/marx/

>le /pol/ retard falseflag

Nice try, but we know your behind this post /pol/

See? This thread is already terrible. Making generals just encourages shitposting and isolates content.

As a communist, I advise you to take the writings of Jews with a pinch of salt.

/pol/ rightist here
just read Ernst Fischer's 'Marx in His Own Words'
anyone here read it? what do you think?

>polish intelligentsia

Do you mean that of the modern day or the immediately post-USSR era?

I just find it interesting that you would choose Poland; Poland has been becoming more right with every passing year. Outside of the ivory tower there are really only two kinds of leftists left in Poland: old USSR nostalgics and young upper class pan-Europeanism leftists.

Germany and the UK had, in my opinion, more of what you are looking for. However, with the infiltration of American identity politics in the former and radical feminism in the latter, this is no longer the case.

I am curious about which Polish thinkers you are thinking of, though. I'd be interested in looking into them.

I might be very disillusioned on this point but through the 60's and 70's didn't the country have a nice culture going on?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia

The reason why i chose poland was mainly because of this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=-MoLdQA7aSg

Where the interviewer seems to be the leader of a polish intelligentsia.

I'm curious. What draws you towards an ideology like socialism?

Previous thread.

Spain. It was awful

kek

i love how all the /pol/ false flaggers don't realise how quick they'd nope out of reading marx if they saw the sentence complexity.

this is more embarrassing than trying to prove to someone who's actually read kant that you too have read kant when you don't even have the attention span for an average literary novel.

laughing girls aren't going cut it.
>the_void_of_your_eternal_loneliness_laughing_back_at_your_miserable_vacuousness.bmp

Is marxism possible in a country such as the United States of America?

As a soviet joke went
>Is it possible to build communism in a single country?
>Yes, but it's better for you to be living in another country

Wow, the good thread of deleted and this one was left. Great job mods.

Sorry man, I actually think encouraging discourse between different viewpoints is advisable, because the far left is as anti-humanist and destructive as the far right; it just lies to itself about different things.

>leftists thinking communism is tolerant
communism has nothing to do with feminism today.
Communism/ Marxism is obviously an ideology against all religions, they inprisoned gays in cuba and I think in the soviet union as well, i know it's just the application of communism but waving a communist flag while demonstrating for gay rights or against "islamophobia" is just an insult to communism/marxism
they were not that tolerant (=stupid) at all

stalinsociety.org/2015/04/08/homosexuality-in-the-ussr/

burned

the worst part of it all was the beta cuckoldery everywhere.
Literally, everyone was being cucked and cucking someone, emotioanlly and sometimes physically. It was awful, specially for the youth whos first love is a filthy open relationship feminist. Its the scourge of the earth I tell you that much.

I guarantee you that libertarians get cuckolded in the literal sense than Marxists/leftists and I'm willing to bet by a huge margin.

>As Marxist-Leninists, we are scientists.
In USSR all students in universities had courses on "scientific atheism" and "dialectical materialism". It was such a clusterfuck of bullshit, ideology and propaganda, that no one took them seriously, not students, not even lecturers. What do you think was the main reason USSR failed? People stopped believing in its ideological foundation altogether. In the late 80s there was very, very few people in all of USSR that took marxism seriously.

Yes, I am triggered.

s/he's taking the piss mate

>capitalism is bad!
>please pay no attention to my capitalist best friend who pays for everything so that I may live

Does anyone have that "it was only a theory, guys!" pic?

To be fair everything in Spain is awful.

...

Not an argument

really not true
open relationships are overwhelmingly a leftist thing and they always end in tears

ITT: a bunch of deluded faggots.

Giving too much freedom to the people cannot work on a fundamental level, since a person is not capable of fully handling the responsibility for his entire being. So there need to be chains, otherwise you'll end up destroying yourself.

Who is most suited to holding those chains is the real question.

>Gorbachev
Picture made by ignorant person. Then again, expecting marxists to learn history is strange.

preach

then please teach us

Marxist methodology is still used by major academic historians who know more than you ever will. But all you can do is talk shit without talking about the lit.

Gorbachev tried to reform USSR to get rid of the most obvious shit: ideological persecution, lack of toilet paper etc. As far as I understand, should he have succeeded, it would've looked much like scandinavian socialistic model: strong governmental regulations in most important areas supplied by free market everywhere else. Though for a number of reasons he failed, got impeached by a company of party functioneers (Yeltsin and co). These (again, reasons vary from USA evil plan to them honestly believing in capitalism) proceeded to implement the caricature Randian version of free market, dropping entire industries, selling governmental property (means of production) to whomever for questionable prices and so on.

