This is how I understand Marx's critique of Liberalism and how it applies to our modern times.Liberalism offers it's citizen equality before law, that the same laws and procedures shall apply to both Noble and peasant. Which is true in theory, but in practice when you reach the gates of court, justice depends on how good (and expensive) of a lawyer you can hire. And in some cases, if you can bribe the police or the judge. So irl ,the law does not indeed treat it's constituents equally. Liberalism offers all it's citizens equal rights to run for political office. But in practice popular support and good policy intentions are not enough. And even to gain such support and get your point across , needs funding, which makes the system beholden to people who could fund better. Liberalism offers every citizen equal political power over the nation in the form of the vote. Yet universal suffrage, despite giving everyone the same vote, fails to give every citizen same political influence as we see with rich lobby groups.Liberalism offers it's workers freedom from slavery. The power to chose their employer and negotiate their salary. Yet it cannot free the human being from the condition of employment itself.
>>25237643Cont....But why is it so? Why does Liberalism ultimately fail to deliver on its promise of freedom and equality. And when it does why is it so limited or restricted?Just like adopting secularism and exorcising Christianity from the state does not solve the issue of persecution of jews. Because the non-religious socio-economic structures behind religious division between Christianity and judaism (and the nature of jews as mercantiles/bankers) remains even after abolition of religion from the state....The abolition of inequality and slavery via formal liberal civil rights does nothing for the unequal and slavery-like structures that exist within society itself. Liberalism can only ever offer a partial freedom because it turns man into an individual, disconnected and alienated, from the people and structures that make him who he is. And then gives him rights that are limited to his individual private caprices (economically realised in the form of private property). Which is why Secularism can give an INDIVIDUAL freedom OF religion but it cannot give the COMMUNITY freedom FROM religion. And in the same vein the liberal rights can only free the worker wrt his immediate private limited caprices i.e. his labour as a private property. And since this freedom is limited to his private alienated caprices, it remains a weak limited freedom. He can only sell his labour to some employer but he remains ever truly alienated from the work he does and the thing he produces. The working individual gets freedom OF employment but the human community cannot achieve freedom FROM employment.
>>25237643the comma goes like this, after a wordnot before a word ,like thisnot with spaces around it , like thisand it's "its" when it's a possessive pronoun like "his" and "her", and "it's" when it's a contraction of "it is" or "it has"
>Yet it cannot free the human being from the condition of employment itself.why do modern communists labour under this pervasive delusion that communism means they won't have to work
>>25237643Here's your refutations, sire>Liberalism offers it's citizen equality before law, that the same laws and procedures shall apply to both Noble and peasant. Which is true in theory, but in practice when you reach the gates of court, justice depends on how good (and expensive) of a lawyer you can hire. And in some cases, if you can bribe the police or the judge. So irl ,the law does not indeed treat it's constituents equally.That's because the very idea of equality before the law is abhorrent because it assumes all citizens have the same interests.>Liberalism offers all it's citizens equal rights to run for political office. But in practice popular support and good policy intentions are not enough. And even to gain such support and get your point across , needs funding, which makes the system beholden to people who could fund better.This could be simply solved by banning lobbying and not allowing the ballot box, as popularity is no clear indicator of a person's abilities to govern>Liberalism offers every citizen equal political power over the nation in the form of the vote. Yet universal suffrage, despite giving everyone the same vote, fails to give every citizen same political influence as we see with rich lobby groups.Refer to your first argument >Liberalism offers it's workers freedom from slavery. The power to chose their employer and negotiate their salary. Yet it cannot free the human being from the condition of employment itself.I don't see why getting rid of employment would be a good idea. Now I agree labor should be dignified but this implies in the absence of employment that citizens would redirect their labors toward something with dignity as such, when its quite clear that those that do not work or at least contribute to society or the economy usually contribute to their own personal pleasures which often involves undignified behaviors, sometimes at the expense of others.
>>25237681Ok Ma'am. Just don't give me an F ok?>>25237685You are mistaken if you think that work equals employment.
>>25237729>banning lobbyingI'll lobby for that law, ...oh wait
>>25237655>Just like adopting secularism and exorcising Christianity from the state does not solve the issue of persecution of jews. Because the non-religious socio-economic structures behind religious division between Christianity and judaism (and the nature of jews as mercantiles/bankers) remains even after abolition of religion from the state....The abolition of inequality and slavery via formal liberal civil rights does nothing for the unequal and slavery-like structures that exist within society itself.source?
