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?
>so then, where did this "europe bad, pre-colonial societies good" nu left come from? is it not reactionary?
By applying the Marxist method. Something that is technically progressive in the 19th century for spreading capitalist relations of production becomes reactionary in later centuries for preserving them, preventing development of productive forces, and preventing the emergence of socialism. Just as the bourgeoisie are progressive force against feudalism but a reactionary one against the proletariat. Dialectics and such.
>>2868397I don't gove a fuck. I would measure the bumps on his skull and then cave it in if need be.
>>2868397>marx loved … capitalismStopped reading.
>but ohh my Marx!
Try me. Thay's a silly book, this is I will cave your skull or put slugs in it. What did Marx or Lenin day on that?
>>2868397>so then, where did this "europe bad, pre-colonial societies good" nu left come from?It came from marxist-leninism its interpetration of imperialism and its entaglement in anti-colonial movements during the cold war.
You see the original marxist-leninist plan was to use the post-WW1 turmoil to bum-rush germany and set off the REAL proleterian revolution in central and western europe but once that failed they devolved into the third worldist cope that ackchoally the real proletariat were the cambodian rice farmers and not those damn labor aristocrats working in english or german factories
>>2868406not surprised since it seems you haven't read a page of theory in your life
>>2868402He would approve of this
>>2868397Everything sort of turns into its opposite. So, colonialism conquered much of Asia and Africa, but in doing so the Europeans created many of the conditions for the destruction of colonialism. The atomic bomb was also first used by the U.S. and no one else had one, but an atomic bomb is so powerful that it created enormous incentives for other states to develop them which ended up checking U.S. power.
A lot of anti-colonial revolutionaries were inspired by ideas that came from Europe. Ho Chi Minh studied in Paris when Vietnam was under French rule. People like him studied not only the French Revolution but also Marxism, which was based partially on French socialism. But like I said everything turns into its opposite, so anti-colonialism can also turn into its opposite and become reactionary in the sense of rejecting everything Western or European like some Islamists do, ways of doing science, "trust Allah he knows everything, we don't do things that way because that's Western and we're not Western."
>>2868425
They would have even better living standards under communism.
Western communists communist orgs are just useless and third-worldists have no actual class solidarity and are just bitter and resentful nationalists.
>>2868406stinky rotten bait
>>2868397>so then, where did this "europe bad, pre-colonial societies good" nu left come from? is it not reactionary?It comes from the fact 90% of non-white socialists are literally just ethnonationalists that only care about socialism insofar as they can try to use it advance the societal, geopolitical and economic position of themselves and their own specific ethnic group.
Hasn't read Capital award
>>2868413I understand the Marxist dynamics of societal progression from tribal to feudal to capitalist and then to communist states and I don’t disagree, but to act like therefore Marx “loved” capitalism just because he viewed it as a stepping stone is insane. Almost as insane as defending the abhorrent filth that is colonialism.
>>2868472>abhorrent filth that is colonialismLol only liberals care which group of people owns what land under a capitalist mode of production.
>>2868481>Cites burger academicist libcuck https://jacobin.com/2026/05/central-planning-soviet-union-socialism>Socialism Has a Future. Central Planning Doesn’t.>Interview with Vivek ChibberKILL. YOURSELF.
He was right and China has taken the mantle of upholding Wetsern secular humanism, rationalism, progressivism etc while the West regresses into stanning for wokism and reactionarism - both two sides of the same mysticism irrational coin.
>>2868397While the points made against this have already been made, I will just repeat the point I've made time and time again.
If Marx himself, actually existed today, 98% of what pass themselves as Marxists in the West, would absolutely despise him and call him a reactionary or Strasserite.
>>2868554yes I'm aware Chibber is a market soycalist
>>2868397Have you actually read Marx about primitive accumulation, French rule in Algeria or the russian Mir?
There are no particular steps towards communism. Was Song China further to communism than Trump's USA? No. Capitalism doesn't negate the possibility of communism and allows us to share a similar position in the production process, therefor a similar consciousness, globally. But even that isn't that true due to imperial core / periphery and nation-states divisions of the proletariat.
