3 ms·

Marxist theories arent just floating in space they are grounded studies. Marx's Capital is actually a very well written piece of research, fully cited with not

Marxist theories arent just floating in space they are grounded studies. Marx's Capital is actually a very well written piece of research, fully cited with notes for each citation. The dude was a proffessor. Lenins books are research pieces, not vague posturing. They are cited and founded in real phenomenon. In fact Lenin was persecuted because of the things he researched. He has books studying the rise of banking in Russia and Europe and how corruption arised from the simple business practices of finance capital and how that turned into imperialism through profit seeking of raw materials in foreign lands. You would know that if you actually engaged with it instead of forming your opinions from vague notions passed down to you or read on social media. Their theories arent unfounded. > only actually ‘doable’ through authoritarianism Nah. The central point of Socialism/Communism is the DEMOCRATIZATION of production. Calling it authoritarianism is a lie by billionaires to keep people hating it. See, If peoples courts decide that wallstreet hedge funds and the military industrial complex deserved life sentences in jail they call it authoritarianism. But when bourgeois judges systematically put poor people in jail its "just the legal system" and "hey it aint perfect, but nothing is". Your ideas on Marxism are very western. The Khmer Rouge was backed by the CIA and the brits. Pol Pot was the only Marxist who said hes never read Marx, imagine that. Its almost as if they werent Marxists. He also adored Hitler, which is antithetical to Marxism. Remember and recognize that a peoples state will always be called authoritarian by the rich. Marxism is about making the people their own state. Make society FOR itself by eliminating the capitalists who create the imbalance of power.

