## what Marxism really is.....

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Dan~ wrote:

How do you figure this?
We have money, and personal property.
Is capital the only way?

Money and property is what capital is.

The issue of ethics isn't about capitalism but rather how it is regulated - biased, over restricted, under restricted?
You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 1032
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

promethean75 wrote:Urwrong, North Korea is about as marxist as anton lavey is shinto.

Maybe North Koreans would say that you are the one that is not the real Marxist. And mean it. Maybe they would say you are a dilettante, who isn't willing to do what it actually takes to effect a revolution of the proletariat. That you are as good as the burgois scum because, when the rubber meets the road, you prefer the oppressive capitalist notions of freedom and security from the state. That you just like to read books. Like Narnia.

That is a joke, of course. North Koreans aren't allowed to hold opinions.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6910
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

https://www.thoughtco.com/juche-195633#:~:text=Juche%2C%20or%20Korean%20socialism%2C%20is%20a%20political%20ideology,self%20as%20actor%3B%20Che%20meaning%20object%2C%20thing%2C%20material.

Speaking of North Korea : Juche time!
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.

Dan~
ILP Legend

Posts: 10434
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Socialism pays for the public grid through which all commerce commences.

The Railroad and Oil Barons were all socialists, WHAT?!?!?

Again, some basic historical knowledge will prove the opposite of what you're claiming. Commodities were later regulated by the State. That doesn't mean USA is Socialist, just the opposite in fact.

Of course capitalism leads to prosperity, for what? 1000 people on earth?

Everyone else is just a cog in the wheel. Barely scraping by.

Oil regulation was Teddy Roosevelt

Railroad land sales ... taxpayers footed the bill.

Just like streets and sidewalks.

I hated Reagan.

The “nanny state” was a nanny state for the ultra rich (through law). “Trickle down economics” was just a polite way of saying “what the market will bear without revolt”.

Companies (paid for through government social experiments by taxpayers) have a keen eye on what they CAN get away with, without revolt. They put chemicals in our food in the form of ‘pesticides’ and ‘herbicides’ to make people more compliant, more apathetic. They’re spending billions of dollars of OUR money to make us slaves to the super rich, to chip away at the monopoly / revolt ratio.

That’s capitalism. Left unchecked, it collapses on itself.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11069
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Silhouette wrote:The problem with this conception is that, yes, there is no incentive to exchange unless both parties prefer what they get to what they give, but equally they don't exchange unless they reach an equality in agreement.

this is not at all required for an exchange to happen
what does it matter to you if someone wants to trade their rolex for your casio, if they're set on it?
you can try to talk them out of it because you don't think it's fair according to your valuing method
but if they really want it and their mind is made up about it, you're a sucker if you say no
because they'll find another casio to trade with if you don't

because ultimately it's not your business to tell someone what a thing is worth to them
when you don't know them
and it just happens that their last living memory of their father involved a casio watch
or some other silly thing humans do

and how it will be used

Both "I find higher value in what I gain compared to what I lose" happening on both sides must occur and "I find an equilibrium with my trading partner or we don't agree and finalise the trade" must also occur.

again, equilibrium is not a requirement
"I think you're making a mistake, but I'll gladly take that off your hands if your min is set on it"

another obvious example, if you have ever bought or sold a used car
is you'll do your best to drive the price up
while the buyer will do their best to drive the price down

He's not wrong, but neither are you.

I'll agree with half of that sentence.

Both are expressions of value, and value isn't a simplistic concept either. Value changes over time and is dependent on current conditions - an exchange more reflects "what I value right now" than "what I value". Values aren't just fleeting fancies, but neither are they so abstracted from what's concrete that they have no immanent reality - there's just different frames of reference from which to construct a notion of "value", which emerge from a dialectic of different levels of relatively macro and micro observations.

well then
do you concede that there is no such thing as a "law of value"?

Needless to say, you don't "not want the thing you're holding anymore" when "you want the other thing". You most likely want both, otherwise you wouldn't have previously traded or worked to obtain the thing you're holding before you exchange it for something else. The "use value" changed over time as a result of consumption, and the "exchange value" changed to in accordance with predictions about how "use value" changed over time for other people. It's a solid basis upon which to develop an economic theory - but as I'll continue to repeat, I'm not in favour of calling for violent revolution based on any theory.

