marx loved europe, european progress, 18th century liberalism, capitalism, and believed only through that high point of civilizational evolution communism can be achieved.
it's easy to understand then why marx approved of european colonialism as marxist, taking hunter-gatherer groups into capitalist societies was a progressive act.
so then, where did this "europe bad, pre-colonial societies good" nu left come from? is it not reactionary?
118 posts and 12 image replies omitted.>>2869707>pre-tribal society tribal pre-society*
>>2869707>pre-tribal societyBut you are still admitting to levels of civilisation which justify the conquest of lands by acquiring technology, no? So what is the real difference? The Palestinians are choosing to reject advancement according to your view, so must be completely crushed.
>>2869711>The Palestinians are choosing to reject advancement according to your viewstrawman after strawman. when did I ever say this? the palestinian bourgeois society has no agency over itself, its completely subordinated to the israeli bourgeois, in order for palestinian society to advance it must throw off the oppressors, hence the class struggle being the primary mover of history. the israelis exterminating the palestinian people would be a step backwards in the development of capitalism just as the nazi germans exterminating the people of western europe was a step backwards and therefore regressive. there's no difference in the mode of production between israel/palestine and nazigermany/easterneurope like there was a difference in the mode of production between the american settlers and the pre-tribal societies of indigenous america
>>2869714Right, so genociding the Native Americans was good because it helped capitalism, and this is your worldview? If clearing out Palestine was proven to be good for capitalism, you would have to support that as well, right?
>>2869717>Right, so genociding the Native Americans was good because it helped capitalism, and this is your worldview?That is Marx's worldview. In order for socialism to even be a possibility capitalism must conquer the whole globe.
>>2869719Is it your worldview that genocide is good if it helps capitalism?
>>2869721>Is it your worldview that genocide is good if it helps capitalism?go up and read again where I said the palestinian genocide hurts capitalism
>>2869727I'm not asking about Palestine, I'm asking about genocide in general.
Clearly you're a coward where at the moment of truth you tuck your tail between your legs since you are confronted by your obvious immorality - and worse, you can't even intellectualise it, but appeal to the spirit of Marx for company. The answer is yes - to you, capitalism is better than anything else on earth, so all people must be sacrificed at the altar of profit to bring about the apocalypse of communism.
>>2869734>capitalism is better than anything else on earthif you wanna live in a Slave Society like the roman empire (which was fueled by endless genocide btw) that's your choice :)
>>2869738Why can't you just admit to your own beliefs? Just say "capitalism is progress - unlimited genocode on anti-capitalists". Be like Ayn Rand.
>>2869740>id rather live in a period of history with more genocide and violence than even todayyes we know you prefer slavery luddite
>>2869744Seriously anon, if you can't admit to your own beliefs but are actually afraid to tell them to an anonymous stranger online, you are living a lie. Why be ashamed? You think capitalism is progress, and all anti-capitalism is bad.
>>2869749this uygha would've supported the confederate slavers over the bourgeois north LMAO
>>2869750The Confederacy were the side of free trade and the North were protectionist. It was an intra-bourgeois battle, which you said was regressive, but now you choose sides yourself? Pure contradiction. But let's be honest - you are an edgelord who doesn't really believe in anything and just uses "Marx" as a get out of jail trick, like Haz Al-Din who says the most reactionary nonsense but hides behind his idols. Why do you prefer the North if they disrupted free trade? Explain.
>>2869755LMAOOO i knew you sucked slaver cock
>It was an intra-bourgeois battleslavers were in charge of the south like slavers were in charge of the roman empire. the confederates represented the slave mode of production which is straight up economically inferior to the wage labor mode of production. when the slavers were defeated they went to the Slave society of Brazil.
>The Confederacy were the side of free trade and the North were protectionistwhat does this non-sequitur have to do with anything? you really assume free trade=reactionary and protectionism=progressive? you assume wrong, try reading marx sometime
>If a country nowadays accepts Free Trade, it will certainly not do so to please the socialists. It will do so because Free trade has become a necessity for the industrial capitalists. But if it should reject Free Trade and stick to Protection, in order to cheat the socialists out of the expected social catastrophe, that will not hurt the prospects of socialism in the least. Protection is a plan for artificially manufacturing manufacturers, and therefore also a plan for artificially manufacturing wage laborers. You cannot breed the one without breeding the other.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1888/free-trade/ >>2869762>the confederates represented the slave mode of production No they didn't. They were capitalist. Marx writes on this:
<The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm<Direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc. Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that gave the colonies their value; it is the colonies that created world trade, and it is world trade that is the precondition of large-scale industry.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm<Where the capitalist outlook prevails, as on American plantations, this entire surplus-value is regarded as profithttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch47.htmThe American plantations thus possess a "capitalist outlook".
