/marxism/

Oh, you'll have to ask the first guy. I'm not a conservative, but I'm interested in author's who the Left has decided are 'problematic', which causes some leftists to think I'm a conservative or white supremacist or something

I would imagine a conservative's interest in Marx would be a rejection of capitalism, consumerism and the reduction of human life to pure labor. Check out some of the Christian/Marxist cross-over..

That sounds right down my alley. I'll definitely look into that, thank you.

>Christian/Marxist cross-over

Liberation Theology to be more specific.

Ah yes, I knew it had a more specific name. Haven't read much of it specifically, but I met a catholic missionary who worked with the Zapitistas to make it legal for them to export coffee to America. Sounds like interesting stuff, but too reformist for my tastes.

This was good.

Catholicism is incompatible with Socialism no matter how hard to try, even secularists have produced a better theory of combining Christianity and Marxism than the liberation theologists.

>what is distributism
Catholicism is far more compatible with socialism than protestants, the current pope shills a lot for commies

>actively trying to subvert and manipulate your friends' sensibilities for your own gain
Yup, marxists

>suggests book to friend
>somehow trying to "subvert" and manipulate them

You can't be a socialist and support both private property and anti-trust legislation, unless your a democratic "socialist", in which case your in the wrong thread.

And the current Pope is one-step away from receiving a formal declaration of heresy by his own cardinals and being absolutely destroyed by the SSPX.

It's become easier to bring up accelerationism since Zizek started mentioning it, for what that's worth. Though where Zizek heard about Land I have no idea.

...

sometimes i regret wasting my 20s on marxism, but some of that shit is p comfy tho

>Throwing Proudhon, Rousseau and Marx on the same list
Just /leftypol/ shit.

Proudhon maybe, but Rousseau fits on the list

And Rousseau himself takes a lot of influence from Thomas Paine, so in a way there's a direct lineage from the American founding fathers to Marxism.

I'm not a Marxist but I like William Morris.

thomas paine was born after roussaeu tho so how did that work

>Debate: Marxism -- legit or meme?
well, lets look at countries where marxism was implemented
...oh look they're all terrible

Morris is the originator of Bernie Socialism, where you give him your daughters college money so he can purchase his third house while the people around him pick up the pieces from yet another failed project.

kys

True. He was a utopian for sure. But his intentions were good and he and his idol John Ruskin added a conservative element to socialism which has been neglected in recent years. Plus he helped preserve many of Britain's ancient buildings for which I am eternally grateful.

>>>/leftypol/

>How do I approach Marxism from this perspective?
You don't, Marx, Mao and Lenin are all socially conservative although they all unsuccessfully experimented with appeasing feminist factions they eventually went back to enforcing socially conservative benchmarks like making abortion illegal, jailing and hanging homosexuals and making divorce next to impossible etc.

Academia just ignores this side of them and pretends it didn't exist.

>that is now one of the greatest nations on earth
Are you seriously clawing to find a link between Mao's China and the modern Chinese state?

The modern Chinese state is completely unrecognisable to the original marxist ideals through the 20th century. Its entire political system behaves like a gigantic capitalistic conglomerate.

As someone in their early 20s with a superficial interest in Marxism, what warnings could you give me?

Ask your communist professor how he can afford to buy a secondary home in the bay area.

I think the point that OP was trying to make is that Mao, for all his faults, greatly modernized China is a very short span of time, which led to its becoming a greatly important nation in geopolitics rather than a semi-feudal puppet state shithole.

>Marxist nation

And there's your problem right there.

A unified nationalist China would have been decades ahead of where China is now.

Both the US and Soviets were supporting the Nationalists in order to stabilize and modernize China, and yet what they got in Mao was basically the prototype Pol Pot, with only the Soviets keeping him from destroying the little he left of China.

What they have now is a totalitarian surveillance state with no history or culture, which is why Americanos are jerking themselves raw over them. And NOT a successful nation, by any actual measure.

