[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1620046162550-0.png (115.01 KB, 600x300, ddr soldier chad music red….png)

File: 1620046162550-1.png (60.98 KB, 1314x160, marx pangermania germania.png)

 No.216474[Last 50 Posts]

I consider myself to be a socialist and greatly influenced by Marx, but I have the following critique of Marxism (or at least my interpretation of it). I'm not from /pol/, in fact I've been on /leftypol/ since the 8ch days. Here is my critique:

Marxism is correct that human history is about struggles between different groups with underlying economic motives, but it seems to ignore the fact that collectives other than class exist and that struggle between these for economic gain is a feature of history e.g. national conflict, ethnic conflict, religious conflict, etc. also exist. These cannot be ignored. Moreover, historical materialism presumes that there will come a time where there are no more conflicts between collectives and the state can be abolished. This is also a dubious claim, as as long as there are *some* people who want to expand their material wealth, people will inevitably gather into collectives (often using a state) in order to protect themselves and their interests. This is because most humans prioritise their own survival first and will thus gather into collectives in order to ensure their collective survival against an out-group. Due to resource scarcity, we can't simply let everyone have everything for free (as the lib strawman of communism goes) and instead resources have to be systematically distributed. Conflict between collectives determines this distribution of resources.

It's a bit like the tragedy of the commons. Groups can never guarantee that the resources they need to live won't be taken by other groups, so they are incentivised to come into conflict with other groups and expand their groups to make them stronger. States in the international system cannot guarantee their survival, ever. Therefore, they must maximise their power which often involves coming into conflict with (and exploiting) other states. The bourgeoisie cannot guarantee that they will have their same power tomorrow, and losing it could mean death if revolting proles decide they want to get out the guillotines. Therefore, the bourgeoisie are incentivised to maximise their power so that their survival can be guaranteed a little bit more than earlier, although it can never be completely guaranteed. This then leads the bourgeoisie to seek out new markets and new workers to exploit.

Socialism will not solve national conflict. We saw this with AES states like the Soviet Union going to war with different states like Afghanistan, Germany, Finland, whatever. The USSR, upon winning WW2, exploited East Germany by dismantling something like a third of their factories and half of East Germany's railway and using the plundered resources to help an economic boom back home. The USSR's economic exploitation of East Germany, under the ideological pretext of claiming reparations, is one of the factors that made the GDR poorer than the FRG and why east Germany is poorer than western Germany to this day.

One of the reasons the USSR fell apart was because various national/ethnic minorities could NOT take their survival for granted under Russian hegemony. The Chechens remembered how they had been treated under Stalin. It was a logical response for them to seek their own nation state.

If you want to read more about these sorts of ideas, research classical realism and neorealism (the theories of international relations) as well as philosophers/theorists like Machiavelli, Hobbes, Karl Schmitt, John Mearsheimer, Kenneth Waltz, etc.

tl;dr conflict will always exist and therefore a stateless, classless, moneyless society will never occur and conflicts that aren't fought on class lines still define history as much as conflicts between classes do.
>>

 No.216481

there should be a debatebro general for this shit
>>

 No.216485

>>216474
>tl;dr conflict will always exist and therefore a stateless, classless, moneyless society will never occur and conflicts that aren't fought on class lines still define history as much as conflicts between classes do.
good you included the tl;dr so I could tell you're clueless about marxism without reading your whole post.
>>

 No.216488

File: 1620046405402.jpg (71.86 KB, 643x820, woah.jpg)

>
>>

 No.216489

>>216474
>One of the reasons the USSR fell apart was because various national/ethnic minorities could NOT take their survival for granted under Russian hegemony
This is false
>>

 No.216490

>>216474
More money went from Russia to the marginal ethnicities in the Soviet Union than the other way around.
>>

 No.216495

>>216474
>as long as there are *some* people who want to expand their material wealth

it's a good thing that we're not planning on letting those any of those people live
>>

 No.216501

>>216474
Also
>I consider myself to be a socialist and greatly influenced by Marx
>I'm not from /pol/, in fact I've been on /leftypol/ since
<conflict will always exist and therefore a stateless, classless, moneyless society will never occur

hahaha /pol/yps think this makes for convincing bait
>>

 No.216502

>>216485
>One big human nature and idpol post
>Carl Schmitt was a German jurist, political theorist, and prominent member of the Nazi Party
>John Joseph Mearsheimer is an American political scientist
>Kenneth Neal Waltz was an American political scientist
Anon, I…

More generously, it is idealist to think Socialism will not 'solve' national conflict. Ask yourself why nations even exist in the first place. Because humans are muh monke? Or because of the ruling class?
>>

 No.216512

>>216501
How about actually making a criticism of my ideas instead of just accusing me of being le pol infiltrator. You really think a /pol/ak would know what AES or neorealism are?
>>

 No.216522

File: 1620047417781.png (11.5 KB, 311x447, 1620014161480.png)

>>216512
But if you've been along for long enough you'll know that the majority of People and ethnic minorities miss the USSR and voted to stay. Look at this nearly all ethnic minorities miss it.
>>

 No.216527

>>216502
There have been different tribes that have gone to war with each other and taken each other's women before there has been a solidified class system. Different pre-class, pre-agricultural tribes had to reproduce themselves so that their elderly could be supported but this needed the tribe to have women so if half your tribe's women died from disease it was in your interests to gather up your men and go to war with the Grug tribe and take his daughters. In-groups and out-groups have existed before a stratified class system.
>>

 No.216532

Okay just remove the exploitation by big socialist countries towards other and it will work.
>>

 No.216533

In ancient China the Legalists actually drew a surprising amount from the Mohists, however one major and significant difference was they supported the Qin not the states the Qin attacked
Why?
>>

