Why haven't you taken the Economic Marxism pill yet?

Communist is literally a reversion back to tribal

Lefty/pol/ is just as stupid as normal /pol/. WTF does "ancient" even mean in this context?

If historical materialism is so wrong why can't anyone in this thread thoroughly debunk it?

It's retarded because the materialist argument would suggest that whoever holds the best/most resources should win and history is full of the opposite happening

>the materialist argument would suggest that whoever holds the best/most resources should win
how does it suggest that at all?

Is there a bigger meme than the 'Asiatic mode of production'?

>whoever holds the best/most resources should win and history is full of the opposite happening

Like when?

tribal -> ancient -> feudal -> capitalist -> socialist -> communist -> anarcho capitalism -> anarcho communism -> anarcho primitivism

fixed that for you op

don't ask him this question because him saying that historical materialism suggests that is flat wrong. you're basically conceding the whole argument if you let this slide

Because solely applying European models to every society doesn't work
Also ancient

How in the world has Marxism been proven wrong? Because an imperialistic feudal shithole adopted some Marxist principles without making any real effort to abolish capitalism?

Now, the spread of industrial capitalism makes Marxian analysis more apt than ever. Its scope is no longer relegated to the economies of Europe.

It's impossible to "abolish" capitalism. What are you going to do, stop people from buying and selling things?

But Marx never said this though. His argument was that material circumstance is the well from which values, culture, and systems of power can be drawn. These elements of history are vitally important, and drive history, but have an observable economic basis.

For instance, could Jesus have been Jesus if not for the subjugation of Israel by the imperialistic Rome? Could the West have conquered the rest of the world if it had not been the first place to develop industrial capitalism?

Because economic determinism is at the heart of it, is it not? Plus there are plenty of cases of societies reverting back to previous models. "ancient" going back to tribal, feudal going back "ancient", capitalist back to feudal.

And what even is "ancient"? Wtf does it mean? Slave-holding? Because tribal and feudal states do that too. It's such a meme word.

This is a great joke desu

>Because economic determinism is at the heart of it, is it not?
How does economic determinism suggest that whoever holds the best/most resources should win at all?
>Plus there are plenty of cases of societies reverting back to previous models. "ancient" going back to tribal, feudal going back "ancient", capitalist back to feudal.
Give some examples then.

But seriously, WTF does "ancient" even mean?

Africa, mena, central asia, parts of south america. It's not even a case of centralisation around urban centres, whole regions/countries just fucking empty themselves out or revert back.

Literally early rome during its peninsula expansion or mediterranean expansion periods. You'd have to be nuts to bank on them at those points.

...yes, that is the point of communism. Communists desire an economy in which value-in-exchange is no longer necessary. Exchange value is sublated into use value.

Production under communism would not be beholden to capital, instead geared toward use and need. Workers in a communist society would produce for the collective good of society and democratically allocate resources. Those who don't work don't get to enjoy the benefits of this society. Those who cannot work would be cared for. Hence, from each according to ability and to each according to need.

Communism is probably a very long way off, so when our society eventually abandons market forces nearly all manual labor will be automated, meaning there will be a lot less work to do.

How about you actually give a specific time and place instead of just naming off vague locations as if that means anything. Also, if you could manage that, why not back it up with a sources.

BTW if you're just talking about a collapse of civilizations (which given your vague locations it seems like you're hinting at) then that is a separate topic and does not refute historical materialism at all.

Probably aristocratic slave societies like Egypt or Rome?

The transition from chattel agriculture to tenant farming was a huge step in the transition toward feudal life and the development of organised society in barbarian Europe.

>Communists desire an economy in which value-in-exchange is no longer necessary. Exchange value is sublated into use value.

You can desire such a thing but it's still impossible.

>tribal -> ancient -> feudal -> capitalist -> socialist -> communist
it's too bad that this progression hasn't actually happened in the vast majority of places and never will

its based on a idea of economy, not the way humans and nature function and flourish.

Why should it be? Revolution is more likely now than it was ever been.

