Marx has some fair criticisms of capitalism

I suppose I should've been more specific, I mean to economics as a pure field of study he didn't really add anything that economists take seriously now

stop pretending communist treated communism as just another boring form of government that was naturally going to occur when they were revolutionaries fighting wars to install that system on the promise of it being a great new system user.

>he didn't really add anything that economists take seriously now

at that time, his criticism of the typical industrial workers lot in life were fair. Its good as a historical document, but yeah, people who still treat it as a relevant or serious economics are pretty silly.

This thread has been specifically about Marx and his work.

>Marx's proposed better system
This statement is plainly inaccurate, regardless of whatever strawman you want to pull up.

>historical truths about the way communist see communism is a strawman

lol just go back to leftypol if you are getting this autistic over a discussion and your only response is "STOP TALKING ABOUT THAT!"

Denmark has a fantastic economic setup though; it is the ideal state fiscally. Free market doesn't fix everything.

Bismarck just took the bare minimum of socialist ideas which would de revolutinase the peasantry, he's not some great inventor just a man willing to get his hands dirty because he has no backbone
Those are left wings reactionaries not proper communists tho user, same with those on the tiki torch march but they're right wing reactionaries

>actually claiming Bismarck of all people had no backbone

trashed

That's twice now you've failed to actually answer the content of the post to instead sperge out over muh commies. What Communists of the 20th century and beyond thought of communism is irrelevant when discussing Marx's own idea of communism. You made an inaccurate statement about Marx, it was pointed out to you, and instead of discussing it you went full retarded talking about other Communists that have nothing to do with Marx. And pointing out this mistake is leftypol?

Are you illiterate or just retarded?

>it is the ideal state fiscally. Free market doesn't fix everything.

Its is a free market user. Lars Lokke Rasmussen even told Bernie Sanders to shut the fuck up and to stop claiming Denmark was his ideal socialist utopia

Isn't it listed as a hybrid/mixed economy rather than a full free market?

And Bernie isn't really a socialist. He's even said that at this point. He just uses it as a buzzword.

The term 'free market' isn't super useful, they have a very liberalized economy but also very high tax rates

>STOP TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT COMMUNISM IS UTOPIAN DOGSHIT!

I know your a little man who wants to control everything, but you being too autistic to engage in a civil conversation only acts as further proof of the petty and irrational nature of the average communist. Im done responding to you since you are behaving like a petulant child.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about Marx's "proposed new system" that you made up. Marx defines communism as a process, the active negation of capitalism, not as a system. Many Marxists have proposed measures and implemented systems intended to aid this process, but those systems and policies are communist only in intention but not in form.

thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist

>"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said.

This is my point in the OP. Denmark is NOT a planned or centrally controlled socialist economy. It is literally based off of a model set up by Bismark, yet leftist today will claim Denmark as an example of how great their system is when its really a system that they and their ideology have hated since its inception.

Free markets economies rule. If you want an actual example of a socialist planned economy, look to places like Cuba, North Korea, or Laos

Holy shit dude, looks like you need to propose a new system to actively negate your extra chromosome

> i can't admit that i was wrong so I'm going to posture instead

Gg well played

And like I said, leftist groups have been involved in welfare states for a long time. It's not like a category as large as 'leftist' is entirely homogenous

>Marx used pseudo-scientific terminology and said that communism would occur naturally (it didnt) so this means he didnt endorse this system (despite the fact that he did organize groups of workers for it) and even claiming that he didnt think it would be a better system that wold eventually lead to the betterment of mankind

youre a child blinded by ideology.

now look who's talking kek

Have you heard the joke about playing chess with pigeons?

I understand that

I'm just saying when you actually look at any kind of label of the Danish economy, it's listed as a mixed or hybrid economy.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark

Which isn't socialist, i agree. But it's also not quite free market.

Who even said I was a marxist? Sorry I prefer to understand concepts before forming an opinion about them. Maybe you should try that out sometime. Still waiting to hear about this system that Marx proposed, at least a link to a wiki page or one of your blogspots or whatever.