 No.216535

>>216474
>Marxism is correct that human history is about struggles between different groups with underlying economic motives, but it seems to ignore the fact that collectives other than class exist and that struggle between these for economic gain is a feature of history e.g. national conflict, ethnic conflict, religious conflict, etc. also exist.
this is beside the point. Marxism states that class struggle is the driver of historical PROGRESS in the modes of production. all these other things you mentioned are secondary to that.
>It's a bit like the tragedy of the commons. Groups can never guarantee that the resources they need to live won't be taken by other groups, so they are incentivized to come into conflict with other groups and expand their groups to make them stronger.
this only occurs in cases of scarcity, that is when there is an actual resource out there in the material world that they even want.
people aren't going to get into groups and fight over something as subjectively abundant as Oxygen.
>The bourgeoisie cannot guarantee that they will have their same power tomorrow, and losing it could mean death if revolting proles decide they want to get out the guillotines. Therefore, the bourgeoisie are incentivised to maximise their power so that their survival can be guaranteed a little bit more than earlier, although it can never be completely guaranteed. This then leads the bourgeoisie to seek out new markets and new workers to exploit.
but they are even losing their ability to do this. in the case of America all you have now is a bunch of people destroying all economic progress for personal wealth, the US can't even create new markets anymore.
>Socialism will not solve national conflict. We saw this with AES states like the Soviet Union going to war with different states like Afghanistan, Germany, Finland, whatever.
because the USSR literally had almost no trade partners compared to the rest of the world and needed to industrially progress. This is evident in the fact that China and Russia today have no such expansionist ambitions
>The USSR, upon winning WW2, exploited East Germany by dismantling something like a third of their factories and half of East Germany's railway and using the plundered resources to help an economic boom back home.
source?
>One of the reasons the USSR fell apart was because various national/ethnic minorities could NOT take their survival for granted under Russian hegemony. The Chechens remembered how they had been treated under Stalin. It was a logical response for them to seek their own nation state.
the USSR fell apart because the Oligarchy wanted to privatize ownership and enrich themselves, it has little to do with ethnic conflict.
>tl;dr conflict will always exist
no shit
>therefore a stateless, classless, moneyless society
you have yet to qualify this. and even if it's true it doesn't matter. Marxism is concerned with the present and the class struggle in the present. whether that amounts to a hippie Utopia is of almost no concern.
>>

 No.216537

>>216522
I was aware of that but it isn't really relevant to my overall point. What matters is that realist motivations caused them to act in a certain way by breaking off, whether they regret it later on is less relevant. And also if you look at those stats Baltics tend to not be nostalgic for the USSR and I used the example of Chechens who aren't shown there.
>>

 No.216539

>>216527
>pre-class = post-class
It's all so tiring.
So you think:
-Abolish capitalism
-Establish socialism
-Post scarcity communism achieved
-Everyone chimps out and draws imaginary lines and rape each other each other

Your =actual= gripe with Marx is that you are an idealist, not a materialist.
>>

 No.216542

File: 1620048015315.png (87.5 KB, 1078x712, cmr_0008-0160_1979_num_20_….png)

>>216537
True Baltics and Poland do not miss the USSR, but they helped every ethnicity mostly.
>>

 No.216544

>>216512
next time you should specify that you're a national ""socialist"" so we can ignore you better

if you actually have been on the website or earth long enough you'd care about the class struggle and not fret about >muh identity >muh nations >muh culture shit
you just seem like a outsider making bait
>>

 No.216571

File: 1620048770509.png (117.54 KB, 526x607, apu pepe ddr gdr pullup.png)

>>216539
Post-scarcity is an illusion, although if it were possible it would solve conflict.
>>

 No.216572

>>216474
This is extremely based. It almost seems like, you are my soulmate. I also consider myself as a left-nationalist to some degree. But this is also because I believe, that Realism and Nationalism have much in common. It actually surprises me, that there doesn't exist an official term for left-realism/socialist-realism yet. Because when I look at the international order, it is very clear to me, that even contemporary socialist states operate under a realist logic. I think you can be domestically a leftist/socialist, but on the international stage you have to be a realist.
>>

 No.216579

>>216571
illusions dictate human action
>>

 No.216584

>>216571
Maybe you would like to rephrase that. Here is a very simple method of achieving PS:
-'Dispose' every landlord, boom everyone is housed
-Count the people, grow sufficient rice, boom everyone is fed

Is this shit really complicated?

>>216572
>/pol/
>"you are my soulmate"
kek you lads do it to yourselves
>>

 No.216585

File: 1620049058126.mp4 (2.58 MB, 854x480, what i think about all day.mp4)

>>216539
I do care about class struggle but we're all in agreement about that so in my original post I talk about nations mostly cuz interesting conversations aren't started when people agree on everything. Identity forms out of material conditions, I don't deny this.
>>

 No.216589

>>216571
post-scarcity is not an illusion.
it follows from the capitalist lie that the individual is some insatiable black hole of consumption rather than a human being with basic needs.
>>

 No.216591

>>216572
>contemporary socialist states
All capitalist and not even pretending to be socialist.
>>

 No.216593

>>216585
So we remove the ruling class which profits off nations splitting the world, and achieve the freeing of labor, then we remove the material base for 'nations'. Not really complex if you agree in materialism
>>

 No.216594

>>216571
Next 5000 year plan build Dyson sphere while researching the potential for zero point energy and using the Dyson sphere coming online to build the more practical system for extracting energy from the gravitational field of black holes as a fallback
>>

 No.216603

>>216594
>zero point energy
isn't that just new age garbage?
i imagine 5000 years by now that we will be beings of pure light anyway. the singularity is real.
>>

 No.216611

>>216539
Haha yeah I agree. The closest I could find to "left-realism" is people like Chomsky who iirc accept realist theories on international relations but think this can be solved through abolition of the state which is dumb imo. All the socialist states that survived for more than 5 years had to act like realists, it's unfortunate but it has to be done. The reason why America is declining is in part because they aren't acting like realists anymore but rather have an offensive liberal foreign policy which is why it looks like China (a very very realist country) is looking like its gonna overtake it.

Mearsheimer argues that in order to protect liberalism at home you have to act like a realist on the international stage. I believe that in order to protect socialism at home you have to act like a realist on the international stage.