Inherent to capitalism is the concentration of wealth into increasingly fewer hands. The global .1% is far wealthier than they have ever been. However, with this wealth comes precarity. A smaller ruling class is much easier to challenge or even overthrow. As capital continues to accumulate, the chance for the billions of the dispossessed to overtake the handful of rentiers nears 0.

Once production has been truly socialized, profit becomes unnecessary, markets will dissipate, and exchange value -- capital -- shall disappear.

examples please.

>The global .1% is far wealthier than they have ever been
And so are the 99.99%

Go back to leftycuck if you want to masturbate over the inane ramblings of an unemployed trust fund babby kike who live 150 years ago.

Why doesn't civilisational collapse feature in as part of historical materialism? European african colonies reverting from industrial economies to pseudo-feudal states? Do I really have to individually list the countries that went through this?

Societal development is not linear.

Not even marxists believe this anymore.

Stupidest chart I've ever seen. /pol/tards are so fucking stupid.

attacking me for a picture I posted but not what I had typed. class act buddy

>t. new left kike who abandoned orthodox marxism in favor of cultural marxism as a tool to subvert western christian civilization

attacking me for a picture I posted but not what I had typed. class act buddy

Cultural marxism doesn't mean anything. Marxist historicism is one of the worst parts of marxism. And your spoopy frankfurt school are a bunch of obscurantist pseudoscientific retards. So no, I'm neither a kike, nor part of the "new left", nor in a conspiracy.

It's time to go back to your containment board faggot.

>Why doesn't civilisational collapse feature in as part of historical materialism?
Because historical materialism is about the progression of economic systems within functioning civilizations. Of course at any point in time human civilizations may be wiped out for whatever reason. But when they progress it follows the lines of historical materialism. Unless of course the tech was preserved from a civilization which had collapsed.
>European african colonies reverting from industrial economies to pseudo-feudal states? Do I really have to individually list the countries that went through this?
Yes because otherwise anyone could just say anything to prove their argument. "Nothing is faster than light? Well actually I measured a particle going faster than light the other day. What? You want me to show you the results and give you the name of the particle? Not way!"

all the colonized peoples of the world - american indians, african tribes, southeast asians, aboriginals - come immediately to mind
russia went straight from feudalism to communism
china and korea went straight from capitalism to communism
germany went from capitalism to "socialism" and then back to capitalism
several societies such as north american indians collapsed from ancient/feudal societies back into tribal societies

more tellingly though the transition from socialism to communism has literally never happened once in history

>Cultural marxism doesn't mean anything
>If I pretend it doesn't exist, then it won't exist!
Literally Orwellian doublethink

>Because historical materialism is about the progression of economic systems within functioning civilizations
is that why half of the progression is just made up bullshit

You know what is orwellian doublethink? Using an oxymoron and pretending it means something.

Try not to post retarded propaganda pictures then. I have nothing to say about your post, you didn't really expand upon how "humans and nature function and flourish", so what is there to disagree about?

>Using an oxymoron and pretending it means something.
That's not Orwellian doublethink is, but I can infer from your posts that you're a drooling retard and that the reference probably went over your head. Try googling it next time.

You can keep spouting the "but le cultural marxism doesn't exist" meme but all you're achieving is passing off as a retard.

>socialist -> communist
Has this ever happened?

>Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct
>cultural materalism isn't doublethink
Chose one.

well then lets agree on something

>>Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct
Right.

"Cultural Marxism" (not cultural materialism, retard) is a term for a political/philosophical ideology, not a conjunction of beliefs.

Maybe read what you copy paste before clicking on the "post" button?

>Not way!"
no*

>russia went straight from feudalism to communism
>china and korea went straight from capitalism to communism
They weren't communist in the Marx meant. Marx considered communism to be a global phenomena and national communism was an idea he rejected.
>germany went from capitalism to "socialism" and then back to capitalism
Germany was never socialist in the sense that Marx meant.
>several societies such as north american indians collapsed from ancient/feudal societies back into tribal societies
Like I said here a collapse of civilization isn't a refutation of historical materialism. Marx knew and accepted that civilizations collapsed.
>more tellingly though the transition from socialism to communism has literally never happened once in history
I know you have a misunderstanding of what socialism and communism mean but even if I interpreted what you said with the correct meanings of those words I would just say that we haven't had socialism or communism yet so your point is meaningless.