I agree that that's a lot more solid than basing it on labor
but I'm not the marxist here
it is good to see you coming around though

This is what other people continue to misunderstand about Marx. He penned some important and valid ideas, from which can be extracted improvements. It's not a case of "completely right in every way in everything he said" or "kill it with fire". It's something to build upon, and aiming to do so can in that sense make you a "Marxist" but it doesn't make you a devout extremist to every detail of his work regardless of the consequences. This is something that goes way over the heads of today's stupidly political partisans. Whatever happened to reasonable consideration of ideas, huh? Not saying you're guilty of this - but I'm sure you noticed the modern approach to "emotionally charged" topics like this.

if there was a good thing about marx writings, i'd hear it
but I haven't

you've been saying that his economic is great
but we just saw the labor theory of value, the law of value, surplus value, and exploitation
all go belly up
not a logic originally accredited to me, of course
I'm sure you've heard this stuff before, no?
if like me you've read marx and engels and ricardo
but also bohm-bawerk and von mises evidently
for a rounded perspective

so if there's something good in marxism
let's hear it

I'm not familiar with the quote about gravity, nor the context - but I'm not out to defend every single sentiment expressed by the guy either way. Labour isn't inherently measured by time taken nor the cost of what labour has to work with - those are just capitalist attempts to bound labour into a metric that can be directly translated into dollars.

no it isn't,
that is literally the basis of marxist value theory

As I explained in my last post, this is in the context of a consumer/capitalist driven economy where the customer is always right and the ideal worker is required to be infinitely obedient to that cause, and I explained how damaging this absolute can be to worker mentality for the sake of more and more better and better stuff. Marx reminds us that there is validity to the other side of this equation - and this is more and more the case as developing countries' issues with scarcity become replaced by developed countries' issues with over-abundance. Therein lies at least one of the ingredients of developing countries pretending to have a Communist revolution simply replaces one dictatorship for another to struggle with the problem of scarcity. Capitalism cures that just fine - the issue is whether it does so indefinitely at whatever cost to the worker, just for the same of more and more better and better stuff.

you sound like more like a luddite than a marxist
because
the disconnection between worker and end client isn't caused by capitalism
it is caused by industrialism
and marx poses no solution to it
again, he did not want to shut down production lines
he wanted to seize them

removing every incentive to individual excellence
but somehow ending up with an overproduction
figure that one out

What's so wrong with worker life becoming a satisfaction in itself when the urgency of consumer "use" and the required quantities slowly become things of the past?

the fact that artisans being paid what they are worth
plus taking the time they need to take
renders products entirely out of reach of the population?
how much did a pair of shoes cost in the 1600s?
artisan work still exists
and their products are top notch
I'm all down for handmade italian leather shoes
I just can't justify spending the $1000 they'd cost me on fucking shoes when you can get a decent pair for like$50 at an outlet

Intellectuals have long predicted that machines will replace the need to work, but Capitalism relentlessly forces humans into smaller and more meaningless niches simply to satisfy the dictum to sacrifice yourself to whatever cause just to prove you are worthy of an income, otherwise you are not permitted to acquire a means to live at all (pathetically cushioned by the efforts of a "State" to alleviate this economic absolute). The creativity to find more and more "jobs" for people to do just to add the slightest little bit of extra value to the simple selling of a product or service is almost impressive if it weren't so degrading and unnecessary. There's got to be a lid on it eventually though, before full time jobs amount to basically nothing - and happily increasing automation and the looming potential of AI push these issues. The Capitalist maxim to sacrifice the worker for the benefit of the consumer is not as far as "value" stretches. We can do better than this.

this whole thing is bullshit
not adding meaningless labor as a way to drive up cost
often labor is the most expensive part of manufacturing
factoring in insurance and benefits and whatnot
which is why industry is hot for automation
this just doesn't happen
straight up nonsense
if anything, what you are describing sounds like a welfare program
which is government subsidy to maintain conditions otherwise unsustainable
businesses are more than happy to put useless people in the street

but as you said
consumers are also workers
and workers are also consumers
it is a wonderful thing that the cost of living a decent life has gone down as much as it has
just consider how many people in the 80s got to have a computer
or how many people in the 1600s got to sleep in a bed
volume economy and free market benefits everyone

The whole point is that labour is so far removed from money, that it's an absurdity to translate it into a "price" via the mismatch of "use value" with "exchange value".