Also, basically all socialist states have had a strong national identity and been nationalistic. I don't buy the whole "noo thats actually socialist patriotism its completely different" shit. Imagine believing Ho Chi Minh wasn't a nationalist.
>>

 No.216612

>>216603
>isn't that just new age garbage?
Nah put two very flat sheets close enough together and they'll pull themselves closed from ZPE how to exploit this on the other hand is questionable

Throwing something into a decaying orbit around a black hole and using the energy gained to slingshot part of its mass out very very fast is more achievable
>>

 No.216617

>>216584
>kek you lads do it to yourselves
No, I'm a long time leftypoler. But I have to agree with OP, that realism is a useful theory and I'm very keen on developing a "left-realist" theory. I presented some ideas on my channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs0dVOwMbLB08JEA-uqsFxw/videos
I actually believe that "left-realism" is in political practice pretty mainstream, but the term hasn't been officially established yet.
>>

 No.216620

>>216593
I agree, ditch the ruling class and institute a DotP. However, different subsects of proles are still going to have interests in going to war with each other and expand their material interests. India and Pakistan are still gonna get into conflicts with each other even if both become DotP's tomorrow. Same applies to Israel and Palestine, Kosovo and Serbia, Ireland and Northern Ireland, etc. etc.
>>

 No.216623

>>216620
conflicts will exist but they will play out fundamentally differently compared to anything we saw in the World Wars, specially with thermonuclear advancements.
>>

 No.216630

>>216620
>However, different subsects of proles are still going to have interests in going to war with each other
WHYYYY UYGHUR????? The only reason these things exist because of the current order. This is idealism in it's most blatantly obvious form. You can't just say 'shit will happen' you have to explain why, and if your answer is "monkey" then you have more studying to do.
>>216617
Sum up why you think left realism is important and more discussion can be had.
>>

 No.216639

>>216612
you know that saying "if it aint broke, don't fix it"?
yeah, i dont think harnessing the power of a black hole is the way to go lol
>>

 No.216641

File: 1620050644092.epub (1.17 MB, John J. Mearsheimer - The….epub)

>>216630
>Sum up why you think left realism is important and more discussion can be had.
I always wondered why in the history of socialism, there were so many rivalries between socialist states. So I started reading Mearsheimer and it made perfectly sense to me.
>>

 No.216645

File: 1620050750304.png (1.11 MB, 640x1138, goth asuka ddr gang.png)

>>216589
As long as one group want more than the bare essentials to live then all other groups are forced to act according to realist logic.
>>216617
I'll check out your channel, anon. The only time I've heard the left-realism used before is in criminology (it's a very based school of criminology, arguably superior to mainstream Marxian criminology).
>>216623
Nukes will shake things up but war will just take on new forms, nukes didn't stop all the wars that happened in the Cold War from happening e.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Angola, Rhodesia, whatever.
>>216630
I've told you why this will happen - because people prioritise their own survival as without it no other goal can be achieved (unless your goal is to kill yourself or something). Combine this with resource scarcity and the fact that humans are social animals and we have a recipe for conflict. You can't just scream "reee idealism".

The left is generally illiterate about international relations and geopolitics which I think is a shame and weakens us. Does your average left-twitter shitposter know anything about neorealism? Probably not. However, the right are starting to talk a lot more about geopol and yes, a lot of the thinkers I cited are right-wing (particularly Schmitt) but that doesn't necessarily mean that their ideas are useless for leftists and that there's nothing to be learned from them. Fascists like Keith Woods have already started appropriating marxist thinkers, you can't just dismiss people like Hobbes or liberals like Mearsheimer.
>>

 No.216650

File: 1620050860005.jpg (39.54 KB, 410x598, based department hello pep….jpg)

>>

 No.216652

>>216645
>war will just take on new forms
I'm okay with that
>Vietnam, Afghanistan, Angola, Rhodesia
were any of these nuclear powers?
>>

 No.216657

>>216645
>liberals like Mearsheimer.
The thing about Mearsheimer is, I think he doesn't actually believes in liberalism. He is too honest. He openly believes that "might is right", but he doesn't conceal his views in liberal lingo, which I really appreciate about him.
>>

 No.216660

>>216474
Isn't the point of this post that socialism is not possible? why do you support it then? all countries left on their own or something like that?
>>

 No.216665

>>216641
Realism largely ignores transnational dynamics and their model doesn't efficiently account for the system defining role capital plays in international relations. Also I can't open the epub. Can you post it in some different way or give an tldr
>>

 No.216685

File: 1620052078423.png (166.86 KB, 962x811, mao zedong celibacy.png)

>>216660
Unless your definition of socialism includes that it's stateless, socialism is still possible in spite of realism, in fact I believe socialism would strengthen the nation and its position in the world stage. Beatrice and Sydney Webb both supported socialism in part because it would have improved Britain's national efficiency and therefore strengthened the empire against threats from Germany and America. German Nazbols like Paul Eltzbacher also supported socialism for this reason, I believe one of his quotes was something like "I am not a socialist but for the sake of national salvation I am capable of socialism."
>>216652
Israel has nukes but they aren't gonna be using them on Palestine any time soon because a) when Palestinians rise up it isn't done by a state but rather by independent groups without a clear territory or base b) Israel would be nuking itself if it nuked Palestine because of the proximity of the two territories c) Israel wants Palestinian land but this becomes a lot less valuable if Palestinian land is now an irradiated hellscape.
>>216657
I'll be real, I haven't read The Tragedy of Great Power Politics although it is on my list. I'm currently reading The Great Delusion though, and in there he says that he supports liberalism domestically and realism internationally. I don't know why exactly, I need to watch more of his lectures and read more of his shit. Not saying you're wrong btw
>>

 No.216703

>>216685
Have you read Capital?
>>

 No.216722

>>216685
>irradiated hellscape.
Not very on topic but isn't the radiation from nuclear bombs rendered insignificant after a few years? like the places we can't visit right now are dangerous because they are slowly burning abandoned nuclear plants, nuclear bombs release as much energy as they can in the very moment they land so they don't leave that much radiation, if I remember correctly.
>>

 No.216723

>>216685
and the Israel-Palestine conflict is fundamentally different from traditional war
>>

 No.216728

File: 1620053540848.jpg (57.67 KB, 703x782, tjs3vp53qfc51.jpg)

>>216645
>I've told you why this will happen - because people prioritise their own survival as without it no other goal can be achieved
We're talking about communist society. They won't need to prioritize survival, you gaping retard. Survival will be completely taken for granted. This is why preclass=/=postclass.
>Combine this with resource scarcity
Are you braindead? We're talking about communist society here.
>we have a recipe for conflict
poltard goes mask off idealist, thanks for admitting it so we don't need to waste any more time on you.
>>

 No.216820

>>216703
No, I tried to read it once but got burned out. I aim to try again at some point. Even though I haven't, I believe me (OP) and the other anon's points still stand. If there is a passage in Capital which debunks realism post it here.
>>216728
Bruh you think a /pol/ infiltrator would have made so many OC DDR memes? lmao
You haven't explained how any of what I've said is idealism unless you think idealism = when ideas are important sometimes. Resources are scarce, where is the evidence that communism will solve this? No post-scarcity = survival can never be taken for granted.

