The entire problem with Marxism is that it assumes a virtue in the lower classes that simply doesn't exist. The proletariat aren't good, they're crude and ugly and oafish and they beat their wives and molest their children. They're not good, they're bad. Everyone is bad. Human nature is wicked and depraved, and that's why communism will never work.
>>24698289>The entire problem with Marxism arises from its assumption that the lower classes possess a virtue that, in my judgment, no evidence supports. I observe the proletariat acting crude, ugly, and oafish; I witness some beating their wives and molesting their children. I do not find them good; I find them bad. I regard everyone as acting badly. From my perspective, human nature manifests wickedness and depravity, and I conclude that tendency prevents communism from ever working.
>>24698289You've never read a word of Marx.
>>24698289Stop picking on the Marxists. They have nothing left. It's just churlish at this point.
>they beat their wives and molest their childrenThey aren't actually that based.
>>24698289you happen to live in Williamsburg perchance?
revolutionary class is 19th century nonsense, we now have entities such as DSA or European Union
>>24698289>The entire problem with Marxism is that it assumes a virtue in the lower classes that simply doesn't exist. The proletariat aren't goodno, not at all. He painstakingly describes how fucked the working class was in the 19th century, parents literally turned their children into cattle because they were half-starved themselves, and used them as their capital to generate money. He is never sentimental in his analysis; he is very matter-of-fact. The only thing Marx does is explain the system that is the origin of that suffering
There is no problem 'with marxism' because all the marxisms don't share any universal commonalities aside from them all being referred to as 'marxism'
>>24698289Why does he look so black in this painting?
>>24698340Except it's not the system that is the cause: the system itself is merely the effect of original sin.
>>24698340>he is never sentimental in his analysisThis is an out-and-out lie. He constantly and consistently makes use of moralizing language throughout his work, despite his protestations that conventional morality (dismissed as bourgeois) does not play a role in his work.
I don't think Marxism is at all concerned with virtue of any kind.
>>24698289if you had actually read a book, you'd understand that marxism is anti-morality. read anti-duhring. the only valid morality is that one arises after the revolution.
>>24698610Really, so you don't mind child molestation and things like that? You don't think people getting tortured is wrong at all or what?
>>24698289>he entire problem with Marxism is that it assumes a virtue in the lower classes that simply doesn't existNo it doesn't. It doesn't at all. Marx never said this. Why talk and lie about something you have no knowledge of, that you have to know you have no knowledge of. Why not play to your strengths and talk about being a retard.
>>24698625child molestation is a bourgeois decadency and must be opposed
I rate Napoleon 8/10 orator, this was before Austrian painter man
>>24698546Quote status?
>>24698289I dont like it because of the exact opposite reason. He takes away moral responsibility from people and sees them as products of material unfolding rather than the starting place of any conscious action.Taking away the moment to moment responsibility of sapience and placing that baggage on the back of extrapolated systems. You have no responsibilities or agency you are just a product of your environment. Anything is justified because its simply what history demands.
>>24698289This board should have a mandatory reading list with proper randomised AI tests. Retardation has become commonplace.
>>24699130Marx is really boring though.
>>24698856Marx does not propose historical determinism. This is a common fallacy that beginners to Marxism make. He's obviously in the middle with regards to the axis that on one end is the utopian socialism he argued against, where everything is simply a design of our minds and we can simply conjure up the perfect political project, and on the other end crude determinism that is closer to physics than history. What you are critiquing more closely resembles that of Right-Hegelianism, which, to simplify (and, if I recall correctly, the Young Hegelians themselves championed this interpretation), believed that Hegel advocated for the status quo.
>>24699144
>>24699148For further reading regarding this misconception:Theses on Fuerbach, MarxThe German Ideology, MarxPhilosophy of Law, Hegel (as pointed out by the text I presented)
>>24699150Oh, and the passages from the screenshots:The Main Currents of Marxism, Vol. 1, Chapter VIII (The German Ideology), Section 2 (Social Being and Consciousness). Leszek Kolakovskiand in the same book and volume: Chapter I (The Origins of Dialectic), Section 14 (Hegel. Freedom as the Goal of History).The author is an anti-marxist, so hopefully it's more of an amicable read for the chuds in the thread.
>>24699144Maybe, but the whole project sees itself as "historical science"the "subjective factors" I believe are seen first as products of objective realities of class first, which I kind of have to reject out of hand as a chicken before the egg scenario. First, the object, our perspective, has to be taken into account before talking about the object, the outside world. which may indead correlate with observed trends, but still must be taken in order of operation.it just oozes a detachment that I don't think works. I havent read too much of the right Hegelians, and just a little of Hegel (Pretty good on kant though), but ive always been on the theoretical idealist side of things, even if I might practically function in a materialist one.
