>ideology created to save the working class from exploitation
>90% of the people who believe in it today are bourgeois college students who's main goal is liberating sodomites and have contempt for working class cuz they voted for DRUFMPF
Would Marx shoot himself if he saw what had become of his legacy?
marx was himself a borgouise LARPer.
Probably. Communist were originally a really hardcore group of left wing revolutionaries, I cant really imagine them accepting neo-marxism at all. But at the same time, I see some self described marxist admit this, but they are still SJWs at the end of the day. I think Marx would be depressed at the fall of the USSR and China basically becoming capitalist as really depressing, and seeing marxist now as nothing more than an irrelevant group of bougies LARPing
People were actually poor back in the day, nowadays everyone is nouveau rich and think that they can be the hero the world needs. The thing is they only appear to believe in the ideas of Marx, since if they honestly believed in them they would be trying to come in contact with the working class instead of "everyone that isn't related to my nation/tradition".
This.
Wasn't Lenin born into a middle-class family or a well to do family as well?
Lenin's father was a professor, so definitely not working class.
Lenin was from a middle class family, just like most communist leaders. Stalin was the only one from poverty iirc
Which explains a lot of things really.
being an intellectual worker doesn't make you a capitalist
the whole stake of class warfare is "who is the middle class going to side with, the proletariat or the bourgeoisie?". That question pretty much entirely determines the winning side.
Pol pot was from a petit bourgeois family too. Enver Hoxha as well.
Tito and Stalin were the only prominent communists I can think of that came from genuine poverty.
You find every revolution just serves to replace the ruling class with the middle class, it's an endless cycle and Marx should have known this
FPBP
Marx should also have known that no poor people will ever support his ideology because they don't want equality at all. He doomed himself when he thought he had figured out how the poor think.
>t. has never read him
Lmao how did you know
you're confusing vocal americans with the majority of the oppressed who realise that capitalism is a death warrant
>Marx should also have known that no poor people will ever support his ideology because they don't want equality at all.
That's not why they don't support his ideology. They don't support his ideology because it's materialistic and anti-religion.
They don't support it because they stand to gain nothing, at least in a modern welfare state anyway
Marx would kill himself seeing Russia and China of all places going communist.
this.
>your family, your god, and your nation are oppressive!
Only a leftist bourgeois twat could ever delude themselves into thinking the working class would ever give up the things most dear to them for a few more gibs.
% of the people who believe in it today are bourgeois college students who's main goal is liberating sodomites and have contempt for working class cuz they voted for DRUFMPF
Because Socialists won, and forgot that the struggle never stops. Then Thatcher made all the happy unionized workers petit bourgeois by letting them sign their name on a mortgage paper rather than paying their rent to the state, so now everyone is a happy little liberal.
The bourgeois college students are exactly that. The bourgeois wives and children have always had poor, downtrodden pets to nurse as a hobby, because they know they have no power and no say in how things are run, except by pestering Daddy for a good cause, with plenty moral indignation.
Marx does not care for the petit bourgeois, his thought and his legacy are there, for anyone who needs them. Nothing has changed.
I don't know, when you're getting the absolute shit blown out of you in Ruthenia in a war over the Tsars cousin supporting the bullying of some Serbs you've never met you'd probably think Gods church didn't really give a shit about you anyway
But you go to Heaven, the Tsar and the priest that buggered you when you were a kid, told you so, user.
cnn.com
lel. Granted, Nicky was incompetent, but that doesn't mean religion family and country aren't more important than gibs.
redpill on my every socialist revolution in the 3rd world was also nationalistic, and why modern day marxists support indengious rights movements, Palestine, a united ireland, and are anti colonialist.
I'm not denying they were important, it's not like the Bolsheviks campaigned on their annihilation of the the church idea initially either, that was more about removing competitors once in power (especially when they'd all read Dostoyevsky who wanted a hardcore Orthodox state to unite the Russias)
False, the vast majority of committed Marxists are workers and farmers in India and China. There are quite literally a thousand card carrying communists in Asia for every coffee sipping young radical in America.
