What did Karl Marx get right?

True, but later Marxists revised this view. Imo Gramsci found the best balance in terms of the roles of the base vs superstructure. Western Marxists after him put too much emphasis on the superstructure and turned into the Frankfurt School and postmodernists.

This just shows how the West has and always will be incompatible with socialism and therefore communism. It will always dissolve into milquetoast ravings and armchair violence. No wonder the real work happened in the East while Western Europeans were busy supporting WW1 or jerking off over semantics. Marx proved the West is a dead end.

>Western Marxists after him put too much emphasis on the superstructure and turned into the Frankfurt School and postmodernists.
yeah, and it became even more retarded. Will Smiths kids are now more oppressed and will face more hardships rather than some poor redneck kid born to meth addicts in a trailer park in Mississippi according to them.

Its mostly just become a way for bougie kids to find excuses and LARP as the oppressed more than anything else.

The history of money, especially in Vol. 1 Das Kapital.

>new "left"
>marxism

the new left is literally from marxist user. Marcuse was a marxist.

The New Left is the period that gave birth to post-Marxist leftism, and many of its thinkers didn’t even consider themselves Marxists, although many did. It’s the point where the lines blur between actual Marxism and the /pol/ Karltural Margs boogeyman.

the new "left" explicitly rejected marx, class struggle and traditional leftist politics, in favour of contemporary americentric social and identitarian issues like negroes, civil rights and feminism. it had nothing to do with marxism or the scientific socialism tradition

>the new "left" explicitly rejected marx
no they didnt. Its all based on Marxism. The realpolitik explanation is that working conditions greatly improved, and wellfare states had rendered marxism completely useless to the working class, so the intellectual changed gears and targeted students instead of workers.

this

what do negro rights and feminism have to do with marx?

>The realpolitik explanation is that working conditions greatly improved, and wellfare states had rendered marxism completely useless to the working class,

*teleports begins u*

It’s also worth nothing that the main reason why conditions improved was because of class struggle waged by organized labour. In fact conditions started to deteriorate precisely when labour ceased to be an active and powerful political force. So Marxism never ceased to be useful to workers, they just took the gains it won for them for granted.

The only things marx got right were those ideas that came from hegel, where marx went wrong is where he parted from hegel and those ideas he obtained from a guy named bruno bauer.
Hegel had this quote he was famous for, ~~"the owl of Minerva sets flight only at dusk". This basically meant, philosophy really can only understand what's already happened in the world. The philosopher simply rationalize the past actions of men (ie history, that which has occurred). Basically the philosopher pushed history forward through the dialectic, through critique.
Cont.

>/pol/ Karltural Margs boogeyman.
Why do you guys say this shit while also praising Zizek for making a movie that proves this point? He LITERALLY made a movie where he examines movies and tells you how they are all subconscious capitalist propaganda, the left loves it, then the left decries the idea that they view culture as an obstacle to the new utopia as just a paranoid conspiracy theory? Do you guys ever take a step back and just actually consider what you are saying because you tend to exhibit the same myopic delusions as the alt-right.

Zizek has also voiced similar new left ideas, like the idea that freedom is bad because people can choose to be fascist in a free society, therefore, we must suspend freedom of thought.

>y-yeah well marxism fixed that all!

The welfare state was created by Bismarck as a direct fuck you to the socialist, and it rendered them useless. They knew this, which is why they fought against it. And now, years later, socialist love to point to countries that have this Bismarck styled welfare system, like Denmark or France, as one of their accomplishments and a testament to "you see! it totally works guys!"

>"the owl of Minerva sets flight only at dusk". This basically meant, philosophy really can only understand what's already happened in the world. The philosopher simply rationalize the past actions of men (ie history, that which has occurred). Basically the philosopher pushed history forward through the dialectic, through critique.

Theres an old joke from the soviet union
>Capitalist fairy tales start with "once upon a time" marxist fairy tales start with "one day, there will be..."