don't say that to me
say it to karl marx

The only difference (other than insurance allowances to account for unforeseen circumstances, as I admitted) between the output of "this is the financial cost of having produced the product/service" and the input of "this is physical cost of labour having produced the product/service" is labour not getting paid for what they literally accomplished. Consumers aren't paid for informing them about what to do. The only remaining task is to do it, which is 100% a function of labour.

again
your job is to fill up my warehouse
an you get to name your price to do it
i pay you
and you need not worry about anything else

I take on the onus of upfront production cost
of giving you the means to work
and of moving that merchandise
for better of for worse
if I'm operating at a loss
and if my business goes under
it is none of your concern
just as it is none of your concern
if I'm operating at a profit

or are we just about socializing profit
but privatizing loss?
should the laborer share that too?

I dunno if he did a perfect job of explaining something that's true. My goal is to work at explaining something that's true "better".

that is a far cry goal from page one of this thread
I thought you were trying to get to the bottom of what marxism is
well... here we are
the marx theory of value is nonsense

A piece of land can be treated as a commodity, but c'mon. It's just a location in physical space that was there long before we got here and will remain long after we've gone. How can that be "ours" if not for protestations of territory backed up by physical force and influenced by a desire to feel safe and secure?

jee are we criticizing a desire to feel safe and secure?
how barbaric

but anyway,

It's a literal manifestation of wishful thinking - but whatever: it has utility to think of things falsely in order to enable a certain agenda (see Experientialism). A piece of land with gold in it is nice to treat as safe and secure such that someone can distribute the gold to wherever it's valuable to distribute it. Do they own that land? Well no, but collectively agreeing that acting like they do serves a purpose.

you do realize we're in the middle of verifying the validity of the labor theory of value, right?
there's no labor implied in a piece of land
does that mean it has no value?

phoneutria wrote:3. if labor can be made into an abstract unit of measurement
excluding all of the inconvenient exceptions, why can't the same be done for use value?

The point is it's absurd to try. Again, it's a falsity that has utility (Experientialism).

tell
that
to
marx

phoneutria wrote:4.do prices even fluctuate around labor value?
is this "law" real aka actually explaining phenomenon?

Do they at the moment in a consumer/capitalist driven economy? No.

so it is not a law

Could they? Yes.

an if my grandma had wheels she'd be a bike

Should they? It depends on how rich the society is. We're rich, we could give a shit about workers instead of solely consumers if we wanted.

ad we could have the cake
and eat it too
but then we'd have no cake to sell
oh noes

phoneutria wrote:cuz listen, lets say if the abstract labor is the same cost to make a cake and to make a pie, $5 worth of labor/time but the cost of the materials is$1 to make a cake and $3 to make a pie and they're both selling at$6
the profit rate will be much higher for the cake shop
even though the surplus value is the same

You're establishing the dollar rate of employing somebody to make a cake and a pie as a given.

not me, marx

In current practice, this is a presumably a theoretical market rate.

yes and nicely that rate tends to align with profit rates, not labor amount
industries that are more profitable tend pay their employees higher salaries

The labour force could be paid the respective $5 or$3 per cake/pie as a result of selling them each for $6. Why not pay them for transforming$1 or $3 of "value" into$6 of "value"? Because you began with the ability to get them to perform that labour for the "market rate" rather than for what they're literally doing. Because employers can. Hey, if they don't do it, someone else will, right? That's the essence of a market economy - opportunism.

because the value of the end product also fluctuates
in a way that is completely independent from labor
see above explained like half a dozen times
it just don't work like that

(fucks sake, the grammar is for style)
like when i say i done did a thing

phoneutria wrote:then...
Marx wrote:very different rates of profit arise in the various spheres of production,(...)capital withdraws from a sphere with a low rate of profit and invades others, which yield a higher profit”

yes, karl, nicely put

Yes, an adequate description of rational capitalistic behaviour in a market economy.

that is marx's capitulation, sil
in capital volume one he wrote that prices fluctuate around labor, necessarily
as a fundamental piece of his theory of value
there is no clearer way to say this
this is engels speaking for marx in volume 3, saying we done fucked up in volume 1
he wasn't describing capitalistic behavior
he was writing a theory of value
and he was wrong

Notably, in practice the State picks up the slack to make sure that the "unprofitable" but still necessary tasks are still accomplished such that we can at least pretend to live in civilised countries in spite of Capitalism invading spheres where higher labour exploitation is possible.