You don't seem to understand that all "progressions" in nature are never always linear. These progressions we make up are only reliable given a certain thing. If we say that a seed turns into a tree and then makes flowers we could argue against that progression by citing an example of a tree that was chopped down before it make flowers and the seeds inside it gave rise to another tree. WOAH! we just showed that the progression isn't linear!!! seed > tree >flower BTFO. Oh wait, the tree was just destroyed and that accounted for the progression? Yeah, that's the only way to get non linear stuff according to historical materialism as well. A literal collapse. Otherwise, if a civilization remains healthy it will follow that line.

we can try to agree on something, but you not think cultural marxism is a thing? what about the chart is wrong? and what are you a communist? how do you expect people to 'convert' through force? what is your goal and motive?

*but do you not think.....

nevermind that, capitalism->socialism has never really happened according to marxists either.

People don't like HM because it's essentially a meaningless truism. No shit technology improves as time goes on. Bu then he placates his perspective about classwarfare on it to make unsubstantiable predictions about the future. It's unfalsifiable because it hasn't happened yet.

>false continua:the idealogy

When did you grow out of your edgy marxist phase, Veeky Forums?

>"Cultural Marxism" (not cultural materialism, retard)
Materialism is part of marxism. Saying cultural marxism implies saying cultural materialism, words can be replaced by their definitions. Keep rationalizing your doublethink.

>is a term for a political/philosophical ideology
Not really. It's a conspiracy term.

so basically your entire post boils down to
>it wasn't TRUE communism or socialism!
okay, i can accept that, that's a fair support for your argument
but you also say
>I would just say that we haven't had socialism or communism yet so your point is meaningless.
so you also admit that "historical materialism" is literally made-up bullshit
it's an entirely theoretical proposition with zero historical precedent and absolutely no evidence it's even heading that way (and definitely didn't end up the way Marx said it would, with industrialization bringing the rise of communism)
so i'm not sure why you believe in this idea at all. could you explain?

>Workers in a communist society would produce for the collective good of society and democratically allocate resources.

Why?

I think this is a good summary on the issue:
academia.edu/10149049/The_Origins_and_Ideological_Function_of_Cultural_Marxism

No, I'm not a communist.

>so you also admit that "historical materialism" is literally made-up bullshit
How did you get that from what I said at all?

>Materialism is part of marxism
So fucking what? Lmao you can't just change the semantic meaning of words, you fucking brainlet.

>Not really. It's a conspiracy term.
There is no conspiracy, it's right there in the open.

>How did you get that from what I said at all?
if the transition from capitalism to socialism has never happened, and the transition from socialism to communism has never happened, then there is zero factual basis for the assumption it WILL happen
meaning it's just somebody's completely unsupported theory, aka made-up bullshit

>So fucking what? Lmao you can't just change the semantic meaning of words, you fucking brainlet.
I didn't.

>Lmao
Where do you faggots come from?

You seem to be implying that all predictions about events which have not happened before are all completely unsupported bullshit. If that really is what you're saying then I take it you consider the predicted heat death of the universe as a consequence of entropy to be made up bullshit as well since it hasn't happened yet. I would argue that the science is sound on that and it is possible to predict what will happen to the universe given what we already know. I would then say that the same holds true for historical materialism, given what we know it is possible to predict what will happen.

>I didn't.
Marxism and materialism don't mean the same thing, you drooling retard.

What people call cultural marxism is actually western marxism. Frankfurt scholars of the 1930-60s who flipped marxism on its head by arguing that the superstructure is more important/influential than the economic base and therefore that's where the attention should be placed. They're viewed as heretics/loons by the purists who still hold the view that class warfare should be focused on gaining ownership of the means of production first, from that point only does addressing the superstructure becomes possible - since it's the economic base which produces the goods we consume and ultimately we culture we have.