>leftist groups have been involved in welfare states for a long time.

yeah, right now since socialism failed horribly and basically died forever with the fall of the soviet union, so they had to move the goalpost and claim this system is what they "really" wanted this whole time, despite the fact that they claimed liberal economies were evil fascist capitalist regimes or claiming that any mixed economies were evil capitalist bullshit. They even use the "not muh real communism" excuse and claim the Soviet Union or any other example wasnt real socialism for diverting from the planned course even 1 iota, yet this free market system with a welfare state is a pure example of how great their ideas are.

>using very obvious leftpol talking points
>"DUDE IM TOTALLY NOT A MARXIST!"

ok chief.

>what are the New Deal and the Great Society
>what is the NHS
>what is the French welfare system

have you heard the joke about marxist economics being retarded psuedo-science that have failed literally every single time they are implemented and having no argument other than sophistry about "but marx said!"

>Marx

>literally proving the point in OP

That refers to the type of protection, not who created them
Also
>ignoring the new deal, great society, and nhs
Iirc the Swedish system was set up by whatever center-left party is there, although I'm not quite sure

>What Marx actually said is just talking points from some mythical imageboard
>My dumb fucking inconsisten assertions pulled out of thin air is what Marx REALLY said

ok

But user...The whole discussion was about "what Marx said". Implementations of socialism belong into different century and different field of study. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

>Marx said this
>>But no he didn't
>Why are you talking about what Marx said!

You know, its an anonymous imageboard. When you're wrong about something you can just stop arguing

not really no, is the punchline that you just made it up to have a semblance of a comeback?

>example you provide to prove me wrong is one based on Bismark, which was my entire point of leftist moving the goalpost and claiming Bismarks ideas are there, despite the fact that they intentionally hated them and claimed they were some evil capitalist bullshit or whatever

btw, another name for the nordic model is "nordic capitalism"

My point is that leftist groups have been involved in the establishment of welfare states, which I've given examples for

You are falling for your own memes, burger. No one was "moving goalposts", social democrats were a thing for quite some time.

>The whole discussion was about "what Marx said".

its actually about marxist claiming the model set up by Bismark as an example of how great their ideas are. You lack the cognitive ability to discuss this which is why you are choosing to engage in an argument with no one over not this point.

>actually claiming Marx didnt endorse communism or work to set up that system and claiming hes just some guy who wrote a book saying "this will happen" and thats it

For 3rd fucking time. Marxists DO NOT claim welfare state, they hate it. It's social/christian democrats and sometimes nationalists who love the shit out of it.

I don't understand where did you get this moronic idea.

>My point is that leftist groups have been involved in the establishment of welfare states

So in other words, leftist are implementing systems set up by Bismark, which is my entire point. Leftism has been synonymous with socialism if we are being honest, for the past 100 or so years. Then socialism failed, so now they are implementing systems created by Otto von fucking Bismark of all people and claiming this as an example of how great leftism is.

They are admitting through their actions that Marx and socialism are wrong and are failures, but dont have the ego to just admit this, and are moving the goal post and claiming this welfare state riding off the backs of a free market are what they wanted the entire time, despite initially fighting against systems like that.

>Marxists DO NOT claim welfare state, they hate it

That literally been my entire point the whole thread. Good job showing everyone you lack any ability to read user. Now go back to leftypol

These systems weren't entirely pioneered by Bismarck. They can go back to at least the Bonapartes
>leftism has been synonymous with socialism
No

>>actually claiming Marx didnt endorse communism or work to set up that system and claiming hes just some guy who wrote a book saying "this will happen" and thats it

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."
from the German Ideology

actually to me the greatest victory of the left coalition in those years was pressuring people like Bismarck to implement the welfare state. Without said pressure the measures would not have been implemented.
It's why I find that there is a silver lining to it all, as the red scare did cause reforms to happen and mobilized the masses to demand these things

>These systems weren't entirely pioneered by Bismarck.

see

what word is that they used to describe that system user? Remember, this is an example you brought up, not me.