>>24698289>equality has nothing to do with anything>securing the sinecure of vanguard and party cognitive elite persons on the backs of the proles is the goal>Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, LeninThe Proletariat is the one source of movement against the inertia of usury - supposedly - and is only to be used and eventually discarded by socialism as it takes control of and guides capital to its highest potential. Proles don't have to be anything except useful for driving history forward. Bluntly: 'capitalists' and 'imperialists' are only unjust and evil to the extent that we absolutely could have had flying cars well before now, but are retarding that leap to the stars such that everyone else builds their automated panopticon barracks regime first.Bolshevisms and all its variants go about redressing it the assbackwards way, but they aren't entirely mistaken, if only in primitive communist instincts of something being gravely - even biblically - wrong.
>>24699144This is completely untrue. The basic Marxist notion of false consciousness means that one's consciousness is socially conditioned and can be liberated by coming to know truth.The appeal for workers to unite and discard their chains is a command for them to recognize their situation.The difference is not in sweat or morality, but truth. When you don't know the truth, you're in false consciousness. When you realize that everything you know has been taught to you by capital, you're free to struggle and progress history.This is how Marx was interpreted at the time and it's dishonest or myopic to pretend and muddle things into having a nuance that doesn't really exist.
>>24698529He was a bit swarthy and his nickname was "the Moor." His hair color when he was younger was black, had that kind of Mediterranean Jewish look I think but it doesn't show that well in black and white photographs.>>24699144I think the Stalinists ended up being crude determinists and they called themselves Marxists which created more confusion.
>>24699213doesn't historical materialism kind of presume determinism?
>>24698289>it assumes a virtueNo it doesn't. At its core, it is just the observation that Capitalists buy materials, and then buy labor, and then sells the combination of this for more than the input costs, meaning they pay laborers less than the value that they provide. It's just the observation that theft of value is occurring by Capitalists from laborers.
>>24699205i don't disagree with you? you're stating the facts the about false consciousness and the need for workers to organise themselves to perform revolution. i don't understand how this conflicts with what i've said earlier. what i was arguing against was the notion that there is actually *no reason* to "reveal the truth" to the workers since all of history has already been determined. you can just sit on your arse and do nothing. your words don't seem to contradict that. i agree with what you've said.>>24699213yes, no one serious takes stalinists seriously, not even lenin himself.>>24699234historical materialism is just the theory of history as put forth by marx, that focuses on the material conditions that form the base of the base-superstructure cycle of history (sorry for my butchering of this, i am speaking informally). the term itself, "historical materialism", i think was coined under stalin or even by himself, but he didn't invent it. it's just a term used to describe the ideas put forth by Marx primarily in The German Ideology.i would also like to point out that there are strains of marxism that go far away from any thought of determinism, like communisation theory and operaismo. a good example of communisation thought would be Endnotes.
>>24699248isnt the action of combining those two in a specific way also valuable? a horse can walk around a feild and achieve nothing for that labour, but the designer who attaches a hoe to it makes its labour valuable.The administered probably accounts for a good portion of the total value created, not just the pure labour or the pure material.
>>24699213>Stalinists ended up being crude determinists On an intellectual history level thats the fault of Hegel's grand ancestor Spinoza.
>>24699269>the term itself, "historical materialism", i think was coined under stalin or even by himself, but he didn't invent it. it's just a termIts been a bit, but I remember reading marx and he said something along the lines that he wanted to get away from the idealism of Hegel and wanted it to be materially based. Or something or rather that was pretty close to the words "historical materialism" "this is a SCIENCE". It was in my marx-engels reader.>strains of marxism that go far away from any thought of determinism.sounds interesting for it to NOT be deterministic. dont know how that would work.
If morality is a product of the process of historical materialism then on what basis do marxists ground their moral claims?
>>24699272You kind of betray yourself by comparing a human worker with a horse. Remember, a capitalist will view the horse as requiring a certain amount of food and shelter costs to maintain it. The Capitalist views a human worker exactly the same, and will do everything he can to depress wages to the bare subsistence that will feed, clothe, and shelter the worker enough to continue working and not a penny more if it can be helped.Also, if a system has been put in place which is entirely maintained by paid human labor for perpetuity, how long is the originator of that system entitled to the fruits of that system? Can they pass that right down to their inheritors? Again, in such a case, at a certain point you would have to concede that the owner would simply become a leech, siphoning off value from people who are actually working, and if it is an inheritor, they weren't even the one to originally put the system in place. They would be doubly living off of other people's work!