I won't argue that capitalism in Russia was implemented in the most retarded way possible. But ultimately that, too, was brought by the ideological failure of the USSR.

bloch

Sounds more like the people who think like you fucked up and then millions died. Average person loses ten years of his life and you complain about toilet paper. Didn't even try arguing against the pic, but I guess it's hard thinking about how people are raped because of your ideas right?

>he's still stuck in the left/right duality of human politics
>he genueinely believe he's with the good guys
>he cannot possibly understand he's as much of a puppet as stormfags are

Who /angstyteen/ here ?

>arguing against a picture
>a picture of an anime girl with text
>the text refering to the girl as a real human being

Where do I begin with ? It's clear that those who follow these ideas are themselves diconected from reality, there aint much to argue about.

>he thinks he's so smart hes 'ascended' left/right politics

It makes a valid point with humor, but I guess you wouldn't understand that because you're socially retarded.

>As Marxist-Leninists, we are scientists.

Marxism is cancer based on pseudo-scientific philosophy and an extremely heterodox and inapplicable form of economic analysis.

The core tenets of modern Marxian analysis - diamat, "alienation", psychoanalysis are fraudulent and only promulgated by modern sophist academia in their self-interest.

And don't even get me started on LTV - as an econ major, that really makes me want to literally vomit.

CITIZENS OF THE WORLD UNITE UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, THE ONLY IDEOLOGY TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC FREEDOM, NATIONAL WELFARE, WORKERS' RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC IDEALS SIMULTANEOUSLY. LIBERATE YOURSELVES FROM THE CHAINS OF RIGHT-LEFT EXTREMISM!

European Social Democracy has been dumb and gay since the break up of the 2nd international. Chavez and Duerte are cool though, but I bet you don't like them tho because they're not white.

>Social Democracy has been dumb and gay since the break up of the 2nd international.

Democratic socialism =/= social democracy. There is no need for a complete overhaul of the capitalist economic system.

wow you seem like a smart boy

Are you trying to say something, kike?

This is simply false. Lenin decriminalized homosexuality and his foreign affairs minister was gay.

you've clearly not even read a entire summary of marx's philsophy. Marxism is basically irrelevant most of everything else is infinitely more relevant than basically anything that isn't derived from it.

That only applies to rich western societies, though. Socialist thought is relevant in large parts of the world.
I read this article today and just found it sad. Thank God I'm "only" Eastern European.

marxist.com/iran-hard-disk-socialism150605.htm

Trotsky is the most literary Marxist writer and is my favourite

why lie? If you've been an active communist for 10 minutes and you believe in cultural marxism then you're a fucking moron, any longer than that and you must be a mollusc. And how would a mollusc even use a computer?

Im not, first hand experience, trust me, that is not healthy for young people.

This. Trust me. I can get behind open relationships when is between people over 18-20. They are old enough to deal with what they do and if they don't then they need to learn how to do it quickly. What I experience was when I was around 15 and it was a complete feels-cuttingmyselfsad fest

Yeah what the fuck? Cultural Marxism is a purely right-wing descriptive term, not an actual tenet of Marxist belief or activism.

think he's referring to the culture within Marxist circles
while I'm definitely not a Marxist a lot of my friends/mutuals are and I can definitely attest to its awfulness

really? you seem like an anonymous idiot to me.

you seem like the reason its so awful

I'm a poopy baby!

>leftpol can't even make it to 100 posts before they start (quite literally) shot posting

>That said, Marx's philosophy is a relic from another time. Most western nations aren't dependent on the kind of labor that he expected to give rise to socialism then communism. To me he has always seemed like a product of rapid industrialization/urbanization. Now most western economies are service based and the vast majority of the proletariat lives in the lap of luxury compared to 100 years ago. Even if the wealth disparity is increasing annually, the standards of living have continued to rise for basically everyone.

Now this is what I would call reified thinking. The prime "service" sector that guarantees western living standards is finance... any other service sector cannot provide you real productivity growth. This type of "growth" is based on the notion that you can perpetually inflate real-estate and stock prices... but the underlying value structure of the global economy won't allow this to happen. Western governments provide the "middle-class" (ever notice people are to afraid to use the old fashion term "working class" today) the ability to capture some of these financial gains thanks to state redistribution and some small time playing in the markets but the "post-industrial" society is just an illusion... actual production still has to happen it has just been outsourced to Asia.

