Blaming Marx for the barbarism of the USSR is like blaming Nietzsche for the holocaust and other moral transgressions...

Blaming Marx for the barbarism of the USSR is like blaming Nietzsche for the holocaust and other moral transgressions of Nazism.

>gr8 b8

Can you cite a work that backs your claim up and brings the thread on topic?

blaming the barbarism of the USSR on the communist manifesto, das kapital, the german ideology etc is like blaming the holocaust and other moral transgressions of Nazism on the will to power by Nietzche


Do you need help tying your shoelaces?

No but I do need some help cleaning up the influx of redditor faggots. I would actually prefer a literary work that backs up your claim rather than namedropping titles.

>le redditor meemee

can you adopt a trip so I can block you

Communism is for weak people who need muh daddy state to succeed in life. That's why communism and its children (lgbt, feminism, militant atheism) are so successful.

not op, but fuck off. it's an interesting topic

...

>communism and its children (lgbt, feminism, militant atheism)
how in the fuck are lgbt, feminism, and militant atheism the children of communism? shit, feminism and militant atheism are older than communism

Great post!

Yeah I agree.
Goddamn Nietzsche.

>historical figure with ideological following should not be blamed for a historical actions of members of same ideology

Its shit /pol/ bait that belongs on Veeky Forums.

ITT: not real gommunism guys, nietzsche was a nazi!!

OP's not exactly wrong, the individuals and institutions who have interpreted Marx, Nietzsche, and others must be held responsible for their actions in the name of such ideology, not the originators of the ideal.

That being said it's pretty widely accepted that this is the case, hence why most people critical of Marxists or of social Nihilists attack the individual or institutional argument they are confronted with - few attempt to dislodge these ideals themselves, aside from adopting by matter of course an opposing ideology. Those who do aim to defeat the philosophical ideal of another typically do so separately from any outward opposition against said philosophy's acolytes.

nietzche is for the type of self-pitying, inadequate manlet that far right political parties prey upon.

they had differing intents. Marx was quite clear that his writings on capitalism was to provoke a revolution (which you'd have to be quite deluded not to think that the revolution would contain much bloodshed and moral failings).

I don't know what nitzche's intent was... to reach some kind of transcending experience by climbing hills and listening to wagner???

The KGB literally financed the campaign of politicians who used public money to help those movements
>b-but muh conspiracy
Then why don't we talk about yhe conspiracy of capitalists against workers? The conspiracy of heterosexuals against homosexuals? The conspiracy of religion against atheists? The conspiracy of men against women?

>Blaming violence on the repressed class that is driven to revolt
t.bourgeoisie limp dick

>implying the left didn't suck nietzsche's dick for years

oh you! what utter tosh, talking about a normative conspiracy of civilisational proportions!
>meta-troll detected.

Reminder that Nietzsche wrote a large essay against the "Jewishly gloomy" music of Wagner because he didn't like the guy personally, and was a failed artist comparatively.

He's not to be taken seriously.

oh i didn't realize trotsky was repressed when he bombed krondstat

marxists thought that the politics of feminism, race etc were secondary to the politics of class.

racism, misogyny were seen to be a byproduct of class oppression. Once the condridictions of capitalism are resolved by a dictarship of the proletariat then the antagonisms of race, gender, nationalism etc would just melt away.

They're wrong, but you're out of your depth. you're obviously a /pol/-tier retard that names anything they dislike as marxist

Now we are back on track with OP. Blaming Marx for the actions of others.

I don't think you really know what defines left - right politics.

I suspect that you think that anything that came out of academic humanity departments, especially in europe, over the past 50 years is inevitably some kind of crypto-marxism.
Good luck with that, brainlet.

he never done nothing wrong.

>literally agrees with me
>but waaah go back to /pol/, you meanie, how dare you speak against marxism

because it isn't???
apart from Sir Roger, that is.

Conservatism is for weak people who are afraid giving up their economic privileges because in an actual meritocracy they'd be worthless

except that poor people who have to work for everything are more conservative than liberals that never struggled, all of the wealthy people in america supported hillary

But it raises an interesting question about the responsibility that literary figures have to posterity.

america's a political anomoly, a complete clusterfuck. it should never be used in generalising examples

They have economic privileges because they are strong and spend their time improving themselves rather than complaining about injustice on the internet

oh i guess america is exceptional after all! have fun with your 20% unemployment and flood of islamist refugees bro

Liberals are capitalists just like conservatives. They want to retain capitalism, just hand out some gibsmedats so the system doesn't fall apart that quickly. It is not communism, or its child

I live in a third world country and it's the same here. Poor people are more conservative.

so if conservatives and liberals are the same why did you call out conservatives instead of capitalists?

