Am I retarded Veeky Forums?

Why is politics so convoluted? Why isn't there a book stating exactly what Marxists truly want and why, without all the jargon and abstract bullshit?

This is what I understand so far. I know it is probably retarded but help me out.

>Marxists hate Liberal Democracy. I guess because muh capitalism and muh neo-imperialism.
>If Liberal Democracy collapsed now or generations before us the west would revert to some sort of capitalist hierarchy (Fascism, Monarchy whatever)
>Marxists empower and awaken groups to their identity/oppression under Liberal Democracy. (Feminism, BLM, gays, trannies)
>A culture so awakened creates the conditions that led the French to revolt in the French Revolution. Thereby making fascism or any other type of authoritarianism impossible if Liberal Democracy collapsed.
>This is in the hopes of humanity arising into some sort of cooperative socialism at the end of Liberal Democracy.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

pic only sort-of related btw

>marxism
>relevant in modern politics

Are you aware of how many journals and organizations are Marxists think tanks in modern universities?

Fucuckyama is the greatest meme enabler of the century, in close competition with Sammy Huntingcuck and Nigel the Fercuckson.

>implying 'liberal democracy' isn't some sort of capitalist hierarchy as well.

>>Marxists empower and awaken groups to their identity/oppression under Liberal Democracy. (Feminism, BLM, gays, trannies)

Marx would probably be opposed to modern day identity politics. What binds the revolution together in marxism is class consciousness. The working class should find solidarity in that they are all workers, identity politics is dividing the workers. A true marxist would see it as a capitalist construct to divide the working class and make social cohesion needed for the revolution impossible.

Yeah...

Communist Manifesto was a thing.

>Nigel the Fercuckson
Who?

Without all the jargon?

There is so much wrong with your post holy fuck. I honestly want to help you but it would take hours.

>Marxists don't hate democracy, or liberal democracy. They talk about capitalism which is often the economic system associated with those things.
>there is no possibility for true reverting to prior structures in Marxism
>Marxist don't empower anyone but the proletariat. All the identity politics bullshit would be considered subversive to this cause. Those groups do often use the idea of a 'class consciousness' however: IE look at us trannies we're so oppressed we need to realize people who cut their dicks off are a class! The real gommies would round them up. It's just people spring theory.
>cultures can 'awaken' to over throw their tyrants. They can also change in other materialist ways that necessitate a change. Fascism was a response to capitalism so was a attempt at the next step. You seem to keep implying modern fascism is the same as some type of older unspecified nationalism. It's not.
>Marx original idea for a last step version of government was basically capitalism where nobody gets fucked. He basically only thought this was the last step because the consciousness of the class of people getting fucked would eventually demand it.

They still have no influence in modern politics.

>le gramsci meme
kys

>Marxist intellectual: "I will do x so y happens"
>y happens
>Non-marxist critic: "y happened because Marxist intellectual did it x"
>"Lol you are just a conspiracy theorist"

Why does it keep happening?

Pic related, even more influential than Gramsci nowadays. Basically every single issue in public discourse nowadays was advanced by Marxist intellectuals, as they said they would do.

There are. But I wouldn't say tons, in my experience. I don't like it.

There's a thin red line with this. If you cross it, at least have the deference of telling the media to drop the "historian" label behind your name for one of "guy with an opinion, professional paid-shill, lobbyist, politician, w/e"

>twists and manipulates history
First of all, that can be said about practically every historian that has ever existed.
Second, care to give a few examples?

Well it is a social science after all, but there's a difference between having an specific historiographic discourse and using it as an excuse to put forward an agenda.

Learn some logic, m8: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

How do you know he's got an agenda?

It's not really a matter of logic. Marxist intellectuals have been saying exactly what they would do. What's the problem of taking them for their word?

>Because he uses (or rather twists and manipulates) History to forward an specific agenda
yeah, because most historians dont do that either way, consciously or not

So I'm saying to you, I'm gonna sacrifice a goat so the Sun would rise up again tomorrow, and if it will, then my method is working and we should do it every day. And again, the fact that Marxists were able in some cases to recognize the trajectory of social development in the West doesn't mean they caused that development.

Credited. The only Marxists that even understood basic Economics in the last century or two was the Analytical Marxists out of the UK.

The fact anyone adheres to the LTV is insane.

Because he talks politics and tries to make it pass as a historical view. His entire discourse is contaminated by political prejudices leading to a conclusive point, that oh surprise coincides with his a priorism. The funny thing is you don't really need to resort to level of buffonry if you want to exalt the British Empire and the socio-economical system he relates to and attaches to the British system too. It is defensible without looking like a faggot.

I can smell shilling from a mile. I am spanish, and one of our hot-topics for shilling is the II Republic-Civil War, usually in the direction of apologetic-exhalting historical dicourse im favour of the Republic. While I am actually favourable to the II Republic, and acknowledge there is a lot of anti-republican, coup-apologetic memes still standing in our 'popular beliefs', the ones that do the same but on the republican side are just as bad and really do a bad service to 'the cause' with their shilling.

I think that their central position in the main apparatus of cultural reproduction in the Western world, the education system, gives credence to the idea that they changed the trajectory of social development, as they said they would.

But that's just me. The irony is that such thinking is considered "crazy". Pierre Bordieu can put all sort of evil plans in the minds of the bourgeoisie with absolutely no evidence and no one gives a shit. It's almost like there is standards of thought which are allowed to Marxists but not to anyone else.