So let me get this straight. According to Leftypol:
- Praising colonialism (even though no normal person would want to be subjected to that) is le good
- Saying that adult-child love is wholesome is le bad
Yh, this place sucks balls, especially considering how y’all would tear your eyes out if some leftist made a materialist case on how abolishing the age of majority is progressive in the e Marxian sense LOL
>>2868603Tbh, Marx wasn’t an ideologue, so it is possible for him to change ideas much like Lenin did. But it’s also possible for Marx to pull a Dawkins had he been alive and be such an embarrassment that even his devotees start to question his ideas.
>>2868397>"europe bad, pre-colonial societies good" nu left come from? Lenins idea of national liberation and realpolitik of USSR fighting for global hegemony and needing allies in 3rd world.
It depend on the colonialism. ironically most european settler-colonial states would be considered historically progressive as they brought superior modes of production and technological advencement in spite of the massacres of natives.
On the other hand extraction colonies like in most of sub-saharan Africa and Asia would not, they massively halted the developement of the area and created a morbid political situation that made stability impossible.
>>2868618>Praising colonialismMarxist-leninists would argue that it was historically progressive like slave society was in the past. This doesnt mean it is still historically progressive as these former feudal/primitive societies have capitalism now.
>>2868629Appart from communism, there is no superior mode of production.
What was historically progressive about Spain and Portugal destroying native americans modes of productinos that could sustain some of the largests settelments in the world at that time and replacing it with the extractive enconmienda that killed millions?
What was historically progressive about the Thirteen Colonies, that had to rely on shipping milions of raided africans that had to work in unsustainable tobacco crops that sterilized some of the most fertile soils on earth?
>>2868425
the standard of living hasn't been high since the 60s
this thread is making me into a anti communist
>>2868397>where did this "europe bad, pre-colonial societies good" nu left come from?twitter
>>2868720That's more of a post-new left thing, unrironic maoist-third worldism and other western-leftism that developped after the failures of the new-left and 1968.
>you have to agree with Marx on ebreything
>>2868660>What was historically progressive about Spain and Portugal destroying native americans modes of productinos that could sustain some of the largests settelments in the world at that time and replacing it with the extractive enconmienda that killed millions?>What was historically progressive about the Thirteen Colonies, that had to rely on shipping milions of raided africans that had to work in unsustainable tobacco crops that sterilized some of the most fertile soils on earth?They brought capitalism, which is superior to the modes of production that came before it and without which socialism would be impossible. If you actually understood dialectical and historical materialism, you'd know this.
>>2869103Very deterministic way to view history. By that logic, American imperialism in Latin America is justified as the financialisation of America and the exportation of said model to LatAm is technically progressive and a requisite for socialism.
Same goes for the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the liberalisation of the Chinese, North Korean and Vietnamese economies.
>>2869099If Marx was wrong about the first proletarian revolt starting in industrialised England over agrarian tsarist Russia, then what else was he wrong about? If Marxism is to be a science, then treating Marx as gospel is akin to an ideology as opposed to a science.
But tbf, Marx thinking his shit was science is par of the course for mediocre Jews since every Jewish pseud treats their pet projects as a science, be it Reich, Hirschfield, Freud, etc…
No wonder then that the only significant Jewish intellectual during the enlightenment was Spinoza, who was also prominent even before said enlightenment.
>>2869169This, considering with the abysmal quality of today’s Hasbara slop, makes me question le high Jewish autism score meme, especially since Israel is a third world country barely better than its neighbours. Like, even Israel’s richest neighbourhoods aren’t exceptional compared to Jordanian and Lebanese ones.
>>2869169>American imperialism in Latin America is justified as the financialisation of America and the exportation of said model to LatAm 'financialisation' is not a mode of production. america and latam have never experienced feudalism so any time america bullied latam it was regressive
>agrarian tsarist Russialenins literal first written work was about how tsarist russia was no longer feudal and was instead capitalist. you dont have a clue what you're talking about, try to engage with the material for once
>>2869175>'financialisation' is not a mode of production.Marx would consider baristas working under Starbucks proletarian too, so your reading is really ideological
>lenins literal first written work was about how tsarist russia was no longer feudal and was instead capitalist. you dont have a clue what you're talking about, try to engage with the material for once“Lenin said” isn’t an argument. Stop being an ideologue and read actual history. No wonder communism is seen as an ideological doctrine when ideological purists like you exist.
