Why do Marxists assume that the proletarians of all countries will unite...

Why do Marxists assume that the proletarians of all countries will unite? Proletarians are a homogeneous group with nothing in common, other than owning no capital.

Attached: obama-marxist1.jpg (544x299, 28K)

i think u mean "heterogeneous" lmao

yeah thats what i mean lol

Because they’re stupid

>homogenous
inigo-montoya.jpeg

Because class consciousness is supposed to transcend ethnicity, race, etc. and enable industrial workers to identify as a group with a common goal.

but wouldn't a proletarian benefit the most if he could share the wealth taken from capitalists with as few other proletarians as possible?
Creating groups based on ethnicity, race or family seems to be in best interest of each individual proletarian

That's exactly how a decadent 21st century man grown up with identity politics would think, sure.

are you trying to say that Maraxists were a product of their time, caught up in their own cultural bubble?

I'm trying to say you have been corrupted by SJW identity politics.

>X have nothing in common, except the one thing that defines X
How about you stop being obtuse and just say you don't think class is the major identity of a person.

It's supposed to according to Marx but it doesn't IRL.

That's how every worker ever has thought.

I just don't think it is in the best interest of a worker to unite with every other worker in the world

Do people in the US really thought Obama was a communist politician?

Maybe, maybe not. I do think that a critical flaw in Marx's theories is that he simply handwaves identity politics and thus simply cannot explain 20th century totalitarianisms which were primarily racial/ethinic.

Why should they not unite against capitalists?

In some fairness to the early communists, they didnt really know what would happen at the time so just assumed everyone was equally oppressed and equally resentful enough to rise up. They also underestimated how reactionary forces would suppress or even moderate simply to foil their enemies. Also people generally just want 3 square meals a day and some private time to vegetate on their couch, they dont really want to man the barricades.

The forces of nationalism and localism are much easier to grasp and understand than international solidarity with workers with very not much in common with you culturally.

for starters, because worker compete with other workers for occupation and housing

>thus simply cannot explain 20th century totalitarianisms which were primarily racial/ethinic
Well the Nazi and Fascists were great at making the problems that are meant to lead to class consciousness under control by keeping the workers happy (holidays, cruises, kids, kitchen, church i.e. literally paying you to have sex), gainfully employed (work for the Fatherland you dumb schmucks) and giving them a whole load of scapegoats for all their problems.
Marxist theory does a pretty good job of explaining away Fascism.

so marxists agree that proletarian revolution won't happen if the elites give decent living conditions to the workers?

>fascists "keep the workers happy"
>commies starve them to death
Sounds like fascism is far preferable

>Why do Marxists assume that the proletarians of all countries will unite?
I don't really know if it's that solid an assumption, but in theory it would all be based on economic-class vision of history. Namely all political structures spring forth from economics needs and incentives. The leaders of a dominant economic system are the dominant class.

By destroying the master class you logically remove the government that was designed to serve their interests. People across the world would align with their own class interests instead of being conned into their local political system.

we are all exploited by the rat race and if you willingly join it you are the problem and will be eradicated, just you wait

but why would the winners of a revolution fight for "their" class interest, if they could simply become the new ruling class?

Just like Christians started scrambling to put a new date on the Apocalypse, Marxists after Marx have been trying to reconcile his thoroughly 19th Century views of the nature of capitalist society with the reality of the 20th century. According to them the "modern" (fascist or otherwise) welfare state is just a band-aid.

Yes, an industrialised nation that is still part of the international finance and banking systems can provide a better quality of life than the government of a rogue state. The German economy was a ticking timebomb of debt and their modest prosperity was never going to last.

>marxist theory does a pretty good job of explaining away fascism
uneducated, opinion discarded

>ticking timebomb of debt
Meme. On the other hand you had the USSR which literally collapsed flat when oil prices went down a few dollars.

Could one describe marxism as a modern, atheist remake of religion?

There's a confusion of terminology here. Being a "ruling class" or "bourgeoisie" in marxism is not just being in charge. It's a specific action and structure. It means using the means of production for exploitation, at the expense of the working class. A working class could be in charge and rule as much as they pleased and still not be bourgeoisie. In fact they should and that's the goal. So long as they do not engage in exploitation.

It's not modern identity politics were the working class is just some political tribe. It's a mode of living. Like being Christian. If Christians take over Pagan Rome they don't stop being Christians.