Anyways, capitalism for First World workers has traditionally been good enough that very few of them were interested in changing that. American radicalism peaked in the 1890s, the 1910s, and in the 30s, because short term conditions of capitalism meant work was poorer and harder to come by. The development of Keynesian techniques in the 30s and Neoliberalism in the 70s generated enough prosperity to keep the workers in line, along with a security state that was assassinating American socialist leaders up until the early 70s.
Right now Marxism is making a tiny comeback because young millenials and Gen Z types have not benefited from neoliberalism in the way their parents did. While slashing regulations might have prevented a lot of factory jobs from going overseas in the 80s, free trade and rising costs of production led to outsourcing a very short time later. Pair this employment squeeze with degree inflation and normalized debt and it's very understandable that several million young Americans are now professed socialists.
I'm not sure if we'll see any kind of radical socialism in the near future, but the increasingly brutal nature of first world capitalism and the rising cost of production in developing countries suggests the well of postwar prosperity might be running dry. If so, history suggests this makes a return to socialism inevitable.
No, he never owned capital. But he did benefit from the contributions of bourgeois friends and in-laws.
>it's not like the Bolsheviks campaigned on their annihilation of the the church idea
what is the red terror
>especially when they'd all read Dostoyevsky who wanted a hardcore Orthodox state to unite the Russias
Implying there's anything wrong with this
Red Terror is more about isolated bands of psychos running wild in the civil war than a coordinated effort, same as White Terror or Black Terror or hell even Green Terror
>Implying there's anything wrong with this
There isn't, it's just a secularist/atheist government won't tolerate the threat of it
>90% of the people who believe in it today are bourgeois college students
Citation needed
>gibs
nigger what does any of it has to do with welfare? The revolutionaries were workers. There was no welfare anyway, and the lumpen didn't take part in the revolution.
>There are quite literally a thousand card carrying communists in Asia for every coffee sipping young radical in America.
>implying china is actually marxist
Sucks when the not real communism meme is used against you.
>Anyways, capitalism for First World workers has traditionally been good enough that very few of them were interested in changing that
Isn't that one of marx's premises? The revolution is supposed to happen in a ultra developed high tech capitalist society, if that's not the case then Marx was wrong.
>along with a security state that was assassinating American socialist leaders up until the early 70s.
[Citation needed]
You do you realize they teach Marxism is schools rights? If Marxism is so revolutionary and dangerous to the status quo, why does the system fund institutions to teach it to people?
>Right now Marxism is making a tiny comeback because young millenials and Gen Z types have not benefited from neoliberalism in the way their parents did
Nationalism is making an ever stronger comeback though. I don't think gen z particularly cares about socialism as much as millennials do.
> While slashing regulations might have prevented a lot of factory jobs from going overseas in the 80s, free trade and rising costs of production led to outsourcing a very short time later. Pair this employment squeeze with degree inflation and normalized debt and it's very understandable that several million young Americans are now professed socialists.
Marxists aren't even talking about this though. Most of them are content with only talking about LGBT rights and illegal immigrants, as I said they're thoroughly bourgeois. They've allowed the far right to take up the banner as the representatives of the working class in America.
>You do you realize they teach Marxism is schools rights?
In schools or universities? You make it sound like education of Marxism is universal and unbiased in America
>Red Terror is more about isolated bands of psychos running wild in the civil war than a coordinated effort, same as White Terror or Black Terror or hell even Green Terror
> Soviet historiography describes the Red Terror as having been officially announced in September 1918 by Yakov Sverdlov and ending about October 1918.
>he actually thinks the workers are Marxists
If that was the case, Bernie would have won very easily.
The revolutionaries were bourgeois jews, with the support of the military.
>If that was the case, Bernie would have won very easily.
So no citation or evidence at all?
>You do you realize they teach Marxism is schools rights?
What are you angling for here? Of course they do, just like they teach about any number of political/economic systems
Do you really think STAVKA was handing down orders about exactly who to lop arms off and shit? It was heavily localized, some regions suffered massacres others didn't at all
It is though. You're literally allowed to teach and advocate for Marxism as a university professor and not lose your career.