You clearly don’t understand the difference between intersectionality and Marxism. Marxism doesn’t back away from criticizing culture or its expressions of class dominance, but it does maintain its materialist analysis, whereas post Marxist liberals do not. That’s why they can sit there and claim that a black CEO is more oppressed than a white hobo.

>the idea that they view culture as an obstacle to the new utopia as just a paranoid conspiracy theory?

What conspiracy theory? It seems self evident to me that things that promote a particular way of thinking are an obstacle to different ways of thinking. It’s not particularly conspiratorial, since this cultural hegemony arises spontaneously out of class struggle, it isn’t artificially created by the bourgeoisie for the the sole purpose of indoctrination. Read Gramsci.

>Zizek has also voiced similar new left ideas, like the idea that freedom is bad because people can choose to be fascist in a free society, therefore, we must suspend freedom of thought.

Source?

So in other words the welfare state arose because traditional capitalism was threatened by the working class, ie it was the product of class struggle motivated by Marxist thought.

>ex-Marxist
He wasn't an ex-Marxist when he wrote this. He was against the New Left like most classical Marxists.

>It seems self evident to me that things that promote a particular way of thinking are an obstacle to different ways of thinking. It’s not particularly conspiratorial, since this cultural hegemony arises spontaneously out of class struggle, it isn’t artificially created by the bourgeoisie for the the sole purpose of indoctrination. Read Gramsci.

exactly. You just admitted yourself you hold these views, but when anti-marxist point out and critizie this idea that you just admitted you have, leftist always shrug it off and say its just a made up conspiracy theory. Some even going to far as to say its a nazi idea. You cant call cultural marxism just a made up right wing conspiracy theory while also believing in this idea that culture is dominated by capitalism, and that you need to take control of the culture. We have this same conversation every time, and every time marxist are pushed into the corner and just make the same lame excuses of "well I dont like thats it has the word marxism in it!" or "well we dont call it that so it doesnt exist!"

>Source?
video I saw a while ago. I'll try to go dig it up from youtube.

Cont.
Indeed, hegel owl basically meant: philosophy can only understand rationaly that which has come to conclusion.

But marx, he thought he concieved the totality: therefore, anything which was an aberration from that conception was to be critiqued. This radical critique would usher in that reality (ie the dialectic).

So we need to understand first what were marxs criteria for rationality: 1)universality 2)neccesity
3) predictability
Cont

>ie it was the product of class struggle motivated by Marxist thought.
If they were motivated by marxist thought, then they wouldnt have stopped there, as marxism sees this as a cop out, which is exactly why socialist groups opposed the welfare system when it was first created. Again, going back to realpolitiks, no worker really gives a shit about these intellectual ideals, they just want better working conditions and better pay. They dont give a shit about making some nerdy bookworm their master rather than some politician.

>Some even going to far as to say its a nazi idea
"cultural marxism" is literally kulturbolschewismus and other classic nazi propaganda repackaged for contemporary americans. it is total fantasy

I don’t even understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that because the New Left criticizes culture and Marxism criticizes culture that they are the same? Cultural Marxism as the alt-right appears to understand it argues that capitalism will be defeated through cultural means, which is completely incompatible with the basic premises of Marxism. They clearly aren’t the same thing, which is why the New Left is considered the point at which Marxists and post Marxists separated.

>"cultural marxism" is literally kulturbolschewismus and other classic nazi propaganda repackaged for contemporary americans.
no it isnt. This is just typical paranoid marxist dogshit.

> it is total fantasy
the user literally just said he believes in it. Again, the only course you have now is "well I dont like the name of cultural marxism!" when the name of the thing doesnt matter when considering if the idea itself exist.

>Again, going back to realpolitiks, no worker really gives a shit about these intellectual ideals, they just want better working conditions and better pay.

Workers acting in their material self interest is exactly what Marxism promotes. You can’t deny the role Marxism played in the labour movement.

they were motivated by the threat of organised labour and its demands, you dolt. the german state did not hold marxist views. you are so clueless it's embarrassing to read

I didn’t say I believe in it, I said that culture provides expressions of class relations and ideology. I don’t buy into the idea that all aspects of culture should be swept away, or that cultural change will end capitalism.

