Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 19:31:09 No. 664323
Why do capitalists downplay the revolutionary aspects of people like MLK instead of downplaying their significance outright? Getting people interested in MLK increases the chance of them coming across his radical tendencies, doesn't it?
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 19:49:57 No. 664335
>>661979 >intelligent good looking communist with great novel ideas I hold no feelings toward Haz but none of this is true
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 19:57:11 No. 664343
>>664336 Why not try to sweep it under the rug/keep silent about it like the Tuskegee experiments or Gulf of Tonkin incident?
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 20:11:40 No. 664363
>>664343 Because Eventually just like we found out about those two things from declassifed documents and they can no longer control the narrative of their lies. It is much easier for the Capitalist to deradicalize movements to make them fit into the capitalist's world view, and being allowed to scrub any of that nasty baggage of radicalism.
Plus they can use it as a way to be like "Oh we are totally not racist anymore we passed civil rights" and people would eat that shit up despite the fact its not true and their is still massive amounts of racism in this country we call the USA.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 21:24:30 No. 664486
China
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 14:27:47 No. 665587
Can someone refute this? There's a Marxism thread on lainchan but I'm too brainlet to answer it.
https://lainchan.org/hum/res/54709.html#q54727 "Marxism goes against human nature. Its thereby destined to fail in its advertised goal.
It does however serve as a excellent gun for capitalists. Promise equality and let the gullible pay for their fellow man. This way everyone is equally poor and nobody can threaten your position by gaining power amassing wealth. Of course you yourself never lose your money because the regulations only hit where you don't sit."
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 14:36:55 No. 665596
>>665587 1. what the fuck is "human nature"? How marxism goes against it?
2. equality is not the goal
3. how's getting rid of capitalists gonna help them?
4. who's amassing wealth and gaining power if "everyone is poor"?
Typical burger brained non arguments from people that don't know what marxism is.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 14:37:54 No. 665599
>>665587 why do you feel the need to "refute" one of the shittiest "argument", and one of the most common retarded rightwing strawman you can find.
just call him a retard with absolutely no clue what marxism is thanks to his burgerbrain
i mean how can you take seriously someone who spout such retarded shit
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 14:53:04 No. 665611
>>665587 lainchan has been psyop'd by fascists for years i think, i remember a fbi.gov full of some barely crypto's who'd post "aesthetic" pictures and shit and they'd talk about the ideological potential of lainchan and its accelerationism/futurism and shit like that, this was around 2017
also that thread is just embarrassing
Anonymous 2021-12-30 (Thu) 08:21:14 No. 666583
>>296564 Is it true the US always outproduced the USSR in most commodities throughout its history? What evidence do we have against this?
Anonymous 2021-12-30 (Thu) 18:40:30 No. 667085
>>666583 none, but ofc they have, they had a massive headstart in industry + didnt have to rebuild their country + could sell their shit to all europe. The impressive thing is that ussr managed to almost catch up
Anonymous 2021-12-31 (Fri) 21:12:38 No. 668355
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/world/europe/16kiev.html Why did the Soviet Union hush discussion of the Holodomor?
How do you explain a Soviet historian saying he refused to falsify his findings about the famine as man-made, instead releasing his findings?
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 19:47:16 No. 669572
How many pages of history/theory is it advisable to read a day? Like for information retention?
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 19:54:33 No. 669579
>>669572 As much as possible to begin with lad to just familiarise yourself with the texts
Once you've skimmed the surface you can go back over it properly doing annotations etc
Anonymous 2022-01-03 (Mon) 14:26:02 No. 672011
>>665587 >Marxism goes against human nature. It thereby destined to fail in its advertised goal. Pseuds invent something not related to Marxism, or made-up stuff not related to Marxism, hence communism, they disprove it and say "see, doesn't work".
You need to prove is anti-human.
Anti-human how? I read Marx on a daily basis, am I becoming a xenomorph? a Yautja? a Draenarian?
Some moron replied "because capital is not natural". Let me add some olive oil to it, there, it is natural.
Or simply:
>nature creates Human >Human develops Marxism >somehow Marxism is not natural Anonymous 2022-01-06 (Thu) 14:45:46 No. 677789
Is gold valuable in a Marxist sense, given that work is embodied in it through mining and processing? Or is the labor not socially necessary and the price of gold is exaggerated? Haven't Marx and co. talked about gold?
Anonymous 2022-01-07 (Fri) 02:57:39 No. 679062
Can I blame my non-existent self-esteem on capitalism?
Anonymous 2022-01-08 (Sat) 01:39:59 No. 680891
>>680359 identity politics delayed the end of legal discrimination against gays for at least 20 years.
Anonymous 2022-01-08 (Sat) 03:04:18 No. 681029
>>680891 Can you prove that the Idpol specifically delayed it? If the elite are against gay marriage why would they eventually legalize it?