>What are you angling for here? Of course they do, just like they teach about any number of political/economic systems
You're allowed to teach it and portray it in a positive light. Which right wing ideology receives the same treatment? You're being pedantic my dude. You know damn well right wing ideologies are strawmanned and portrayed as evil while marx is portrayed as a misunderstood genius at best, and "good in theory bad in practice" at worst.
Citation needed
nigga im taking a class right now at uni on Marxism, and my professor is an avowed Marxist. You're delusional if you think Marxism is some secret revolutionary ideology that the capitalists don't want you to know about.
yes he would
Let's get some shit straight here
1) Fascism is not really right wing, it's a third position and taught as such
2) No professor ever espouses gommunism as the true path to enlightenment in their professional life, private is their own thing
Have you never taken a sociology class
It's sad how workers don't realize neoliberalism would make the whole world prosper, giving workers the best standards of living humanity has seen.
Can't imagine why they'd think that
reminder that marxism is a trick the (((capitalists))) use to fool the people into thinking their problems are caused by evil white men smoking cigars
Not him but I've a goddamn degree in sociology and not once did a teacher advocate marxism. Opinions were generally heavily frowned upon since we were doing science.
>Implying I'm a Marxist
Unionism and Marxism don't mix, we know this
>sociology
>science
>What is any humanities course
>2) No professor ever espouses gommunism as the true path to enlightenment in their professional life, private is their own thing
Dude you're living in clown world. There is nothing revolutionary about communism. (((Capitalists))) laugh at how stupid you are for thinking internationalism and centralized banking will benefit the working class.
>1) Fascism is not really right wing, it's a third position and taught as such
Which ideology is right wing? Monarchism?
Considering how you are confusing every liberal as a marxist and insist that there is no class consciousness left in the working class I guess the feeling is mutual
So anecdotal evidence and no statistics?
Actually monarchism is one of the original definitions of right wing
...
>Which ideology is right wing?
Traditional conservatism, which fascism directly opposed by wanting to implement concepts like corporatism, only brainlets call it "right wing"
academia.org
dude what planet on you on?
academia.org
The vast majority are just standard democrat voting liberals but as much as 18% are proud communists
academia.org
You're being pedantic, and it's pissing me off.
please screenshot to prove you aren't a samefag
>he actually thinks capitalism is right wing
>actually thinks muh small gov't is right wing
>Picture not related
3 identical posts
>USA
Maybe your country is just a fuckheap, did you ever consider that?
Are you actually arguing fascism is pro-small gov and anti-capitalist?
two of them are me replying to different people
...
>moving the goalposts
>Maybe your country is just a fuckheap, did you ever consider that?
The US is considered to be the most capitalistic country in the west, I can't imagine there being less marxists in Europe/Latin America.
>Are you actually arguing fascism is pro-small gov and anti-capitalist?
Fascism is for a strong state and corporatism.
>Bolsheviks literally released poison gas on peasant farmers displaced by their bullshit revolution
>leftists today are still the bourgeoisie complaining about people in rural areas
Why have rural and suburban retards always stood in the way of the intellect of city people?
Well I don't know what you're fucking arguing here, help me out
>Fascism is for a strong state and corporatism.
I know, this other faggot seems to think different
Do you fuckheads even understand what you linked? Is English your 4th language or something?
marxist wont let something like reality get in the way of their ideology user. Marcuses entire philsophy was about this, its tinkerbell type of shit of "if we believe in it enough, it will magically start working and we just need to silence people who disagree with us!"
IF IT WORKS IT'S BECAUSE MARX PREDICTED IT WOULD, IF IT DOESN'T WORK IT'S BECAUSE MARX PREDICTED IT WOULDN'T
It went wrong the moment that Revolutionary Vanguard = cool kids club became a thing.
>18% vs 5%
Oh nooooooooo they are everywhere!
