That one’s kinda weak for learning why fascism is inevitable in a Capitalist system. Wage Labor and Capital and Value, Price and Profit both do a much better job of actually explaining the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism.
As fun to read as the CM is, it’s ultimately a pamphlet to radicalize workers, it isn’t really a solid overview of Marxist theory.
Marxism is a fun thought experiment, but changing a system of government popularized by a known antisemite while knowing it’s really never been successful anywhere else, is not really worth the damage it would create.
And before you think to argue, maybe look into what happened to Bulgaria when they tried socialism. Hell… even Russia isn’t socialist anymore.
Marxism is a fun thought experiment, but changing a system of government popularized by a known antisemite while knowing it’s really never been successful anywhere else, is not really worth the damage it would create.
Marx was of Jewish descent and advocated for Jewish liberation, so now this is just a pure lie. He even went out of his way to take down the author of The Jewish Question, which was one of the most antisemetic works of his time, specifically to argue against antisemitism.
Additionally, Socialism has absolutely been successful, especially when compared to where Socialist countries were before they transitioned. You know what happened when the USSR dissolved? Millions of excess deaths, a plumetting of life expectancy, literacy rates, GDP, and more, and only in the last decade or so has the Russian Federation began to approach quality of life metrics that the USSR had.
The only people that think Marx WASN’T an antisemite, are marxists. Imagine that!
But wait! Marx said he isn’t? Well I guess that settles it! He can’t be if he says he isn’t!!!
And Hitler was also…. Of Jewish descent, so by this example, it can’t ipso facto make him not antisemite.
I’m not arguing to change your mind here. So I’m not goin to argue the subject with you. I just wanted the opposing argument to your bullshit to be seen so anyone reading along can be informed on either side of this argument.
And currently there are no viable models that show that an pure socialist system will work in America.
A lot of this writing has the same flaw that many other analytical texts have: great at diagnosing or discussing a problem and absolutely shit at coming up with any solutions to it.
The “what is the problem” part of the text is like 95% of it, then it’s “what we can do about it” is the remaining 4% before the author thanks his wife.
The “what is the problem” part is full of cogent analysis, data, and decent hypotheses and is well researched.
The “what can we do about it” is weak ass half-thought out ideas that never wind up getting implemented in whole or even in part because of their obvious flaws.
I personally think that’s because actually organizing people to do anything about any problem is infinitely harder than identifying one.
Critique of Capitalism was just one of Marx’s 3 major pillars, the other two being Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and Socialism.
If you think Marx simply ignored the process of what to do, then you aren’t understanding why he didn’t fully. Marx believed that every country would have unique circumstances, and that there is no one size fits all solution. That being said, he also did believe these would have Socialism in common, as well as revolutionary means.
If you want to see Marx give his thoughts on how to get to Socialism and then Communism, Critique of the Gotha Programme is a good place to reference. Marx talks about a weak Socialist program, and what they ought to do instead. As for Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels goes over past failures of Socialism, and how Marxism and Marxian philosophy solves these issues.
Calling Marx and Marxist contributions “weak ass half-thought out ideas that never wind up getting implemented in whole or even in part because of their obvious flaws” is just plain silly. There’s tons of coherent thought in how to achieve Socialism, and why. Analysis of Capitalism was Marx’s focus because everything else hinged on it, and is why he devoted so much time and energy to Capital.
There is no viable plan or solution for full-blown socialism to replace our economical or political system. It’s been pretty much unanimously agreed to be a bad idea.
The only people that seem to be suggesting it as a viable option are college kids and washed up economists that no one takes seriously.
America adopting pure socialism is a dream many have that will never happen.
Calling Marx and Marxist contributions “weak ass half-thought out ideas that never wind up getting implemented in whole or even in part because of their obvious flaws” is just plain silly.
Thinking that we’ll take down capitalism with some revolution and then go through a temporary period of single-party state socialism and then eventually move to communism is a weak ass half-thought out idea that’ll never wind up getting implemented in whole. So, I stand by my characterization there.