>>25237736>You are mistaken if you think that work equals employment.maybe explain that to your fellow revolutionaries
Communists yet again tackling the least relevant problems facing usNext, go protest for miners to be given more candles to use in the mines. Since you're tackling the pressing issues of our day.
>>25237729> it assumes all citizens have the same interests.How does this contradict the idea of equality before law?>banning lobbyingThis is exactly the kind of top down utopian thinking Marx warned against. Banning lobbying or corruption cannot actually prevent it much like how liberal formal civil rights cannot prevent inequality. >as popularity is no clear indicator of a person's abilities to governI agree in spirit but the idea is to get rid of the incompetents when they become unpopular. >I don't see why getting rid of employment would be a good ideaIt's only a good idea if you believe in the liberal project's idea that people should have freedom. A promise on which it fails to deliver. >Now I agree labor should be dignified but this implies in the absence of employment that citizens would redirect their labors toward something with dignity as such, when its quite clear that those that do not work or at least contribute to society or the economyWork that contributed to economy or society can still be achieved without the condition of employment attached to it.
they think it's like the rapture
>>25237742>sourceWhat do you need source for, former or latter?>>25237743Where's the contradiction?>>25237745The absolute failure of liberalism to give power to the people is not a relevant problem facing us?
>>25237757>How does this contradict the idea of equality before law?Because some people's interests are greater than others. Do you think that its okay that the government gives out gibs to people who don't directly contribute to your own wellbeing or those who are close to you in terms of economic, social, cultural or political bracket?>This is exactly the kind of top down utopian thinking Marx warned against. Banning lobbying or corruption cannot actually prevent it much like how liberal formal civil rights cannot prevent inequality.So we should be okay with foreign interests bribe the state against the interests of its citizens? Boy, for as much of a self hating jew Marx was you can take the jew out of Israel but you can't take the Israel out of the jew.>I agree in spirit but the idea is to get rid of the incompetents when they become unpopular.Why do you care so much about popularity? >It's only a good idea if you believe in the liberal project's idea that people should have freedom. A promise on which it fails to deliver.So you're saying that being beholden to your own class is what actual freedom entails? I know well enough that this kind of dreck started with Baruch Spinoza but people have agency. I know that bothers you.>Work that contributed to economy or society can still be achieved without the condition of employment attached to it.Thats all well and good, but what if they use that free time to actually act against the economic framework that's been set up in the first place?
>>25237762How much reddit are you using to screencap four updoots?
>>25237771>Because some people's interests are greater than othersWtf is that even supposed to mean?>Do you think that its okay that the government gives out gibs to people who don't directly contribute to your own wellbeing or those who are close to you in terms of economic, social, cultural or political bracket?That's just alienation talking. Even the janitor who wipes the floor of Google hq office, thousands of kilometres away from me, is contributing to my well being. >So we should be okay with foreign interests bribe the state against the interests of its citizens? It really doesn't matter if the bribing interests are foreign or local. It's not that you SHOULDN'T ban lobbying, the point is that you CAN'T. Not without changing the base structure of society to a point where power really belongs to the people. Not just constitutionally (aka liberalism ) but materially as well. Which means Capitalism has to go. As long as there is a Capitalist class, the people will never be truly free.>Why do you care so much about popularity?So that incompetent retards who ruin lives, stay out of power. Like King Louis 16. >So you're saying that being beholden to your own class is what actual freedom entails?People can play pretend with individualism all they want. They still can't escape the social nature of human life. Alienate yourself all you want from the people whose labour makes your life possible by placing money and markets between yourself and them. You will only end up not comprehending the alien forces that dominate your life and shatter your illusion of having free agency control over it. You will call it Absolute Spirit or God or Free Hand of the Market or Fate. You will end up a living contradiction, someone who supposedly has all the agency, yet hasn't become and will not become one of those "self made" billionares.>Thats all well and good, but what if they use that free time to actually act against the economic framework that's been set up in the first place?I don't think I understand what you mean by this.
>>25237729You're not really arguing within the liberal framework, save this reactionary blabber for some other thread.
>>25237643>>25237655I think your assessment is broadly correct, but not quite right. Liberalism is the default political ideology of bourgeois/commercial society, which came to power with the American and French Revolutions. The ideas of equality, freedom, and liberty were genuinely revolutionary, and centered society instead of the state. You had rights by virtue of being a contributing member of society through your labor (the third estate). In this sense, bourgeois society was classless society, but it nonetheless became a class society during the industrial revolution.Now, individuals had the freedom to dictate how to run their affairs. They could either start their own business, or join one offering your labor in exchange for a wage. This paradigm shift introduces a contradiction in society between the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production, and the proletariat, who do not. However, the freedom has has underpinned bourgeois society has become a source of unfreedom. The bourgeoisie is forced to run their businesses to accumulate and reproduce capital or else they fail (think about how chaotic the stock market is). The proletariat is forced to sell their labor power for a wage or starve to death.Thus, we have a contradiction between bourgeois society and the forces of production, and that contradiction is capitalism. The Marxist critique of liberalism is that it fundamentally cannot deliver on what it promises because of capitalism. As a result, the goal of Marxists is to reach the ends of liberalism by overcoming capitalism.