I fully agree with you, I never claimed that cultural marxism is anything but a "heresy" of orthodox marxism which gained traction in 1960s American college campuses.

But do you know why some people simply deny its very existence? It baffles me.

> If that really is what you're saying then I take it you consider the predicted heat death of the universe as a consequence of entropy to be made up bullshit as well since it hasn't happened yet.
it could very well be made-up bullshit considering its a prediction for trillions of years in the future based on science we don't fully understand
what, did you think i was going to say "hurr it must be fact just because"?
>I would then say that the same holds true for historical materialism, given what we know it is possible to predict what will happen.
sorry, but the social sciences are only tangentially related to the hard sciences, so trying to use actual science as a justification for your stupid belief doesn't work
we also know Marx already predicted wrong about the rise of socialism and communism during the age of industrialization, so he has no good track record for these things
are you religious by any chance? you seem to be very easily swayed into believing literal fairy tales

>it could very well be made-up bullshit considering its a prediction for trillions of years in the future based on science we don't fully understand. what, did you think i was going to say "hurr it must be fact just because"?
I wasn't expecting to you say that it must be a fact. I expected you to resort to saying that it *could* be wrong and not provide any reason to believe why it could be wrong other than that our science isn't complete yet. I hold the same view of Marxism and historical materialism: it *could* be wrong but there are no reasons to believe why it could be wrong other than our understanding of social science isn't complete yet. It really is trivial to say that a prediction could be wrong.

>sorry, but the social sciences are only tangentially related to the hard sciences, so trying to use actual science as a justification for your stupid belief doesn't work
IT do
I wasn't trying to use actual science as a justification for anything. I provided an example of how there are predictions made which take into consideration all current knowledge of a subject.
>we also know Marx already predicted wrong about the rise of socialism and communism during the age of industrialization, so he has no good track record for these things
Even Marxists admit that he got his time frame wrong but that doesn't refute everything else he said. For example, we may not know when the heat death will occur but we can predict (again, given our current knowledge) that it will happen eventually.

Probably because it's fringe and heavily split and overall just an unorganised mess. Some western marxists still argue that the economic base is the most important thing but their field of study is on how precisely does the economic base influences the superstructure, and depending on how deep you go, it can turn into cultural critique/analysis. To which point a whole bunch of social theory faggots swoop in, many of which might not adhere to classical marxism, and make an ever bigger ideological mess. By the end of it, you got something unrecognisable from Marx's work. That's where all the idpol faggots /pol/ doesn't like (even though they're identitarian themselves) swoop in with muh genders, muh patriarchy, muh intersectional racism, muh this, muh that.

If we're trying to be intellectually honest, most of it has fuckall to do with "real marxism" at this stage. They borrow some ideas here and there but the rest of their ideas are foreign.

>Probably because it's fringe
I gather you're not going to a major american university.

you once again tried to compare the hard sciences and social sciences, so good job on that! you know that the idea of the heat death of the universe has a lot of verifiable math on it (based on what we know right now, which could easily be turned on its head) while the theory of historical materialism is literally a rather shitty analysis of historical trends and then complete assumptions about a move to socialism and then to communism with, once again, zero evidence or basis of ANY SORT besides Marx's own beliefs? seriously, i challenge you to provide anything, any fucking scrap of evidence or information at all, that implies this shift will happen beyond "Marx said so"
you seriously only believe in historical materialism because you want to, and if you want to believe in fairy tales then there's no convincing you that they aren't real

>I don't understand Marxism so I'll just call him a Jew and go on my way

>it *could* be wrong but there are no reasons to believe why it could be wrong other than our understanding of social science isn't complete yet. It really is trivial to say that a prediction could be wrong.
It normally is trivial yes, but not when that prediction incites its believers to start revolutions in the hopes the prediction rings true. The risks are just too high to simply chance it on an educated guess.

Economics is still considered a soft/social science. You can't be surprised people raise their eyebrow at theories which lack the hard evidence to back them up.