Also >>216572 is there any way we can potentially get in contact? I don't really wanna post my discord tag in here for everyone to see
>>

 No.216844

>>216527
the argument always devolves into "muh human nature" followed by an fictional anthropological you write out of thin air involving imaginary warring bands of tribes existing in some imaginary prehistoric time
>>

 No.216845

>>216527
Tribes are not the same as nations, you're projecting backwards.
>>

 No.216852

>>216820
>which debunks realism post it here
Realism largely ignores transnational dynamics and their model doesn't efficiently account for the system defining role capital plays in international relations.
This is isn't a quote from Capital, but from me, but I like you to engage with this criticism. Also really try to understand Capital. It gives you an edge if you are a marxist or not. It is also a work to re-read and take notes in and not to read once, as you probably know by now
>>

 No.216853

Schmitt was a fascist cretin who thought evil spirits manipulated human society.
>>

 No.216865

>>216645
>The left is generally illiterate about international relations and geopolitics which I think is a shame and weakens us.
stfu larper. Analysis of all politics is useless if you don't have the political power to act on the knowledge. The best it can be is fun for discussion. The right is not any "stronger" for knowing anything, you're even implying that many of them actually read at all, which I am highly skeptical of.
>>

 No.216873

You are better off claiming that conflict will be borne out of how to implement socialism and communism. Sectarianism for its own sake.
>>

 No.216876

File: 1620057533877.jpeg (111.44 KB, 960x720, Major Realist Theories (J….jpeg)

>>216844
>the argument always devolves into "muh human nature"
Not true, not all tendencies of realism rely on the idea of human nature. Mearsheimer for example is a 100% structuralist. That's why I believe, his theory can be combined with marxism pretty well.
>>

 No.216878

>>216876
Are you OP?
>>

 No.216879

>>

 No.216884

>>216844
Anon, I literally got this example from a Cockshott lecture.
>>216845
They're both types of collective so the example works, and often the line between tribe and nation is blurred.
>>216865
Very few of them read but the ones that do read really do read and read a lot. Look at someone like Keith Woods.
>>216852
Which transnational dynamics specifically?
>>

 No.216885

>>216474
Are you even familiar with Marxist IR theory OP?
>>

 No.216891

>>216884
>Keith Woods
Bruh. Couldn't you pick a better one? Idk someone like De Benoist
>>

 No.216892

>>216884
> I literally got this example from a Cockshott lecture.
Which one?
>>

 No.216901

>>216820
>is there any way we can potentially get in contact? I don't really wanna post my discord tag in here for everyone to see

Sure! You can contact me on Reddit, my username is u/NEON199331
and via my Youtube account: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs0dVOwMbLB08JEA-uqsFxw
>>

 No.216907

>>216901
Are you the Neon, Haz always bitches about?
>>

 No.216909

>>216522
>that pic
why is armenia so based?
>>

 No.216910

>>216620
>India and Pakistan are still gonna get into conflicts with each other even if both become DotP's tomorrow
why?
>>

 No.216911

>>216907
Yes ( ° ʖ °)
>>

 No.216913

>>216911
Du hörst dich schon echt wie ein standard Deutscher an. Kann man da was machen?
>>

 No.216934

File: 1620058729376.png (37.35 KB, 479x217, karl schmitt humanity.png)

>>216892
I cba to find it but it was one of the ones about the transition from primitive communism to class society. On second thoughts, it may have actually been from his book, How The World Works, in one of the first chapters.
>>216910
Kashmir and the fact that India controls the sources of Pakistan's rivers iirc, as well as the general bad blood between the nations.
>>216891
Also a good example, I just used Woods because he's a semi-well known e-celeb.
>>216885
I've heard of it but haven't done a lot of digging into it, I'll watch the video at some point today though.
>>

 No.216977

>>216934
why wouldn't india and pakistan unite into one?
>>

 No.216979

Ethnicity has nothing to do with the social relations of production which is the driver of history and what moves human beings forward in their evolution. There has been 0 cases of ethnic clash and ethnicity or religiously that drove humans forward in their productive forces. There’s a good reason why indigenous Americans didn’t move beyond the tribe confederation and it mostly had to do with their isolation from everyone else. The Mediterranean was perfect because the sea attached 3 continents nd their proximity allowed for the evolution of those societies to higher forms. So no you are completely wrong in saying that Marxism is “missing” anything. Everything is attached to that fulcrum of social relations of production.
>>

 No.217012

>>216876
Complete nonsense and has no basis or proof on reality. It takes power as a given and not a result of something. You and this retard are taking power for granted instead of doing any critical analysis. The biggest failure of this kind of analysis is that it takes certain phenomena as a given and an eternal phenomena which has no basis on reality. It’s nothing but an eternal category to not be criticized or questioned. What distinguished Marx, and even Hegel is the criticism of absolute categories like something arbitrary and not based on reality like “power”. All power derives from real material things and how these human relate to the world of material things. Culture and religion and tradition does have a say in how they relate to material things but again it’s still a material social relation of human beings to other human beings and human beings to “things”.

TLDR; power is not an absolute category and to uncritically say power or human nature is to present those things as given, as eternally existing. Like saying that humans have always existed or that the universe has always existed.
>>

 No.217028

(Sorry, reformatted my post)
>human history is about struggles between different groups with underlying economic motives, but it seems to ignore the fact that collectives other than class exist and that struggle between these for economic gain is a feature of history e.g. national conflict, ethnic conflict, religious conflict, etc. also exist
This is what Marx and Engels called the superstructure of society and they never ignored it or said it can't influence things. I don't see where you're getting this from. These conflicts happen, but they don't happen separated from their economic basis.
<Political, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, etc., development is based on economic development. But all these react upon one another and also upon the economic base. It is not that the economic position is the cause and alone active, while everything else only has a passive effect. There is, rather, interaction on the basis of the economic necessity, which ultimately always asserts itself. The state, for instance, exercises an influence by tariffs, free trade, good or bad fiscal system; and even the deadly inanition and impotence of the German petty bourgeois, arising from the miserable economic position of Germany from 1648 to 1830 and expressing itself at first in Pietism, then the sentimentality and cringing servility to princes and nobles, was not without economic effect. It was one of the greatest hindrances to recovery and was not shaken until the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars made the chronic misery an acute one. So it is not, as people try here and there conveniently to imagine, that the economic position produces an automatic effect. Men make their history themselves, only in given surroundings which condition it and on the basis of actual relations already existing, among which the economic relations, however much they may be influenced by the other political and ideological ones, are still ultimately the decisive ones, forming the red thread which runs through them and alone leads to understanding
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/letters/94_01_25.htm.
>>

