Another Marxist thread

The only major idea Marx had in regard to the study of history was to "comprehend all things social in terms of a definite historical epoch."

Marx Never eben thought it "should be," he was just providing context on a historical cycle and how the industrial era was going to make the shifts faster.

It was mostly Engels that made it into a political system.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I'm going to explain marxian historiography to the best of my ability when I return from walking my dog.

>historiography
I meant "historicism". I mess that up once in a while.

>You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
If you actually understood what dialectical materialism is then you'd realize i'm correct. He asserts the primacy of the mode of production in determining society

>If you actually understood what dialectical materialism is then you'd realize i'm correct. He asserts the primacy of the mode of production in determining society
Not primacy, he holds it the sole factor. The mode of production, which forms the basis of the society, is that which determines the superstructure - culture, ideology, law etc. But you ignore the entire rest of his teachings regarding history. The mode of production is that which creates classes that are inherently locked in conflict. According to marxist historicism, it is that supernational class conflict that drives history on a dialectical basis and causes all the changes in societies. As another class replaces the dominant class, the ideology of the new dominant class becomes the dominant ideology of the society (he connected ideologies to classes and connected marxian historicism to hegelian historicism by conflating the change of ideology with the self-development of the hegelian Idea). The final dominant class, the proleteriat which bears the ideology of communism, would take power once the material condition allowed it, but not until it became aware of itself (until it became a class-for-itself), which is what the bourgeoise with its ideologies attempts to prevent. At that point communism would come.

Do you see why
>The only major idea Marx had in regard to the study of history was to "comprehend all things social in terms of a definite historical epoch."
was a retarded thing to say? And why "has communism ever been implemented in a developed nation, as Marx predicted" was even worse? It would not be "implemented", the entire world would develop itself to that level when the material conditions allowed it and the proleteriat became a class-for-itself.

And yes, I'll say it again, marxian historiography is so terrible because it has to bend and misrepresent so many things until the story fits into marxian historicism that it's laughable. And don't get me started on the conflict theory in sociology. Marx was the worst bloody thing that happened to socialism.

>The mode of production, which forms the basis of the society, is that which determines the superstructure - culture, ideology, law etc.
Also, this is correct in the sense that the mode of production creates classes, whose relation (class self-awareness, class conflict) determines these things, as I have expanded on later on. Basically, historic materialism posits that the mode of production determines the class situation, which determines the superstructure of a society and drives history.

Engels outright denies your interpretation:
>According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc.,
>According to marxist historicism, it is that supernational class conflict that drives history on a dialectical basis and causes all the changes in societies.
That isnt true by your own logic since class struggle would be the superficial form the cloaks the economic motivators.
>And why "has communism ever been implemented in a developed nation, as Marx predicted" was even worse?
im not OP and my first quote was from Karl Korsch.

>That isnt true by your own logic since class struggle would be the superficial form the cloaks the economic motivators.
You might want to check
That Engels quote is literally all I've been claiming. That the class relations are, in marxian historicis, that which drives history. What actual part of what I've said does this quote contradict?

>im not OP and my first quote was from Karl Korsch
Good, I've been starting from the presumption of you not knowing shite because I thought you were OP.

>(You)Not primacy, he holds it the sole factor.
Engels says it's not the sole factor and that it's not economic determinism.

>Engels says it's not the sole factor and that it's not economic determinism.
I never conflated economic determinism with historic materialism, economic determinism is a classical liberal schtick. This may or may not be a confusion in terms, as I have not been researching Marx in English. I was using "mode of production" to refer to production relations. Because production relations are, in marxism, that which creates classes and locks them in conflict, as I have expanded on in the rest of my posts. Which you seem to ignore.

A literal semantic game at this point based on a case of mistaken identity.

I feel so small when the adults argue

It's impossible to get off the ground because the centralization required to seize that much to redistribute (it ain't gonna happen voluntarily) means no checks against the temptations of corruption and lack of faith in the system as it attempts to get rolled out.

Are you describing yourself? You fixated yourself on a poorly worded part of my post and decided to ignore everything else I have said, with your rebuttal literally repeating what I have said here , where I explained what I meant by it before you brought it up, and in the entire rest of my post here . What exactly are you arguing against?

