I shall graciously explain Marxism

Post Reply New Topic

Within a few days of the communist manifesto being printed violent revolutions started. So it's obviously a call to violence.

I think marx identified with his pyramid a leadership structure, but he painted it as oppression.

The person who started a business and owns a factory is giving the workers jobs, not exploiting them. Working conditions are good these days so that can't be used as a reason anymore to hate business owners.
If the workers were left to themselves without that entrepreneur they'd be unemployed and angry about that.

Thing is many colleges in the UK and US openly admit that their social science courses are Marxist. Marxism seems to be about pitting one group against the other....and then claiming innocence when violence is the result.

^ Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto and considered it in its historical context?

Workers were being exploited.

Much of Marx's writing represent some economist making broad, overarching predictions about how economic factors would shape society. He's rambly and non-specific and often incorrect and lots of criticisms are valid, but that doesn't mean every criticism is.

All sorts of different strains of socialism have had influence from him, whether directly or indirectly.

But it's only Leninists (and all the various offshoots) that have formed murderous, often inept dictatorships.

Because generally speaking, in the liberal/democratic world, Marxist (and in general, socialist) theory has developed in quite a different direction from Leninism. Some are fabian socialists who see social democracy as a path towards socialism. Others are radicals who view violent revolution as unlikely to lead to anything but a Leninist dictatorship, not that they agree on how to accomplish that or even what that ultimately should look like.

Keep in mind, Marxist thinkers tend to bicker a lot on details, with a tendency towards long diatribes criticizing each other's positions. Other socialists too, that influence exists beyond people who'd count as Marxists.

Lenin's understanding of Marxism and the ability to project his message upon it is important to recognize. Think of it like how religious fanatics or other radical ideologues hijack more bland writings to further their goals.

Lenin had specific goals for a specific society, a society that was already brutal and corrupt as f**k. Some of his goals might have had some positive intention (like prohibition in a society with a long history of substantial alcohol abuse), but eventually the USSR adopted the old Imperial habit of using alcohol abuse as a means of social control.

But, the barbarism and corruption that his ideological offspring cause stems, at least in part, from the society that produced him and his understanding of Marx.

Terms like classical Marxism, Orthodox Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, revisionist Marxism, etc. all refer to differing interpretations and understandings of Marx's writings. They often contradict each other on points because the splits are the result of critiques and the disagreements that follow.

Personally I lump Trotskyism with Leninism, not based on so much on his claimed ideology but by his willingness to involve himself so deeply with implementing Leninist ideas.

A slight exaggeration. Marx was a member of the bourgeois (the very class he he was writing about) and foresaw a coming class conflict as the way he saw you it, you can't exploit people forever but he wasn't putting necessarily himself forward as the instigator.

In addition his writing pertained to the class conflict in western Europe. He never foresaw that his writing would be adopted by peasants in Russia and China or in the developing world. Marx infact had little concern over colonial empires exploiting subject people as he openly believed in white supremacy. If he was alive today he would be amazed that his most vocal supporters were among people he personally despised.

If I write some observations immediately before a revolution breaks out, did I cause the revolution, or was I commenting on the current situation and why it was the way it was?

Are you suggesting the left would cancel Marx?
They'd cancel Proudhon too.

-- Donald J. Trump, Jan 7th, 2021

In 1993 he described it as "the great act of genocide of the modern period", but while it was ongoing he was a staunch defender of the Khmer Rouge, claiming that the accusations of atrocities were just US propaganda.


Serbians killing Kosovans? Fine, the Serbians don't know any better!
Americans defending Kosovans? They shouldn't do that, they are the world's strongest power and capable of change!

There is some use to that sort of argument, but Chomsky doesn't use it appropriately - he displays double standards. Not justified "there's no point criticising authoritarians" or "the actions of smaller countries have smaller impacts", actual double standards.

Yes, actually, I did. Perhaps you should try the same. I already provided one link for you, which itself linked out to three interviews with Chomsky.