>actually claiming leftism has been associated with socialism

you are being petty and ignoring reality at this point user. Give me some examples of a leftist party or school of thought from the 1980s back to Marx himself that was fundamentally against socialism. two socialist groups arguing with each other over some petty difference in interpretation of marx dont count.

Your point was about literally all the left being Marxists and then suddenly becoming SocDem in the 90s. On top of that you add some wiki-tier knowledge about Bismarck and pretend that "literally all leftists" don't have high school education.

They use that to describe a specific type of welfare system, not as a synonym of 'welfare'
>you are being petty and ignoring reality at this point user. Give me some examples of a leftist party or school of thought from the 1980s back to Marx himself that was fundamentally against socialism.
The American democrat party?

>this quote (this is factually wrong and didnt come true) is proof that Marx didnt organize groups that set out to establish a communist system

really made me think

>w-well the leftist pressured him into doing it!

user, come on. Just admit the OP point is right.

>this is the average poster in these threads

you see this is where you miss your hit, I'm not a leftist

>The American democrat party?

you mean the one who had to cheat to prevent a socialist from getting the nomination in the last election? the guy who praised the socialist model of Denmark, which is what started this whole conversation in the first place

I thought we were talking about the Cold War period.

I never claimed you were a leftist, this post is sophistry that is avoiding the point. the OP point is right and you just dont want to admit it. Just admit you love Bismark and that Marx was an idiot

but I do love Bismarck(in limited doses though), I'm not the guy he was discussing with.

You mean this quote where Marx said that communism is not a system to establish? Do you read at a 4th grade level?
Marx's groups (the Communist League and the International) tried to increase the economic and political power of the proletariat, which would intensify the contradictions within capitalism and eventually result in a new synthesis. This process is known as communism. OG social dems, Leninists, and others have established systems with the goal of aiding communism, but none of these were systems described by Marx. Only the process. Ironically, neoliberalism is proving to be a rather effective system for the process of communism to flourish.

user, someones actions count for more than what they say. The fact that Marx worked to establish groups and organize in order to create a communist system overides that fact that he used words the wrong way and claimed his system was something that it wasnt.

youre blinded by ideology

>Give me some examples of a leftist party or school of thought from the 1980s back to Marx himself that was fundamentally against socialism.
American Democratic party, Liberal party (UK), Social democrats (or at least most of them).

Exactly this. Reasonable criticism at the time, but absolutely outdated today.

If you think the Democratic Party is leftist, then you fundamentally don't understand how parties work within the US system of government.

>>Marx has some fair criticisms of capitalism
spotted the fucking kike shill

Within the US the Democratic Party is undeniably the leftist party

>If you think the Democratic Party is leftist, then you fundamentally don't understand how parties work within the US system of government.

Which party voted for Taft–Hartley Act and which party voted against it?

>controlled economies dont work and have failed literally every single time they have been implemented over the past 150 years
Why did the USA and UK implement rationing and all sorts of other planning facilities during WW2, then? Wouldn't that, under your logic, have been a catastrophe that made them less productive?

>Within the US the Democratic Party is undeniably the leftist party

Liberalism is not leftism.

Good point on Soc Dems though.

Political "left" is not defined universally, but liberals sat left at the États généraux.

Also no one mentioned liberalism.

The Democratic Party is a centrist party, but it still has an important left wing faction.

Unlike most European countries, which use various forms of neo-corporatism to organize their interest groups, the US has no real government organization as far as interest groups go. Anyone can make an interest group for any reason. The result of this is that these interest groups have a very large impact on policy and party politics. Parties in the US compete with each other for support and funding from these various interest groups. The Democratic Party, for example, has historically catered to unions. This isn't the result of some kind of ideological Marxist belief in world revolution or whatever, this is the result of the fact that unions send voters and money towards the Democratic Party in favor of preferential treatment in policy-making.

>If you think the Democratic Party is leftist, then you fundamentally don't understand how parties work within the US system of government.

Of course there are some leftists in the Democratic Party and plenty of leftists vote for the Democrats, but likewise there are libertarians and nationalists in the Republican Party and libertarians and nationalists voting for the Republicans. But none of these minority views represent the leadership of the parties, the platforms of the parties, or the legislation and policy the parties attempt to pursue.