 No.217034

File: 1620060518858.jpeg (75.54 KB, 820x590, average nazi germany fan ….jpeg)

>>216979
Off the top of my head I can't think of any purely ethnic conflicts that led to technological advances but WW1 and WW2 (mainly national conflicts with ideological/ethnic elements) certainly lead to massive technological development in Europe (the computer, the A-bomb)
>>217012
I don't argue that power or conflict have always existed, in Paleolithic times iirc there wasn't much conflict or power due to the fact that people could only carry as much as they can hold so possessions could never accumulate and all food was eaten soon after it was hunted/foraged so there wasn't much point in my tribe trying to take shit from your tribe cuz there wasn't much to take at all.
>>

 No.217053

>>217034
you are fucking retarded if you unironically believe the world wars where about ethnicity or nationality
>>

 No.217082

>>217034
>WW1 and WW2 (mainly national conflicts with ideological/ethnic elements)
Stop it
>>

 No.217125

File: 1620061591433.png (120.22 KB, 626x738, ww1.png)

>>217082
>>217053
Lmao imagine thinking WW1 and WW2 had nothing to do with nationalism. The wars were literally thought across national lines for the underlying economic motive. WW1 wasn't about the Worker's Liberation Army fighting against the Private Property Defence Alliance, it was about Britain, France, etc. fighting Germany, Bulgaria, etc. They all wanted to increase their nation's respective power because their nation's survival can best be guaranteed through being the strongest nation there is, and a lot of the time that involves taking shit from other nations. This isn't hard.
>>

 No.217138

>>217125
It was an Imperialist war. Nationalism was only used to motivate loyalty to the respective states. It was an economic war and that's all it ever gonna be
>>

 No.217139

>>217125
They were imperialist wars to redivide the world. The revolutions in Russia/Germany/Hungary/Ireland ended the bloodshed in WW1, and the Red Army destroyed the fascist plague in WW2 which ended the war.
>>

 No.217158

File: 1620061981234.jpg (47.77 KB, 614x407, Trotsky.jpg)

>>217125
WWI was a great war of imperialism, that's for sure.
>When Great Britain seizes African colonies, Baghdad, and Jerusalem, she is not waging a defensive war. When Germany occupies Serbia, Belgium, Poland, Lithuania, and Rumania and seizes the Monsoon Islands, this is not a defensive war either. This is a struggle for the partitioning of the world. Now this is clear, clearer than ever. We do not want to take part any longer in this purely imperialist war, in which the claims of the possessing classes are openly paid for in human blood. …
>>

 No.217306

>>217034
>Off the top of my head I can't think of any purely ethnic conflicts that led to technological advances but WW1 and WW2 (mainly national conflicts with ideological/ethnic elements) certainly lead to massive technological development in Europe (the computer, the A-bomb)

You are seriously uncritically claiming that ww2 was a war for nationality or ethnicity. The bourgeoisie claimed their war against the aristocracy was a holy war for reason and freedom but was really a war for a class to free itself from the aristocracy. Any nation or people's can make whatever claims or justification they like. The reality is it's land and territory to exploit. Political formations are fleeting, social relations of production are essential.

>I don't argue that power or conflict have always existed,


This wasn't the point I was trying to make. The point I was making is that you use the category of power as an absolute category devoid of context. All power as real contextual meaning. One can say that humans are ambitious but ambitious according to what? What relations? What context? Claiming that human beings are ambitious and stopping there as attempting to play god by making an absolute claim for all time. We can extend and say humans are ambitious for power and now we have a tautology and have not said anything and are again claiming an absolute. Now let's ask a question in context. Humans are ambitious for power in a class society, now we have established context. This is why claims of human nature of power is nonsense and isn't based on anything real except making absolute claims.
>>

 No.219342

File: 1620094876915-0.png (240.75 KB, 1006x1744, engels_1890.png)

File: 1620094876915-1.png (466.43 KB, 700x584, eAeqW5O.png)

>>216474
>Marxism is correct that human history is about struggles between different groups with underlying economic motives, but it seems to ignore the fact that collectives other than class exist and that struggle between these for economic gain is a feature of history e.g. national conflict, ethnic conflict, religious conflict, etc. also exist.
I think about this Engels letter from 1890 a lot. I think you'll like it – and I don't think what you're describing is true to Marxism, it's more that the economy is at the base but in the modern era these struggles have manifested in the form of national struggles against colonialism and imperialism and so on. There's a dialectical relationship between base and superstructure. This is also why I think Lenin railed against "mere" trade unionism in which workers bargain for better benefits, when workers organized collectively and then using their power to make political demands, and as we can see, workers organized against colonialism and for national liberation powered much of the revolutions in the 20th century.

I know what you're saying though, that some communists suggest all of these national conflicts just don't matter or whatever, but I think this might owe to some Judeo-Christian influence that makes communism almost out to be like an eschatological habbeding. I've been more seeing communism as an intuitive ideal instead of a utopian thing, while retaining the focus on dialectical and historical materialism.

>Socialism will not solve national conflict … The USSR's economic exploitation of East Germany, under the ideological pretext of claiming reparations, is one of the factors that made the GDR poorer than the FRG and why east Germany is poorer than western Germany to this day.

This relates to what I'm talking about, because this idea of pure / true / hegemonic communism radiating out from Moscow can be used to justify a kind of "red" imperialism over other countries. But "solving" national conflict isn't how I think about it either, like this search for a "solution," where I'm more interested in Mao's concept of antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions. Perhaps in socialism, there can be still be *contradictions* that exist (including between nations) but by rearranging the economic relationship between nations, we can hopefully turn these contradictions between nations from antagonistic ones to non-antagonistic ones. Mutual cooperation on a win-win basis in other words.

>If you want to read more about these sorts of ideas, research classical realism and neorealism (the theories of international relations) as well as philosophers/theorists like Machiavelli, Hobbes, Karl Schmitt, John Mearsheimer, Kenneth Waltz, etc.