the state does not need to do that
the market corrects itself
if an industry is necessary
then when capital leaves it
the products become scarce
the prices go up
the industry returns to it
all the state does is allow for unsustainable circumstances to linger uncorrected
for longer than they should

phoneutria wrote:then prices don't fluctuate around labor value after all, karl?
instead the fluctuate around rates of profit?
cuz you know, you were saying before very adamantly that value is based on labor and labor alone
you know that thing you said about commodities which embody the same amount of labor
that they must exchange for each other
that it's a law like gravity
and you based your entire theory of exploitation on top of it
thought you were more dumber
but it's nice when people admit that they were wrong
though you realize that was the start of the whole theory, right?
that was the thing you based your law on
so if that's false
can... can we just... put this down and one of the biggest mistakes in history
alongside with every evil that it caused alongside that damn manifesto
and move the fuck on?
can we?

I think if we abandon consideration for the value of labour, we're lost. That would be one of the biggest mistakes in history if we managed to wrangle human life into that dynamic.

Just... don't forget about labour, please? It wouldn't be so bad if they were simply scammed instead of mentally abused on top of that - by that Capitalism dictum of "acceptable channel of potentially minimal input" or "no right to sustain your means to live".

who is asking that we abandon consideration for the value of labor?
who in a capitalistic system has "no right to sustain their means to live"?

If it's cool with you, I'll conclude this post by being a dick and pointing out the "double comparative" of "more dumber". The function of a comparative is achieved by "more dumb" or "dumber", and the doubling up is grammatically redundant.

*facepalm*
you be ragging on my style and flair
get a brains, moran
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming

Posts: 3718
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Ecmandu wrote:Of course capitalism leads to prosperity, for what? 1000 people on earth?

Everyone else is just a cog in the wheel. Barely scraping by.

false
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming

Posts: 3718
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

phoneutria wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Of course capitalism leads to prosperity, for what? 1000 people on earth?

Everyone else is just a cog in the wheel. Barely scraping by.

false

You’re being disingenuous with my entire post which is that capitalism as a science is about the most you can take without starting a revolt.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11069
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

you are posting falsehoods
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming

Posts: 3718
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Not to mention that the material wealth of these "advanced," "developed" places tldr thinks are the only ones worthy of his glorious revolution comes from labour and manufacture and materials sourced in other places, where there is free market, not because they are evil and wear big tophats, but because otherwise everyone starves.

You dook.

Communism requires subsidy. Re-qui-res. Non sustainable. Like North Korea Requirs China, which requires the USA. Or Cuba, which required Russia and now the oil of Venezuela, but joke's on them because Venezuela went Marxist too and destroyed the oil industry. Literally took a well that spouts pure undilluted money, and managed to make it a failing business.

That is the big globalist joke. All these do-gooders think because WE are advanced and developped and WE have the resources, WE can afford communism. But as soon as you did, which would mean effectively China is in charge, slowly but surely the global system of trade and manufacture would corrode and collapse and you would have a very funny implosion. You would join us poor fucks in the third world which, according to your logic, are I guess genetically inferior or not favoured by God or something? What explains that one?

Sorry. didn't mean to imply that you could think. Keep on feeling in the free world.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6910
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

For those that missed it, "Made in USA" disappeared because of socialist legislation making it cost prohibitive. It is now "Made in Colombia" or "Mexico" or "China," which notoriously have no legislation for labour. Because such legislation is destructive. But whatever, the US can afford it. As long as it has bankers and investors and conglomerates, and not Directory Of State Whateverthefuck.

The funny thing with China is that they think they are clever and found a loophole. But every idea they have and make super cheap, they take from a capitalist country. China never came up with an original capitalist idea in its life, not production process, not technology, not logistics, nada son. that is why the Global Communist Empire of China would implode.

You need freedom, to get brains. It turns out. Slaves have very little motivation to do shit like that.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6910
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

phoneutria wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Of course capitalism leads to prosperity, for what? 1000 people on earth?

Everyone else is just a cog in the wheel. Barely scraping by.

false

If he knew what "barely scraping by" means, he would shit his pants and have a heart attack.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6910
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Hi all,

I made a post about a week ago, but there was some delay in approving it. Um, I hope you don't mind me posting it again. You can find the original right after the "pin needles falling" message a few pages back now. It was this:

Lurker here, I have been following this thread and finally couldn't help creating an account and jumping in! Thank you all for being a sort of alternative to a newspaper (not for news, just that same kind of enjoyment!)! Now without further ado.