>>24699310But the organizer IS the most important linchpin within any operation. A system does not function without a regulatory body that makes decisions and directs effort. It is probably the body's MOST important piece. Labor only has value when it is directed, not merely burning calories for burning calories sake.
>>24699234I am not an expert on this but I don't think so. There's this idea that Marxism is like a socialist version of Hegelian teleology where history has a purpose that's leading somewhere. Whereas it's more like: Marx thought he had sketched out a history of capitalism in Western Europe up to that point, but to generalize that would be too much, and there's no natural law or transcendent law of history which necessarily means communism is going to arrive in the future. The main reason I think that's the case is that the materialist theory of history is about nothing other than mankind doing its own thing anyways (it's people who "make" history) so there is ultimately a choice involved in what humans do (under certain material conditions at a given time/place). There's no God/fate/destiny involved here. Okay you do get a class struggle according to Marx which emerges out of the mode of production, but there's no law that says it will lead to communist revolution, the outcome is basically open-ended and could go in different ways.Part of the problem though is that his writing is also influenced by the extreme scientism of the period. This was really common. Look up Auguste Comte for example. Or Charles Darwin. So many thinkers during this period made claims to science and to be the voice of objective reality. This is the basic tension at the heart of Marx because obviously communism is a future Marx wants, but the damn thing is suppose to be some kind of philosophy (or anti-philosophy), science, or history.I mentioned Stalinism because if you read the introduction to Marx's writings published by them and translated into English there can often be a line like "Marx informs us that the development of the class struggle must necessarily lead to the final victory of the proletariat and communist revolution" although the irony is that if any of those Soviet academics are still alive they probably now think communist revolution is a utopian fantasy. The Stalinist stuff is all: five stages of history, inevitability, party authority, etc.
>>24699336>that his writing is also influenced by the extreme scientism of the periodyou know what? I think that answers a lot for me. Sometimes these big names are taken as immovable pillars of thought, not influenced at all by some of the passing fazes of thier time, but I totally get the sense of the "extreme scientism" of the zeitgeist of the time leaking in a bit in his writings.
>>24698289Marx never said proles are inherently good. Class interest isn't driven by morals but by relationship to the means of production. Molesters are lumpenprole. Read Peter Kropotkins if you want examples of communism naturally appearing in relation biological evolution. Read Peter Gelderloos for multiple existing community examples. Also go call your mother because I am fucking her
>>24698289i'm thankful that this thread isn't as stupid as it would have been 2, 3 years ago. very clear the right-wing is cringe now.
>>24699347It's also how he wrote about his opponents. He had an intolerant side (not as bad as Lenin though) and sneered at Bakunin and Proudhon and everyone who he considered a rival as unscientific. Now that might have been true but Marx is also saying: this is not my opinion, it's science. You can't argue with science, bitch! Marx is a vast panopoly of stuff but there's a lot of that in it.Marx was brilliant though and I think if he discovered any "law," then (this is my own take) it's that as societies enter in contact with each other, they compete, and the societies that are best able to increase social productivity will do better, and the ones which do not will lag behind, and if that gap increases enough then that starts to raise the question of whether the society that has fallen behind will continue to exist. They'll go extinct or be conquered or otherwise exit "history." And since societies don't willingly let that happen to themselves, there will be movements that emerge to either reform the political "superstructure" of their society or scrap it for a new one to enable it to develop the productive forces. There's a struggle that ensues there and it could end up in government reforms (pretty common), a full-blown social revolution (very rare), or a complete disaster and civil war which destroys the country ("the common ruin of the contending classes") or some combination of these things. But it doesn't necessarily imply that the contending classes will adopt a particular ideology like Marxism. That's more open-ended and events can actually be paradoxical in all kinds of ways, like just look at the Arab Spring, then the Syrian Civil War, and now there's a new Syrian government which seems to be adopting a kind of economically liberal "business Islam" influenced by trends from the Gulf. Those are all things that happened in the real world, so now how does one apply "Marxism" (or a scientific-like and materialist framework) to analyze that, the social classes involved, and so forth, which is a more interesting question to me than some slogans and symbols.
>>24698289>>24698295>>24698298Marxism is a mental disorder not an economic or social model.
>>24698289>Human nature is wicked and depravedit can be changed via egalitarian eugenics though. Make the incels have babies using stacey' eggs and femcels using chad's sperm. the incel and the femcel couple should take care of each other's children. It would be the femcel however that does the child rearing and it would be the incel taking care of the material & economic needs
>the problem with marx Be careful with the phrasing, might lead a marxist to reject that problem which you state as the only and then to reaffirm his own beliefs. In reality, marxism is full of mistakes and the refutation of many of them makes the whole system fall.