Anonymous 2022-01-08 (Sat) 03:06:20 No. 681033
>>680359 most faggots don't care about getting married, they just want bosses to not fire them (which they can still do just for being a fag)
Socialism and Co-ops Anonymous 2022-01-09 (Sun) 08:20:08 No. 682972
(Inspired by the Capitalism vs. Socialism Soho Forum Debate 2019, but not at all needed to answer the question)assume this is possible, as a prerequisite of my question] could enable workers to continue making successful co-ops, like some do already under liberal capitalism, thereby achieving the socialist goal without it being enforced by a state.actual socialism within a parent capitalist nation? If not, why?
Anonymous 2022-01-10 (Mon) 01:12:05 No. 684305
How can some of you defend socialist authoritarianism? What is the point if you defeat capitalism/capitalist if you're going into have another form of red elite ruling over you?
Anonymous 2022-01-10 (Mon) 01:16:20 No. 684311
How is feminism not idpol?
Anonymous 2022-01-10 (Mon) 01:16:41 No. 684312
>>682600 Read State and Revolution and you will see that you are pretty dead on.
Anonymous 2022-01-10 (Mon) 01:17:43 No. 684313
>>684305 The economy is oriented towards the needs of people rather than a capitalist class. Those with a privileged position in a socialist society do not sap nearly as many resources for themselves as the actual bourgeoisie. They get a nice house, car, but not a working man's salary millions of times over – besides avoiding the infrastructure of capitalism, being advertising, planned obsolescence, addiction-creating industries, the like.
Anonymous 2022-01-10 (Mon) 01:31:29 No. 684347
>>682600 Its not a bourgeoise vanguard. There are definitely flaws in soviet style organization.
>>684305 That is undesirable. The alternative seems to be, suffer under the capitalist elite authoritarianism, or see quality of life improve massively under this red authoritarianism you assume is an inevitability.
>>684311 Feminism means many things. Feminism can be idpol if it is a fight for women rights that ignores class society and its role in subjugating women and perpetuating women's oppression.
Anonymous 2022-01-10 (Mon) 01:36:21 No. 684352
>>684311 It is idpol, from start to finish.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 08:22:01 No. 686507
Is believing that OnlyFans users are petty-bourgeois philistines and Kulak-tier the legitimate Marxist-Leninist position?
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 23:43:12 No. 687436
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around Dugin and Limonovs' National Bolshevik Party.
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 23:55:53 No. 687457
>>686507 No. Vulgar marxism.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 02:45:21 No. 687717
>>680359 >The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are–or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously–preaching pure and unadulterated socialism – Milton Friedman, ''The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits".
There may be occasions where CEO's express their honest opinions, such as when Chick-fil-A's chief executive officer came out against gay marriage in 2012 (lol), but at the end of the day the
corporations always follow the profit motive as their superseding ethos, even if it implies going against the principles of the very people working there. This is materialism 101, and how marxism accurately understands the nature of capital and the capitalist.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 04:03:30 No. 687798
>>682972 Hakim did a great video on this subject, you may want to watch it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMn4KBEA_6c tl;dr
Not really since they still operate within market economy that requires maximum exploitation to effectively reinvest those profits in business. Those businesses that don't do that or do that not as effectively fail at some point and are absorbed by others.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 04:52:03 No. 687840
>>687717 I'm know that businesses follow profit above everything, And that there are conservative brands of identity politics done for profit like the freedom phone. The messages that are broadcasted through pop star idols are clearly on the side of liberal themes like egalitarianism, homosexuality and pansexuality/transgenderism. This isn't meaningful changes in their favor, but it changes the public opinion on stuff like gay marriage and eventually sets up meaningful changes like the legalization of gay marriage for example. The elite do social engineering to get their public on their side or to accept what they want us to accept for whatever reason it benefits them (for example homosexuality for depopulation). I think it's pretty obvious that the dominant ideology is liberalism (at least in the USA), and the media and businesses for the majority will reflect that. Am i wrong?
sage 2022-01-12 (Wed) 05:01:13 No. 687851
>>684305 Socialist "authoritarianism" where it has existed has been a counterweight to a historical right-wing authoritarianism. I may differ from other anons here in that I don't defend it, but I offer critical support.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 05:17:03 No. 687861
>>687851 Don't you mean a counterweight to capitalist authoritarianism, because some leaders of socialist countries could be described as conservative like Stalin.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 15:09:37 No. 688328
What is the diamat explanation for the Troubles? Irish businessmen wanting northern Ireland's resources and pushing out British competition? Or was it more idealistic?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 12:14:09 No. 689573
No man has any natural authority over his fellow men."
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 12:52:05 No. 689607
Are the masses inherently revolutionary?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 13:14:28 No. 689617
>>689573 Rousseau is a moralist of the "society bad" kind. He do not hold property in high esteem, however his analysis stops at :
>one day someone drew a line in the sand and said "this is mine" and everything turned to shit, because nobody said "don't believe that guy" back then So i wouldn't call him a materialist.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 22:45:43 No. 691613
Is Christopher Hitchens' account of the 1979 Ba'ath coup accurate? Was it really that bad?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 22:54:30 No. 691622
>>691361 Auguste Comte, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. Famous sociologists.
Unique IPs: 39