I think this thread is largely missing the point of communism, for which Marx attempted to put forward a coherent financial theory. First, while Marx has been great at legitimizing and empowering the communist cause, I wouldn't call him the central pillar. And that's more important than you might think. The main point of communism, the main purpose, and this Marx knew as much as anybody, is the unlocking of true human potential and fullness of experience.

If you read Marx's writings carefully, both the Capital and the Manifesto with Engels, as well as various essays, the main point is never finding the optimal economic set up for a given country or even humanity at large. Marx had an insight that humans are capable of a lot more than what they were devoting their lives to during his time and still today. That the human phenomenon is immensely rich and full of potential, in a way that is evident and evidently not on par with its output. So he gave himself to determining the cause of this. He instantly seized on Hegel's dialectics as being a sound expounding on the bedrock of philosophy, being Plato. Dialectics is the core of philosophy since for ever. Through it, and inspired by the active socialist movement of his time, he excellently described that the cause of the phenomenological poverty of humanity was what he called the material dialectic of history, or more straightforwardly, some group of humans constantly seizing on another larger one to generate material wealth for them. The main point of communism, then, and also Marx, is to liberate the human race from this dialectic, this oppression, and unleash humanity's full philosophical potential, if you will. To throw off the yoke, to put it more succinctly.

this also addresses many of the points put forward against communism: the various attempts at communist governments past and present. If it were true that communism's main task was the optimal financial model for a society, this criticism might have some weight. However, the goal of communism is deeper: to throw off the yoke of material exploitation. Whether it be the bourgeoisie, feudal lords, or Sumerian theocrats. In that sense, we could have 10, 50, 1M failed attempts of any scale of consecuence, and this would not put a dent on the revolutionary impulse. Nothing is proven wrong regarding the communist struggle. Even if it turns out that Marx's economic theory of capital is inaccurate, this is not an indictment of communism. It also takes nothing from Marx, as the labour of putting a sound theory of finance for the meterial dialectics forward is incredibly important, and Marx did an excellent job.

I think, given any amount of good faith in reading his works, that it can fairly be said that Marx's main achievement was not the description of the dynamics of capital and surpluss value, invaluable as it is, but his description of the true reasons for religion, government, and those very capitalistic dynamics of finance: to prevent humanity's excercice of its full humanistic potential and co-opt that energy towards the material wealth of the exploiting class.

As a revolutionary, my concern is not the optimal efficiency of state finance, but the creation of the New Man, which is nothing but the most ancient of men having gone through the long dialectic process of exploitation. To this point, as well, my comrade's relentless focus on the reinterpretations of traditional concepts and values, such as gender, all derived from some exploitative model, while being admirable to no end and providing much wealth of revolutionary work, is only a small hair on the large body of change that cannot be produced under current circumstances. Only once the dialectics of historical materialism have been resolved by the ultimate overthrow of the last exploitative class can a true liberation of humanity be achieved, and true reinterpretations thus be produced effortlessly, as a natural consequence.

In short, while all communist models have so far failed, the revolution will continue. This does not even mean that those attempts were not "true communism." Simply that, so far, the capitalist enemy has been able to thwart us.
robolutionary

Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:20 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Dialectical materialism is a little loopy, and historical materialism doesn't need any of it. If anything, DM has only served to confuse and complicate marxist philosophy.

Here's a goldmine of material you might like: https://www.quora.com/Can-any-other-eco ... chtenstein

Just click around a bit...
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 3623
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

That is an extremely innovative approach, and I will definitely check it out.