Of course the decadent living off dividends cannot cognize the fact that stocks cannot be totally autonomous from the underlying labour process. This is Marxs whole concept of fictitious capital in volume 3 of capital. Notice the neoclassical conception of profit is just a synonym for earnings regardless of their source... e.g. "profits" and "earnings" include rental income, which classical political economy identified with land or other capitalization upon mere property rights. The classical conception of profit was the net return to capital invested in plant, equipment and related outlays whose cost was purely reducible to the labor time that went into their production.

Read this:
ismaelhossein-zadeh.com/2016/07/08/marx-on-financial-bubbles/

Paul Mattick doesn't ever get any love:

"Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory"
"Economics, Politics and The Age of Inflation"
"Marxism and Bourgeois Economics"

are all worth checking out.

>the vast majority of the proletariat lives in the lap of luxury
Ask me how I know you're American

Hey, at least its those kinds of people Around here, the communists are just old angry men who either cling to believing in Marxism-Leninism or old less-angry men doing the same protests and marches every year while saying that capitalism sucks. And drinking wine together with the other old commies. No new blood. Well, there is a tiny communist youth league, but they just literally sell Lenin shirts and arrange book reading meetings.

I make do with the anarchists and radical ecology folks instead - many of them are pretty close to being "Zizekian communists" in the sense that they don't have a concise alternative theory yet.

The only annoying part about the anarchists is that it can sometimes be a bit hard to know whether some anarchist arguments are just kind of meta-arguments meant to provoke and prove points thru reactions or actual, serious discourse.

The ecology folks are very cool, they know their Heidegger and their Marx.

that's why I said i "think" because i was not 100% sure and I wasn't, sorry and thanks for the correction

Reminder that this is a false flag and that /pol/ employs the same tactics as their imaginary caricature of the jew

Anything borne of Hegel is bound to be shit.

The problem is that Kant's other heir, Schopenhauer, had a somewhat short-lived line that seems to have ended with Nietzsche - not counting his bastard children who go by the names of Post-Modernism/Structuralism/etc, and whose contributions to the world are little more than linguistic/analytic navel-gazing.

What this means is that, since the turn of the 19th century, the lion's share of all political/philosophical discourse has been in some way Hegelian.

What is wrong with Hegel?

>What is wrong with Hegel?

His writing is overwhelmingly two things: nonsense and/or ambiguous.

Whatever of his writing is not, has only two practical applications in the real world: the apotheosis of the state, and the glorification/deification of Weltgeister.

Do people really still follow orthodox Marxism-Leninism when there are plenty of modern theories that actually recognize how social realities have changed?
In general, treating Marxism as this canonical philosophy as if it's a work of epistemology or metaphysics, seems to me to go against the very doctrines of Marx. After all, dialectics is transitory and theory is only useful as long as it contributes to practice, which certainly isn't the case after more than a century. Studying early Marxists has immense historical value, but c'mon, nobody buys it wholesale.

>Do people really still follow orthodox Marxism-Leninism when there are plenty of modern theories that actually recognize how social realities have changed?
Some people do. Mostly they aren't to be taken very seriously. There are some Marxist-Leninist parties that aren't utter shit, I believe, but most of the people who call themselves M-L aren't good people to follow.

Those people I mentioned actually idolize North Korea, they've visited NK, etc. They're very delusional. Though the worst of all are those still hold some hopes for China...

>Just follow your dreams and passions
PURE

>judging philosophy by practical application
wew

>two centuries of an academic field have been dedicated to "nonsense" that they don't understand

w
e
w

I'm guessing you haven't actually read any philosophy at all.

>filthy open relationship
Does anyone care enough to dig up the relevant quote from the manifesto?

Every piece of technology in that photo was made possible by government funded research, not laissez-faire market demands.

Dewey is my favorite political writer (aside from Hobbes, ironically), but Hardt is my favorite Marxist aside from general philosophers who identify (Sartre, Deleuze, etc.)

What a coincidence, I stopped reading there as well

A philosophy that has no practical application, is worth no consideration.

>two centuries of an academic field have been dedicated to "nonsense" that they don't understand

You'd be surprised. Just know that I'm all for equal opportunities when it comes to my critique. At the other end of the spectrum, for example, you had the likes of psychoanalysis/etc - which was just as much bullshit in its own right.

So noone should ever think about metaphysical ideas anymore? We should all just stop wondering about the nature of reality and applying our reason at the problems?

What is a "practical" truth? Are other truths unimportant to be discovered?

>So noone should ever think about metaphysical ideas anymore?