>moving the goalpost after you get proven wrong
Is Marxism and all Communist deviants the Rick and Morty of ideology?
yes
I love when people lump succdems and liberals in with actual marxists.
I asked if marxists were everywhere in university and you showed me 18% of them. Read up the reply chain
>I love when people lump succdems and liberals in with actual marxists.
What's the difference? Marxists are politically irrelevant, and the only impact they have on politics is when they support liberal/succdem causes like tranny bathrooms and refugee resettlement
Liberals aren't left. Try again.
I thought social democrats basically believe in Marx's critiques of capitalism but found non-retarded ways of addressing them?
Marxists are their pets that they let play in a small confined playpen where they pretend to be revolutionaries until they need to use them as the tools they are.
So?
>he thinks 'humanities' means anything
The far right is incredibly petty-bourgeois, workers on average are more interested in left wing parties. Even in the 2016 US election, working class people were substantially more likely to support a neoliberal hag over Donald Trump. Nationalism and xenophobia rarely find much purchase among working people unless it's connected to an economic appeal. The typical Trump voter is not a coal miner, but a small business owner.
You need to recognize that today's shithead radicals are really not very important. Only a few of them play any major role in the radical movement that's currently agitating for reforms like single payer healthcare and stronger unions.
This was substantially more true in the 70s than today
Marx would puke from seeing people call the USSR communist
Exceeeeept that the Dems lost the rust belt specifically because the working class voted Trump
To unreconstructed Marxists everyone to the right of Mao is a "liberal reformist pet of the capitalist pigs"
>workers voting Democrat again after Obamacare ruined their health coverage
>workers NOT voting for the guy saying he's going to destroy it
Why do people believe this? Obama sure brought out the racism in apathetic people when he raised taxes and ruined our union health care.
Leftist Intellectual Discussion: "Not marxist not leftist not real socialism not real communism not marxist not real leftist not real marxist not real communist liberal not real socialism not real communism that's not socialism that's not communism that's not leftism that's not marxism stalin is based stalin is not communist not marxist not leftist liberal liberal leftist workers totally support us" *pops estrogen pills*
>Even in the 2016 US election, working class people were substantially more likely to support a neoliberal hag over Donald Trump
No, brown single mothers working part-time jobs were more likely to support Hilldawg.
>Nationalism and xenophobia rarely find much purchase among working people unless it's connected to an economic appeal
t. "I have never worked with working-class people in any capacity". You'll be surprised when they get comfortable with you (i.e. discover you're not some whiny shitlib that gets triggered at the thought of limited immigration)
>The typical Trump voter is not a coal miner, but a small business owner
And "the typical Hillary voter" is a single mother on welfare working part-time or a white collar professional living in a coastal cosmopolis - neither of which Marx would've devoted much attention to
Honestly I think that the American working class would be fairly open to some left-wing economic policies if they came with social conservatism.
It's amusing watching them get triggered when someone's ignorant as to their specific special-snowflake branch of Leftism - and then they turn around and make massive generalisations about "right-wing politics"
>"Why should I make a distinction? You're all either open fascists or closet fascists"
*gets shot trying to block your path*
That would be National Socialism and the corporate high priests who control the liberals, and their pretend-revolutionaries have deemed that to be evil.
Sorry it's either Libertarianism or Liberal Corporatism now.
Contemporary American Marxists are NOT thoroughly bourgeois, and are the least bourgeois political actors in America, but are still tainted by liberalism because we live in a wholly liberal society.
There's been some pushback against this lately, but Americans Marxists still have a long way to go before we matter at all. This isn't a huge surprise -- the US is the vanguard of global capital, so it makes sense that its working class would benefit somewhat from capitalist imperialism and that its socialist organizations would be a joke.
The real impetus for socialism is going to come from the periphery working classes, in countries like China and India and Latin America. You're very mistaken that China has no communists, even if the government is very enamored with market forces its size, history, and material conditions means that millions of Chinese workers are completely dedicated communists.
There's a reason why a lot of the most interesting contemporary Marxist literature is written by Chinese dissidents.
National Socialism has too much weird racial shit