Many Leftists are talking about this, the problem is that Liberals are weathervanes, they attack the fascists when the fascists are in charge and attack the leftists when the Liberals are in charge.
Cowbee
joined 2 years ago
This is in the context of Israel trying to annex parts of Lebanon, Israeli real estate is already frothing at the mouths looking for apartments to rent. If it isn't intentional, it's extremely ignorant.
I also think the "idea creating matter" part of your argument is a misrepresentation of the theory. It's more of a shift in human history through the evolution of ideas. It's a more philosophical approach to change. For example, the very idea of Marxism is an antithesis to the idea of capitalism. The dialectical theory is basically saying that at some point, these two ideas will be resolved and form a new thesis.
Actually, this is a misrepresentation of Marxism. Marxism is about Dialectical and Historical Materialism, it isn't a Utopian answer to Capitalism but an analysis of Capitalism and a Materialist prediction of what will replace it. I recommend reading Elementary Principles of Philosophy by Georges Politzer. Capitalism contains within it the seeds of Socialism.
This is my understanding of this theory. Of course, I'm no expert, and i still have a lot to learn, but i don't think it can be easily dismissed. Unless you know something I don't.
Without being condescending, unless you've read several books on Dialectical and Historical Materialism, as well as Idealism as it has evolved over time, I believe I probably do know more. The Politzer book is fantastic, it goes over the evolution of Idealism, Materialism, Dialectics, and ends in Dialectical and Historical Materialism.
My main point is that societal evolution isn't as easy as economics and politics. It's more than that. I only offered the dialectical approach as an example. There are many other theories out there that might explain society in conjunction with the conflict theory.
Marxists argue that societal evolition is based on economic and political evolition, dialectically.
I guess the central premise of capitalism is that while every society has its haves and have nots, capitalism is supposed to encourage the haves to invest in the economy rather than hoarding their wealth. In return, they stand to get even wealthier, but a stronger economy ought to generate more employment and generally improve the lives of commoners as well.
Nitpicky, but that's the premise of Liberalism, not Capitalism. Capitalism emerged not because it was an idea, but an evolution in Mode of Production. Liberalism is the ideological justification.
Unfortunately, in a never-ending quest to make wealth-generation more efficient and streamlined, employment is being eliminated through automation, outsourcing, etc. and the system is eating itself out from the inside. I doubt it can persist much longer, but what will replace it remains unclear. I pray that it will be something sensible that ensures everyone has their basic needs met and can still find rewarding pursuits in life. But there are so many ways it could go very wrong, and that includes staying on the current course.
Have you read Marx? He makes the case that due to Capitalism's tendency to centralize and form monopolist syndicates with internal planning, the next mode of production is Socialism, ie public ownership and planning of the syndicates formed by the market system.
The biggest factor is
they have fuck-all to do with Marxism and Communism
Which is my biggest disagreement, what you see is the result of being Marxist and Communist. What do you expect Marxists and Communists to talk about?
Do you believe ideas to create matter? Am I misunderstanding you?
What my familiarity is with one ideology or another is irrelevant to this thread.
It's absolutely relevant, you're calling people claiming to be Marxists and Communists "fake" without demonstrating an understanding of what it is they advocate for! Of course it's relevant.
But yeah, ml/c/usa is a great example of mostly anti-west mass posting by a vocal minority. We could get into specific subjects and events that may or may not be true, but that risks detailing the point of this thread. (This may have changed over the last few months, but I doubt it.)
Communists are indeed anti-west. The West is the greatest source of Imperialism in the world, which is the greatest obstacle in the way of Socialism.
For generic cut-n-paste responses, all you usually need to do is mention anything about Ukraine or Chinese gost cities. Those are just two glaring examples, but I am sure there are more.
What do you mean, exactly? Where do these people diverge from Marxism?
Your experience is going to be different because you likely have different views than me. That's not good or bad, it just is what it is.
Evidently, I'm a Marxist-Leninist.
No, I am not a fan of .world either. It's got its own set of issues.
Was mostly a cheeky joke.
No problem! Let me know if you have any questions.
Interesting, didn't know about that. Didn't say anything about the USSR forcing it on him, though, nor did it seem to outweigh the west's spread of the Nazis take on the famine.
Circling back, my stance is
-
In the early 1930s, the USSR tried to collectivize agriculture from the bourgeois Kulaks, who were not at all an ethnic group
-
At the same time, there was drought, flooding, and pests which lowered harvest yields
-
The Kulaks resisted collectivization, burning their crops and killing their livestock rather than handing it over to the Communists
-
The Red Army retailiated violently against these Kulaks
-
The Nazi Press spread stories about it being an intentional famine amounting to targeted genocide, rather than a humanitarian tragedy
-
The West tended to favor the Nazi's story
-
Outside of WWII, this was the last major famine in the USSR, as collectivization ultimately allowed for industrialized farming. Even if the collectivization process was botched and should have happened after industrialized private farming was mastered, it ultimately ended famines after the tragic famine.
Which of these 7 points do you disagree with? All are supported by the Holodomor Wikipedia Article, so if you do disagree you can help edit the article on Wikipedia if you have evidence.
USSR deliberately stole farmers food as result of which millions starved.
Mind sharing evidence? The USSR tried to collectivize the bourgeois farms run by the Kulaks, yes, they didn't try to starve anyone intentionally.
People who don't okay ball were executed on the spot. Peasants were not permitted to leave their towns, people who attempted were executed.
Moscow was petitioned to stop and they refused.
People can make their own conclusions.
There was resistance from the Bourgeoisie, yes. The Kulaks resisted, often violently, in the middle of drought, flood, and pestilent famine.
All the other bullshit you are spinning is trying to undermine these facts which are suppoted by historical records.
I did not once undermine this. I, in fact, directed you to a wikipedia article affirming what I had said. Are you calling Wikipedia genocide deniers too?
USSR even got a NYT regime removed to tell American public nobody is starving because it was getting a bit awkward on global stage due to the reports coming out from Ukraine.
Mind sharing a source? Western media tended to share the German narrative, the aforementioned origin of the "genocide" stance on the famine coming from the Nazi press was repeated in Britain and other western countries.
Yes, why do you not?
Yes. Mao misjudged the level of productive forces and tried to establish Communism through fiat. Deng opened the markets to foreign Capital, where the CPC allows businesses to grow in a controlled and careful manner before "harvesting them" into the public sector once they grow sufficiently. The majority of the economy is publicly owned, operated, and planned.
This is an absurd statement that could only be made by someone unfamiliar with Marxism. The presence of markets do not mean that the system isn't Socialist. The economy is socialized by degree, not by decree! You can't establish Communism through fiat, which is why the CPC has been absorbing more Private corporations into the Public sector over time, and exerting more control and planning on the Private sector.
Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism.