Is time proving the philosophy of Marx to be correct?

>the average lifestyle of 1870
Which is by no means anything they were striving for.

Hell, their shitty lifestyles is the REASON Communist ideas were popular at those times in the first place.

>Marx wasn't a Marxist

>Marx
>wasn't a marxist

How is Karl Marx right about anything? Communism is obviously wrong, isn't it?

I mean, you had all these revolutions with communism and none of them worked efficiently or soundly, considering they had a tough time competing with capitalist nations

How come no one ever mentions Marx's shitty prose? It's wordy garbage.

Its not a meme term. We have only really automated office jobs and factory jobs. What do you think will happen when service jobs and construction jobs are automated too?

Government jobs are already brimming with people doing absolutely nothing...slowly. Just for the sake of employing people.

There will always be things for some people to do. But there won't always be things for most people to do. When that happens wealth will be taken from the ones who make all the money, and given to the people who don't.

I work in automation btw

I think it shows him to be insightful in some areas, and mistaken in others

What the fuck is with this newspeak, Jesus Christ /leftypol/. This is why nobody wants to talk to you, you're like that autistic kid making sure people check his pronouns.

>ACKSHUALLY he wasn't Marxist, he was Marxian
>ACKSHUALLY it wasn't real socialism, it was state capitalism
>ACKSHUALLY dictatorship of the proletariat is not a real dictatorship
>ACKSHUALLY everything authoritarian right of Lenin is fascism

Literally 99% of arguements with Marxists consist of nitpicking semantics like a total autist, the rest is ad hominems and appeal to authority.

All of the Communist states were shaped after Russia and Moscow (Stalin) set the notes everyone had to play.

There has never been a Communist regime independent of the influences of the USSR, so how can it be a surprise that they all were of similar nature and came crashing down after their flagship crumbled?

I doubt Communism will ever get a second chance. It's only chance was before 1922 when Stalin gained power.

But to be honest it was Lenin that set the seed for the inevitable takeover of one man totalitarian state because of the way he organized the party. He had a hard-on for a disciplined and highly organized party and coupled with his autocrat tendencies it was foreseeable (as predicted by Trotsky) that the power over the party would first fall into the hands of the controlling organs, controlling organs into the hands of the central committee and the central committee into the hands of a single dictator.

Maybe even this garbled version of Communism could've worked, but perhaps only under a level headed dictator. But alas it went into the hands of a lunatic who since day one was more concerned with dealing with his political opponents, actual, potential or imagined - didn't matter, than with building a Communist state. Most importantly, he abandoned the idea of a global revolution and the only expansion of the ideology that occurred was a result of imperialist calculations. Even the Communist International was made into the extension of Stalins hand, a tool to be used for the benefit of maintaining USSR, and most importantly, his personal rulership, at the expense of the success of Communist parties worldwide (most notably in Germany, with huge consequences).

Communism may have had some merit but it got cucked of its legitimacy by impersonators.

There's actually a pretty simple solution - we can just outlaw it. Develop a new technology that leads to automation, you'll get prison time.

nations that restrict technological advancement will be conquered by nations that foster its growth

why not embrace it?

Embrace mass unemployment and the collapse of society as we know it? What's the benefit?

>philosophy of marx
No such thing.

Early factories had a nasty habit of producing wide scale unemployment
society has no collapsed

It has.

Commenting on the french marxists, the first recognizable group of such, Marx had to say "all I know is that I am not a marxist."

idk I'm pretty comfy right now
if this is societal collapse then we should probably have some more of that

No amount of societal collapse will make you into a non-virgin neurotypical.

what about Hegel whom he based his own philosophy own

>I'm pretty comfy right now
Then you're a part of the problem and a tiny minoryt.

Hegelian folks were into all sorts of politics, from marxism to soft liberalism to prussian supremacy.

The latter is a hilarious one, Hegel wrote very positively of the Prussian state, though some scholar's believe that was to avoid scrutiny by censors. But hey, when you're popular, whatever you write down is going to be taken seriously.

no the disappearance of the labor market in the west in favor of the service economy made Marx obsolete

maybe he'll be relevant again when AI replaces everybody

Hegel knew that Prussia was the best state to ever grace existence.

