>yeah the revolution will take place in an industrial country like Germany or Britain or however the berches is braided
>ends up happening in agrarian shitholes instead
Marx argued that the revolution would happen in industrialized countries because there was nobody below the proletariat onto which the load of exploitation could be placed. He reasoned that the endless drive for accumulation would compel capitalists to squeeze workers harder and harder until it forced a final crisis of confrontation. He failed to predict that colonialism would allow capitalists to shift much of this burden from industrial workers onto the peasantry of the colonized world, essentially making them the most oppressed. This peasantry then proceeded to form the backbone of much of the revolutionary upsurge of the 20th century. In other words he was right about the mechanisms that would lead to revolt and why, but he was wrong about who these burdens would fall on.
Marx was talking about proletarian revolutions
The ones in agrarian shitholes (aside from Russia's with significantly more proletarian population) were bourgeois national liberation slop
Also he predicated the Russian revolution in 1870s seethe and cope
Marx gave you a critique of capitalism, Lenin updated it with a critique of imperialism. You're looking for the theory of the weakest link in the chain of imperialism.
>Implying history has already ended
>Marx overcomes Hegel
>Lenin overcomes Marx
>Mao overcomes Lenin
it's that simple, if you aren't a third worldist in 2025 that means you are an idealist stuck in the past, Marx was incomplete, worshipping him just because he was the first guy to get things is retarded, history has moved on.
>>2685285>You're looking for the theory of the weakest link in the chain of imperialism.and that would be?
>>2685477I like Mao but the peasantry barely exists anymore even in the third world
>>2685485then deng or xi, maybe
>>2685477Mao wasn't a third worldist in the sense of believing that there was no proletariat or revolutionary potential in the first world. Three worlds theory is something completely different (and totally nonsensical) since it considered the USSR a "first world" country.
Marx never said revolutions would start in a specfic country, he said revolutions would be a global movement that effects all areas of the world (as they did after WW1).
Also revolutions happened in both britian and germany, just that they were crushed.
My theory why they were crushed was because the old German and British capitalist class was much more developed then the new Russian capitalist class.
Gem but denier so coal
>>2685476Literally unfalsifiable position.
The theory always still has more time to be proven right because "history hasn't ended"
>>2685492I thought PRC/USSR are second world in Three Worlds Theory
>>2685477What is this, a game of rock paper scissors?
>>2685763it's evolution, away from idealism into materialm, and then away from theory into practice
>>2685762No, that's just in the colloquial usage of the term, where Western aligned countries are first world, Communist countries are second world, and non-aligned countries are third world. Mao considered the superpowers (US and USSR) to be first world, developed middle powers like France, Britain, the Warsaw Pact, etc. to be second world, and everybody else to be third world. Frankly I think the whole thing was incoherent nonsense completely divorced from Marxism. It was at best a post-hoc justification for China's hostility to the Soviet Union.
>>2685583So when it gets proven right what will be the cope then?
>>2685477>Lenin overcomes Marx>Mao overcomes LeninThirdies (as in maoist third worlder) believe this lmao
>>2685230>revolution didn't take place in germanythe absolute state of /leftypol/ when basic historical facts aren't known anymore
>>2685477Nixon overcame Mao
>>2686017Wrong. Mao overcame nixon
<Imperialism is preventing revolution! The real working class is in the global south!!
>Colonial nations achieve independence
>Capitalist relations spread across the world
>None of those societies go communist
>Revolution is even more unthinkable
Hmm, curious…
>>2686300really makes you thank
>>2686300falling rate of profit thovgh
>>2686011>picMARKS WUZ BLAK N SHEEEEEIIIT!!
>>2686301>the tenets of my microsect are scientific in the same sense as physicsThis is pure larp that you don't really believe and you know it.
>>2685583It gets falsified all the time.
>>2686381You don't know if they believe it or not. They might be retarded.
>>2686395I would be more willing to believe that if any of these people had tangible offline connection to the ICP but none of them do. It's secret internet club bullshit and literal ideology shopping lol
>ICP
What?
>suddenly out of the blue "le icp"
Noone even mentioned le icp wtf
>>2686397Insane Clown Posse
>>2686403The choice is ultras or Stalinists because that's who never shuts up about Marxism being science. Most of what I said applies either way.
>>2686408Marx didnt do sciene you say? How did he write The Kapital then?
