Happy Birthday, Karl Marx!

On May 5th, 1818, Karl Marx, hero of the international proletatiat, was born. His revolution of Socialist theory reverberates throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of Capitalism, development of the theory of Scientific Socialism, and advancements on dialectics to become Dialectical Materialism, have all played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.

He didn't always rock his famous beard, when he was younger he was clean shaven!

Some significant works:

Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

The Civil War in France

Wage Labor & Capital

Wages, Price, and Profit

Critique of the Gotha Programme

Manifesto of the Communist Party (along with Engels)

The Poverty of Philosophy

And, of course, Capital Vol I-III

Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don't know where to start? Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!

Lefty Memes @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Happy Birthday, Karl Marx!

308 111

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

245 comments

Is it possible to deescalate just a bit. Not that I'm blaming you for the tone, I should drop terms like "gaslighting" as well. That's just poisoning the discussion and you seem perfectly good faith and as long as im not overly frustrating you I'd hope not to derail this because I am learning more about your perspective.
Agreement doesn't happen overnight for me but I think about things and it can come in time.
I am not "gaslighting" you about "authoritarianism." The fact that "authoritarianism" is such a common talking point abused by western media
We've both acknowledged that Western Media abuses the definition.
I asked you to forget about their definition, remember. We can define it separate from their abuse of the term.
They also abuse the term "communism", "marxism", "socialism", "capitalism". I don't accept your argument that corporate absurdism can dismantle our language word by word.
The word "authoritarian" can mean something.
If I gave you an internal Chinese poll showing the same or better results, you'd be crying foul for it being biased.
I was very clear that bias can be accounted for through proper methodology.
If you linked a poll with bad methodology you're correct I'd have an issue with that, but id have to actually read the methodology..
Im genuinely confused why you'd even think to accuse me of that? It's just you and me having a conversation here. How is attacking my character helpful to the learning process?
Fascism is Capitalism in decay, not a unique economic system.
That doesn't seem fully historically accurate. In the March on Rome Mussolini was enabled in greater part due to the Monarchy just handing him power.
Fascism in Germany grew in conditions where capitalism hadn't been successful enough to consider to have decayed because reparations were so severe that they couldn't even rebuild and the economy underwent hyperinflation through the compounding effects of that and the great depression.
The Working Class should be in power becayse they are the majority of people, and the ones creating value, not because they are intrinsically kinder.
Do you actually mean that?
Surely what you mean to say is that class shouldn't exist?
But as long as effort is needed to make stuff, the people putting in said effort should be the ones having the say.
There are more freedoms than just economic. Disabled people for example do not cleanly fit into labor and so would not adequately be represented by the working class.
It is only in the imperfect moment where the working class should rule because currently capital rules and from that relativist view it is progress.
Since the workers have no say over how their own production is used, and they are unentitled to excess profits derived by their labor, it is an American Revolution "no taxation without representation" level simple.
As long as workers are forced to pay their "excess value" tax to the employer and have no say on the direction of the company, in the minds of the founding fathers they are no different than slaves.
It's the same logic that rebels and creates a liberal democracy out of a monarchy. Donald Trump actually seems to have a lot of parallels to mad King George.
- Fair, I'll tone it down a bit. I get frustrated when disagreements are painted as toxic manipulation on my part, as it avoids engaging with the points at hand and paints me as a deliberately malicious person. Since you made it clear that that isn't your intent, I'll move on from that point.
  I fully understand what you're trying to say about "authoritarianism." My point is that the idea of "excess control" is a matter of perspective. If, as we showed in China, the speech of businesses is heavily curtailed, then this is an act of authority. It is, however, a fully justified use of authority in my opinion, as a member of the working class, but someone like Elon Musk would not be a fan and would consider it authoritarian. Trying to treat the existence of excess as an objective measure that can be applied from all perspectives equally isn't really connected to reality, the concepts of a metaphysical "good" and "evil" like in DnD don't actually exist. What exists are systems and people, and the Chinese system has very high approval rates.
  I think we are past the point of useful conversation on bias, and we aren't really going to see eye to eye. It's impossible to be unbiased, so when a source with an opposing bias admits positives, I tend to place more weight there than a positive vias espousing positives.
  Mussolini was handed power because the ruling class needed to protect itself, same with the Nazis in Germany. When the system decays and is under strain, it can either offer concessions like in the US under FDR, or it has to exert brutal violence to do so. Often, both are applied. I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds, specifically the first chapter, as its about fascism.
  As for class, the way to getting rid of it is via comprehensively resolving the contradictions in society in favor of the working class, until there is a fully publicly owned and planned global economy run democratically to fulfill the needs of all, without commodity production. Class should be abolished, but we can't abolish it at the stroke of a pen, it's a historical action, not a legalistic one. If you want to learn more about Communist theory, I can make some recommendations. Of course, those unable to work or have hampered abilities should be taken care of with unique protections.
  