I wasn't aware that was a requirement for being comfy.
I still feel comfy, tho.
Idk if I'm comfy now, it seems to be in my own self-interest to retain this comfyness by what is apparently societal collapse.
Nothing wrong with that, is there?

So did Spengler.

And even if he didn't like the state itself, Marx was pretty adamant about prussian germans being in every way superior to the average englishman.
It got him into a few barfights.

>purely acting out of self-interest
Individualists should be lined up and gassed.

Captcha: civi Syndicat

he was right, and anyone who understands the material and phenomenological reality understands that he was right, but the time frame in which the trend will occur is in the thousands of years. human organisms will eventually develop themselves as singular entities of neutral automation power, with nobody acting over their heads. anyone exacting power over anyone else in such a technological situation will either be destroyed or destroy those they are enacting power over, and eventually it will settle out and you will more or less have communism, though it won't look anything like that "communist" nations have appeared like in the past. this is the inevitable reality behind genetic engineering and automation technologies. people will spout their uneducated opinions though. literally most of the people who respond to this thread have never read even an essay from kaaru-chan.

>Karl Marx: "Industrialization will lead to class polarization, immiseration and revolution."

>Reality: "Industrialization leds to middle-class society, DEINDUSTRIALIZATION leads to class polarization and immiseration instead"

Few people have ever been so wrong. The only reason Marx is still relevant is because the intelligentsia is obsessed with him in their own lust for power as a caste.

I always felt the materialist argument Marx made is a load of horseshit. Like today, in the current year, the countries with the largest abundance of material wealth (to the point they manage to feed and house every citizen), tend to be absolute monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Brunei). Yet according to Marx absoltue monarchies should've completely vanished with the emergence of capitalist mode of production. Marx was a fucking dumbass who basically saw the shit that happened in the 18th and 19th century Europe as a pattern for all history rather than a complete anomaly.

>blah blah blah I'm right and you're wrong but I won't bother explaining why

>Yet according to Marx absoltue monarchies should've completely vanished with the emergence of capitalist mode of production
Marx very explicitly says in his late letters that the model he presents is for western europe and western europe alone, and that different analysis and explanations were necessary outside of such.

And in any case, you know how citizenship works over there, yeah?

the benefit is people would be happier if they didn't have to work a job they hated all week to eat.

So there would be less crime, more time for arts, more time to spend with your children etc.

What is the benefit of forcing people to work if they don't really have to?

your sense of time frame is limited to decades, I already mentioned the scale of millennia.

obviously you didn't read my post.

>All of the Communist states were shaped after Russia and Moscow (Stalin) set the notes everyone had to play.
>"it wasn't a real communism"
No. Hierarchy is part of any living creature's nature - the strongest specimen will always dominate the rest and take the lead. The idea of a "real communism" is purely impossible and [the dictatorship or coming back to monarchy/democracy] dilemma is inevitable. It is not important where the first successful communist revolution would had happened, the outcome would be almost the same, but possibly on a smaller scale.

Marx's sense of time frame was limited to 150 years. Literally everything he wrote was limited by his 19th century thinking, there was barely anything visionary.

>Your idea what will happen
Work will become obsolete because WE WUZ ROBOTS N SHIT and everyone will have state-guaranteed basic income and live like a king without lifting a finger.

>What will actually happen
Robots will be owned by a tiny group of wealthy elites, all possible revolutions will be automatically quelled by military robots, work will become obsolete and 90% of mankind will just starve to death.

you stated your positions without saying why they are correct. you just said it's obvious to people who understand x, that eventually human society will settle out at more or less communism given y, and that it's the inevitable reality because z. You didn't make/explain the connects, you just stated your positions.

That's some disturbing sci-fi shit you wrote, user.

old: Marxist Communism

gold: Fully-Automated Luxury Communism

Marx was not an anthropologist or a historian, so I fail to see why it would be necessary for him to do so.
And in any case, you're flat out wrong, insofar as the extensive notes Marx wrote on Lewis Morgan's work on Iroquois social relations formed the basis for his own writing on the subject.

...

>Work will become obsolete because WE WUZ ROBOTS N SHIT and everyone will have state-guaranteed basic income and live like a king without lifting a finger.

A lot of what people do now is already obsolete. And I never said people getting the handouts would live like kings. But they would live better than they do now. The people at the top that control the means of production would live even better than them. Perhaps like kangs. Therefore they would have motivation to continue to work despite a big chunk of their money being taken away.