>>2686411So you admit he used scientific method then
>>2686322waitfags will be vindicated by 2050
>>2686381>Marxism isn't scientific because I said soAnd im sure you are more than qualified to judge what is and isn't scientific LMAO.
>>2686396>>2686395So do you two just like to argue against made up strawmen in your head all day or what? It might be easier because based on your low quality responses you might not be cut out for this place boys.
>>2686431Marxism isn't scientific in the same sense as theories of gravity because its object is social processes, which are not measurable, testable or repeatable in the same way that physical laws are. And for something to be scientific it has to be falsifiable. Calling it late capitalism for literally a century or saying "well history hasn't ended" when people point out Marx was wrong about where revolution would occur isn't allowing it to be falsifiable. This is so obvious that I'm sure you realize it already and are playing dress up for psychological reasons.
>>2686438>where revolution would occurEverywhere.
>>2686438>social processes, which are not measurable, testable or repeatable in the same way that physical laws areWrong
>>2686453If it happens I'll change my mind but your attitude towards it still wouldn't be any more scientific. Regardless of whether it happens you won't change your mind, at least not until you're out of uni and earning a salary.
>>2686300This. Communist revolutions have historically happened in countries where state and bourgeois institutions were weakest and least capable of absorbing the pressures and contradictions of capitalist crises. Treats promoting passivity are part of it but more than that I think it's about having well funded, well organized, competently run bourgeois state institutions capable of juggling the contradictions of capitalism. In that sense the real relevance of imperialism was in providing bourgeois governments with the resources to build such institutions, rather than simply pacifying their workers. The irony of the treatlerite thesis is that workers were actually more organized and militant when they had the most treats.
Thinking Marxism is science was the first mistake. Imagine just sitting at a platform waiting for a train, and the train never comes. And doing this forever. That's what being a Marxist is.
>>2686677wissenschaft. not a dogma.
<Marxism-Leninism is not a dogma, it is a guide to action and a creative theory. So, Marxism-Leninism can display its indestructible vitality only when it is applied creatively to suit the specific conditions of each country. The same applies to the experience of the fraternal parties. It will prove valuable to us only when we make a study of it, grasp its essence and properly apply it to our realities. Instead, if we just gulp it down and spoil our work, it will not only harm our work but also lead to discrediting the valuable experience of the fraternal parties.Kim Il Sung, On eliminating dogmatism and formalism and establishing Juche in ideological work, Speech to Party Propagandists and Agitators December 28, 1955
<To my mind, the so-called “socialist society” is not anything immutable. Like all other social formations, it should be conceived in a state of constant flux and change. Its crucial difference from the present order consists naturally in production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production. To begin this reorganization tomorrow, but performing it gradually, seems to me quite feasible. That our workers are capable of it is borne out by their many producer and consumer cooperatives which, whenever they're not deliberately ruined by the police, are equally well and far more honestly run than the bourgeois stock companies.Engels, Letter to Otto Von Boenigk In Breslau, August 21, 1890
<What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875
<Our theory is a theory of evolution, not a dogma to be learned by heart and to be repeated mechanically. The less it is drilled into the Americans from outside and the more they test it with their own experience […] the deeper will it pass into their flesh and blood. When we returned to Germany, in spring 1848, we joined the Democratic Party as the only possible means of getting the ear of the working class; we were the most advanced wing of that party, but still a wing of it. When Marx founded the International, he drew up the General Rules in such a way that all working-class socialists of that period could join it – Proudhonists, Pierre Lerouxists and even the more advanced section of the English Trades Unions; and it was only through this latitude that the International became what it was, the means of gradually dissolving and absorbing all these minor sects, […] Had we from 1864, to 1873 insisted on working together only with those who openly adopted our platform where should we be to-day? I think that all our practice has shown that it is possible to work along with the general movement of the working class at every one of its stages without giving up or hiding our own distinct position and even organisation […]Friedrich Engels, Letter to Florence Kelley Wischnewetsky, January 27, 1887
>>2685230its interesting how he argued it would happen in the west within industrial societies, but it happened in the east to cause rapid industrialization
What's stopping us from just all deciding on a time and date for the revolution?
Then we just spam that we're doing it for a couple months all over social media, get streamers or whoever else to mention it, it gives people time to organise… and then when the day comes, we actually do it and begin *the* class war?
Thing is nobody else would take it seriously would they? Nobody would join me. Most of these leftists don't actually want to start something.
Unique IPs: 39