Uh oh someones lack of knowledge got exposed and they're too embarrassed to admit it
>>2868397Does anyone have the edit of this painting where she's blue haired with a nosering and MAGA cap guys are running away lol
>>2869190Nah, I’m just not an ideologue. Russia was still largely undeveloped and agrarian. Like, all the former serfs largely continued their serf-like lives to pay off their debts.
I guess they had barter, so that counts as capitalist ergo industrialised, which is what the anon above infers.
>>2869175>any time murica bullied poor whittle latam it was le regressive n shieeetLatinx detected LOL. Can’t be more obvious that brown hands typed that shit on Android Lmao
Sorry not sorry, USA imperialism in LatAm is progressive as it does away with the regressive 1950s industrial mode of production in favor of the 2020s American FIRE mode of production. Read chapter 5 of Capital you dunce
>>2869196Painfully obvious false flag
>>2869195France was investing in Russian railroads and industries since the late 1870s, the capitalist transformation had thoroughly been rooted by 1917
Tbh, Nazi Germany was a progressive force by Marxist standards since it did away with the Jewish mode of financial parasitism in favor of the industrial progressive mode of production and exported said mode to Eastern Europe, making the mythical Generalplan Ost historically progressive as it would have developed the lands previously squatted on by unproductive mediocre Slavs. Hitler could have displaced the regressive Orthobro ML mode of production in favor of the progressive national socialist mode of production if it wasn’t for the fact that:
- Russians were and are so fucking retarded that they gave up on progress because they would rather live in fear under the turret of commissars instead of accepting liberation under European progressive colonialism under Hitler’s leadership
- Hitler wasn’t such an idealist belligerent moron that he didn’t think of the clever idea of trying to form a crusade together with the west against the regressive ML regime occupying Eastern Europe instead.
Now, Eastern Europe would still be a regressive region had it not been for the fall of ML-tardism. Putin is merely an obstacle, but once he is replaced with Yeltsin 2.0 under NATO veto like in Bosnia, only then can Russia progress. And that will require German settling and the displacement of Russians like in WW2, the crusades against the national proletariat headed by the axis against the bourgeois capitalist cosmopolitans headed by the Allies.
>>2869202You’re just a sour little incel boy envious over the fact that Latinx folx are starting to appreciating America instead of dwelling in your regressive Platonic cave of resentment and self-victimisation. There’s a reason the pink tide is getting demolished in LatAm, and it doesn’t have to do with the CIA.
But tbf, CIA revolutions are historically progressive like the color revolutions, so maybe LatAm does need American imperialism which is historically progressive, with no leftist being able to explain why that isn’t the case beyond “read this insignificant rando wordcel whose thesis I can’t even summarise”
>>2869203Still doesn’t change the fact that Russia was always a regressive arctic shithole.
Inb4
>Russia has nukes and won some race war in the 1940s n shieetSo does India and Pakistan, but I’ve yet to see why they aren’t paragons of progress when Russia is still a shithole full of white Jewish niggers. Sure they’ve got CP and goes which is nice, but eh still an arctic haitorically regressive shithole:
https://xcancel.com/SmertKatsapam/status/2054191150567981172 Why are you chimping out? Take a chill pill moron
>>2869216No, I won’t rest until normies and leftists realise the historically progressive role national socialism played in fighting against the historically regressive Stalinist mode of production, before capitalists decided to support the regressive communists against progressive national socialists.
>>2869203>russian empire wasn't semifeudal in 1917 because france invested in railroads the majority of the russian empire was still peasants with no running water or electricity. just because the area around moscow and petrograd was more like western europe in its level of development says nothing about the rest of the very big russian empire
>>2869229so? the mensheviks were clearly wrong that russia needed to go through a period of bourgeoise rule so capitalism could be established, it had already arrived, however underdeveloped it was. Perfectly in line with marx
>>2869232Lenin disagreed which is why he instituted the nep
>>2869235This. Dengism is just the NEP applied ad infinitum
>>2869235Mensheviks wanted porky rule so they collaborated with the cadets to put kerensky in charge of the pre-parliament, nep/Deng is economic policy of porky subordination
>>2869242As if porkies aren’t ruling China, as the bourgeois has been rehabilitated into the CCP under Jiang Zemin much like the French aristocrats already became deeply embedded into the elites following the French Revolution.