Machiavelli and Schmitt are interesting to me. Mearsheimer… I'm a bit iffy on. His kind of "structuralism" seems like it rationalizes the U.S. empire even though he says "I'm not saying I want this to happen, I'm just going to say it will happen," like the idea that the U.S. tries to dominate Latin America for "security reasons" and that if it doesn't, then the U.S. won't survive or whatever. Well, maybe the American ruling class won't survive if that happens, since they must find the cheapest labor and consume resources exploited with that labor to maintain their position, economic necessity once again being the fundamental driver that leads the U.S. to topple alternatives to its hegemony.

Just like the Biden administration is trying to sanction European companies that are working on Nord Stream 2. It's the same policy as the Trump administration. Why are they doing this? Is it because national conflict between the U.S. and Russia is in the driver's seat? That's a form that it takes, but ultimately the U.S. doesn't want to lose a market for fracked gas shipped across the Atlantic compared to the cheaper Russian alternative delivered through a pipeline. Materialism, man!
>>

 No.221182

File: 1620153982820.mp4 (5 MB, 854x480, ddr vs nazi average chad p….mp4)

>>217158
>>217139
>>217138
Almost as if imperialism and nationalism are interrelated. The underlying motive of most conflicts is undeniably an economic one, I'm a materialist so I don't dispute this. However, the economic struggle is waged across different lines at different times - nation vs nation, class vs class, etc. This is what I mean by WW1 and WW2 were both mainly national conflicts. It was multiple countries going at it with the aim of economically exploiting the other and taking territory from the losers.
>>217306
My fundamental premises apply to all societies.
>The vast majority of humans throughout human history have desired their own survival and material security above all because without survival, no other goal can be achieved. This is true to this day and will most likely continue to be true.
>There are finite amounts of resources
>Humans need a certain level of resources to survive.
These conditions are true for all human societies (unless post-scarcity becomes a thing). Realism follows from these conclusions. In order for humans to guarantee their survival as much as possible, they need to pursue power as much as possible. This will inevitably bring them into conflict as well as cooperation with others. Ambition for power applies to pre-class society (and likely post-class society too) as class is not the only dimension which power can be distributed between, although it is among if not the most important.
>>219342
Based Engels letter, that greatly inspired my original argument. In a way, I'm trying to show that a lot of HisMat's own premises lead to realist conclusions.

I haven't read Mao's philosophical works which I probably should, but I think that relations between states will always be antagonistic at some level because no state can ever completely guarantee its security.

As for your final paragraph, I agree as the underlying motive is economic but the manifestation is a national struggle because the economic power is divided between the nations.
>>

 No.221254

>>221182
I'd recommend this:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm

The takeaway I got from this is that contradictions exist in every thing and the "unity of opposites" means that in any subject, its development (rise and fall), motion (up, down, spinning, forward…) and forms are caused by the unity of opposites, which are the contradictions both depending and opposing each other. The collision between contradictions is responsible for all those changes we see from the material world.

For instance, poverty and prosperity of society, poor and rich, educated and uneducated, men and women, straight and LGBTQ, Christians and and Muslims, Abrahamic religion and non-Abrahamic religions, religion in general and atheism, Republicans and Democrats, socialists and capitalists, capitalists and workers, patriots and traitors, nomadic tribes and agricultural villages, manufacturing capital and financial capital, globalists and nationalists, imperialists and nationalists, subjectivity and objectivity, ideas and materials and so on are all contradictions with each other that fit into the description of the unity of opposites.

So, a man is a man different from a woman, but both of them could be white, so they are different from a black man and a black woman. Yet they are all Christians, so they are different from Muslims. Yet they are all Americans, so they are different from Chinese. The unity of opposites exists everywhere to promote and stimulate the development or death of every subject through the collision between the contradictions.

The implication from Mao is that antagonism is one form, but not the *only* form, of the struggle between opposites.

>In human history, antagonism between classes exists as a particular manifestation of the struggle of opposites. Consider the contradiction between the exploiting and the exploited classes. Such contradictory classes coexist for a long time in the same society, be it slave society, feudal society or capitalist society, and they struggle with each other; but it is not until the contradiction between the two classes develops to a certain stage that it assumes the form of open antagonism and develops into revolution. The same holds for the transformation of peace into war in class society.


>However, we must make a concrete study of the circumstances of each specific struggle of opposites and should not arbitrarily apply the formula discussed above to everything. Contradiction and struggle are universal and absolute, but the methods of resolving contradictions, that is, the forms of struggle, differ according to the differences in the nature of the contradictions. Some contradictions are characterized by open antagonism, others are not. In accordance with the concrete development of things, some contradictions which were originally non-antagonistic develop into antagonistic ones, while others which were originally antagonistic develop into non-antagonistic ones.


>Lenin said, "Antagonism and contradiction are not at all one and the same. Under socialism, the first will disappear, the second will remain." That is to say, antagonism is one form, but not the only form, of the struggle of opposites; the formula of antagonism cannot be arbitrarily applied everywhere.


Mearsheimer would disagree, but Mearsheimer represents the bourgeois ideology of the United States. There are also implications between socialist states. There have been antagonisms between socialist states. But those antagonisms can also turn into non-antagonistic contradictions, hopefully. An example today is China and Vietnam. There are definitely contradictions between China and Vietnam – they have a long history of antagonism. But what we haven't seen is Vietnam joining the U.S. alliance structure – they're deliberately rebuffing U.S. attempts to court them, and avoiding any military alliances, including with China.

But they do trade with China. One way to deal with the resources is to use this example: you have something I want, and I have something you want. What is the logical thing to do in this situation? We can attack each other and fight for these resources… or… trade. If we're both socialists and we have different socialist countries, I think the more logical thing to do is to trade with each other. We work together. Even if we're not necessarily "best buds." But that might be a way to turn antagonistic contradictions into non-antagonistic contradictions.
>>

 No.221291

File: 1620156274744.mp4 (1.74 MB, 640x480, ummm.mp4)

>>

 No.221308

>>221291
What do you mean?
>>

 No.221332

>>221308
Mearsheimer is saying the U.S. had to dominate the Western Hemisphere for "security" reasons and the CGTN anchor is clearly not buying it. This is like a self-serving rationale.

What I've been saying is that the U.S. was driven to dominate the Western Hemisphere because it was competing with other capitalist empires in Europe for control of the resources and markets there. The nature of these capitalist empires drives them to expand in a runaway feedback loop until they can't expand anymore and then they collapse. And the U.S. took off and its system expanded globally, but you see the U.S. now having problems because it is having difficulty expanding any further, it risks contracting, and that potentially risks collapsing the whole system, like a positive feedback loop turning around into a negative feedback loop which implodes the U.S.