lazide 1y ago
bwahahahahahahaha. and yet it always ends up the same, with one person in charge (chairman, commissar, supreme leader, etc.), and everyone at the point of a gun. that you think because a bunch of academics wrote a bunch of words and that’s why it doesn’t happen doesn’t mean it doesn’t always happen. provably. in real life. because of exactly the reasons I stated. I’ve known many people who lived through the USSR, and a few that lived through Mao’s China. I’ve lived in Eastern Europe and seen the long term damage. This isn’t academics. This is what happens when people are given high minded academics and use it to justify atrocities - which are easy to do in this case. Almost custom made to do. because you know, it’s ‘for the greater good’. And there is always someone else to blame. but it never actually works, so doubling down we go…. And re: Pol Pot. Just beyond words [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot].
- Atlas667 1y ago
  If Pol Pot was a Marxist why did Vietnam (Marxist) fight against Pol Pot? I'll tell you. Pol Pot was never a communist. He was an anti-intellectual who himself said he had never read Marx and said he admired Hitler. Western Nations claim he was a Marxist in order to spook the average citizen. There are also serious allegations that the CIA and the MI6 were involved in trafficking weapons to them. The Vietnamese were seen as a threat by the Cambodian capitalists and the Chinese didn't like the Vietnamese due to the sino-soviet split. The US, China, and the UK backed Pol Pot to get at Vietnam. Pol Pot was a populist. Asian fascism was created to counter Marxism. Read about the CIA backed killings in Indonesia. They aided in the killing of LITERALLY 125,000 people a month in order to squash communist sentiment in Asia. > and yet it always ends up the same, with one person in charge (chairman, commissar, supreme leader, etc.), and everyone at the point of a gun. Where did you read that? Did you know that the Americans have placed more dictators in power than any other state in existence? > I’ve known many people who lived through the USSR, and a few that lived through Mao’s China. I’ve lived in Eastern Europe and seen the long term damage. This isn’t academics. This is what happens when people are given high minded academics and use it to justify atrocities - which are easy to do in this case. Almost custom made to do. Did you know that capitalism started world war 1 AND 2? What has caused more destruction in Eastern Europe than both world wars? Did you know that most of the destruction and social chaos in Africa was caused by capitalism? Did you know that capitalism has decimated South America? Why do you not say that the poorest countries on earth are all capitalists? I'm not here to defend or espouse the doings of past states. I'm here because I want to put power in peoples hands. The billions of us, not just the middle class. I don't want anyone above me, like there is now. I want people to have democratic power in order to end this artificial poverty that generates power for the few. All poverty world wide is sustained for profits and that is evident.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Pol Pot was literally China’s man in Southeast Asia. He was taught by the French Communists. Vietnam hated the French (past colonizers), and the Soviets backed the North Vietnamese - and the Chinese disliked the Soviets. Power balance thing within the Communists. It rarely spilled over directly until Cambodia kept crossing over into Vietnam and murdering people when they got overzealous with their own internal murdering. Eventually Vietnam got fed up and stomped on them. The CIA hated both of them with a passion. You have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.
AnimalMuppet 1y ago
> Marx's Capital is actually a very well written piece of research Marx's Capital is actually a very well written piece of bad research. He cherry-picked the data, ignoring evidence that was available to him that disagreed with the conclusions he was reaching. Let me say that again: There was evidence against his theories present in the data he was perusing. > Nah. The central point of Socialism/Communism is the DEMOCRATIZATION of production. How does that work out? You can call what happened "democratization", but it sure looks like central control to me - central control by an authoritarian. That's what has happened every time. You know how they say "the purpose of a system is what it does"? Well, at least by that standard, no, the purpose of communism is not the democratization of production, because that's not what it does.
- Atlas667 1y ago
  Can you point me to the critique you mention? Also I mean "what it looks like" to you is kind of irrelevant because we really do not live in a democracy but it probably looks like one to you. Are you OK that your country aids in the literal enslavement and exploitation of people abroad for cheap goods? Are you OK that capitalist countries perpetrate more war and caused more death than any other before it? You must be if you believe in democracy. Wake up, there is no democracy. ALL poverty is fabricated and sustained for profits. So in the same sense: How does capitalism work? Is it democratic or is it a profit extraction system that knows no bounds? I know communist states commited some mistakes in the 20th century, most are inflated for capitalist propaganda but there are legit ones. But Im not here for apologia. I do what makes sense. And it makes sense to me that profit creates authoritarianism. And that to create true democracy we must democratize production. That shit makes more sense to me than "getting rich makes everyone better through competition". Read communist literature and decide for yourself, be intellectually honest, and move on if its not right. I dont care. I dont want someone to rule over me. And I'll never EVER vote for someone who isnt enacting mass democracy. Which is why I havent voted. I'm a real person with real aspirations and I wont be taken advantage by the rich who provably run this shit.
  - lazide 1y ago
    This shit is hilarious. Like literally can’t make this up. There are many problems with the current system, but it’s hard to think of a better indictment of everything you’re saying than “Which is why I havent voted. I'm a real person with real aspirations and I wont be taken advantage by the rich who provably run this shit.” Huh?

lazide 1y ago

bwahahahahahahaha. and yet it always ends up the same, with one person in charge (chairman, commissar, supreme leader, etc.), and everyone at the point of a gun. that you think because a bunch of academics wrote a bunch of words and that’s why it doesn’t happen doesn’t mean it doesn’t always happen. provably. in real life. because of exactly the reasons I stated. I’ve known many people who lived through the USSR, and a few that lived through Mao’s China. I’ve lived in Eastern Europe and seen the long term damage. This isn’t academics. This is what happens when people are given high minded academics and use it to justify atrocities - which are easy to do in this case. Almost custom made to do. because you know, it’s ‘for the greater good’. And there is always someone else to blame. but it never actually works, so doubling down we go…. And re: Pol Pot. Just beyond words [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot].