Fact is, both the USA and China are porky states, the only difference being that China has a better-regulated financial market and bigger industrial sector than the USA, although China helps out America all the time where it matters, as shown by how American industry is sustained via Chinese/SK/Jap industrial export to the USA.
>>2869244>how American industry is sustained via Chinese/SK/Jap industrial export to the USA.Why doesn't china have a commercial jet engine industry like the west?
>>2869169>By that logic, American imperialism in Latin America is justified as the financialisation of America and the exportation of said model to LatAm is technically progressive and a requisite for socialism.The capitalism of the 19th Century was completely different from the financial capitalism of today. Industrial capitalism built factories and the other means of production that are necessary for socialism; today's financial capitalism destroys these because literal scams are more profitable. Imperialism destroys any attempt by LatAm to even form its own independent capitalist institutions, never mind socialism. It is an obstacle to progress in the Americas and is thus reactionary.
>Same goes for the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the breakup of YugoslaviaThe socialist mode of production in those countries was superior to that of capitalism. It was an objective historical regression that in some countries like Albania and the former Yugoslavia, was more of a restoration of
feudalism than capitalism.
>the liberalisation of the Chinese, North Korean and Vietnamese economies.Was basically the only thing they could have done in that time. They could either have opened up and reformed on their own terms or ended up being opened up and reformed
a la Russia.
>>2869245>Why doesn't china have a commercial jet engine industry like the west?They're working on it. The ACAE CJ-1000 is intended to be the engine that powers the COMAC C919 and will debut around 2030.
>>2868472You can only read so much of Marxists agreeing with Smith/Ricardo/Locke and social liberalism before you just call them spicy Whigs. The only people who praise the bourgeoisie more than Marxists are those ancaps who think organs should be sold on the free market.
Example: This interview with the Marxist James Vaughn (vidrel). I have notes for all his bourgeois admiration but it'd be pretty long so here's jut one:
1:11:40 - Vaughn claims bourgeois society was great until the industrial revolution happened and it came into contradiction with itself (just don't ask its victims they were awful reactionaries). Without that we could just be good liberals because they were right.
Pre colonial societies were developing on their own towards capitalism and later communism a lot of if not most of the time, just at their own pace. The Ming dynasty and the Inca immediately come to mind.
>>2869297in order to develop capitalism the primitive accumulation must be violent. Capitalism in Europe was kick-started by the spanish looting latam silver and spending it on german mercenary armies in the endless wars that needed to happen for weapon technology to rapidly develop. Ming was too isolationist and centralized for that and the inca had too few people in the mountains that weren't gonna invade anybody
>>2869384>>2869344Then I oppose dialectical pr historical materialism whatever your ideology is, that simple
>>2869425>rejecting marxismwell at least you're honest liberal
>people here justifying colonialism including the spanish genocidal one.
woaw
>>2869427I would prefer to keep humans and their civilizations alive instead of sacrificing them to moloch in the name of progress, if that makes me a liberal it’ll be a badgeI wear with pride, death to imperialism
>>2869438>civilizationsNationalism is cringe. let's leave that garbage in the 17th century where it belongs, amalgamation of nations is the only way forward
>>2869446I literally said civilization because nationalism is narrow and genocidal, I don’t like genocide on principle, call me a fag, I’ve made my peace with it
>>2869461>I don’t like genocide on principleGenocides have been going on since the dawn of time, only marxism can get us to a point where they no longer happen
>>2869465I can’t get behind them being necessary or progressive
>>2869466Is changing the world something you believe in or is just interpreting it fulfilling enough
>>2869469If I have to kill every last man woman and child of any ethnic group I’m content with watching
>genocide apologia.
>>2869478nobodies asking you to kill anybody lol. my question was more if you could turn back time to another mode of production would you? tribal pre society wasn't all cracked up as it's made to be
>>2869484No I wouldn’t, I also don’t condone colonialism under any form or in any circumstance, I don’t care if that’s a contradiction
>>2869484I'm not an anprim, but I think the position that civilization = good is a faulty assumption. We're on the road to destroying the world in less than a few centuries from the industrial revolution. I'd say living for 1000s of years in a hospitable environment is better than whatever minor perks of civilization. But I don't believe their is any way to turn back the clock, the only way is through now.