But I guess my point was that even the dialectic itself is not a central pillar. Only a tool. What I was trying to address was what bothered Marx, and the larger thing he is a part of, all revolutionaries are a part of.
robolutionary

Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:20 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

It's easy to hate on Marx. But he did in one lifetime what most revolutionaries combined have not done before or since.
robolutionary

Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:20 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming

Posts: 3718
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

but narrowly enough to believe the state would actually "wither away" on its own, eh?
don't you think that something of that importance warrants more than broad consideration
you know
to avoid the possibility that the fucking thing doesn't fucking wither away

does it come as a surprise to you, then, in the light of this
is filled with examples of what happens
when you take a "broadly" conceived idea
and apply it to the real world?

it doesn't take much to imagine
but if you lack imagination, history can give you a lot of examples

take the Paris commune for example
let's use that since this thread is about what marxism really is
and he loved the fuck out of that commune
he wanted his communism to be based on it

first there's the violent revolution, of course
next thing to do is to declare that their militia is the only one that can exist
and compulsorily enroll every male into it
then send them out to battle without any planning whatsoever
sure that the government wouldn't shoot its own citizens
then when they're captured and executed
they realize they need to also do some executin'
that'll show them
"to each of us you execute, we'll execute 3!"
cuz that makes perfect sense
this time for real the government won't shoot its own citizens
what's a socialist with two black eyes?

of course
those 3 they were executing in retaliation had to come from somewhere
they couldn't just kill their own
... could they?
dude, just pass a law
anyone accused of cumplicity with the government can be jailed
there you go
you just have to accuse them
and then give them a trial
where you judge them
then you can send them to the gulag to await their execution
oh wait, I may have mixed up the terms here a bit
that doesn't sound french

eerily familiar though
just as the religious persecution
depredation of cultural and historical heritage
the gross disregard for human life
and all encompassing stupidity and incompetence

but phoneutria cmon
that's not what marxism really is
it was just a poorly executed model
surely marx perfected it
marx is a genius
he can take that fucking mess
that managed to sustain itself for all of 3 months
apply some of his pixie dust on it
and call it "the form at last discovered"
removed all of its flaws I am sure

that "form at last discovered"
small face to face groups of real people like you and me
sending representatives to comittees
sending representatives to higher up comittees
that's what soviet means, right?
i'm no expert, you tell me
how do you get those groups to not be completely controlled by your own party members?
how do you get those groups to not form power hierarchies
since people are actually different from one another, as it turns out
i'm no expert, you tell me
I probably never even read marx
but I can tell that some people are more assertive than others
others are more charismatic, or better speakers
how does that not become a tyranny on its own
from its own lack of structure
it's lack of an electorally formed body of legistature and action
performing checks and balances on one-another
I mean, I'm no expert
but instead you just have... people who speak loudest
going up against one another
until one of them speaks loudest of all
I'm no expert, you tell me
you fucking tell me, karl

is it because property was abolished?
and the only means to exert power now is through becoming a party member
that the state withers away?

walk me through that logic with your big man brain
i only have a little woman brain
i don't understand it

even if you take that aside
that protecting property is not the only role of the state
just like every problem in society is not a matter of class
there are things that transcend class
such as a nation's sense of identity
it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor
you share a language, a history, a sense of home
the state is built around that
not around class struggle
but around a people's desire to extend rights and responsibilities within its territory
and shut the outsiders out
in fact, some of the biggest changes in the structure of state historically
was the formation and maintaining of armies
to protect a territory against the attack nomadic peoples coming in to plunder their towns
in a way you can call that property protection
but that is not class struggle
that's keeping the savagery out of the place where you raise your children

but of course yall avid readers of karl marx will tell me
that a sense of identity, patriotism, an artistic inclination
a religion with its symbols
all of those things are tools of manipulation from the oppressing class, right?

how the entire motivation behind socialism is for the little man to be heard
but at the same time
the little man is worth so little
it's an afterthought
to sent countless of them to their deaths
civilians, men and women
for someone so hell bent on bringing the worker class to power
to reduce each individual person
to being nothing but a worker
just a gear in a machine
you don't need art, you don't need religion, you barely need an education
all you need is a hammer!
those Paris commune guys
they tried to burn down the Louvre
the fucking Louvre, karl!
the way marx was so frank about wanting to abolish the family
to burn down priceless works of art that touch at the very core of humanity
all of the things that lift our spirits
take everything that we love, and destroy it
because the “individual” must “be swept out of the way, and made impossible.”
only then we can all be equal
equally expendable
"religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature,
the heart of a heartless world,
and the soul of soulless conditions"
thus he sought to remove the heart and the soul of the oppressed creature
the penalty in soviet russia for teaching your kids to pray was 10 years of forced labor
prostitution was 3 years
solzhenitsyn wrote that many heads of family renounced their faith so that they could raise their children
while their wifes could go to forced labor for refusing to renounce their faith
but that's not what real marxism is, right?
I mean, I'm quoting him direcly
but that's not what real marxism is, somehow

the thing that really stares at me, personally
is that it's not just incredibly misguided
not just overly simplistic
it's downright poisonous
it's a philosophy of death
it's malevolent
it's absolutely no wonder to me that it destroys everything it touches
it's all there in his writing
lenin, stalin, and mao didn't write this shit
it was marx and his buddy engels
this is what marxism really is

so after all this fucking typing

What does an oppressive Totalitarian state have in common with the non-existent, withered-away state that literally defines Communism?