>straight up economically inferior to the wage labor mode of productionHow? After the cotton gin was invented in 1793 the demand for slave labour went up! Slavery was stagnating before then, and it had its peak just before the US Civil War. If there was no intervention, slavery could have continued into the 20th century. There is no more efficiency in a wage labourer than a slave, based in procuring profit, otherwise the self-interested slavers would have transitioned already.
>you really assume free trade=reactionary and protectionism=progressive?No, I am showing your hypocrisy. If capitalism is aided by free trade, then why support protectionism? You have no actual beliefs, this is the point. You don't know what to think. My position is that slavery and genocide are always bad - your position is that they are good, so long as they increase profits. You are a capitalist ideologue.
>>2869777>There is no more efficiency in a wage labourer than a slaveBwahahah you're a fucking moron. Slaves can't even use advanced technology or tools. Not engaging in this bad faith slavery apologia any longer. Try understanding marx sometime
>>2869782>Slaves can't even use advanced technology or toolsWhy? Are slaves somehow cognitively inferior? If children in the British factories could use tools, why not adult men in America?
>Not engagingOkay, so I shan't expect any more of your support for genocide based in the illusions of "civilisation".
>>2869787I'm glad you're still 'not engaging'. Very mature.
>>2869782>>2869784Slave can use tools (and they do in Qatar for example) but there is way less of an incentive for the owner to provide such tools since the labor is free compared to the capitalist boss who can save costs by increasing productivity which makes slave labor less efficient in the end
>>2869792>Qatar for examplewage labor. indian laborers there send back lots of remittances to Kerala india, you can see it in the data. slave societies exist in places like Libya and Africa, places with little or no technology
>>2869792Skilled slave labour existed in American Planations and in the ancient world as well. The cotton gin is the most elementary example:
<Those who have researched slave prices have discovered that a large number of additional variables went into the determination of the price of any particular slave at a particular point in time. A premium was paid if the slave was an artisan – particularly a blacksmith (+55%), a carpenter (+45%), a cook (+20%), or possessed other domestic skills (+15%). On the other hand, a slave's price was discounted if the person was known to be a runaway (-60%), was crippled (-60%), had a vice such as drinking (-50%), or was physically impaired (-30%). In general, the discount for each of the slaves was slightly larger for females than for males.https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.phpSo this was all accounted for in the same way as a wage worker.
>the capitalist boss who can save costs by increasing productivity which makes slave labor less efficient in the endBut slave labour did not die a natural death in either the British Empire or the United States, but was intervened upon by force. Continental empires such as Belgium and Germany preserved slavery into the 20th century from their African colonies. There is no depressive logic inherent in slavery, which is also why Marx nowhere suggests that slavery abolishes itself by class warfare between slaves and masters. This is why slavery has to be viewed morally, not economically.
>>2869807>But slave labour did not die a natural death in either the British Empire or the United States, but was intervened upon by forceexactly why its inherently historically progressive for capitalism to supplant slavery and feudalism all across the globe, slavery was never going to abolish itself, it had to be abolished by a superior mode of production
>>2869808Slavery is not contradictory with capitalism as a mode of productuon. To Marx, capitalism begins in the 16th century, alongside the international trade of African slaves:
<the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htmThe first African slave in England arrived in 1555, and the first legally sanctioned African slave in Virginia was given in 1640 - with the first British efforts to abolish slavery being around 1830. This is largely before the industrial revolution, or mass proletarianisation. The enclosure of the commons in England, alongside the genocide of native Scots, continued into the 18th century. So, capitalism is not neatly defined as 9-5 wage labour, but a process of enslavement to capital, itself. The abstraction "capitalism" often denies historical reality by its simplicity. Where does capitalism begin and end?
>inherently historically progressive You have to define "progress". Is WW2 more progressive than WW1?
>the slavery apologist thinks I'll reply
marx o algo
Lib grindset^
Marx was pro slavery too because he said society goes thru stages and one of them is slavery.
I am very smart and understand Marxism!
>thread is filled with genocide apologia
okay this is alienating me from communism.
>>2869833they are sharty fags making bad faith arguments
>>2869717>>2869719anon one : Right, so genociding the Native Americans was good because it helped capitalism, and this is your worldview? If clearing out Palestine was proven to be good for capitalism, you would have to support that as well, right?
anon 2: That is Marx's worldview. In order for socialism to even be a possibility capitalism must conquer the whole globe.
defending genocide…
>>2869837I hope so because this doesnt look good at all
>>2869833You were never a communist to begin with
>>2869838wait till this guy realizes Marx considers manifest destiny historically progressive
This thread is full of edgelords bastardising Marx to get off from the attention like voyeuristic BDSM subs getting a rise out of being noticed naked and feeding off from the moral outrage.