>>2869505we want the voluntary integration of nations while at the same time recognizing the sovereign right of small nations to secede if they want
>The way to the common goal-complete equality, the closest association and tile eventual amalgamation of all nations—obviously runs along different routes in each concrete case, as, let us say, the way to a paint in the centre of this page runs left from one edge and right, from the opposite edge. If a Social-Democrat from a great, oppressing, annexing nation, while advocating the amalgamation of nations in general, were for one moment to forget that "his" Nicholas II, "his" Wilhelm, George, Poincare, etc., also stand for amalgamation with small nations (by means of annexations)—Nicholas II for "amalgamation" with Galicia, Wilhelm II for "amalgamation" with Belgium, etc.—such a Social-Democrat would he a ridiculous doctrinaire in theory and an abettor of imperialism in practice.
<On the other hand, a Social-Democrat from a small nation must emphasise in his agitation the second word of our general formula: "voluntary integration" of nations. He may, without failing in his duties as an internationalist, he in favour of both the political independence of his nation and its integration with the neighboring state of X, Y, Z, etc. But in all cases he must fight against small-nation narrow-mindedness, seclusion and isolation, consider the whole and the general, subordinate the particular to the general interest.
<People who have not gone into the question thoroughly think that it is "contradictory" for the Social-Democrats of oppressor nations to insist on the "freedom to secede", while Social-Democrats of oppressed nations insist on the "freedom to integrate". However, a little reflection will show that there is not, and cannot be, any other road to internationalism and the amalgamation of nations, any other road from the given situation to this goal.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jul/x01.htm >>2869510So how are you going to achieve that? We had integration of nations in the past (Austria-Hungary, Soviet Union) and they chose to dissolve. How are you going to convince them to go back?
>>2869512>So how are you going to achieve that? by getting communists in power and not nationalists? also the soviet union dissolved against its member states will
>>2869514So you have essentially only one option then: to commit cultural genocide and destroy all distinctions between nations.
>well if I'm in power it'll JUST WORKUntil it doesn't. Until there's an economic collapse. Until there's a war.
>>2869517>What is left is capitalism’s world-historical tendency, to break down national barriers, obliterate national distinctions, and to assimilate nations—a tendency which manifests itself more and more powerfully with every passing decade, and is one of the greatest driving forces transforming capitalism into socialism.
<Whoever does not recognise and champion the equality of nations and languages, and does not fight against all national oppression or inequality, is not a Marxist; he is not even a democrat. That is beyond doubt. But it is also beyond doubt that the pseudo-Marxist who heaps abuse upon a Marxist of another nation for being an “assimilator” is simply a nationalist philistine. 'cultural genocide' isn't real, you're just a nationalist like the Jewish Bundists Lenin exposes here
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/crnq/3.htm >>2869523Well how did that work in the 20th century? Lenin wrote that in 1913. Would you like to look at a map of Europe from 1913 and today?
>>2869525>Well how did that work in the 20th century? Terribly, because the integration of nations only works when it's democratic and equal, so half of Europe getting de-colonialized like poland was cool and good
>>2869529>Since we have bad to touch upon the Austrian programme on the national question, we must reassert a truth which is often distorted by the Bundists. At the Brünn Congress a pure programme of “cultural-national autonomy” was presented. This was the programme of the South-Slav Social Democrats, § 2 of which reads: “Every nation living in Austria, irrespective of the territory occupied by its members, constitutes an autonomous group which manages all its national (language and cultural) affairs quite independently.” This programme was supported, not only by Kristan but by the influential Ellenbogen. But it was withdrawn; not a single vote was cast for it. A territorialist programme was adopted, i. e., one that did not create any national groups “irrespective of the territory occupied by the members of the nation”.
>Clause 3 of the adopted programme reads: “The self governing regions of one and the same nation shall jointly form a nationally united association, which shall manage its national affairs on an absolutely autonomous basis” (cf. Prosveshcheniye, 1913, No. 4, p. 28[8]). Clearly, this compromise programme is wrong too.how does it feel to be wrong all the time
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/crnq/4.htm >>2869531oh you meant something else. its late
>>2869532This is what happens when you rely on copy-pasting communist writers from 100 years ago instead of general historical knowledge from an aggregate of sources combined with your original thought.
<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. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation. On their heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a theatre. It begins with the revolt of the Netherlands from Spain, assumes giant dimensions in England’s Anti-Jacobin War, and is still going on in the opium wars against China, &c.