What do you guys think about the kibbutzim?

failed ideology that needs to be updated in order to fit in to contemporary society so it can fail again.
>china
>marxist
this is your brain on communism

Brecht is underrated on Veeky Forums.
youtube.com/watch?v=Yi-hEFKs9gk

Why do any of you think it is intellectually defensible to embrace an intrinsically genocidal and fundamentally unworkable ideology? Delusional utopians who do not understand human nature.

They have an emotional attachment to it, it has nothing to do with the intellect.

>decades ahead of where China is now.

This is a stupid assertion that demonstrates absolutely no understanding of the KMT or the Chinese Civil War.

You should learn the actual history of a place before you criticize Marxists for their own incompetence.

> It's yet another /pol/fags and marxcucks get baited into arguing for 500 posts episode

Those are both false claims, as you're well aware.

Brecht is actually so awful. I am not kidding when I say that he was probably the worst thing I had to read throughout High School. I think it was "The Good Person of Szechwan" we had to read and it's the most cliched, trite Marxist propaganda you can imagine. The play literally ends with the narrator turning towards the audience and telling them that the reason these people are bad is all due to the evil """system""". He is overrated garbage of the worst kind.

>human nature
Which is not tied to any specific system of social organization and adapts itself to material conditions.
I don't understand this meme argument. Was collective tribal hunting not human nature?
Furthermore, every worthwhile social change was achieved through struggle, violent resistance and blood, it is supremely utopian to posit that capitalism can go on without at least a viable socialist threat to constrain it.

What do you think caused the post-ww2 socdem consensus, the golden age of capitalism? It wasn't benevolence of the capitalists, it was the existence of a mass labour movements and communists making them shit their pants. Capitalism will grant you a decent life only when it's threatened on all sides, there is no "equilibrium" here, that takes some heavy kool aid to buy into.

Wait: Marx > Thomas Paine > Rousseau?

0/10. SEE ME.

>What do you think caused the post-ww2 socdem consensus, the golden age of capitalism? It wasn't benevolence of the capitalists, it was the existence of a mass labour movements and communists making them shit their pants.

Thanks for nothing fuckface.

This tbqh, had it not been for communists and such external threats we'd still be working 16 hours a day in factory lines, not to mention how technology wouldn't be nearly as advanced as it is today without the U.S/soviet military race, most advancements were made under the Apollo program and set out the way for the devices we use today, conflict really is what pushes civilization forward

Fascism was a reactionary movement to communism, Hitler's whole platform was built on the Bolshevik giant to the east antagonism.
no commies means no nazis either

>Why do any of you think it is intellectually defensible to embrace an intrinsically genocidal and fundamentally unworkable ideology?
Are you talking about capitalism?

Why do idiots online always fall back to retarded fucking identity politics when they're confronted with opposing views? I have a lot higher tolerance for pop-culture which I am in no way forced to participate in than the garbage that is NatSoc.

The international labour movement has been dying off since the 70s. Has this made western civilization better? Did the "fall of communism" usher in a prosperous global order?
No, you fucking braindead retard. The atomized consumer society is the result of right-wing ideology, the vanguard revolution of Reagan-Tatcherism and their sycophants in the economics profession. Neoliberalism is cancer and if fascists oppose it that doesn't suddenly make it left-wing, it's the logical result of unrestrained capital accumulation.

>you could have prevented liberal global capitalism by corporate ethno-capitalism
Yeah sure Adolf

Capitalism is a mode of production, you absolute fool.

>corporate ethno-capitalism
literally gibberish

>le hitler was bad because he tried and failed mémé

>Fascists opposed both international socialism and free market capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third position. They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism. They favored corporatism and class collaboration , believing that the existence of inequality and social hierarchy was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists), while also arguing that the state had a role in mediating relations between classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists).
>An important aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme, meaning an economy where the government often subsidizes favorable companies and exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.

>Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest. Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social ."