One palpable thing about this thread is how nobody ever explains what “progressive” as an adjective actually entails beyond aesthetics or some ideological notion of history. If you can’t question Marx’s own ideas (and he was wrong about England being the seat for world revolution) then you’re professing an ideology, not a science.
And like most edgelords, they are very selective on which issue to moralfag on.
After all, how many would be willing to defend the Generalplan Ost, the Holocaust, mass immigration to Europe, the 1989 revolutions, the GWOT, the war on drugs, operation Condor, the Guatemalan genocide, USA’s Monroe doctrine, Trump’s current intervention in LatAm, and the post-Ottoman Turkish nation-building project (which involved the Armenian genocide and the displacement of millions of Greeks and Kurds from Anatolia) as “historically progressive”?
>>2870069>Akshually, the legalisation of prostitution, sex tourism & pornography production at all ages above 9 is progressive since it allows the emancipation of untapped people into the labor market and thus expand the proletarian effort to more stratas of society. Read Engels who fucked French prosties for 5000 francs, and amoral edgelord Marx who never thought man-girl love is bad.The edgelords, prolly
>>2870071Well, Stalin did knock up some 13 yo jailbait during the February revolution, the USSR didn’t have an AoC, modern Russia allows simple possession of ‘p much like Belarus which is ruled by Sovjok Lukashenko, and amateur ‘p production was allowed in the USSR much like most communist countries since they only cracked down on commercial productions.
>>2870072>Hurr durr every long text must be AICope and seethe uygha
>>2870069>nobody ever explains what “progressive” as an adjective actually entails beyond aesthetics or some ideological notion of historyIncreased economic intercourse, all around development, advances in tech, science, the arts, society better able to control man and nature. That's why communism is supposed to the start of real history, because it's the first time man controls the products of his own hands, instead of the other way around. Is that a fair description of what lefties mean by progressive, or is it an "ideological notion of history"?
Speaking of genocide, the communists seem to assume all the natives will be dead by the time they take over. As we speak mining and logging companies send out mercs to rape and kill the natives, also environmentalist journalists as a bonus. Where will the commies get the raw materials? Gotta crack a few eggs to make breakfast oh well.
I wonder which of Israel/Palestine Engels would call völkerabfälle.
>>2870127>Increased economic intercourse, all around development, advances in tech, science, the arts, society better able to control man and nature. That's why communism is supposed to the start of real history, because it's the first time man controls the products of his own hands, instead of the other way around. Is that a fair description of what lefties mean by progressive, or is it an "ideological notion of history"?Ideological notion of history, obviously, since it’s not actual history, but rather a set of presumptions used to prop up an ideological metanarrative with confirmation bias being used down the line to present the selective evidence used to “prove” this ideological metanarrative.
What you’re doing is Whig history but with a red flag LOL
I should also mention that what you describe is pretty much happening under the status quo worldwide. You might as well stop being a leftist and be a neoliberal capitalist. Like, what the fuck are you yapping about with Muh communizm Jude Marx when you could support the same thing as America by being another pastiche of Habermas.
So if you support historical progress, why be a Marxist at all?
>>2870127Also, wtf is ‘economic intercourse’? Are you implying that we will have sex with the economy?
Once again, leftoids are proven to be ideologues no different than the average evangicuck who thinks supporting goysrael will usher in the end times where space Jesus will suck every evangicuck into outer space known as “heaven”.
If the best leftists can come up with is this thread, then perhaps Hitler was right about Marx being some stupid fat Jew bullshitting the goyim with his crap.
>>2870179I don't support anything. I'm a cow on a farm talking with other cows. So you think that's a good Marxist definition of progressive, but you don't believe it, so what is progressive then? Or you just don't like the word? I'm not sure what the argument is. I'm the one poking Marxists about how they support capitalism and genocide because it's progressive.
Some people seem to think socialist parties do developmentalism better than neoliberals. Seems to be the case sometimes, other times it's a boondoggle. Neoliberal growth is lower than the Keyenesian era but you could argue we can't go back and it died for a reason so I dunno. Not sure about all these grand plans given resource depletion.
>>2870181You reminded me of how MAGA and the media laughed when Biden said we need more economic intercourse. Everyone is 12.
>>2870187>I'm the one poking Marxists about how they support capitalism and genocide because it's progressive.Thought you were one of ‘em, but I was doing the same as you tbh.
As for “progressive”? I think it’s a meaningless buzzword that means nothing since the term already carries a moral judgement regardless of Marx’s intentions, and I’m against it since far from treating history in a dispassionate way it just leads to liberal whigghism of the kind you see ITT. As if human history is one of continual progress and every single collapse must be part of said progress.
That’s why I cringe at “historically progressive”: It’s inherently moralistic and vacuous, on the top of being applicable to any event.
Plus, I think history should be engaged on as it exists, not based on some ideological precepts as Marxists typically do.
Would Marx have supported TND?
Unique IPs: 17