That you spazzing out from a quote from Karl Korsch isnt justified since he didnt say anything incorrect. Nothing warranted this massive post storm.

anyone wanting to live in a real gommunism system should join the US army, navy, airforce or coast guard

Yes it has, if you want to know what it was like, cannibalise your children

But what you said was wrong. It was not Marx's only major idea regarding history, not by a longshot. His historicism is a very significant (I would honestly claim it was the most significant by far) part of his works. And the real reason I "spazzed out" was because I thought you were OP, and I'm tired of "marxists" who know nothing about Marx.

It hasn't been implemented on a "First World Late Stage Capitalist" country because Capitalism is not near the end of his lifespan. The capitalism death is a crucial step on Socialists Revolutions, that's why most, if not, all socialists puke that capitalism is dead or some stupid thing they come up with.

Also, most of them have acknowledged their denial of reality, so they appeal to a "possible" future where most people are unemployed because AI, and therefore, Muh Socialism!! Thing is that they, just like Marx, don't take into account how much things would change on the future. If we're talking about 90% of world population as unemployed, means that the classic paradigm we use nowadays won't apply, because the circumstances are going to be different.

Marx theories still prevail today because dudes want them to be important, when there's better explanations out there.

>absolute verticalism
>real gommunism
Are you brain damaged?

>to be fair it was Marx himself who said that Communism can only be implemented in a developed Capitalist society for it to succeed
Are you starting to see the problem with this? The only place communism can work is in societies so prosperous that nobody wants communism.

Engel's said it was Marx's most important discovery regarding history and that it's comparable to Darwin marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/death/burial.htm
but inb4 muh technological inexactitude

>>"Marx himself who said that Communism can only be implemented in a developed Capitalist society for it to succeed"

Why do you keep posting your weeb shit in every thread? It's basically a stamp saying not to take anything you say seriously.

You didn't actually answer the question.

>Has Communism ever been implemented in a First World Late Stage Capitalist country like Marx said it should be?
Czechoslovakia, East Germany. Next question?

No I don't see the problem. Why wouldn't everyone want to live lie a king?

Why bother?

Because what you're saying to people is, "hey, I know you're all living pretty comfortable lives right now, but if you implement my system (which has been shown to fail everytime) you might get a slight increase in quality of life, but you'll probably die of starvation. But don't worry, the only reason it failed all those other times is because they weren't 1st world nations, sure you only have my word on that, but just trust me, all right?"

Kill yourself normie.

Thanks for proving my point

Well since you were arguing against Communism you should've said so from the beginning.

No you dumb weeb. Thanks for proving my point that no one should take what you say seriously.

>Why wouldn't everyone want to live lie a king?
Because society cannot provide for everyone to live like a king.

You're just making an excuse for not having an argument, aren't you?

He already got proven wrong 20 years ago when it was proven the world was inevitably going to be united under capitalism. There is no way in our age of information and mass production that communism could ever work.

Mhm. Yeah sure I am.

>posts weeb shit
So, does this mean I'm supposed to not take you seriously? Now you've got me confused.

Is this too much information for your tiny capitalist weeb brain to handle sweetie?

>posting the first google result for "smug anime girl"
Nice

Late Stage Capitalism is a meme prediction with nothing backing it up.

The only work communists seem to want to do is making up excuses and predictions for when it's totally going to happen this time.

That's good though, you can filter him that way

Too late, I've already stopped weebposting. Now he'll have no choice but to reply.

>I went to college for 8 years , your telling me I can make the same amount of money as a fast food worker!?

>Has Communism ever been implemented in a First World Late Stage Capitalist country like Marx said it should be?

America

the New Deal saved capitalism

new deal was fascist bro, borrowed from hitler and Mussolini

Eh, this is half-true, but not for the reason people think it is. It certainly didn't work (in fact it extended the Depression), nor did it pull the nation out of the Depression, but by putting on the illusion of improvement it did keep the people from turning to more desperate measures like Communism. The real question is, had FDR not implement the New Deal, would the economy have been fixed fast enough for the population not to revolt?