Atlas667 1y ago
If Pol Pot was a Marxist why did Vietnam (Marxist) fight against Pol Pot? I'll tell you. Pol Pot was never a communist. He was an anti-intellectual who himself said he had never read Marx and said he admired Hitler. Western Nations claim he was a Marxist in order to spook the average citizen. There are also serious allegations that the CIA and the MI6 were involved in trafficking weapons to them. The Vietnamese were seen as a threat by the Cambodian capitalists and the Chinese didn't like the Vietnamese due to the sino-soviet split. The US, China, and the UK backed Pol Pot to get at Vietnam. Pol Pot was a populist. Asian fascism was created to counter Marxism. Read about the CIA backed killings in Indonesia. They aided in the killing of LITERALLY 125,000 people a month in order to squash communist sentiment in Asia. > and yet it always ends up the same, with one person in charge (chairman, commissar, supreme leader, etc.), and everyone at the point of a gun. Where did you read that? Did you know that the Americans have placed more dictators in power than any other state in existence? > I’ve known many people who lived through the USSR, and a few that lived through Mao’s China. I’ve lived in Eastern Europe and seen the long term damage. This isn’t academics. This is what happens when people are given high minded academics and use it to justify atrocities - which are easy to do in this case. Almost custom made to do. Did you know that capitalism started world war 1 AND 2? What has caused more destruction in Eastern Europe than both world wars? Did you know that most of the destruction and social chaos in Africa was caused by capitalism? Did you know that capitalism has decimated South America? Why do you not say that the poorest countries on earth are all capitalists? I'm not here to defend or espouse the doings of past states. I'm here because I want to put power in peoples hands. The billions of us, not just the middle class. I don't want anyone above me, like there is now. I want people to have democratic power in order to end this artificial poverty that generates power for the few. All poverty world wide is sustained for profits and that is evident.
- lazide 1y ago
  Pol Pot was literally China’s man in Southeast Asia. He was taught by the French Communists. Vietnam hated the French (past colonizers), and the Soviets backed the North Vietnamese - and the Chinese disliked the Soviets. Power balance thing within the Communists. It rarely spilled over directly until Cambodia kept crossing over into Vietnam and murdering people when they got overzealous with their own internal murdering. Eventually Vietnam got fed up and stomped on them. The CIA hated both of them with a passion. You have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago

> Marx's Capital is actually a very well written piece of research Marx's Capital is actually a very well written piece of bad research. He cherry-picked the data, ignoring evidence that was available to him that disagreed with the conclusions he was reaching. Let me say that again: There was evidence against his theories present in the data he was perusing. > Nah. The central point of Socialism/Communism is the DEMOCRATIZATION of production. How does that work out? You can call what happened "democratization", but it sure looks like central control to me - central control by an authoritarian. That's what has happened every time. You know how they say "the purpose of a system is what it does"? Well, at least by that standard, no, the purpose of communism is not the democratization of production, because that's not what it does.

Atlas667 1y ago
Can you point me to the critique you mention? Also I mean "what it looks like" to you is kind of irrelevant because we really do not live in a democracy but it probably looks like one to you. Are you OK that your country aids in the literal enslavement and exploitation of people abroad for cheap goods? Are you OK that capitalist countries perpetrate more war and caused more death than any other before it? You must be if you believe in democracy. Wake up, there is no democracy. ALL poverty is fabricated and sustained for profits. So in the same sense: How does capitalism work? Is it democratic or is it a profit extraction system that knows no bounds? I know communist states commited some mistakes in the 20th century, most are inflated for capitalist propaganda but there are legit ones. But Im not here for apologia. I do what makes sense. And it makes sense to me that profit creates authoritarianism. And that to create true democracy we must democratize production. That shit makes more sense to me than "getting rich makes everyone better through competition". Read communist literature and decide for yourself, be intellectually honest, and move on if its not right. I dont care. I dont want someone to rule over me. And I'll never EVER vote for someone who isnt enacting mass democracy. Which is why I havent voted. I'm a real person with real aspirations and I wont be taken advantage by the rich who provably run this shit.
- lazide 1y ago
  This shit is hilarious. Like literally can’t make this up. There are many problems with the current system, but it’s hard to think of a better indictment of everything you’re saying than “Which is why I havent voted. I'm a real person with real aspirations and I wont be taken advantage by the rich who provably run this shit.” Huh?