Cultural Marxism literally does not exist. SJW stuff is just liberalism with no serious connection to socialist thought.

I finished university just before that craze took off, so I haven't really had to put up with any of it.

From now on I will call marxists "materialist hegelians", copernicus a "heliocentric ptolemeian", and darwin an "evolutionist creationist". Then I will associate these terms with imaginary conspiracies to subvert the society. Finally, I will cry when people call me a retard.

ok thanks for letting us know

>i challenge you to provide anything, any fucking scrap of evidence or information at all, that implies this shift will happen
here's a scrap for you: during marx's live time there was no such thing as social democracies, now they are the most prominent system in the west. those kind of systems were advocated by certain strains of non-marxist communists. Marx himself thought that reform by itself could not shift capitalism to socialism so he advocated revolution to get to communism. however, reform seems to be following the path predicted by non-marxist socialists.

Well it should please you to find out that not all communists advocate revolution. REead what I said above ^ to see how reform is looked at as an alternative.

>following the path predicted by non-marxist socialists
non-marxist communists*

> SJW stuff is just liberalism with no serious connection to socialist thought.
It has indirect ties to marxism/socialism though.
It birthed western marxism, which birthed cultural theory, which birthed social studies, which birthed the sjw idpol cancer.

It's removed and almost unrecognisable, but there is an ideological lineage at play.

Why stop there? Marx has ties with hegel, which has ties with plato, which has ties with heraclitus.
Fucking heraclitean SJWs!

I'm not sure what legacy critical theory has on today's race theory or gender theory or whatever. "Idpol academia" is usually pretty insulated from material analysis, preferring to naval-gaze about perceptions and norms instead.

The Frankfurt boys like Walter Benjamin and Theodore Adorno are widely read, but by Marxists and philosophers. Not by Women's Studies majors.

>here's a scrap for you: during marx's live time there was no such thing as social democracies, now they are the most prominent system in the west.
social democracies are deeply entrenched capitalist systems with a welfare state on top. how does that support your argument?

I just said it was removed and hardly recognisable. But we're not talking about leaps going back centuries or millenia here, it's all happened with 70years.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Marxism

It's not far-fetched. So what if it's vastly different? Hegel's historicism was vastly different from marx's, and lenin's marxist-leninism was different from marx's. Doesn't mean there isn't a lineage. I also agree there's a degree of liberalism into it. It's more like a dirty chimera but the parts are there. Just own up to it just like normal liberals have to as well.

>social democracies are deeply entrenched capitalist systems with a welfare state on top. how does that support your argument?
As I said in my post they were advocated by communists. The idea of a social democracy literally originated from communists who believed in reform rather than revolution.

But I have.

A lot of the more rigid bits of determinism in marxist theory we get from Engels writing on the subject and his application of marxist theory
Marx himself was pretty uncomfortable with folks taking his rough model and applying it outside western europe, in particular Russia.

let's be real, they could call themselves whatever they wanted and you can call them whatever you want but they were literally keynesians and made no effort to do anything other than add a welfare state to capitalism

>literally keynesians and made no effort to do anything other than add a welfare state to capitalism
The idea of a social democracy existed before keynes was even born lmao

All the first social democratic parties were Marxist. Berkman, in his introduction to anarchism, up and calls Marx the father of social democracy.
iirc "social democracy" was mostly a euphemism for communism but they couldn't exactly run as communists on an electoral ballot at the time
It's wrong to say they did not believe in revolution, rather early marxist politics chiefly revolved around electoral politics rather than stockpiling gunz.

I don't know what the time frame has to do with it. You certainly can connect heraclitus ideas with any historicist and/or dialectical movement with no problem (and much more easily than going from marx ideas to whatever spooks /pol/).

cool, too bad social democracy never got any footing until it became keynesian

>never got any footing
The second international was the highest point for the workers movement in western europe

>everyone doing leftwing things is a communist
It was bismarck who initiated the first welfare state, in an alliance with the catholics.

And socialism existed before scientific socialism. Don't get so big for your boots you feel you can take credit for the concept of state-financed charity.