>no it isnt
it is
>the name of the thing doesnt matter when considering if the idea itself exist
then you won't mind if i call it "cultural capitalism" instead. fair enough

How in the fuck would communism work in a service economy like the USA?

>I don’t even understand what you are trying to say here.

>The right has this idea of cultural marxism
>Cultural marxism, as described by the right or just anti marxist, is this idea that marxist today hold the view that a marxist society cannot be established because people are so brainwashed by capitalist culture to hate marxism and love capitalism
>people on the left laugh off this idea as just some stupid conspiracy theory, implying they do not in fact believe that
>Zizek made a popular movie with the left that espouses this EXACT idea, that capitalist societies produce culture that subconsciously brainwashes people into liking capitalism
>you yourself just agreed with Zizeks points

Therefore, you just admitted that cultural marxism as an idea is in fact something the left, mostly marxist, believe in. You not calling it cultural marxism is irrelevent to the fact that this is in fact an idea that you and others hold.

Also, heres the zizek video. starts at 16:43
youtube.com/watch?v=uGld3FbDY6s

What he says here is straight out of Repressive Tolerance by Marcuse

That capitalism isn't perfect. This is why socialists (in unions, not Lenin and co) made it decent for everyone like it is now.

>Workers acting in their material self interest is exactly what Marxism promotes
Marxism what NOT stop at the welfare state though. In other words, a welfare state being established and the workers saying "ok, thas good enough" would be considered a failure in marxism. So you cant point to what would be a failure by your own standards and try to spin it as a victory.

>it is
no it isnt. This is just the typical marxist paranoia that everything that isnt marxism is nazism.

>then you won't mind if i call it "cultural capitalism" instead. fair enough
exactly. You know it exist, you just dont like the name of it.

By this logic, the Jews can be credited for the rise of Hitler.

>Cultural marxism, as described by the right or just anti marxist, is this idea that marxist today hold the view that a marxist society cannot be established because people are so brainwashed by capitalist culture to hate marxism and love capitalism
no it isn't. "cultural marxism" is the belief that jewish members of the frankfurt school conspired to promote things like homosexuality and miscegenation in universities in an effort to subvert traditional american society and create the conditions for a judeobolshevik takeover. you don't even know your own delusion. lol

>You know it exist, you just dont like the name of it
no shit, dumbass. BECAUSE IT'S NOT MARXISM. no one said rabid sjws and gender-obsessed faggots don't exist. christ you're thick

Why is Veeky Forums so fuking full of Commies?

That’s not what cultural Marxism is. Cultural Marxism as described by the right is basically tumblr liberalism (anti white, anti western, anti male) which obviously isn’t Marxism since it has no real class focused politics or materialist analysis. When Marxists dismiss the cultural Marxism meme they are dismissing the comparison between blue haired SJWs and actual Marxists. What you are describing, the idea that culture serves as a tool of class hegemony, is basically just regular Marxism post WW1. Only the most orthodox, literalist Marxists would claim that culture is completely unimportant.

I’m not trying to say that social democracy was a victory for Marxism, I said that it was the product of Marxist influence and politics. To suggest otherwise would be to say that Marxists weren’t always at the core of the labour movement, which they were.

The fact that they were jews is irrelevent to the fact that the frankfurt school was in fact marxist philsophers came up with these ideas on culture. Notice how you use workds like "conspired" as an attempt to make the own ideas that Zizek voiced sound more sinister,and therefore, less believable. Youre being really belligerent and dishonest because youre backed into a corner now.

Youre getting really needlessly angry, and nothing in your post refutes anything I have said. You cant just agree with my initial points, which you at first disagreed with, and then call me a dumbass, as if they were your points all along. Again, all youre doing is getting angry at what it is named.