>to be fair it was Marx himself who said that Communism can only be implemented in a developed Capitalist society for it to succeed, which possessed the advanced infrastructure that could be provided only by late Capitalism to support it.

Marx literally never said this.

He never used the term "late Capitalism" once in his writings. That's from Benjamin or Adorno.

Secondly, Marx always said that violent revolution was the only way to change a capitalist society.

Have you seen any violent Communist revolutions in a First world country lately? No you haven't.

My favorite maymay was when they claimed fascism is a symptom of late capitalism which means socialism is right around the corner, then fascism got defeated and replaced with standard form of capitalism again and these commie retards pretend like nothing happened.

Commies are similar to ancaps not because le horseshoe theory, but because they pretty much turned their ideology into a religion where they keep re-interpreting facts until they adhere to their theory, rather than correctly dismissing the model as horseshit like a real scientist would.

the scariest part is these fucks don't care if millions die again

>fascism is a symptom of late capitalism
not necessarily "late capitalism", but yes, it arose to stop socialist revolution in Italy and Germany and smash the working class, in order to restore profitability to capital

You're forgetting that the working class like fascism as well, heck, Hitler raised workers wages and lowered unemployment.

Marxists to this day keep arguing whether call it "fascism" or "late stage capitalism" and this line of thinking was widespread among Marxists in the 20s, 30s and 40. I think this is the reason why they keep calling everyone right of Lenin a fascist, so their apocalyptic prophecies would come true.

>smash the working class
Commies were never represented by the working class, it's always spearheaded by spoiled bourgeoise ideologues from middle and upper class families.

no, they don't. the working class voted for the KPD or SPD in Germany, not the NSDAP fascism is a middle class movement. people who feel squeezed by working class militancy and foreign elites.

>he doesn't know about Strasser and how his pro-worker rhetoric in Prussia ended up securing the region for Hitler

>Commies were never represented by the working class, it's always spearheaded by spoiled bourgeoise ideologues from middle and upper class families.
anti-communists say this a lot. it's just not true. the bolsheviks were strongest in the industrial cities of russia. the german communists thrived in the working class strongholds of berlin and hamburg and fought the lower-middle class brownshirts. by accusing communists of being "spoiled bourgeoisie ideologues", it attacks the independence of the working class and demeans their autonomy.

>KPD
That party was never relevant outside of street thuggery and political assassinations. They got over 15% only once literally ever, meanwhile Hitler won 44% of the vote when he got to power.

>the bolsheviks were strongest in the industrial cities of russia.
Exactly, and 90% of Russian proletariat didn't live in cities, brainlet.

>brownshirts
>middle class
Oh fuck off. Commies weren't popular almost anywhere outside of Berlin, in rural Prussia where all the poorest people lived nobody cared for communism.

>the working class like fascism
Hardly. The Socialist promises most Fascist governments made were never implemented after they took power. In the isolated case you proposed in Germany the German people (included the Working class) mainly liked Nazis because of the political promises they made, believing that it would strengthen the nation as a whole and thus improve their own living situation (lol). 10% increase in wages and low unemployment is nice cherrypicking but let's not forget how much the Nazis also forced every worker's union in the country to disband, as well as rationed consumer goods, never delivering on their promise to provide every German family with the everyday goods they needed due to the excessive increase in military spending they underwent in the late 30s.

>street thuggery and political assassinations
That's pretty much all the Nazis did until 1930.
>Hitler won 44% of the vote when he got to
The March 1933 election was in the context of massive repression against the SPD and KPD
The real Nazi vote peaked in July 1932 and actually dipped to 33% in the last free election in November 1932
The proletariat is the industrial working class. The peasantry is different (hence "workers and peasants red army); generally leant towards the SRs

>completely annihilating productive agriculture and industry in Russia to usher in a vanguardist authoritarian single party state

>helping the working class

Wew, tankies really make my marbles jangle.

>That's pretty much all the Nazis did until 1930.
Sturmabteilung was literally created to protect Hitler and other speakers of the party from communist street violence, since the cops didn't give a fuck.