You're an idiot if you don't see that happening now. It isn't going to slow down or get better.

>Marx's sense of time frame was limited to 150 years.
[citation needed]
his time frame was "inevitability".

obviously you didn't read my post, or your reading comprehension is awful. there is support for my claim within it, pretty obviously actually, only real answer is you're retarded or aren't reading. if you can't connect the dots, I'm not really interested in holding your hand. I'm sorry.

So you're saying we ought to take over now instead of waiting

>But they would live better than they do now.
They wouldn't live at all, they'd fucking die of hunger.

I'm saying we should roll back our technology back to 15th century, forcibly, Butlerian jihad style.

One little error, "his" should have been "Engels". Haven't had my morning coffee.

Splendid idea, with what tools shall we do it? Firearms? Jet-powered aircraft?

Halting production and maintenance of all those would be a start. Jets become useless after just a few years if they aren't constantly maintained.

once again you're just saying that it's "obvious" that you supported your claim. it's not that you aren't interested in holding my hand, it's that you're not interested in providing support for your positions

And how will we go about convincing well paid and technologically savvy maintenance staff that they'd be better off as cavalry?

nah, only if there was anarchy which will never happen. The people controlling the means of production would rather have part of their money taken and maintain some infrastructure than have a total collapse.

Plus what would the point of starving people be if food was cheap? What would the point be to put people on the street if a machine could build a house in a day for $500?

By promising them legal privileges and lots of land.

Partially. It remains to be seen if the solution to the problem is socialism and if such a solution could actually sustain the economy until post scarcity

It's like you don't understand artificial scarcity at all.

Literally every state you named are rich becouse they sit on oil...

Yes and...?

That's the point retard

And that'll make up for not having a cell phone and a neat apartment?

>people won't give up cellphones for monstrous estates
Ok Yankshit.

Well, why would they?

High IQ post.
I'm not a lefty.
Low IQ posters, probably both named Lamar.

Marx is right to an minor extent in which Capitalism can't necessarily sustain itself. (Global financial crisis, Great Depression, recessions etc) though considering that his economics were written during the 19th century, I wouldn't advise putting them in practice today.

People like Richard Wolff, in my opinion would be the better economist, Marx can be a good reference point as the basis of left wing though

this

Extracting oil wealth required nothing like the restructuring of society seen during the industrial revolution. Not even a commie, just saying.

Capitalism can't sustain itself, it is exploitative and destructive by nature, people fall for the trickle-down economics theory, you don't live if you don't play the game, bureaucracy everywhere, power and money centralizes solely at the top, the people begin losing rights, and the government and the corporations are basically one and the same.

Plus now there's homeless people on every corner of the Super Walmart. Shit is depressing, dude.

He said he wasn't a marxist if the people gathered at whatever conference were marxists, basically it was a polemical point to backhand them for misinterpreting him.

Anyway, there is another way that it may be true that Marx wasn't a marxist. A lot of theoreticians had a hand in popularising and developing what we refer to as marxism now. Some of it was nonsense.

Your post was good if we exclude this point.

That's caused more by government than by capitalism. Sometimes I wish America was a free market capitalist nation.

>>ACKSHUALLY he wasn't Marxist, he was Marxian
This is meaningless nonsense though.
>>ACKSHUALLY it wasn't real socialism, it was state capitalism
The USSR was socialist, China now is somewhere between state capitalist and socialist. It does however remain a dictatorship of the proletariat.
>>ACKSHUALLY dictatorship of the proletariat is not a real dictatorship
Every state is a class based state. Every state is a dictatorship of some class. That's the basic premise, now in the US we live in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, why? Because the only interests represented are those of the capitalists and electoral democracy is just oligarchy with a paint job.
>>ACKSHUALLY everything authoritarian right of Lenin is fascism
Don't know who has ever said this.

>Literally 99% of arguements with Marxists consist of nitpicking semantics like a total autist, the rest is ad hominems and appeal to authority.

It's not always semantics, theory matters friendo.

No

You sound like a christian trying to show how obviously wrong Darwin was. Little do you know that you know too little.

...

>extracting oil
Wouldn't even be possible on that scale without some seriously sophisticated technology, dumbass.

Yes.

Why do people actually believe in a linear trend?