<The different momenta of primitive accumulation distribute themselves now, more or less in chronological order, particularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and England. In England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a systematical combination, embracing the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system. These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the colonial system. But, they all employ the power of the State, the concentrated and organised force of society, to hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power.
<Of the Christian colonial system, W. Howitt, a man who makes a speciality of Christianity, says:
<“The barbarities and desperate outrages of the so-called Christian race, throughout every region of the world, and upon every people they have been able to subdue, are not to be paralleled by those of any other race, however fierce, however untaught, and however reckless of mercy and of shame, in any age of the earth.” [4]
<The history of the colonial administration of Holland — and Holland was the head capitalistic nation of the 17th century —
<“is one of the most extraordinary relations of treachery, bribery, massacre, and meanness” [5]
<Nothing is more characteristic than their system of stealing men, to get slaves for Java. The men stealers were trained for this purpose. The thief, the interpreter, and the seller, were the chief agents in this trade, native princes the chief sellers. The young people stolen, were thrown into the secret dungeons of Celebes, until they were ready for sending to the slave-ships. An official report says:
<“This one town of Macassar, e.g., is full of secret prisons, one more horrible than the other, crammed with unfortunates, victims of greed and tyranny fettered in chains, forcibly torn from their families.”
<To secure Malacca, the Dutch corrupted the Portuguese governor. He let them into the town in 1641. They hurried at once to his house and assassinated him, to “abstain” from the payment of £21,875, the price of his treason. Wherever they set foot, devastation and depopulation followed. Banjuwangi, a province of Java, in 1750 numbered over 80,000 inhabitants, in 1811 only 18,000. Sweet commerce!
I don't think he "approved"
The primitive accumulation of 19th century colonialism kickstarted capitalism and put the final nail in the coffin of feudalism which was already declining since the black plague. However the continued domination of Africa, Asia, and the Americas by Euro-Amerikan imperialism after WW2 is what stifles the development of these regions of the world and has thus become a regressive and reactionary force. Thus necessitating third world liberation and the destruction of first world bourgeois classes.
Also I know the /pol/ imports here hate it when people say this. For all their great foundational contributions. Marx and Engels where lowkey German chauvinists and that did unfortunately color some of their analysis. They predicted the proletariat of Germany, France, and Britain would rise up first and implement socialism first and dismissed the Russians as backwards and reactionary. They could not conceive that the Russians, let alone the Chinese would go on to create the most advanced and powerful socialist countries on the planet. The latter was a product of national liberation struggle against the Japanese and to an extent the struggle against the European powers that invaded China during the Qing Dynasty.
Also most people who aren't misanthropic fascists who see pictures of Congolese slaves with severed hands and testimonies of Indigenous Canadian children being abused in residential schools will understandably tend to find those atrocities as rather objectionable.
>>2869587They also changed their views on the potential of more "backwards" societies later in life. Marxists have refined their understanding of the world for coming up on two centuries. The same refinement occurred when its founders were still alive and participates in it.
>Can the Russian obshchina, a form, albeit heavily eroded, of the primeval communal ownership of the land, pass directly into the higher, communist form of communal ownership? Or must it first go through the same process of dissolution that marks the West’s historical development? Today there is only one possible answer: If the Russian revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that the two complement each other, then Russia’s peasant communal landownership may serve as the point of departure for a communist development. This does not sound much like a German chauvinist looking down on a pathetic mass of reactionary Slavs. It even posits that Russia could "signal" a revolution in the rest of Europe.
>>2869492>I'm not an anprim, but I think the position that civilization = good is a faulty assumption. Sent from my iphone (2026 version)
>>2869505If it means total nationalist death then yes.
>>2869616I said I'm not anprim so it isn't a gotcha.
>Whoah, civilization is bad? But what about playing Clash of Clans on your iphone?Your argument is very funny in this instance because it validates my point:
<. I'd say living for 1000s of years in a hospitable environment is better than whatever minor perks of civilization.At least should made the "muh healthcare" argument but instead you gave a perfect example of a technology that doesn't really improve your quality of life that much.
>Whoah now you have the internet and can send messages to anonymous strangers around the world while being disconnected from your local community! Amazing.