>holocaust and other moral transgressions of Nazism
*holocaust and moral transgressions of Nazism
fxd

They have economic privileges because they are lucky and born into a wealthier family, or into an ethnicity that is not discriminated against

> 20% unemployment and flood of islamist refugees bro

if you say so José

poor people are more conservative everywhere except in bourgeois marxists fantasies

Then they have stronger genes.

mexicans and other central americans come here to work hard and supply us with fresh cocaine, not to receive free gibs

There is nothing barbaric about removing a parasite from your body
There is nothing barbaric about removing a parasite from your nation

However the amounts of killings in the USSR during peace time is pretty barbaric

>barbarism
>when you're egalitarian enough to be equally cruel to your own citizens as to foreigners suddenly you're 'barbaric' to the bourgeoisie

but nietzsche said not caring about parasites shows strength, this is why rich people are so liberal, so what if a few apes want gibs, what is that to a person who lives a life of comfort and plenty?

>The KGB literally financed the campaign of politicians who used public money to help those movements

This is actually true, but you've fundamentally misunderstood the reasons why, which were militaristic rather than sociocultural in nature.

The USSR was a pioneer in unironic meme warfare, utilizing a wide array of propaganda techniques and media apparatuses to constantly throw its opponents (the capitalist world unofficially ruled by the USA) off-balance and on their toes. Echoes of that sort of avant garde warfare can be seen even today, as former KGB agents in Russia managed to conquer the Crimea without firing a single bullet. In fact, the west has by and large adopted the USSR's techniques of ideas-as-war and reshaped them for their own benefit because they were so successful.

The point is: the USSR, through an underground network of money and influence, supported many movements in the west which would be considered "progressive" in contemporary terminology; not because it agreed with the tenets of such movements, but to generate social unrest in the west in the hope that it would keep said western countries too busy with their own internal problems to stop the USSR from attaining more power.

The mistake lots of conspiracy theorists make is going too far with this and assuming that the leadership of the USSR tacitly approved of the beliefs of the groups they were supporting, which is a load of trash. Like I said, the west has adopted these sorts of tactics themselves - does the USA's support of extremist organizations in Middle Eastern countries mean that the Americans share solidarity with said extremists? Of course not, it's just a military strategy to foment a bit of extra chaos and destabilize a nation-state that stands in the way of whatever the USA's goals are.

Yes. Because it was actually Wagner's fault

I don't doubt that the USSR supported the CPUSA's involvement in training civil rights activists in the 50s, I'm sure the original Bolsheviks (some of which were still around back then) legitimately believed all their anti-imperialist shit, but they were always anti-fag, not sure where that came from, but the USSR like the Catholic Church wanted to keep the birth rate and keep the red daiper babies flowing so they never promoted faggotry, which is why communist jews like Howard Zinn didn't include anything about the lgbt struggle in their books like "People's History Of The United States" etc.

I'm interested as fuck in this topic and wanna hear more. Especially as someone who has been listening to Jordan Peterson lately, I've been struck by how he unequivocally states Marxism = genocide/famine/Hell. As an American, this too is what I grew up to believe, which makes me very skeptical.

how does legalizing homosexuality (before illegalizing it again) fit into "always" being "anti-fag"

why are /pol/tards and americans always giving marx such a hard time?

he just wrote some books.

the bible has been stretched and skewed often enough to justify atrocities but we still teach it to kids

as if that question even exists.

Should authoral intent be given primacy over the effect of a text when judging the moral tenants of said text?

No. JD Salinger basically pulled the trigger.

Dumb question. Worded well, but a dumb question IMO. Of course authorial intent is given primacy.

But I do blame Nietzsche for that. I just think that both him and Marx are both worth reading, albeit cautiously because we know what their ideas can do.

That's just common sense dude.

(There's also the fact that the nazis were not as unambiguously influenced by Nietzsche and put together a lot of different streams of thought, whereas marxists tended obviously to work from Marx.)

((Also doubly worth noting is the fact that this kind of conversation is not in fact intended to condemn these guys as morally reprehensible, just to be realistic about the dangerous impact some ideas can have and the bit of caution we ought to exercise towards them as a consequence))

>JD Salinger basically pulled the trigger.

I'm probably going to regret whatever stupid blather comes from this, but, how?

I don't blame Nietzsche, I blame the Jews

and Marx was a Jew

should we not blame those that interpret and act on a book?

kill the author, empower the reader....but if things go tits up its the author's fault.