>The real Nazi vote peaked in July 1932 and actually dipped to 33% in the last free election in November 1932
And that's still significantly better than any result the commies ever got.

Russia was a feudal wasteland before it industrialised under the Bolsheviks. It didn't even have mechanised agriculture, so it wasn't productive either.

>The proletariat is the industrial working class. The peasantry is different
No it isn't.

>In Marxist theory, the proletariat is the social class that does not have ownership of the means of production and whose only means of subsistence is to sell their labor power for a wage or salary.
You don't even understand your own newspeak.

>Russia was feudal
Why do you lie? Like seriously, what benefits do you actually get from lying on the internet? It's not like the people you manage to fool are going to join the communist party tomorrow. Russia abolished feudalism in the 1860s and was rapidly industrializing before WW1.

It was productive enough to participate in the First World War to defend other slavshits.

Just because they weren't as productive as the industrious German and British Empires, doesn't mean it's okay to appropriate, imprison and genocide the only productive strata of your society.

Right-wing paramilitary groups were more violent than Communist groups. Right-wing terrorism was also much more common.
And the Army and police were more likely to arrest the communists than nationalists.

>Sturmabteilung was literally created to protect Hitler and other speakers of the party from communist street violence, since the cops didn't give a fuck.
The SA was founded in 1920, the RFB in 1924, and the RFB was banned in 1929, whereas the SA wasn't. That time helped the NSDAP take power immensely. The cops/state certainly were not neutral.
>And that's still significantly better than any result the commies ever got.
I don't deny it. But the reality is the NSDAP votes didn't come from the organised working class.

So now it's not just "nazis" but all "right wingers"? Shitfting the goalposts much?

> RFB was banned in 1929, whereas the SA wasn't
Street violence doesn't magically cease if you ban an organization. Banning them in 1929 surely didn't help Horst Wessel in 1930.

>from the organised working class
>organized
It doesn't matter whether they were organized or not. They were still working class.

It wasn't industrialising fast enough. Absolutely nowhere near enough to win a war and it was decades behind the West. The Civil War only set it back further.
>It was productive enough to participate in the First World War to defend other slavshits.
and they got their asses kicked and had mutinies en masse. Different story in WW2, where they actually had industry.
>appropriate, imprison and genocide the only productive strata of your society.
The USSR didn't genocide anyone.

Not him. But that's not really shifting the goalposts. Logically speaking. Nazi paramilitaries would a subset of the Right Wing paramilitaries set

>It wasn't industrialising fast enough.
It had the second highest industrial growth on planet fucking Earth, behind only Japan.

>The Civil War only set it back further.
Yeah, thanks to bolsheviks.

>The USSR didn't genocide anyone.

Fuck off tankie.

The RFB had all their assets seized. Indeed they kept fighting, and even with all those repressions they were still the first target of the NSDAP when they took power, for good reason, they feared them.
Being organised certainly mattered. The working class, through trade unions and other organisations, generally achieves more when it is organised, rather than atomised.

I'm a different guy. Hitler's group wasn't that different from other groups. A lot of them were former freikorps. Most of them later joined the Nazis.

Kulaks weren't people

Lumping the SA together with religious ultra-conservatives and monarchists who launched the Kapp Putsch is incredibly idiotic considering they were ideological enemies. So it's pretty stupid and a sign of being uneducated if we're talking about nazis and someone pulls the general "right winger" card.

They were more human than any jew who ever lived.

>It had the second highest industrial growth on planet fucking Earth, behind only Japan.
and under Stalin it became the fastest.
>Yeah, thanks to bolsheviks.
thanks to bitter tsarists, western intervention to help the whites and disgruntled reactionaries more like.

Who did it genocide?

>they feared them
Nobody feared them, it was just fun to torture and kill commies for all the shit they did for more than a decade.

t. Oleksander Butthurtoslav Lovenazisrylo

You can always lump them with other right wing organizations forming Kampfbund.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampfbund

>and under Stalin it became the fastest.
Irrelevant, that's not what we were talking about. You claimed Russia was feudal and had no industrialization which is patently false.