But I already said too I don't believe in RETVRNing to pre-industrial or pre-agriculture society.
>>2869626Also lol at repurposing the classic anti-communism "sent from my iphone" shtick
>>2869492Communists are in general too uncritical of civilization which is nothing but the awful history of class struggle, and particularly technology. Not counting the pathologogic urge to infinetely build the mop until earth looks like Coruscant some mentally ill comrades have, the solution tends to be naively simplistic when something is problematic, it's "we will nationalize/collectivize it and everyrhing will be solved"
>>2869260>Vaughn claims bourgeois society was great until the industrial revolution happened and it came into contradiction with itself.Notice how no specific dates are given. It's a theoretical claim, not historical. The bourgeois revolution in England led to even greater oppression of the Irish, who were largely sent to the colonies to act as indentured servants, alongside the negroes (who were made chattle slaves from 1640 onwards). The English bourgeoisie began their political ascent in the development of the House of Commons from the 14th century onwards, and with supremacy after the Civil War (1649), the parliament simply acted as the locus of political representation. For example, in Cromwell's "Instrument of Government" (1653), he limits voting rights for parliament to those who have £200:
<XVIII. That all and every person and persons seised or possessed to his own use, of any estate, real or personal, to the value of 200 pounds, and not within the aforesaid exceptions, shall be capable to elect members to serve in Parliament for counties.https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.p.boulton/his211instrument1653.htmThis is the equivalent of £40,000 today. It was only with the Reform Act (1832) that voting rights were expanded, and which led to the Chartist movement, heralding from the original myth of Magna Carta (1215), the true radical document of English law. From 1689, after the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights only represented members of parliament as well, including freedom of expression. We can see that the mythology of Magna Carta, from the time of Coke's "Petition of Right" (1628), is the ideal of English liberty, universalised by Winstanley's various manifestos for the Diggers (1649-51), reminiscent of John Ball during the Peasant Rebellion (1381).
Marx only regarded the bourgeoisie as revolutionary from the period of 1650-1830, where interest-bearing capital was overtaken by productive capital investment, beginning in the mercantilist revolt against usury, leading to the industrial revolution. The bourgeoisie are reactionary afterwards due to the failure to confront the crisis of overproduction, as a transition into socialism. Here, Marx sees Sismondi overtake Ricardo, and the workers overtake the bourgeoisie, with the Chartist movement. Even by 1852, Marx sees the Chartists as the forefront of the revolution on the continent and in the world:
<We now come to the Chartists, the politically active portion of the British working class […] The carrying of Universal Suffrage in England would, therefore, be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honored with that name on the Continent. Its inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/08/25.htmIt was only after the failure of the Chartists that Marx set up the First International (1864-76). Marx's optimism was also had by the US Civil War (1865) which he saw as a victory, as opposed to the War of Independence (1776):
<As in the 18th century, the American war of independence sounded the tocsin for the European middle class, so that in the 19th century, the American Civil War sounded it for the European working class. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htmMarx of course personally wrote to Abraham Lincoln. The point of this digression is to show that the Marxian view of the bourgeoisie is in their transformation of the mode and means of production to industrial capitalism, after which there is the demand for socialism. Upon the idea of civil society, Marx was entirely unimpressed with its bourgeois configuration, as we may read (1843-67):
<Above all, we note the fact that the so-called rights of man, the droits de l’homme as distinct from the droits du citoyen, are nothing but the rights of a member of civil society – i.e., the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community. […] It is a question of the liberty of man as an isolated monad, withdrawn into himself.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/<In place of the pompous catalogue of the “inalienable rights of man” comes the modest Magna Charta of a legally limited working-day, which shall make clear “when the time which the worker sells is ended, and when his own begins.”https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htmSo Vaughn lacks a "Marxist" perspective.