>>24698289>it assumes a virtue in the lower classesIt doesn't. Historical materialism? Culture (and therefore any understanding of "virtue") defined by the mode of production? Ring any bells? >The proletariat aren't good, they're crude and ugly and oafish and they beat their wives and molest their childrenPretty much tho. And what made them that way? And why does the Enlightened Capitalist expect the savage, crude, ugly wife-beating rapists to just wipe his bum for him forever? They are crude and savage, they kinda might chimp out you know.Now unlike you, this guy >>24698856 actually did read some Marx, even though he has a very one-sided understanding of him.
>>24699248>it is just the observationNot true, Marxism is politically practical from the crib. K&F did not seclude themselves away from the political events of their time for scientific objectivity and shit, they were active on the scene because they believed that political theory devoid of political practice is preemptively stillborn and meaningless. >>24699272>isnt the action of combining those two in a specific way also valuable? Why of course. But capitalism both succeeds and fails on utterly disregarding this element. Proprietor gets all the profits (or all the losses), while administrative labor is just labor, which at best gets compensated with a limited salary, regardless of how vital it is.
>>24699324>But the organizer IS the most important linchpin within any operation. Once again labor is subject to supply and demand. So for a Capitalist there is no such concept as "the most important linchpin". There are only parts that are cheap to replace and once that are expensive to replace, depending on how saturated the labor market is. And parts don't get in on the pie anyway. Blackrock couldn't give less of a shit about how talented and important the CEO of their land development holding #68562 is - to them he's just as replaceable as a lorry driver, just warrants a bigger salary because that's how the labor market for CEOs is.
>>24699309Marxism do not make moral claims.
>>24699688It's a psuedo religious cult based on altruism and pure collectivism. It can only contradict itself and be false by dialecting like a philiosophical troon in response to this
>>24699859>based on altruismHow is murdering bourgies altruistic? >pure collectivismHow is deconstruction of capitalist nation-states "pure collectivist"?
The difference between dvach and 4chan on communism is one actually reads but doesn't have the willpower to think and the other doesn't read but at least tries to think.
>>24699859thats nice hun
>>24698658Funny considering a lot of those who espouse Marxism do the exact same thing as the bourgeoisie. Time is a flat circle.
>>24699897>passive aggressive reddit snark
>>24699933you actually expected a serious reply to your retarded drivel lel
>>24699882The advocacy of selflessness is from their altruism, which is to say they fundementally believe it's better to "help" those in need if it's detrimental to oneself. Which is also why they believe it's better to be poor but equal with someone rather than both of you being richer but the wealth disparity is large.It's frankly the other side of the coin with extreme selfishness to the point it begins to subconsciously break down its self imposed barriers to selfishness because to not do so would assure death.>Why are you eating that loaf of bread, someone hungrier needs it more Is your argument>Capitalism is collectivistIn which case it isn't. Or>Socialism isn't extremely collectivist It is founded on the belief that private property should be abolished, I don't think you can get more collectivist than that. They even have to come up with copes like personal property because of the sheer insanity of the statement. Where the person in charge of the collective arbitrarily decides what property is owned by whom, which ultimately is himself under the pretense of the collective in all circumstances>>24699969Well, Can you actually make a serious reply?
>>24698289>The entire problem with Marxism is that it assumes a virtue in the lower classes that simply doesn't exist.>Marxism>assuming virtueStopped reading there. You should kill yourself.
>>24699984>The advocacy of selflessness is from their altruism, which is to say they fundementally believe it's better to "help" those in need if it's detrimental to oneself.Bullshit tho. It that was true then Marxism would advocate the working class maintaining subservient support of the ruling class at the cost to itself. > Which is also why they believe it's better to be poor but equal Marx never ever ever ever ever ever ever says that equality is something good. >rather than both of you being richer but the wealth disparity is largeThere is concept of "richness" separate from wealth disparity. To be rich means having more wealth than others. To be poor means having less wealth than others. >It is founded on the belief that private property should be abolished, I don't think you can get more collectivist than that. Property is an inherently collectivist concept - it's the principle of collective recognition of exclusivity of use or exploitation. You know, the part where even ancaps need teh state to maintain teh NAP and enforce property rights?
>>24699999Stop wasting your time with a retard who barely read the first paragraph of some Wikipedia article on communism.
>>24700003Don't tell me what to do.