Metaphysics is dead.

Yep, and eating mcdonalds or drinking coffee or using an apple product hardly translates to "I wouldn't be ready for socialism". I don't see the whole logic, and I've met very few socialists who advocate stopping using modern technology etc.

Maybe there wouldn't be products called "Apple" in our communist future or maybe the "company" would in fact still exist in a socialized form - that is hardly a big thing to consider.
In fact, maybe consumer electronic production isn't even the thing to socialize. It is true that there has been pretty great development in that sector in the past few decades and maybe it'd be possible to just regulate the problems away. Maybe we can keep some sort of market economy there, I don't give a shit, frankly, if it doesn't meddle with solving the important problems that we face.

I may be a commie now, but I'll turn into a nice "don't fix it if it works" type of pragmatic utilitarian the moment most of the world lives in relative prosperity that is relatively equally distributed and in an at least relatively sustainable manner. I believe most reasonable commies are the same. The ideology is just a means to an end.

>Kan und Fichte gern zum Aether schweifen,
>Suchten dort ein fernes Land
>Doch ich such' nur tüchtig zu begreifen
>Was ich -- auf der Strasse fand!
What did he mean by this?
Russian jokes are based. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RussianHumour

Reminder that true Marxism is anti-immigration and anti-feminist

Is it because you're browsing an American image board that communicates through American English and is primarily used by Americans? Nice detective work, Sherlock

>I believe most reasonable commies are the same.
Key word being reasonable. There's a retardedly big minority of commies who use worker's rights (and other issues) to further the cause of anticapitalism rather than the other way around. See: the people who would point out every real injustice in the western world just to defend the ussr.

There's a fair share of Europeans here. Still, always the safest bet to bet on the US of A.

Care to explain?

MAYBE anti-immigration in the sense that it may oppose immigration that happens to help capitalist globalization and MAYBE anti-feminist in the sense that plenty of feminists ate petit bourgeoisie pieces of shit whose cause can hardly be called a leftist one, thus a true Marxist wouldn't be on their side.

philosophy is basically dead yeah?

Ugh, who let /cuck/ general onto the board

Excuse me if I get anything wrong, but I am not very well versed in the topic and my vocabulary is obviously not as expansive as yours, as English is not my first language. But productivity does grow, there is no need for artificial inflation for the value of some asset to rise or fall, just the market itself deciding what is valuable and what is not. This increases production, as automobiles became more viable as they became cheaper, more advanced and oil was more widely available, there began to be a market for them, this led to production coming growing incredibly. This to me is one of the biggest problems with communism, which I believe is a rotten structure through and through, as it is a totalitarian government. The problem being that the market cannot decide for itself what is valuable and what is not, the people cannot choose what to consume and therefore cannot dictate what need more production and what does not, if the government wants to have two thousand high heel factories, yet no one wants to buy them, how does them failing affect the people? They have to pay for these useless factories, they have are met with the bill when they had no authority in creating the damned thing. Don´t get me started on wealth "redistribution", basically becoming a leech who is a servant of the government.

It depends on what you mean by "socialize". If we learned anything from history, eg Charlemagne's laesio enormis in the 8th century, state control of economic forces is insanity at best and despotism at normal.

I think instead of "socalizing" modes of production, we really need to collectivize them. What's incredible to me is that we have come so far in political theory; we understand that ownership of the land doesn't justify despotism. We have fought against tyrannical rule and developed a system to protect citizens from state exploitation. Why then are we not viewing those entities which arguably have more control over us than States with the same standard? It is a biased moral perspective.

We very violently don't want to live in a government that has a dictator, no constitutional check of powers, etc regardless of the good intentions of the dictator; why subject yourself to such a contract?

If a Saudi official has billions of dollars accumulated from the commonwealth of the nation, our gut reaction is exploitation and moral ineptness. But not a CEO. Why this double standard? Is it or isn't it okay, not just only when it fits your capitalist ideaology.

From an economic perspective collectivization has always performed better. The anarchists in the spanish revolution saw not only the expected increase in workers wages, but an immediate cost reduction of their products AND significantly increased production AND higher worker morale.

I don't want to see centralized planning or state ran business. What we need is to continue letting businesses be individual entities, continue letting consumers be consumers, but take democratic control over corporations by their workers. This kind of business structure isn't even possible in our legal system and every time it's sprung up in another country we have destroyed it before it has had a chance to grow.

And also because there was no fear of the government anymore, Gorbachev stopped wantonly murdering people and therefore there was no fear of repercussions.

No it doesn´t.