But IMO that's also because of how the U.S. is organized economically. The internal mechanics of capitalism drives capitalist regimes to act in this way.
>>

 No.221355

If your theory held true, then nation-states would be fundamental essences, and the very nationalities that are locked in struggle could never have formed. You'd be left with purely palingenetic associations and race-theory. You'd be surprised how much of Hitlerian race theory is implicitly accepted in the present society.

Class is not presented in Marx as an identity which one should rally behind, but it became that because the early Marxists and socialists had no fucking idea what they were. Marx didn't need to beat people over the head with class identity though, because in his time viewing society as the conflict of classes and political institutions was normal for a lot of people. Where there was a struggle between nations, it existed for historical reasons, rather than some sort of essential race-struggle. Even some of the most racist people you could imagine understood this on some level, that the struggle between nations had a historical root, or at least it had a theological root (as religion was still a strong influence in that time).

The failure of so many people here is that they don't really get that classes are tied to actually existing institutions, rather than some essence of the universe that people "ought" to be. Slaves don't need to think about whether or not they are slaves - slavery in its various forms is not the most subtle thing. Whether the workers trusted the Marxists didn't change that they understood their social position as workers; there was no serious fiction as there is now that everyone can be their own businessman (and that was never actually a serious fiction, except in the minds of Austrian School retards).

Most of the "national struggles" at the end of the USSR were legit fascist sympathizers. The asshole in Poland who did Solidarity? Anti-Semitic conspiracist asshole, so egregious that even the US doesn't like to talk about him. There were a lot of those fucks who were never properly rooted out of society, just as there are fascist sympathizers in America. When the USSR was going down the tubes, those people saw their opportunity to strike, and the war planners in the US were capable enough to direct those saboteurs to sell out the anticapitalist alliance. It wasn't a seriously national struggle in the sense that such a thing might have existed in the 19th century. By the late 20th century, there were no real nation-states, there were only superpowers that had the actual money and industry to mean shit-all in the world. The end of the USSR was the effective end of the nation-state as a meaningful political unit, where before the nation-state was the unit to be controlled in the geopolitical struggle.
>>

 No.221386

>>221332
>Mearsheimer is saying the U.S. had to dominate the Western Hemisphere for "security" reasons and the CGTN anchor is clearly not buying it.

Yes, and? Do you know what China is doing? China is also trying to dominate east asia and the south china sea for "security" reasons. China is also trying to establish its a own "monroe doctrine". His theory explains that.
>>

 No.221445

>>221386
Let me add this: Mearsheimer is a better "Leninist" than Dengists here. Lenin argues in his imperialism theory, that the material conditions drive states to behave in a imperialist manner. States have no other choice, because their behavior is being dictated by material reality. Mearsheimer's theory is very similar, but for him its predominantly the anarchic structure of the international system and not global capitalism, which is the propelling force behind the behaviour of states. Dengists (and so called "Anti-Imperialists") here on the other hand believe, that imperial behaviour is the result of ideology. Dengists unironically believe, that China can't be imperialist, simply because it is "socialist" or because of "confucian ideals". But nobody can escape the force of material reality and this logic applies to all states on this planet.
>>

 No.221713

>>221355
>eugene acting like he knows what he's talking about episode 32188191
>>

 No.221729

File: 1620163082866.jpg (302.45 KB, 1280x720, 2019-10-01t125337z_2843971….jpg)

>>221355
>You'd be surprised how much of Hitlerian race theory is implicitly accepted in the present society.
Western nationalism is based on forging the superiority of a nation to invade and enslave others nations. Hitlerian ideology is an antithesis to Western liberalism but it's just as full of theoretical traps of zero-sum thinking, and the basic starting points supporting these theories is an artificial belief that situations never change and "human nature" exists and is evil.

>>221386
>China is also trying to establish its a own "monroe doctrine".
That's what Mearsheimer says China is going to do, but I don't think they have done that, and I'm not sure he said they have done that, just that he predicts it. The Monroe Doctrine was based on competing "spheres of influence" that would also IMO apply to the USSR during the Cold War, but applied to China I think it is projecting the American experience.

>>221445
>States have no other choice, because their behavior is being dictated by material reality. Mearsheimer's theory is very similar, but for him its predominantly the anarchic structure of the international system and not global capitalism, which is the propelling force behind the behaviour of states.
That's Hobbesian thinking. In any case, the profit-seeking nature of capitalism automatically chooses liberalism and continues to promote liberalism worldwide. But this strategy has no logical basis because it's a zero-sum policy. It defines the U.S. perhaps. Mearsheimer for example wants the U.S. to team up with Russia against China, but the zero-sum irrationality of the American system is the root of its inability to win over Russia against China, let alone win over China. For example, if the U.S. wants to get close to Russia, then it must pull out from Ukraine, Syria, and then withdraw from the Middle East. For the over-expanded U.S. hegemony, this is tantamount to retreat and it's difficult for the U.S. to accept.

>Dengists (and so called "Anti-Imperialists") here on the other hand believe, that imperial behaviour is the result of ideology. Dengists unironically believe, that China can't be imperialist, simply because it is "socialist" or because of "confucian ideals".

China is threatening the core interests of whom, exactly? Russia? The reason why the U.S. has failed to win over Russia after all is that such a strategy would depend on China threatening the core interests of Russia and the U.S. at the same time. The reason why the U.S. was able to unite with China to resist the USSR, on the other hand, was because the USSR was not only in the Cold War with the United States, but also threatened China's security. There were millions of soldiers on the Sino-Soviet border. Now the rise of China doesn't threaten Russia, China has not made territorial claims on Russia, has not formed an alliance against Russia, and has not tried to control Russia's economic lifeline. On the contrary, it is the U.S. that supports the separatist forces in Russia and promotes NATO, which continued to expand eastward, concocting neoliberal economic reforms, and destroying the Russian economy in the 90s.
>>

 No.221851

>>221729
You could make a lot more profit without liberal institutions, if that was the purpose of all this. Actors in society, whether they're market agents or states and their representatives, are motivated primarily by defending their turf - that is, "security". That has to exist before any ideological goals, or a belief in infinite profit / pressing the nerve of power.