>>24698289Can you quote one passage where he says this? Have you actually read any of his books or this another thread based on some half-assed generalization?
>>24699610the executive Institutional level is more important then basic labor. blackrock invests in a ceo more than a paddy flipper because he has more to do with the macro output of a company at scale.
>>24699604>utterly disregarding this elementisnt that what a proprietor does? they hold the executive reins of an operation and decide how labor and material is combined. or delegates someone to do that in their name as a client.
>>24699999Any books on how class is a soft concept? seems like there is a lot of permeability between classes and that they are more general categories then hard and fast things. I think history demonstrates that informal sub classes tend to pop up in any social scenario.Seems kind of reliant on classes being a harder concept then it really is, when patron-client relationships form intuitively across scenarios.I think that other anon mistakes common communist rhetoric (which does tend to seep into altruistic moralism) with actual marxist theory which is clearer about its stance being hopefully amoral.also >Quints
>>24698289We saw the noble Aryans move from Scandinavia into England and mainland Europe from the 2nd Century BC until the 12th Century AD. This movement set back the clock of degeneracy on the continent and brought back the government of the nobilities into the crumbling world of antiquity, ruled by decadent capitalists fighting with disadvantage against socialist pirates.Starting from the 16th Century, the Aryans becoming smaller and smaller in numbers, especially in the South, the bourgeoisie, no longer having to compete against their racial betters, came back to power.A pitbull is a pitbull, no matter if his owner speaks to him in English or in Latin. Likewise, until the 18th Century, France was dominated by an Aryan upper class. They spoke a Latin dialect, but they were full of that rectitude of judgment, that coldness of reason so proper to the German and the Englishman. The full oppression of the completely Roman plebbitry was an absolute necessity, from a geopolitical perspective. It was pretty much the only reason that France remained the European powerhouse for so long.The more the nobilities became mixed, the more these qualities vanished, all over Europe. Naturally, the day the racially inferior bourgeoisie took the power, and all of Europe became dominated by liberal thought, the most powerful countries in Europe would become the ones in wich the now dominant plebbitry was the most permeated by the Aryan principle.It's like with the antebellum South. As long as the Africans were absolutely oppressed, they lacked nothing in productivity and governmental qualities compared to whiter countries.Logically, the inevitable victory of the lowest classes brings the end of government itself.
>>24699999Marxism being incapable of saying how the "working class" would actually rule itself and thus defaulting to workers absolutely being subservient to a ruling class every single and each time it has ever been tried is not the philosophical win you think it is>Marx didn't advocate for equalityYou can't argue for involuntary wealth appropriation without collectivism. You can't be a collectivist if you don't operate on the pretense the ingroup is in someway equal to each other. In effect, the more collectivist you are, more you value equality. Of course no one can be truly collectivist or individualist without logically advocating for death, this doesn't mean they can't be more collectivist or individualist than any given opposition, just that they can't hold it as an absolute value. Marx comes pretty close to regarding equality as an absolute good with his entire world view based on basically the one metric of economic class. As he collectivises every other dividing factor to be equal in his assessment.>I think property rights are based on legal positivism Try natural rights, legal Fiat is a means to an end and can be wholly disregarded on a whim,this is traditionally done by states collapsing and is the reason why no dtate has ever conwuered all of man. Whether an authority thinks a crime has been commited or not has no bearing on if that crime has actually been commited, if anything it is the authority that has to ultimately abide by natural law like a dinky house being built in a flood zone being given permission to built there despite the fact it will assuredly abide by nature to be demolished in the next flood>>24700003Kek
>>24699133It's really not. It is dense and takes a lot to understand, but it is fascinating.>>24699581The analysis you're asking for absolutely does exist. Marx's works were really just the beginnings of this branch of historical science that we continue studying to this day. He absolutely did not know everything, and was confidently incorrect in some of the things he said, but the whole point of science is to refine our ideals to match the material.
>>24699593Marxism was always a tool to fool the serfs into swapping one Oligarchy for another while giving up all of their individual rights in the process.
>>24700618He copied the Royalist Arthur de Gobineau in his idea that the post-modern world will be totally communist. They only differed in the way they viewed this developpment. Gobineau viewed it negatively, Marx positively.
>>24700634Wich is implying that all oligarchs prioritize oppressing the serfs for the same reasons. The modern oligarch is just as lazy, feeble-minded and cowardly as his serf. He is basically no more than a premium serf. There was an argument for aristocracy for as long as there was people posessing better qualities than others.
>>24700634>>24700649Hierarchy is le good People aren't equalAn ideology saying hierarchy bad by saying classes are bad hust leads to a worse hierarchy