Too bad American politics have been binary for some time. In binary system there is no "center".

Indeed, it made them less productive. However the state needed food and thus allowed rationing.

>Within the US the Democratic Party is undeniably the leftist party

American politics have been binary for the overwhelming majority of the country's history. The American system converges towards two parties ala Duverger's Law. Both parties cover the center to an extent. You'll see people who are farther away from the center generally refer to these types as 'the establishment'.

>If you think the Democratic Party is leftist, then you fundamentally don't understand how parties work within the US system of government.

>Within the US the Democratic Party is undeniably the leftist party

>Unlike most European...
That's just sophistry, when your "interest party" is working class then you are most likely leftist.

>This isn't the result of some kind of ideological Marxist belief in world revolution
Thanks for proving my point.

>I don't have an argument for my claim so I'll just keep repeating myself

I'm doing what you did

>That's just sophistry, when your "interest party" is working class then you are most likely leftist.

Both parties claim to be the party of the working class, and neither of them deliver. There is no left-wing party in the States, mate.

>You'll see people who are farther away from the center generally refer to these types as 'the establishment'.

Again, there are two parties. If we apply left/right dichotomy, then logically we will have one left and one right party.

>There is no left-wing party in the States, mate.
Bless the US

>leftism = 'for the working class'

The interest groups they're catering to are not some ubiquitous disorganized mass. Pro-union legislation like you cited is favored by unions, who in the US act like any other interest group similar to the NRA or Sierra Club for example. They're organizations who spend money on politics and mobilize their members to vote in blocs in order to curry favors.

You're not doing what I did. You made the claim that the Democratic Party is a leftist party, I disputed that claim. It's your job to provide evidence for your claim. If you make a claim and provide no evidence, it's not everyone else's job to proof whatever nonsense you claim wrong, it's your job to prove that claim right.

Yes, one party is going to be to the right and one party is going to be to the left. But typically in a first-past-the-post system, the parties converge on the center because the party that can move closest to the center of popular opinion will get the most votes.

You literally just quoted yourself when I disagreed with you. The Democratic Party has historically represented a variety of leftist interests, and can therefore be considered a leftist party

>One does support "American people" by enacting generally racist, conservative, economically liberal and hawkish policies
>Second one does support "The bottom 90% by enacting generally humanistic, economically welfare-statish and dovish policies

>the parties converge on the center because the party that can move closest to the center of popular opinion will get the most votes.
Or they will radicalize in order to gain disguntled votes.

And again, binary system. "Less left" is still "left". There is no other party to define themselves again other than the republicans.

When I disagreed with you, you just repeated your claim with different words-
>Within the US the Democratic Party is undeniably the leftist party
Which is what I disagreed with in the first place. You didn't offer anything new to support your claim, so I didn't need anything new to call it bullshit. The Democratic Party, just like the Republican Party, supports a wide array of interest groups which could hardly be called uniformly leftist or far right. Prior to the Southern Strategy, they catered to Southern pro-segregation groups, for instance.

I think our problem here is just one of definitions. When someone says leftist, I assume they mean the far left, ie Marxists and their kin. I'm not denying that the Democratic Party is left of the Republican Party, but I'd hardly call them leftists if that's the definition we're going on.

I wasn't the person you originally responded to
> The Democratic Party, just like the Republican Party, supports a wide array of interest groups which could hardly be called uniformly leftist or far right.
But on average, they are more to the left than the interests the republicans represent

>Pro-union legislation like you cited is favored by unions, who in the US act like any other interest group similar to the NRA or Sierra Club for example

Unions represented interest of working class => will be supported by left
Sierra Club represents enviromentalists => will be supported by left
NRA represents gun owners => will be supported by right
Am I correct?

>When someone says leftist, I assume they mean the far left
So... You enter the thread claiming that all leftist before the 90's were "Marxist and their kin" and now we are at "When someone says leftist, I assume they mean the far left".

Can I claim victory now?