You are stuck in this very antiquated belief in nation-state essences, when you talk about "Russia and China versus America". China isn't invested in some great crusade against America, and America isn't really invested in a crusade to advance "Americanism" at this point. It's all about the transnational oligarchs, and the only thing the nation-states do is bargain with those oligarchs so that nation-state institutions can persist in a reduced form. It's not easy to break regional blocs of their shared interests. It's why assholes keep pushing American balkanization as a meme, because they want to drive down conditions in America to Africa-tier or worse.
>>

 No.221981

File: 1620166812161-0.jpg (18.01 KB, 300x256, acoustic_feedback_mechanis….jpg)

File: 1620166812161-1.png (10.89 KB, 595x267, 5349850348509345.png)

>>221851
>You could make a lot more profit without liberal institutions, if that was the purpose of all this. Actors in society, whether they're market agents or states and their representatives, are motivated primarily by defending their turf - that is, "security".
I think you might be applying more rationality to the American system that it possesses, because I think it's anything but rational. You could say Mearsheimer's realist foreign policy strategy would be better for the U.S. and worse for China, but the U.S. doesn't practices this in reality. The U.S. drive to maintain its hegemony is now undermining it at this point, like a runaway feedback loop. It's caught within its own contradictions – there's positive reinforcement as long as it keeps expanding, but the moment that starts to reverse, the whole system can collapse in on itself.

Think of holding up a microphone to a set of speakers. The speakers pick up its own amplified sound which amplifies itself again. That's why it squeals and if you don't move the microphone away or unplug the speakers, you could blow the speakers. For the United States, it's impossible to predict the outcome or how it will go, but you can make a safe bet that the U.S. will spread chaos and instability as it declines… with negative consequences for itself as well. It wants to maintain hegemony but the costs are outweighing the purposes of the hegemony. It needs to cut its losses in some areas to focus on others, but it can't, because it's trapped within a feedback loop and it's continuing to push on all fronts while simultaneously losing on all of them.

>You are stuck in this very antiquated belief in nation-state essences, when you talk about "Russia and China versus America".

I think you might be confusing me for the OP?

>China isn't invested in some great crusade against America, and America isn't really invested in a crusade to advance "Americanism" at this point.

The U.S. says it's advancing an "open society" and the "human rights" and "values-based diplomacy" and "fundamental freedoms," but this is ideological hocus pocus that says the U.S. has a "right" to be in charge of the world.
>>

 No.222020

>>221254
>Mearsheimer represents the bourgeois ideology of the United States.
Yet he is a Berniebro
>>

 No.222029

>>216620
Pakistan’s a military dictatorship that keeps its cohesiveness through promoting radical islamic politics and India is inching towards hindufascism. A DotP might remove those people out of power and allow for more dialogue.
>>

 No.222370

>>221981
States are not the only actors. You're still caught up in the mystification of the state, rather than what the state actually is. Do you think Bill Gates gives a single shit about "American" dominance, or any influential magnate? They care about global eugenics and the institutions that will advance it.
They actually do believe in the "open society" - which is to say, unfettered access for the oligarchs. The society in which there is no place to hide and no privacy has been the goal for a long time now, for all the reasons that would be desirable to an oligarch. It doesn't serve any "national" interest, but it doesn't have to. You have to look at the actual priorities of the people who own the nation-states, and what they actually have done. They're not playing a game to dominate the world. They are primarily tasked with keeping what is theirs, and will conspire against their supposed nations towards that end. The actions of the past 12 years make a lot of sense if you think of organizations as the chief actors, rather than the mythologized states that purport to rule the world.
Regional blocs do have real relevance - you can't really break up China into arbitrary chunks, and the attempt to do so will fail spectacularly. The objective of the US isn't so much to affect the breakup of China, but to make sure China plays its arranged role in the global order. There is something real to the posturing between the USA and PRC, but it's about those who occupy their respective governments jockeying for better positions in the real game - which is centered around transnational firms, banks, and the ownership of land. Any war would be ruinous and not serve any particularly useful ends. None of the great powers desire a direct conflict with each other or have the ability to wage one for long. The US for its part is gearing up to suppress its own people, to conform with global plans for the "fourth industrial revolution". It's in no shape to fight WW3 and win, and the chucklefucks running America don't even pretend that it is a serious interest. No one else is even hinting at WW3 as a possibility. This is quite different from the period just before the first world war, where the Germans had predicted for decades that they would have to fight a two front war and would run into conflict with Britain. In that time, war was common and not fighting a war seen as prohibitively expensive, and everyone thought they could win. The second followed from the first, but it was also the crusade of eugenics (and even then, Hitler had to be encouraged and emboldened, and it took Hitler doing the unimaginably stupid act of attacking the USSR for the lulz - except that action made perfect sense if you understand Hitler and the Nazis as actors of global eugenics and its institutions, that had usurped an existing nation state). Point being, if WW3 does happen, it will be once again global eugenics willing such a war into existence, and the eugenicist institutions are not airy ideas but organizations of people waging their jihad against humanity. Right now though, I don't see any of the states wanting to allow such a thing to happen. The current state of affairs is that America will decline in relevance, and America itself is so obviously not in any state to fight wars. Americans are being put through this public humiliation so that the people running America can make a China-like one-party state and abolish the last vestiges of democracy.
>>

 No.225896

Bump
>>

 No.225916

>>222370
The U.S. is certainly privately-owned by its power is based on the supremacy of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency which is used to settle transactions in cross-border trade and in the all-important energy market which everyone depends on. That allows the U.S. oligarchs to profit from the whole world. This is backed up by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government which is underwritten by military power. U.S. hegemony is important but the state is a tool.
>>

 No.225929

>>216934
>I've heard of it but haven't done a lot of digging into it, I'll watch the video at some point today though
Ok, what are your opinion then?
>>

 No.225965

>>216474
>Wikipedia
You know. I actually looked up the book which the site used as source. It’s basically only on that book and nowhere else even in the year quoted, the letters in question in the Works of Marx and Engels have nothing on Slavs at all. Even worse when the “author” wrote as if it’s a secret letter that he “discovered” when it’s pretty obvious that he inserted the paragraph in a rather mundane letter to deliberately tarnish Marx.

In short, fuck Wikipedia.
>>

 No.231399

>>225965
Which book?
>>

 No.232476

>>216474
Holy shit, I actually know who made the NVA Wojak. Here's his YT channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWGEip-AJtc39ZAa4kF-ZQQ

Unique IPs: 33

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]