everything

I have to admit, it is obvious that you have read Marx and understand a lot of his ways of thinking and motivations. But there is something missing in you, something that wants more, more than this "religion" that supposedly uplifts us but somehow is very effective at stratifying social hierarchies that revolve around exploitation of the proletariat, more than this "art" that gives us 5 minutes of enjoyment only to return to a cage, this "family" that is designed to coerce and shape each person into an "individual," which revolutionaries know means "self-deluded, willing gear." You don't have that thing that Marx had, that my comrades have, that I definitely have, where I won't be deluded for entertainment or fetishistic pleasures from noticing the reality of my life: a very complex forced labor camp, with a few fat wardens. Don't know if you ever had the pleasure of reading Foucault's Genealogy of Power?

What you say about lost lives, sacrificed individuals. Yes indeed, the Soviet Union was forced very quickly to muster very many men to face down immense amounts of well organized capitalist enemy. those were glorious deaths in the fight against the capitalist exploiters. Such ferocity has to be rooted out, from the core, and that is why the re-education camps. A lot of tears for poor old ladies, but what about the regime of suffering the things those "poor old ladies" clung on to forced on all humanity?

I'm not saying the Soviets got everything right. I'm saying they were brave and led a glorious battle against an extremely fearsome and dedicated enemy. The capitalist will always try to extort you "but the little old ladies, but the executed traitors!" "OK," we're supposed to say, "I guess we'll just have to accept exploitation forever." Marx was one single man, one, single, man, developing a philosophical, economic and strategic theory for the entire struggle against the entire capitalist machinery. It's an uphill battle, and I don't hold him to every detail. But I will say that what you name as a cost in human lives, is not what I would call a mistake of Marx. It's what I would call the unrelenting piece of shittery of the capitalist overlords that trade your human essence for The Gilmore Girls or Sunday Night Football.
robolutionary

Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:20 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Silhouette wrote:Who constitutes government?

By the way, 29 of the last 38 posts have been yours. Is it necessary for you to take up more than 76% of the space? Is this an ironic display in contrast to the topic of monopoly?

Can government(s) be structured in such a way that they are not inherently monopolistic?

1. Dumb question

2. My nickname for you is "tldr."

3. tldr

1. It's dumb to consider who constitutes government? So just "whoever" and "however" will do huh?
3. I'm sorry for testing your ability to think outside of the box.

obsrvr524 wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:I'll see you all tomorrow, or whenever.

Great exchange to see on this board.

Not particularly.

He opened with a trap that Ecmandu failed to spot - asking him to "provide some examples of real monopolies, created by unchecked capitalism".
To confirm whether this was indeed an obvious trap, I asked him if any examples of "unchecked capitalism" had ever even existed as far as he knew, to which he responded there were "sadly none".

How could there be examples of real monopolies created by unchecked capitalism if there had never even been any unchecked capitalism?!!

But nevertheless he then rode on this trap for just about 4 pages (spread over 5), flooding this thread with 64 fairly repetitious twitter-sized jabs, taking up over 65% of posts before finally peetering out 7 hours later. I wish I had that kind of free time.
All Ecmandu could think to do was provide examples of extreme market dominance in our current mix of Capitalism moderated by State authority, that merely amounted to gross Oligopoly, to which Pedro could simply put down to the State element - indirectly implying the complete innocence of the Capitalism element that Ecmandu unsuccessfully struggled to get him to even question for a second.

10/10 for energy, and well done to him for identifying some low hanging fruit as a means to break the seriousness of any actual depth and development of "tldr" discussion - I guess it comes down to the modern preferred aesthetic of low attention, low effort binary thinking that dominates social media, and unfortunately easily overflows into philosophy forums...

robolutionary wrote:Hi all,

I made a post about a week ago, but there was some delay in approving it. Um, I hope you don't mind me posting it again.

Hi robo, and welcome to the forum.