>>2869633This site isn't composed of communists, it's nazis larping all the way down
>>2869587>Marx and Engels where lowkey German chauvinists and that did unfortunately color some of their analysis. They predicted the proletariat of Germany, France, and Britain would rise up first and implement socialism first and dismissed the Russians as backwards and reactionary
<In my view, the most momentous thing happening in the world today is the slave movement — on the one hand, in America, started by the death of Brown*, and in Russia, on the other. You will have read that the aristocracy in Russia literally threw themselves into constitutional agitation and that two or three members of leading families have already found their way to Siberia. At the same time, Alexander has displeased the peasants, for the recent manifesto declares outright that, with emancipation, ‘the Communistic principle’ must be abandoned. Thus, a ‘social’ movement has been started both in the West and in the East. Together with the impending downbreak in Central Europe, this promises great things.Shut up faggot you have no clue what you're talking about
https://wikirouge.net/texts/en/Letter_to_Friedrich_Engels,_after_January_11,_1860 >>2869633Degrowthers are reactionary and will be shot on sight
>>2869651Yes - Marx knew he had a great following in Russia, as he writes (1873):
<An excellent Russian translation of Das Kapital appeared in the spring of 1872. The edition of 3,000 copies is already nearly exhausted. As early as 1871, N. Sieber, Professor of Political Economy in the University of Kiev, in his work David Ricardo’s Theory of Value and of Capital, referred to my theory of value, of money and of capital, as in its fundamentals a necessary sequel to the teaching of Smith and Ricardo. That which astonishes the Western European in the reading of this excellent work, is the author’s consistent and firm grasp of the purely theoretical position.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htmHe also appears to endorse a transition from communal property in quasi-feudal Russia to communist relations of property (1881):
<My answer is that, thanks to the unique combination of circumstances in Russia, the rural commune, which is still established on a national scale, may gradually shake off its primitive characteristics and directly develop as an element of collective production on a national scale. Precisely because it is contemporaneous with capitalist production, the rural commune may appropriate all its positive achievements without undergoing its [terrible] frightful vicissitudes. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/draft-1.htmHe also isolates "primitive accumilation" to Western Europe (1881):
<The ‘historical inevitability’ of this course is therefore expressly restricted to the countries of Western Europe. […] In the Western case, then, one form of private property is transformed into another form of private property. In the case of the Russian peasants, however, their communal property would have to be transformed into private property.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/reply.htmAs far as it concerns Western Europe, however, Marx was a determinist, falsely imagining that Britain would have a revolution which would then affect the continent (1867):
<The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future […] In England the process of social disintegration is palpable. When it has reached a certain point, it must react on the Continent. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htmSo Marx was incorrect about this line of causation.
>>2869657
Go head and email your interest in participating as a test dummy for Musk's brain implants. If you vlog it you could probably even make a small amount of youtube revenue, there's literally no reason for you not to, anon!
Keep us posted.
>>2869657
>Humanity is destined for the stars
I actually wish it was possible to launch all you sci-fi fags into the void right now.
>>2869659>>2869660>>2869661>Seething misanthropesLet's turn LatAm into a giant open air Mud Hut society where koreans and Japanese can come throw peanuts at your feet and watch the mud hut dwellers get genocided over and over again by Dengue and Malaria
>>2869678 So true comrade, that's why it is much superior to live in a giant shopping mall 24/7 in space or on Mars.
>>2869680Oh no, my lobster is too buttery.. my steak is too juicy…
>>2869685>You're saying you think it's superior to live your life completely indoors in an artificial environment for the rest of your life? holy strawman outta nowhere. is this the best mind the mud hut dwellers have to offer? of course it is tho, they live in mud huts and eat acorn jelly instead of reading
>>2869687>holy strawman outta nowhere.I literally said the same thing in the post you replied to.
>>2869680> So true comrade, that's why it is much superior to live in a giant shopping mall 24/7 in space or on Mars.>>2869683>Oh no, my lobster is too buttery.. my steak is too juicy…>>2869683 >>2869678>Ha. Misanthropes.>I enjoy ethnic cleansingSo much for civilisation, eh?
>>2869689>I enjoy ethnic cleansingyet another strawman holy crap. if the mud hut dwellers refuse the technology that cures dengue and malaria thats their responsibility not advanced societies
>>2869705>Aren't Palestinians 'mud hut dwellers' that are simply being civilised by a more advanced power? lol no. mud hut dwellers represent pre-tribal society that consumes exactly what it produces, no surplus. pretty much every single society on planet earth including the Palestinians is a Bourgeois society, and inter-bourgeois society conflicts are regressive. You cannot compare the Palestinians to the Sentinelese Islanders who have no idea what advanced society looks like. yknow marx talks about all this shit in his works if you would care to engage with the material (but i know you wont ever)
>>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: 65