True, but replacing it with fascism is not an improvement.
Never said it was. Capitalism enables the conditions for fascism, the way to avoid and stop fascism is to remove the root cause.
Yeah, we’ll get right on that. /s
Eventually we will, or we will have fascism, yes. That’s how it works.
Sure, I’ve read the Communist Manifesto too.
That one’s kinda weak for learning why fascism is inevitable in a Capitalist system. Wage Labor and Capital and Value, Price and Profit both do a much better job of actually explaining the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism.
As fun to read as the CM is, it’s ultimately a pamphlet to radicalize workers, it isn’t really a solid overview of Marxist theory.
Marxism is a fun thought experiment, but changing a system of government popularized by a known antisemite while knowing it’s really never been successful anywhere else, is not really worth the damage it would create.
And before you think to argue, maybe look into what happened to Bulgaria when they tried socialism. Hell… even Russia isn’t socialist anymore.
Marx was of Jewish descent and advocated for Jewish liberation, so now this is just a pure lie. He even went out of his way to take down the author of The Jewish Question, which was one of the most antisemetic works of his time, specifically to argue against antisemitism.
Additionally, Socialism has absolutely been successful, especially when compared to where Socialist countries were before they transitioned. You know what happened when the USSR dissolved? Millions of excess deaths, a plumetting of life expectancy, literacy rates, GDP, and more, and only in the last decade or so has the Russian Federation began to approach quality of life metrics that the USSR had.
You’re talking utter nonsense.
The only people that think Marx WASN’T an antisemite, are marxists. Imagine that!
But wait! Marx said he isn’t? Well I guess that settles it! He can’t be if he says he isn’t!!!
And Hitler was also…. Of Jewish descent, so by this example, it can’t ipso facto make him not antisemite.
I’m not arguing to change your mind here. So I’m not goin to argue the subject with you. I just wanted the opposing argument to your bullshit to be seen so anyone reading along can be informed on either side of this argument.
And currently there are no viable models that show that an pure socialist system will work in America.
A lot of this writing has the same flaw that many other analytical texts have: great at diagnosing or discussing a problem and absolutely shit at coming up with any solutions to it.
The “what is the problem” part of the text is like 95% of it, then it’s “what we can do about it” is the remaining 4% before the author thanks his wife.
The “what is the problem” part is full of cogent analysis, data, and decent hypotheses and is well researched.
The “what can we do about it” is weak ass half-thought out ideas that never wind up getting implemented in whole or even in part because of their obvious flaws.
I personally think that’s because actually organizing people to do anything about any problem is infinitely harder than identifying one.
Critique of Capitalism was just one of Marx’s 3 major pillars, the other two being Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and Socialism.
If you think Marx simply ignored the process of what to do, then you aren’t understanding why he didn’t fully. Marx believed that every country would have unique circumstances, and that there is no one size fits all solution. That being said, he also did believe these would have Socialism in common, as well as revolutionary means.
If you want to see Marx give his thoughts on how to get to Socialism and then Communism, Critique of the Gotha Programme is a good place to reference. Marx talks about a weak Socialist program, and what they ought to do instead. As for Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels goes over past failures of Socialism, and how Marxism and Marxian philosophy solves these issues.
Calling Marx and Marxist contributions “weak ass half-thought out ideas that never wind up getting implemented in whole or even in part because of their obvious flaws” is just plain silly. There’s tons of coherent thought in how to achieve Socialism, and why. Analysis of Capitalism was Marx’s focus because everything else hinged on it, and is why he devoted so much time and energy to Capital.
There is no viable plan or solution for full-blown socialism to replace our economical or political system. It’s been pretty much unanimously agreed to be a bad idea.
The only people that seem to be suggesting it as a viable option are college kids and washed up economists that no one takes seriously.
America adopting pure socialism is a dream many have that will never happen.
Thinking that we’ll take down capitalism with some revolution and then go through a temporary period of single-party state socialism and then eventually move to communism is a weak ass half-thought out idea that’ll never wind up getting implemented in whole. So, I stand by my characterization there.