States are a naturally occurring human phenomenon, Anarchical societies are impossible bro. Just face it, mankind is destined for slavery under capital. That is, until the elite replace us with robots and then kill us all

Most communists don't, they just tell you to read the Bibl- I mean, Das Kapital over and over again and then shoot you if you still don't get it.

Nothing better than the left shooting itself in the foot over and over again though lyl

Humans are trained to see patterns, and when they're only shown the successful trends in liberalisation they don't realise how many new liberal ideas are rejected for flat-out being shit.

How many people in the 60s thought their new ideas like nudism would inevitably catch on, or the stupid shit done during the French Revolution?

To begin with they imported that technology from other countries and sold oil at high prices to industrialized countries that consume large quantities. They didn't have to undergo social changes and develop a large educated middle class before they achieved high standards of living and stability, thus retaining a monarchy.

If you don't understand something it can be due to 1 of 2 things.

1: they're wrong
2: you don't understand the argument

However how can you tell which it is if you leap to conclusions?

In response to criticisms in the IWA that the system proposed by the anarchists was just another form of a state, one anarchist (I think Malatesta) responded as something like "whatever, call it what you want, it's still the system we want."

Because they're broad patterns defined by centuries of gradual shift.

Social stratification peaked with the great slave owning empires of classical antiquity and since then class distinctions have been gradually dissipating. We're down to only two now: Bourgeoisie and proletariat.

This is primarily technological: we no longer need to enslave people to run on a treadmill to pump water out of a mine. We no longer need to use legal trickery to force massive numbers of people into doing menial but essential farm work. And even now the age of selling your labor to bourgeoisie property owners is gradually unraveling as automation forces us to confront new realities about the way we organize labor.

No, all of this is nonsense. You see that Saudi Arabia or Qatar have access to the same technology as for example France, yet they not only aren't a bourgeoise democratic republic, they're absolute monarchies with outright slavery. At the same time you have places like Chiapas or Rojava or whatever the fuck that are backwards agricultural shitholes yet they're attempting socialism/communism. Political and economic relations evolve mostly evolve through memes (real memes, not meme memes), the base doesn't really dictate the superstructure like Marx thought.

You do know IQ is based off your problem solving not how much you know right?

> You see that Saudi Arabia or Qatar have access to the same technology as for example France, yet they not only aren't a bourgeoise democratic republic,

They're exceptions. Nobody said that the process happens cleanly or evenly. Saudi Arabia is a case where a western power is propping up the monarchy because they're friendly to western interests. Look how long the west propped up the Shah before it was overrun by a Theocratic Republic. Monarchy does not seem likely to return to the west any time soon.

Just because there's fewer classes doesn't mean that people are less repressed. Improving technology makes it easier than ever for power brokers to control and dominate huge numbers of people, so even in a society where there are only two classes (as opposed to the slave empires of antiquity which could have almost a dozen) you get regimes like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany able to exert influence over its citizens in a way that no God-Emperor of antiquity or Medieval manorial lord could possibly fathom.

>they're exceptions
They aren't an exception, they're direct proof that Marxist theory is bullshit. Instead of being an exception to the rule, it proves that there is no rule at all. Marx EXPLICITLY predicted that a successful communist revolution can only happen in modern, industrial, heavily urbanized countries like Germany, France, America or England because of strong class consciousness, union organization etc. Engels even went as far as to say certain nations like the Slavs are naturally reactionary and will thus prevent not only socialism, but also capitalism.

Then what happened? The only successful communist revolutions happened in 3rd world peasant semi-feudal shitholes like Russia, China, Cuba or Cambodia, not in developed western states. That alone should completely refute Marx.

The only developed, industrialized states where communists took power were East Germany and Czechoslovakia and in both cases it was forced on them by an invading army rather than a result of a workers' revolution.

Marx based his political hypothesis on the idea that primal man had all his belongings equal to everyone with their surrounding tribes, and the sense of ownership was a social construct, but archaeology and sociology disproves these claims.

Having access to technology is not the same as having the means to implement it. You need massive long term capital investment, a skilled organized workforce and educated middle class, etcetera...

>means to implement it
Ever been to Qatar, UAE or Saudi Arabia? They're more modern and apply more advanced technologies than America. Fucking NYC looks like 3rd world compared to Dubai.