>workers organize into unions
>wage class struggle and force concessions
>this creates the welfare state

How exactly is class struggle not responsible for social democracy?

It seems you are getting mixed up in terms of what Marxists are actually saying when they distance themselves from the New Left and their ilk. We are criticizing their over emphasis on culture and under emphasis on class. We’re not saying that culture is completely irrelevant or that criticism of cultural factors is the same as New Left liberalism.

Welfare state was created as a reaction to socialism.
>social democracy
That's only one form of welfare state. Bismarck, or Hitler for that matter, were not democrats.

i'm belligerant because i loathe anticommunists like yourself and i'm sick of your constant lies and stupidity
>dishonest
your entire worldview is built on dishonesty and pathological lying. kill yourself

In other words they were concessions won by an organized working class.

> this thing that fulfilled all of the socialism goals
> was actually most clever plan to defeat socialism
Next time in pro hints of history, you can win the war by simply conceding territory to your enemy.

>Cultural Marxism as described by the right is basically tumblr liberalism (anti white, anti western, anti male) which obviously isn’t Marxism since it has no real class focused politics or materialist analysis.
yeah, and this is the anti-intellectual manifestation of that idea. This is another problem I see in a lot of marxist. something they do doesnt work, so they claim it wasnt the real idea instead of just realizing that the idea itself was bad to begin with. Its too idealistic in other words.

>When Marxists dismiss the cultural Marxism meme they are dismissing the comparison between blue haired SJWs and actual Marxists.
yeah, and I wouldnt blame them, but the reality is that they ARE in fact your ideological brothers and sisters. You want to distance yourself because it would be a blow to your ideology to have to admit that these are the end results of your ideas.

>What you are describing, the idea that culture serves as a tool of class hegemony, is basically just regular Marxism post WW1.
EXACTLY. This idea does exist. and this very core of this idea isnt even specifically marxist, as all dictators across the political spectrum create propaganda and control culture. The difference here is that marxist are trying to do so from the outside. Rather than taking power and then controlling culture, they are attempting to control culture as a way to get into power.

His views on the Bourgeois socialists who today run the media and most of western society.

>economic conditions matter
>analysis of the development of capitalism

>fulfilled all of the socialism goals
The goal of socialism was to overthrow the capitalists and create a stateless society where workers own the production means. That hasn't happened anywhere ever. Brainlet.

>the reality is that they ARE in fact your ideological brothers and sister

>marxism is about class and economics
>sjws have no interest in and outright reject class and economics
>"they are totally your ideological brothers guys"
you are deranged

>they ARE in fact your ideological brothers and sisters.
Not that user but no, no and no.

What Im doing is calling out marxist who try to control the narrative in the form of blaming all the new left bullshit as not even part of their side, rather than saying they are an offshoot of marxism that they dont like. A common meme from leftypol types is that all the SJW shit is from capitalism. What really happaned is that the new left overplayed their hand, and SJW, which was originally a self described term of pride, became a curse word and an insult on the interenet because of how annoying and retarded they were, so the left is sort of distancing themselves from them because they know its a dead end and everyone hates them.

Just imagine if those types were actually in control of the government

also, these post

sort of prove my point. Notice how they are trying to claim they have NOTHING AT ALL to do with them.

>tumblr liberalism

Progressives are anything but liberal. Also, Marx was concerned with things other than class struggle, like feminism.

>This is another problem I see in a lot of marxist. something they do doesnt work, so they claim it wasnt the real idea instead of just realizing that the idea itself was bad to begin with. Its too idealistic in other words.

Depends on who you ask, I’ve read/met plenty of them who will pinpoint where and why various Marxist experiments have gone wrong in the past. Even the most devoted Stalinists will argue that the USSR made specific mistakes that led to its collapse.

>yeah, and I wouldnt blame them, but the reality is that they ARE in fact your ideological brothers and sisters.

They’re certainly influenced by Marxism, but Marxism was influenced by classical liberalism, and yet you don’t suggest that they are the same thing. The New Left represented a fundamental break from Marxism (just as socialism was a break from enlightenment liberalism), and many of its thinkers openly admit this.