>>25237643Every time, brother.
Communists do this thing over and over again where they describe universal human constants and then say "imagine if reality wasn't real? How good that would be?" And thats why it's the dumbest set of ideas ever created.>bro working is oppressive it shouldn't exist>has always existed everywhere >bro there's no real standard of justice its just based around power>true in every society on earth forever except that liberalism created some semblance of buffer>omg dude most people don't own, they rent or they wage>true except that slavery has since been abolished whereas it used to be very common>omg dude the guy with the power is an asshole>always true and would be and has been true under communist systems >omg dude I can't just get everything i want, always with zero latency and everyone else get the same>Yeah welcome to planet earth for thousands of years
not that I read books that I can quote to back up my "arguments", but I'd rather have laws that threat people as equals than to trust politicians to decide on how to treat the inequalities of society
>>25238081I'm glad ive pissed you off enough for you to get mad. My work is done here.
>>25239091>You had rights by virtue of being a contributing member of society through your labor (the third estate).Wouldn't it be property ownership? Now it was the case in the U.S. in the 18th century that a lot of people who didn't own property could obtain some by working for others and making enough money to buy a plot of land, which is what most propertlyess men aspired to do, and there was a lot of land to go around. This was in economic terms like rocket fuel.>>25239331>omg dude the guy with the power is an asshole>always true and would be and has been true under communist systems>omg dude I can't just get everything i want, always with zero latency and everyone else get the sameI actually don't think the guy with the power is necessarily an asshole. I've not actually had that problem with any boss I've worked for. They've all been kind of nice (?) actually and paid me. Also a lot of communists seem to treat each other even worse than the bosses I've had. But I think where things go haywire is explained in part by this Marxist sub-theory of "thingification" (or Verdinglichung), which is how (iirc) people are turned into cogs basically. It's how people lose their humanity and become tools and are taken advantage of. Now I think that can also happen under governments or economic systems calling themselves socialist, or socialists/communists do this themselves by seeing "the workers" as a vehicle for their own self-aggrandizing lust for power, but what actually sets the workers in motion isn't an abstract theory of communism in any case, it's more an explosion of resentments about the loss of dignity and agency and a call to regain those things:https://youtu.be/wi7SRWuL4m4
>>25237681imagine being such a wet tampon baby
Ernst Mandel:>Along with this shut-in horizon will go something which is much worse, the tendency to transform relations between human beings into relations between things. This is that famous tendency toward “reification”, the transformation of social relations into things, into objects, of which Marx speaks in Capital.>This way of looking at phenomena is an extension of this theory of alienation. Here is an example of this transformation which I witnessed the other day in this country. The waiters and waitresses in restaurants are poor working people who are the victims and not the authors of this process of reification. They are even unaware of the nature of their involvement in this phenomenon. While they are under heavy pressure to serve the maximum number of customers on the job imposed upon them by the system and its owners, they look upon the customers solely under the form of the orders they put in. I heard one waitress address herself to a person and say, “Ah, you are the corned-beef and cabbage”. You are not Mr. or Mrs. Brown, not a person of a certain age and with a certain address. You are “corned-beef and cabbage” because the waitress has on her mind the orders taken under stress from so many people.>This habit of reification is not the fault of the inhumanity or insensitivity of the workers. It results from a certain type of human relation rooted in commodity production and its extreme division of labour where people engaged in one trade tend to see their fellows only as customers or through the lenses of whatever economic relations they have with them.>This outlook finds expression in everyday language. I have been told that in the city of Osaka, the main commercial and industrial capital of Japan, the common mode of addressing people when you meet is not “How do you do?” but “How is business?” or “Are you making money?” This signifies that bourgeois economic relations have so completely pervaded ordinary human relations as to dehumanise them to an appreciable extent.>I now come to the ultimate and most tragic form of alienation, which is alienation of the capacity to communicate. The capacity to communicate has become the most fundamental attribute of man, of his quality as a human being. Without communication, there can be no organised society because without communication, there is no language, and without language, there is no intelligence. Capitalist society, class society, commodity-producing society tends to thwart, divert and partially destroy this basic human capacity.