What area? Most modern "Marxism" is complete Post-Structural (French People) or Crit Theory Bullshit.

"Oppressed and Marginal Groups" are useful in destabilizing governments. USSR was doing cartwheels at the civil rights and modern Russia, same thing

Have you Read Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism? He explores every strain of Marxism and its ideology and proves totalitarianism is inherent in the ideology. He's not a conservative either, btw, he's a democratic socialist who was active in Polish Solidarity.

Pierre Bourdieu isn't a Marxist.

Of course he was.

>without all the jargon and abstract bullshit?
They want to seem intelligent (they're not) and think big words do that. Same thing with adopting completing inappropriate or misinterpreted science concepts like the Sokal hoax. That stupid French bitch is still claiming science (not employment of women in science) science itself is sexist

There is absolutely no way you have read that book

T. Postgrad using laclau in dissertation

Except for getting rid of capitalism, the only goal that matters to Marxism fgt

If he's a Marxist so's Croce, Gentile, and Foucault.

He was obviously influenced heavily by Marxist thought and conflict theory, but he was also influenced heavily by Durkheim, Hauser, Mauss, and others

The broadness with which some people on this board define "Marxist" can basically mean anyone who is not explicitly hostile to Marx (and even some who are, eg Foucault)

PROTIP: Any book with the word "hegemony" in the title is complete and utter shit

Is it complete and utter shit or is it genius-level predictions of societal issues? It can't be both

Yeah dude, it takes a genius to reason that identity politics were a thing and then fill in 200 additional pages with ramblings about Gramsci.

Unlike most people who are the ones citing it, I actually read the book. It's shit. It's vague, wishy-washy, feel-good, post-structural, pro-everyone, Anti-M-L, democratic socialism "pluralism" masquerading as Marxism. It has theoretical holes you could sail the titanic through with its hilarious and all encompassing hegemony aka "The Man".

Ludwig Gumplowicz and the other early Conflict theorists were saying this shit before the end of the 19th century, more coherently. Read Lenin, too. And Foucault.

HSS was written in 1985, ie, before the modern idpol movement
How does Foucault negate HSS in any way when they both share a critique of the construction of subjects as a relationship of power
If anything, much of Laclau/Mouffe's work is an extension of Foucault, concerned as they both are with discourse analysis

You get that they are explicitly post-Marxist right, and not trying to be "Marxist"

Marx had no intention of generating a coherent strategy, he just needed it to appear coherent enough so he could use it to rip on capitalists. For example this passage that sounds more like banter than a nice and boring technical explanation.

>Our capitalist, who is at home in his vulgar economy, exclaims: “Oh! but I advanced my money for the express purpose of making more money.” The way to Hell is paved with good intentions, and he might just as easily have intended to make money, without producing at all. He threatens all sorts of things. He won’t be caught napping again. In future he will buy the commodities in the market, instead of manufacturing them himself. But if all his brother capitalists were to do the same, where would he find his commodities in the market? And his money he cannot eat. He tries persuasion. “Consider my abstinence; I might have played ducks and drakes with the 15 shillings; but instead of that I consumed it productively, and made yarn with it.” Very well, and by way of reward he is now in possession of good yarn instead of a bad conscience; and as for playing the part of a miser, it would never do for him to relapse into such bad ways as that; we have seen before to what results such asceticism leads.

Marx's attempt to quantify value by the amount of human effort required is interesting, but it only goes as far as its use as another fictional utopian ideal to contrast with the capitalists of his time. Had he acknowledged the organizational role of capitalists as well as the strategies they use to corner markets and so forth, he could go on to engineer an alternative that serves the interests of the workers, instead he seeks to dismiss the role of capitalists entirely. Rather than critically examining capitalism he imagines it as some kind of giant kafkaesque illusion conjured out of nothing and his ideas rapidly deteriorate to the status of conspiracy theories about jew and reptilians.

Marx's major failing is he destroys Capitalism and ushers in a state of awesome by amassing a gigantic state which will, inevitably, disappear completely creating a socialist utopia. How precisely a massive state apparatus disappears, barring magic, is one of the great mysteries of Marxist theory

Marxism is an intellectual culture, and Foucault was immersed on it.

I thought you were the user who posted the C&M pic and wrote, "Basically every single issue in public discourse nowadays was advanced by Marxist intellectuals, as they said they would do." He implied rather strongly they were Marxists. I was actually pointing out they barely are, so I rather agree about the Post-Marxism. That's half my point actually.

The other half is they're hippie crap.

Marxism is supposed to be convoluted. It's a dialectical philosophy. Dialectics are always convoluted (e.g. Plato).

>what Marxists truly want and why,
Power, like everyone else.

>Muh power

They want power better distributed, Leninists may want power but the majority of other ideologies just want to put an end to the idea of rule by the bourgeoisie, they see liberal democracy as a facade to keep the rich in power.

(They have a point, there's a reason only certain propositions get on the ballot and in a political system that is dependent on campaign contributions and big tent parties it's impossible for the working class despite being the majority in a two class system to really have a say)

>>Marxists empower and awaken groups to their identity/oppression under Liberal Democracy. (Feminism, BLM, gays, trannies)
No. In Marxism, people organize along class lines, not the ideological lines the bourgousie have divided the populace up into. I know this goes against everything that /pol/ told you about cultural marxism and I am sorry.