>Rather than taking power and then controlling culture, they are attempting to control culture as a way to get into power.

It really depends on who you ask, but the idea of subversion of culture as a tool of revolution rather than material inevitability appears to be a pretty anti-materialist and thus anti Marxist idea to me. I certainly don’t agree with it, but that doesn’t mean that there is no point in criticizing culture.

The right says all you lot that identifies with Left branch ideas/ ideology is that even though technically different to one another they all feed, nourish and create the social dismemberment of a Civilisation.
You Subvert it.
Change principles,meanings and clash borther against brother in a meaningless fight that eventualy paralises culture and societal progress to just further the agenda of a few psycopaths that will eventually eliminate everyone that supported this Thoughtform into being.

Pscycopaths use your feelings of goodness and commaderie, attach them to false principles and Ideologies ( ideas that are not pased in truthfull reality) to weaponise you against your own kin.
>Feminists want independance from men
>blacks want representation and gibs
>Whites want end of Priviledge and repression to minorities
>Hipsters want Socialist policies and healthcare systems that would strain and constrict the economy and fuck you over slowly but surely.
You are seveal diseases latched onto the same virus. You dont have perspective, you lack emotional control over your minds.
You base your political views on individual feelings and assumptions and personal backstories.They use your believes against society.

You are Sheep led by the Wolf to slaughter the Shephard.

Its a capitalistic state tactic to get the less revolutionary masses to chill out, cutting into profits to give the capitalists breathing space to retaliate. Most contemporary socialists will argue this is preferable (and the only choice in 21st century) to bloody revolution and that socialism can be achieved by evolutionary means with a welfare state, anti-imperialism, weakening patriarchy, etc. Old school socialists (mostly marxists) will argue that the means must be seized violently and that the essential character of socialism is class supremacy of the worker over the capitalist. This definition would mean that at the very least a socialist revolution that is sexist, racist, etc. would be legitimate if it means a transfer of the means to the workers.

...

>not an argument

I’ll take nonsensical rambling for 1000 Alex.

nor is incoherent rambling about "civilisation." go back to your youtube videos

In other words you are saying that DemSoc gang is the way to go. I kind of agree, but I think there’s a strong risk of going the way of Allende if you actually push for democratization of the means of production.

>They’re certainly influenced by Marxism, but Marxism was influenced by classical liberalism, and yet you don’t suggest that they are the same thing. The New Left represented a fundamental break from Marxism (just as socialism was a break from enlightenment liberalism), and many of its thinkers openly admit this.
because they are obviously much more influenced by Marx rather than Locke. In fact, the SJW view would be to tear down statues of people like Thomas Jefferson (which they have tried to do btw) But think of it like this. Martin Luther breaks off from the Catholic church, but he was still a christian. No one would call him a jew.

The New Left is an offshoot of marxism. They saw that it didnt take hold in the west, and they were also critical of the USSR, but they werent liberals. They were looking at cutlure through a marxist lens. They just took the class struggle and expanded it to every other aspect of society. even Antifa and anarchist types agree with this with their obsessive hatred of hierarchies. But oddly enough, they just want to invert the hierarchy, rather than get rid of them lol, but thats a whole different discussion

We literally had this thread yesterday. Stop with your psy-ops lefty/pol/.

You’re misunderstanding me. I’m saying that pointing out the common intellectual heritage between Marxism and the New Left is pointless, because they have diverged to such a degree as to be different ideologies. This is more or less what happened to classical liberalism, out of which socialism evolved. I’m not comparing the New Left and classical liberalism, I’m saying that the New Left is to Marxism as Marxism is to liberalism. That is to say, it evolved out of its predecessor, but now represents something completely different.

> weaponize you against your own kin
Everyone who unironically says that he is Left or Right is already falling to divide and conquer strategy. They both are part of the vicious circle that in the game where they are played against each other. There are feminists of the left who promote that you can't trust any men and misogynist of the right who dehumanize women. When western civilization will end it will be because of petty struggles of marginal extremes.