>>25237643Yet Social Liberalism and Social Conservatism under Keynesianism gave us the golden age of capitalism from 1945 to 1979?You’re a dumb retard nigger who only whines about Debunked Chicago School of Economics and Austrian School of Economics and the Neoliberal/Libertarian World of 1980 to now.
>>25239579lol no
>>25237643>Yet it cannot free the human being from the condition of employment itself.LOL, what a giveaway.You're just a lazy fuck, like all commies.
>>25239785youre so fucking stupidcommunism is about unalienated laboryou dumb fuckwhich is what we need more of in this shit timeline of mass explopitation
>>25239821Your hilarious triggering suggests he was dead right. Get a job, zoomer.
>>25239844you're brown
>>25239844holy meme bro do you have an original thought?
Liberalism doesn't have to be perfect when the alternative, communism, is way worse by all objective metrics
>>25240234Top kek. Tankies utterly destroyed.
>>25239579The large scale destruction of infrastructure, industry and surplus population during ww2 - providing capital with a mass of fresh markets to exploit - is what created this so called golden age. Even bourgeoise economists admit as much, usually in a very roundabout way tbf.
>>25240408This is actually a fallacy in economics called the broken window fallacy (socialists do it a lot because they bat at understanding economics), and there's no evidence or economists that say the world would have been better off if WW2 never happened.
>>25239498>Wouldn't it be property ownership?It was a process of societal transformation. I think suffrage is a good example of this. Suffrage independent of property wasn't a politically salient issue until people went into cities en masse for jobs. Previously, it would be logical for workers to defer voting to their employers, since it's the latter's duty to ensure the success of the business and their jobs by extension. Now, however, there was the threat of economic depressions and mass unemployment in the big cities. If you're unemployed, there was no way to be politically involved or represented, and the ideals of freedom and equality were invoked for challenging this notion. It comes to no surprise then that suffrage regardless of property became relevant after the industrial revolution.>what actually sets the workers in motion isn't an abstract theory of communism in any case, it's more an explosion of resentments about the loss of dignity and agencyI agree. There's been a huge disconnect between theory and practice for a lot of contemporary "Marxists" since the New Left, maybe ever since the collapse of the Second International.
>>25240234Living longer is not an objectivly good thing specially when you only live longer to slave away more for your bosses. Capitalist societies only give such a high level of care for healthcare and staying fit and such as long as it makes you work and consume more. Public healthcare is only a thing so the rich dont lose important assets and people dont skip work days claiming they are sick Before capitalism those countries never struggled with crime, obesity, drugs, prostitution, immigrants and so on
>>25240816they bat man 67 skibidi
>>25241410>Living longer is not an objectivly good thingCommunists are so fucking funny bro
>>25240408The Economy of USA was already maintaining stability from 1930 to 1941 before joining WW2 in 1941 all under FDR!Keynes literally saved the West and East with Keynesian Economics from Marxists, Anarchists, Neoliberals, Libertarians.Even fucking Ronnie Reagan never ever abolished FDR’s Healthcare and Welfare Policies because Ronnie Reagan STILL loved and admired FDR and voted for FDR four times!
>>25241598ah yes, what Great Depression...
>>25239900Do you?
>>25242075hur dur?
>>25242133Hur dur to you too, obstinate faggot.
>>25242140you love me and want to put your head in my lap while i read from the Communist Manifesto. Don't lie. My handsome face glows in your eyes and you tremble, imagining being the pages i turn. But it wuld never work out because youre fucking dumb. sorry bro.
>>25237757>How does this contradict the idea of equality before law?Because equality is based on an assumption of what people want, and commies eternally make the mistake of believing that someone else thinks as they do. You may give the same universal basic income to all men and women aged 29, but then does that amount to the same needs? Aren't women going to spend more money on things that give them self esteem like beauty products, and other hygienic needs, or if they're home with a newborn, wealth that gets spent while the man is out?I think that the issue with "equality" is that it is so immovable. The second something is disproportionate to one gender, or one age, or any race, you can argue it's no longer equal or fair, and then I see people make adjustments like "Actually women need more basic income than men because X, Y and Z" but then you've defaulted to women. What about a woman with aspergers? What about a woman who doesn't live the way they've classified the justifications for giving them extra basic income?You have individuality at the end of the day, that gender/race matters less than people think, and since individuals are not equals by nature, how the hell do you create equality for them, without restricting their individual need?You end up imprisoning people to mediocrity through marxism, and that's the thing he and his idiotic followers don't get or don't want to allow, in which case they aren't good people.