Honestly I did miss your first posts whilst they were still being held pending for review, but I did see your prompt from last Thursday and I meant to respond to your initial posts but time and work commitments have not permitted me to contribute as much as I'd like. You seem like somebody who is familiar with Marx, which is refreshing for a thread entitled "what Marxism really is..."

Obviously you've already expressed your political leanings within the Marxist context, which will no doubt immediately place you "in a box" in the minds of a fair few of the other contributors to this forum. Happily I don't think I'm the only one who is interested in a more objective analysis of what Marxism really is - beyond tribalism and intellectual laziness - but that will mean I'll probably decline from joining in with any of the camaraderie that's been hinted by your posts so far. I'm not a revolutionary in the physical sense, though I am certainly interested in lines of thought that revolutionise previous ways of thinking. I'd still say I'm a Marxist to the extent that I find some of what he wrote to be compelling, but the fact that this makes me far from a fanatic is a nuance sadly lost in the "minds" of the afore-mentioned fair few of the other contributors to this forum.

I agree with what you say about Marx's intentions, as plainly evidenced in what he actually wrote, and that he didn't emerge from nowhere: that he had his own context amongst comparable thinkers of his time.
To clarify, do you mean he aimed to liberate the human race from "this particular" dialectic, or from dialectics in general?

I appreciate the philosophical angle that you're taking towards the discussion.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 4398
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

lol you are out of your goddamn mind kiddo
sorry but i don't have much time for the possessed
you're too far gone for me to want to bother with
someone give this one a blessing
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming

Posts: 3718
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Me and millions of others.

Though we only need thousands.
robolutionary

Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:20 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Yes you will be in a box.

Marxism is fundamentally opposed to Liberty/(Classical Liberalism). You can't have both. You can't be both. You can't represent both. Either the Worker/Proletariat owns his own labor, or he doesn't. In Capitalism, labor is traded for wage/money/economy. In Communism, The State owns your labor, not you.

It's as simple as this. And until you Marxists can get it in your head, you will remain mired in Fallacy after Fallacy. Because you can't have it both ways. So pick your side, Liberal, or Marxist.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Silhouette:

Thanks! Well, the way Marx posited it, and just rings beautifully true to me, always has, is this:

There is a historical dialectic at work, where one class oppresses everybody, then another group of people overpower that class and become the new ruling class, and so on. I am butchering this, but the way Marx posited it, is that this dialectic follows a bit the thesis, antithesis, synthesis progression. There will eventually be an antithesis to exploitation, the dictatorship of the proletariat, that resolves this exploitative cycle. It will happen on its own, simply by the nature of dialectics, where contradictions are pitted against eachother and smoothed out. So, in a sense, it resolves this particular dialectic, but this particular dialectic is the refinement and perfection of the Socratic method, through Hegel's help, and is the only actual dialectic.
robolutionary

Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:20 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Yes you will be in a box.

Marxism is fundamentally opposed to Liberty/(Classical Liberalism). You can't have both. You can't be both. You can't represent both. Either the Worker/Proletariat owns his own labor, or he doesn't. In Capitalism, labor is traded for wage/money/economy. In Communism, The State owns your labor, not you.

It's as simple as this. And until you Marxists can get it in your head, you will remain mired in Fallacy after Fallacy. Because you can't have it both ways. So pick your side, Liberal, or Marxist.

Actually, I agree with this. In communism, no individual person owns labor. The commune does. the individual is a made up capitalist notion. Well, it was handed down to capitlaists from the previous exploiters, and has been continually refined to appear very real. It's not.
robolutionary

Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:20 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

As long as we're going for "what Marxism really is," and not "ew, icky, no like."

Though I do understand. Obviously capitalism has instances for us, and having you instantly call us crazy and shut us out is one. that is why modern revolution is not really strictly Marxist. though I still consider Marx to be the most succesfull revolutionary to date. We have had to find other means to continue the struggle and, ironically, they are so far being more effective than anything Marx ever suggested. Again, Marx, 1 single man, entire capitalist machinery. In perspective, he is a giant that stands many heads above any other thinker ever period.
robolutionary

Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:20 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

For starters, all committed revolutionaries, even the ones working the more modern, you may say post-Marxist path, found their love for revolution in Marx, and still there find their true reasoning and intellectual foundation.
Last edited by robolutionary on Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
robolutionary

Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:20 pm

PreviousNext