Here are two more - softball interviews conducted by one of Chomsky's closest collaborators, which make no attempt to challenge him, and can safely be said to accurately reflect Chomsky's actual views:

"Chomsky: Advanced US Weaponry in Ukraine Is Sustaining Battlefield Stalemate" (December 2022)
Select quotes:
"If the war goes on, Ukraine will be the primary victim. Advanced U.S. weapons may sustain a battlefield stalemate as Russia pours in more troops and equipment, but how much can Ukrainian society tolerate now that Russia, after many months, has turned to the U.S.-U.K. style of war, directly attacking infrastructure, energy, communications, anything that allows the society to function?"

"Are there possibilities for diplomacy? The U.S. and the U.K., the two traditional warrior states, are still insisting that the war must be fought to severely weaken Russia, hence no negotiations, but even in their inner circles there is some softening in this regard. Right now, the positions of the two adversaries seem irreconcilable, having predictably hardened as hostilities escalate[...] Do possibilities remain? The only way to find out is to facilitate efforts to try. At the very least we can remove obstacles to diplomacy that the U.S. has placed[...] There are many pitfalls and dangers, but it’s hard to see what other course can save Ukraine, and far beyond, from catastrophe."

"One new twist is that the U.S. is planning to send Patriot anti-missile systems to Ukraine. Whether they work seems to be an open question. They require a substantial military cohort, I think about 80 people, which will presumably include American trainers. Work or not, they’re a natural target for Russian attack, even during installation. What then?

Any escalation is very dangerous in itself and can only impede whatever fading chances there may be for diplomatic efforts to fend off worse catastrophe."

Noam Chomsky: US Military Escalation Against Russia Would Have No Victors

"The options that remain after the invasion are grim. The least bad is support for the diplomatic options that still exist, in the hope of reaching an outcome not too far from what was very likely achievable a few days ago: Austrian-style neutralization of Ukraine, some version of Minsk II federalism within. Much harder to reach now. And — necessarily — with an escape hatch for Putin, or outcomes will be still more dire for Ukraine and everyone else, perhaps almost unimaginably so. Very remote from justice. But when has justice prevailed in international affairs? Is it necessary to review the appalling record once again?

Like it or not, the choices are now reduced to an ugly outcome that rewards rather than punishes Putin for the act of aggression — or the strong possibility of terminal war. It may feel satisfying to drive the bear into a corner from which it will lash out in desperation — as it can. Hardly wise.

Meanwhile, we should do anything we can to provide meaningful support for those valiantly defending their homeland against cruel aggressors, for those escaping the horrors, and for the thousands of courageous Russians publicly opposing the crime of their state at great personal risk, a lesson to all of us."

That last quote is the only thing from Chomsky I can find that even remotely supports defending Ukraine, but has to be interpreted within the context.

The central issue of the Ukraine war is that Russia isn't interested in negotiation. It is only interested in subjugation. Chomsky pretends that negotiation has not been tried by the West, which is just wrong, and that Russia is interested in negotiation, which it isn't.

No, judging from posters plastered over university campuses here, Marx is still popular with undergraduate students. and aren't universities supposed to be breeding grounds for marxists

Trump did more than make observations.

This time around he's mostly struck to observations, and thankfully not many people showed up beside MTG and the guy giving away whistles.

Yeah, but that's like how Jesus would be treated like a smelly, radical hippy by most Christians in person, even though he's very popular with Christians.

Christians would cancel Jesus if they met him.
Leftists would cancel Marx if they met him.

Are we thinking of the same Mr Christ that the republicans have on their mantle peice?

Marx isn't some innocent academic that got misunderstood he said the bourgeois should be swept away, he said their existence is incompatible with society.

The last sentence of the communist manifesto calls for a forcible overthrow of the bourgeois.

It was acted upon in June 1848 in France.
Only six months after it was written and a short time after it was distributed in France.

They were not misunderstanding it.

Marx them goes on to say that a despotic government is necessary to end ownership. So stalin etc. Were merely listening to Marx and enacting what he said.

So these social science courses are inspired by someone who openly advocated a tyrannical government.

a ) it would have happened regardless
b) you and Lenin agree on how to interpret the concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat, but somehow many Marxists don't share your opinion.

Real Jesus, not Aryan Jesus.

In the communist manifesto Marx literally says it needs a despotic government (his actual words)