>In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class. Fascist governments declared the trade union movement illegal, and replaced it with labor organizations under the direct control of the government, which ensured that workers could not undertake any effective economic action.

It's just a retarded form of capitalism with a big smattering of ideology.

That's not capitalism at all. Note the huge role played by the state in the economy.

The relative role of the state doesn't make something a different mode of production. The Soviet Union wasn't socialist because "muh state" but because it strived to abolish markets and production for exchange in general, and instituted social ownership.

You're in a marxist thread, capitalism is seen as a mode of production, your post might work if you were in a lolbertarian subreddit though

I thought you were using "capitalist" to refer to an ideology, not a mode of production. If capitalism is a mode of production, then fascism -- as an ideology -- being a form of capitalism ("corporate ethno-capitalism") makes no sense.

You seem to think capitalism if referred to as a mode of production is mutually exclusive with ideologies, if that were the case we wouldn't have such a political divide in the first place

Any Marxists here will enjoy this
youtube.com/watch?v=dMR_wIqtmQs

That debate is fucking gold, academic pseud was blown the fuck out and yet he's still crying all over twitter and YouTube.

Reminder that when academic agent was asked if he read Hegel, since the question came after being asked if he read Vol.2 and 3 of Das Kapital, he assumed that "Hegel" was another book written by Marx

...

Gotta go to a group that conforms more to your intellectual capability

Progressives are Marxists. It's literally the same thing.

>wanting capitalism to be more including to minorities is being a Marxist

No. It literally is not the same thing. Your stupidity reveals you being an American voter.

Jesus Christ what a couple of pseuds.

>thinking this is all progressivism is all about

It's the seamless continuation (not even modernization or evolution) of marxism. It's literally the same. Some marxist Spaniard whose name escapes me invented this whole "new" ideology in prison as a means to make marxism more socially acceptable in a time when marxism was seen with the same spite as nazism today.

this has got to be bait

>another revisionist trying to pass social democracy as being socialism
Marxism is still socially accepted outside of Burgerland, not everyone equates economic theory with racial genocide

I seriously hope so. I do not respect Catholicism anymore, and tell ppl I am Christian. Pope is fucking disgusting and I truly hope Catholics sort that shit out

Good lord. I certainly hope so.

>o no saggy pants im gonna cry

read a book

>identity politics

Name a better way of preserving culture than in a homogeneous national socialist country.

In order to be a Marxist today I think you have to read the more modern approaches to Marxism. At least when it comes to the Marxian economics component. I think "Monopoly Capital" should be the minimum and at the same time it's the best starting point for this sort of thing since it very clearly shifts the focus on competitive markets of traditional Marxian theory to markets dominated by oligopoly and monopoly. This has very important consequences which affect ideas like the tendency of profit to fall. It basically turn it the other way around leaving capitalism with an entirely different set of problems.

I disagree with socialism and communism being good alternatives, but they aren't what made the world the shithole it is today. That glory goes to liberal social values accompanied by rampant capitalism. Socdem with national preservation is the goat system t. /pol/tard

I come from /pol/ and know Gramsci, what now ey?

what's the end point of marxism?

here is a tip: stop identifying yourself as marxist or conservative

Marxism is a critique of capitalism.
The endpoint of socialism is communism.

Reagan and Thatcher weren't "conservatives."

...

According to you. They presented themselves as such, it's not any better of an argument compared to "Bolsheviks weren't REALLY socialist".

Confirmation bias much?

>Reading things you already agree with

Try something critical of your belief system.

Try some gulag....

By their fruits shall ye know them.

>Try some fiction

Marxist here and it's a shame Americans are so against it. A disgustingly selfish group of people capitalists are. Even more shameful when they consider themselves Christian but share none of the values with Christ.

>Marxism is a critique of capitalism.

Marx's project was really just a description and investigation of capitalism.

If you are a marxist kill yourself
Left Hegelian master race

Thatcher always made clear she was a Gladstonian liberal.