Western civilization will only be saved by the realization of enlightenment values.

I will quote my father by saying: "Marx believed that when the poor rise up and overthrow their oppressors, they will inevitably become the new oppressors. That's wrong, you see, because the poor have NEVER successfully risen up."

Point out the nonsensical ramblings about civilisation then please.
Or are you just going to call put the dissenting opinion out of spite of your own beliefs?
Are you /historians/?
Or just mediocre bookphiles that screen through human history, not in search of truth, epathy and understanding, not to achieve gnosis of human nature but aspirations of could be's and might be's, following ideologies that fit said preconceptions that are attached to your own ego's dream of greatness?
Maybe that why you are drawn into Stalin types, you dont give a fuck about the people, you dont even know yourselves.

You want to run things according to your own childlish wims. Shall you rise to argument against my claims? or will you stay in the periphery,like vermin throwing your spite to a truth you aint got the balls to face.

The problem is not being anything. Just being REALIST and Truthfull.
To acknowledge real truth and debate actions thoroughly. To be able to smash ideas and ideologies and policies to the ground, and see if they hold on their own and benefit the people.

Your concept of civilization presupposes that it is an inherently harmonious construct, and not plagued by contradiction and internal struggle. We don’t turn brother against brother, they are already against each other when they exploit and oppress each other. The only thing we do is pick a side in that struggle.

Western civilization is not worth saving.

Actually, psychopaths can't use your feelings. The part of their medical condition is the inability to properly understand them.

...

>Your concept of civilization presupposes that it is an inherently harmonious construct
I never said that.
Civilisation is achieved by acknowledging that the natural state of Man is Struggle, suffering. That he must adapt and adecuate to the reality and truths of life to succed and progress.

Civilisation doen't get rid of conflict, it raises and fights to surpass them, and topple even greater conflicts and struggles.

Then just Off yourself then coward.

When Maoists arent being insufferable they will say if you are first world you already have blood on your hands but dont stop and cry about it. Sadly, the most revolutionary thing you can do if you are first world is push for reforms with revolutionary potential (ie: in the USA its universal healthcare) and doing grassroots shit that unfortunately often devolves into hipster crap.

desu this must always be backed with some sort of violent underbelly good cop/bad cop style (MLK had Malcolm, Gahndi had many violent Indian separatists wanting to leave the Raj) so the capitalists have to deal with you or face third world violence. You will get COUP'D without the military or a similarly militant population. Otherwise just have nukes.

Why coward? I'm saying western civilization dying is a good thing and we should help it die. We won't get rid of egalitarian dogshit, race-mixing and faggotry if we keep western civilization on life support.

Then why do you oppose Marxism? It’s view of history is precisely that class struggle gives rise to new, superior forms of society, which in turn fall to yet new forms.

Still not an argument

>race-mixing and faggotry

There are no arguments needed, user. You barely made a point worth of countering.

I'm saying western civilization dying is a good thing and we should help it die.
This right here is why.
If you are already blackpilled then why fucking bother ruining the hope of others that would fight tooth and nail to preserve it?

> The natural state of man is struggle
What the fuck is a natural state? Nobody really wants to struggle, it is our nature.

Also this. People struggle because they have to, not because we want to or it’s in our nature.

> would fight tooth and nail
> but also can be defeated by words of one hopeless man
I dunno, user.

or they are too uneducated (for lack of a better word) to conceive higher ideas, which go far beyond they're current living situation, far beyond their horizon of thought.

Western civilization is THE REASON WHY we're in deep shit right now. It's synonymous with Christianity and the enlightement which is the epitome of subhumanity. We can only get better by getting rid of it.

It’s also worth noting that concessions were made on the one hand while revolutionary movements were brutally repressed on the other. It’s not as if everybody just said they were satisfied and stopped agitating, rather those that agitated too much were hauled off to jail or disappeared in the night.