How is this remotely controversial?
>>25261216Leaves open the possibility that a steady march toward oligarchy is not the only way to organize the world, which oligarchs find to be unsettling. THat's why they call you a dirty Commie if you suggest that possibility
>>25261216Nah what matters most is how resources are allocated. How things are produced matters only in how it affects the way things are distributed, the only way "how stuff is produced" matters most would be in relation to how other groups produce their goods; if their system obviously produces more for equal or less effort it should be adopted as it will make doling out resources easier as there will be less of a strain put on the power brokers. Furthermore, while he's correct in that the economic base is what comes first in a chicken/egg relation, the two impact each other in a cyclic manner with the former leading to the development of more efficient distribution, which incentivises more growth/innovation. The Marxist tendency, however, is to lock the current economic development into stagnancy as any development will necessarily harm the relative economic well being of whomever is the less effective competitor in a system; the Marxist will prefer 100 people with shovels digging holes over an excavator purely because the excavator will harm the economic well being of those 100 workers.>No they don't What do you think unions argue for? They don't care about better tools, they just want better distribution of resources relative to their labour.
>>25261216Ironically the model itself explains why it's controversial, idealism is conducive to feudal and bourgeois interests
>>25261225Your delusion is that oligarchy is avoidable.>But the oligarchs in power are uncomfortable with it!Yeah no shit, their individual heads go on the chopping block if their flavour of hierarchy gets revolved. What will happen, however, is the corruption of whatever system you replace it with into another one. It's unavoidable due to the nature of power. And frankly, since the only people that have a vested interest in overturning the status quo in the US currently are delusional lib lefts that call themselves Marxist (when in reality Marx would expel them for being a bunch of literal faggots and women), and Eth-Nats that want everyone not at least 99% pure Bavarian phenotype to go back to Africa despite themselves being a mutt amalgamation of Irish, German and Italian, their opinions should be ignored.
>>25261216It's controversial because it demystifies a billion dollar punditry and polisci industry whose core belief is that there are good ideas and bad ideas and that public dialogue and representative democracy are the best means of sorting the good from the bad.
>>25261216easy. i dont want to agree with you nor give up my advantages nor my exploitation not my shit.FUCK YOU.is there a problem?
>>25261216The most successful faction in world politics today, Islamists, explicitly reject this idea. So empirical evidence suggests it is wrong
>>25261259>you see, everyone in America is an AIDs ridden faggot and mystery meat subhuman, therefore the satanic end time cult running the country and the world economy is just.Very ZOGGED post
>>25261216Doesn't explain geography, language, culture, art, etc. Incomplete civilizational picture.
>things happen as a result of things that have happened in the real worldwoow
>>25261216Superstructure is not just ideas about how to distribute stuff. It's the very ideological paradigm that maintains the relations of the base structure through politics, religion , entertainment, education, morality etc.
>>25261362Its what happens when you let European leftists use the internet
>>25261216
>>25261359>success is when you inbreed and your savior gets dicked down by a group of Africans in the desert
>>25261225>litreally every drive towards communism ended in oligarchyLMAO
>>25261216because people are more motivated by crazy cult behaviour then any material condition. hence you have starving africans praying to their colonizers "gods" and vatnik marxist larpers praying to stalin and a cool looking flag while living under totalitarian dictatorship with no actual corelation to the ideas they pretend to believe in.also materialism is a meme philosophy and history doesnt strive to anything.
>>25261216Kind of bland. The controversy is hopped up liberal vs Marxist psyops to avoid communismLike this retard >>25261778You liberal faggot shill. How often do you jack off to this pic, man?
>>25261362I'm saying there's no point in the average person getting upset since their lives won't meaningfully change for the better if they support either of those groups. Regardless, they'll just read what you wrote and wrote you off as one of the aforementioned schizos.>>25262032nta, you just don't like facing the reality that most of your support comes from the spoiled, dysgenic children of the petit bourgeoise. It's why your ilk latch onto anyone thought to be conventionally attractive that support you (like that dumbass Turk streamer); Their support is absolutely critical for propaganda purposes.
>>25261216Because it has been falsified many times over. Were the communists ever successful in making people into what they wanted by manipulating their material conditions?Man is a certain kind of animal. He is unchanging. The only way to productively funnel him is through religion and culture. And what you are doing there is at best sublimating his animal urges and rewarding his higher ones. You are not changing the raw material and he is not mindlessly reacting to his material conditions. Or, put differently, poor people with almost no material wealth can be noble, honorable, honest, and fair, rich people with endless wealth can be the opposite. Or vice versa. There is no consistent relationship.Communists really need to get over trying to explain the world through economics and resources. It's one of the shittiest metrics there is.
>>25262203>Man is a certain kind of animal. He is unchangingFalse. If "man" were unchanging we would see no divergent evolution and disparate groups. As such it doesn't reinforce your claim:>Were the communists ever successful in making people into what they wanted by manipulating their material conditions?Speaking of, they were unsuccessful as man successfully adapted to bypass their retarded artificial limitations (see the black market that's present in all Communist states as an example). The reason you're ultimately correct, however, that man is "unchanging" is that we have the capacity to suitably alter the environment to fit us, rather than the opposite taking place. In short, the Communists lack the control to force us, and the knowledge of how to make their new man. All of their attempts were primitive and essentially the equivalent of a monkey banging two rocks together in terms of social engineering and forced evolution.>Poor and rich people can be good or badThe focus is on the rich as they are the ones with their hands on the levers of power. Yes, both can be evil, but that's irrelevant since their intent is to seize control and force people to be better through institutional dominance of both kinds.>You can't explain things through economics and resourcesYou can and it's an extremely useful lens their problem is that they see it as all that's relevant, your problem is that you see it as ultimately irrelevant.
>>25262140>your ilkLOL>Hasan mentionLOLAnon, this isn't twitter. You didn't pop into my profile and glean anything on me.
>>25261253Materialism is conducive to suicidal nihilism.
People accept slavery (the one universally constant, absolutely uninterrupted mode of production of the entire human race throughout its civilized history) on the basis of ideologies, religions, etc. How could it be otherwise? If they weren’t mollified they’d have revolted successfully, because the truth would win everyone to their side. But it doesn’t. It didn’t. And it couldn’t. Because everyone believes slaves are wrong to revolt. Even slaves.
>>25262748>You assumed wrongOh my apologies then, what ideology and specific branch do you belong to?>I don't need to tell you thatThen I'll assume I nailed, if not the head, then your general alignment.
>>25261216>how stuff is produced matters mostIt's why not how.
>>25261216"Stuff" is irrelevant. Stop "distributing" it. I'll let you know if I want some of your pointless "stuff".
>>25261216all large-scale organizations, regardless of how democratic they are at the start, inevitably develop into oligarchies ruled by a small, self-serving elite.
>>25262203>Were the communists ever successful in making people into what they wanted by manipulating their material conditions?This is a misunderstanding of the base/superstructure concept. As for your question, people have changed. A man from today is nothing like a man from 11th century. Completely different ideas on politics, laws, God and everything else. This is a direct result of the material conditions brought forth by industrialisation and it's consequent Capital based labour structures and relations.
history as a universal science is a spook. people attempting to theorize about something that doesn't exist are incredibly pathetic. They have the luxury of never being wrong because they are referring to nothing
