impulse that seeded revolutionary cells all across Europe. Lenin simply completed the journey and became the Marxian mohammad.And not since the days of Mohammad has a worldview spread as fast, at the end of the sword, and at the barrel of the gun.
>>18771474>Right-wing values survived the transition from feudalism to capitalismNo they didn't. Prescriptive order =/= bourgeoisie order.The values of the old order isn't "there be god and fags are bad".The bourgeoisie ethics differ from aristocratic ethics significantly, it's just that unlike what Marx proposed, those two orders existed alongside each other for a prolonged period of time.A good perspective on that are the attitudes of the US elites to the army in the 19th century. While navy was something the bourgeoisie of the northeast could've sent their sons to and feel the sense of pride in it, the army? Scum of the earth. Army officers from the north were, more often than not the unwanted children of those bourgeoisie. This is the polar opposite to the pretend-aristocratic south or for instance Kingdom of Prussia, where the army service was seen as a duty of a well-to-do heir of wealthy family. Shall we say knightly duty? Noblesse-oblige perhaps? The contrasts are visible along many other aspects. The attitude to austerity being a great example - the bourgeoisie prided itself in it, for the aristocracy wealth was meant to be spent on either warring, prestige or political gain.
>>18771474Left wing is planned economy, right wing is free market. That's all it is.>b-but nazi's are right wing!Nah commies and facists are just two gangs fighting over who gets to be the collectivist dictator.
>>18771474The fucking state of this board. What's even the point anymore?
>>18772096Only lolberts believe this, which is next to no one.
>>18772106libertarians are but right wing hippies, try again without assumptions this time
>>18772101No argument detected, post rejected
>>18771474>left politics is when racism and gays
>left politics is when racism and gays
>>18771495>progressivismAnother word that doesn't make any sense. What does it mean to be progressive? To progress I guess. But progress to what? A fascist could also say that he is progressive because he wants to progress, advance to, his ideas.
>>18771474>Marxism is just an attempt to accelerate contradictions to achieve the next historical stage (communism).Between 1815 and 1914, it's an era against republicanism. Napoleon was defeated, Jacobinism had to retreat to survive and keep whatever records untainted. In this particular era, all monarchies coordinated and invented measures against republican upheaval: physical, spiritual, and intellectual. On the intellectual aspect, if any philosopher, any economist, any thinker bases his or her origins with the interests of the crowns, respectively nobility that retain stature, you're dealing to the equivalent of an agent of influence paid by the various crowns/nobility themselves. Marx wasn't an exception in this ordeal. Whatever he wrote, he did it for the interests of feudalism, against industry & capital, and especially against republicanism. To help the various crowns & nobilities to preempt genuine underground republican networks. His allusion that communism can only occur in industrialized countries was his cryptic communication that this is how the nobles, if removed, were to regain control – blaming capitalism means blaming republicanism. That's why he doesn't say monarchies aren't where the revolutions would occur – that's communism, it's feudalism. Communism, socialism, are feudalism reinvented from the position of dethronement, subverting republican revolutions. >Right-wing values survived the transition from feudalism to capitalism, there's no reason to assume they wouldn't exist in a communist society.What do you mean by right-wing? Right-wing under monarchism (feudalism, socialism/communism)? Right-wing under republicanism? They're polar opposites, antipodes.
>>18772008>Marx explicitly wrote that the emancipation of the proletariat includes "all human beings without distinction of sex or race."This doesn't preclude chuddery though. You could live in a society where the proletariat is emancipated from labor exploitation and still be against race-mixing, homosexuality, etc.
>>18771523That is unfair to blame Hegel for Marxism as Hegel didn’t believe in violent revolutions achieving anything. He thought that societies would progressively move towards what he saw as conservative monarchies with parliamentary systems that guaranteed rights to all and opposed slavery. Marxism is pretty much the opposite of Hegelian politics as it says that this monarchist system/ liberal capitalism and literal slavery are basically the same thing.
>>18771474>marxism isn't left-wing because it doesn't care about lgbtsIt's a miracle you have the mental capacity to even spell "feudalism"
>>18771481>>18772101>>18772179>>18772941Do you have an actual reply?
>>18772583>Whatever he wrote, he did it for the interests of feudalism, against industry & capital, and especially against republicanism. To help the various crowns & nobilities to preempt genuine underground republican networks.This isn't true at all, he shat all over those kinds of Socialists in the Manifesto, calling them reactionaries. In fact Marx originally advocated for assisting the bourgeoisie in their revolution against the old feudal order.
>marxism isn't left wing trvke, leftism is just the left wing of capital. marxism exists outside of the left right dichotomy.
>>18773213>This isn't true at all, he shat all over those kinds of Socialists in the Manifesto, calling them reactionaries.Socialism was the first one formulated and failed in 1830 and 1848. Follow the chronology. He accused them of being reactionary because he, like other communist writers, were tasked to solve the issues that socialists failed to foresee originally. Different subset, same meta category. Of course he wasn't going to befriend in writing because he had a different mission laid out by the crowns/nobilities: invent a new ideology because socialists failed to control the serfs/slaves for the monarchies. >In fact Marx originally advocated for assisting the bourgeoisie in their revolution against the old feudal order.Double talk. This was his way of telling the deposed gentry why & how to infiltrate them to regain influence. In his writings, “bourgeoisie” & “capitalism” are synonymous to “republican” & “republicanism”. It's coded language.The nobility knew their old world order system failed. Their concern in that era, until 1914 and further was how to regain power since simply owning land & bestowed a title of nobility wasn't anymore the path to assured power. Those “dirty [covert] bourgeoisie” and their “capitalism” ruined feudalism for them, now they had to reinvent feudalism under a different name, different pretense, different lies masked as promises.