  I fully understand what you're trying to say about "authoritarianism." My point is that the idea of "excess control" is a matter of perspective.
  That's true. I think the perspective I've been trying to put forward is one of civil liberties.
  I get that 99 times out of 100 your typical block here with liberals is that "private property rights" is inherent to these liberties and we could never agree beyond it but that's actually not me.
  I think you can separate capitalism from human rights, I don't see these in conflict.
  I get frustrated when disagreements are painted as toxic manipulation on my part, as it avoids engaging with the points at hand and paints me as a deliberately malicious person.
  I do too, I apologize.
  I feel like this medium itself is inherently manipulative and with the upvote downvote system I'm always subconsciously aware I could be downvoted and you're subconsciously aware of it and it just defaults the human mind into this adversarial role where we're trying to win over each other, even if I don't mean to.
  Just trying to step back and notice it is also part of what i mean when I say we can account for our biases.
  What exists are systems and people, and the Chinese system has very high approval rates.
  We looked at the data, but as long as I currently hold the belief that the media isn't free to criticize the government, I have to be suspicious that approval rates can be manufactured consent just like western media can do.
  One of the laws I mentioned before said if a civilian wants to write a book about a high ranking party member they need the party's permission.
  There is preventing capitalists from paying for a bunch of pro capitalist publications because they have more money than you, and then there's an individual writing a pro capitalist book because they really believe in it.
  Ideally, in a world free of the capitalist manipulation of the west, the lone individual writing a pro capitalist book shouldn't be a problem. Its not going to be popular because its not being artificially promoted.
  But they're being hit by the laws anyway because the government deems it against socialist values.
  This worries me because we're going to need truths that go against socialist values in the transition to the classless society.
  I think we are past the point of useful conversation on bias, and we aren't really going to see eye to eye. It's impossible to be unbiased, so when a source with an opposing bias admits positives, I tend to place more weight there than a positive vias espousing positives.
  That its impossible to be unbiased we do actually agree on.
  I think some people though make ideology core to their thinking. A MAGA person who sees the world through that lens is just full on brainwashed for example.
  Obviously no one's going to be perfect about it, me included, but I attempt at least to adhere to science, empirical data and the scientific method as my core as much as I can, and actively challenge my beliefs and try to let ideology flow downstream of reality as much as possible.
  That's why I place my priority on the methodology and data. I'm trying to apply a method where bias isn't assumed outright but can be revealed through scrutiny.
  The inherent instability of late stage capitalism forces me as an ally of truth and freedom of thought to fight against fascism and any propaganda no matter how apolotical i would prefer to be. I am radically anti advertisement for example. It appears to me as though over 95% of information that exists is intended to manipulate you into spending money you didn't intend to spend.
  But I would be an irritating ally in that I would naturally seek to question and understand.
  I have essentially given up on electoralism as a solution for all of life's problems, the problem is I was not prepared to become so pessimistic (realistic) so quick and so I have nothing to replace it with and a lot of questions.
  I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds, specifically the first chapter, as its about fascism.
  I will do that
  Class should be abolished, but we can't abolish it at the stroke of a pen, it's a historical action, not a legalistic one.
  I didn't suggest it would be. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page that working class ownership wasn't the "ideal" but simply a necessity due to power structures.
  You mentioned this has to happen on a global stage.
  I dont mean to drag this on forever but what would be the problems with attempting the ultimate classless system in say a majority of continents, or in a sphere of influence? Invasion by neighboring capitalist states?
  
  I think a big point to keep in mind is that both Capitalist and Socialist countries propagandize, but Capitalist countries tend to have much lower support rates despite having a more sophisticated propaganda apparatus. "Brainwashing" doesn't exist, people's opinions most closely coincide with what they believe genuinely benefits them. For more on that concept, Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing."
  I also don't know what you mean by "truth going against Socialist values." Dogmatism isn't a Socialist value, if something Socialists believe goes against truth, then the Socialist value is to correct course. This is baked-into Marxism from the outset, it's Marx's entire modus operandi via Dialectical Materialism.
  As for the fact that Communism must be global, no worries! I much prefer to discuss Marxist theory and practice anyways. For starters, you're absolutely on the right track, remaining Capitalist countries would see lowering rates of profit over time as they monopolize their own resources, and then would seek the resources and potential customers of other countries. The system has this baked-in, leading to war.
  There's also the notion of class. A classless society, truly, requires everyone in a system to have equal ownership over all. Either there is no interaction with the Capitalist bloc whatsoever, in which case war will happen, or there is some degree of trade, in which case the production of commodities for trade will persist and thus classes will continue. It would still be Socialist, but not fully classless, and thus contradictions would persist and it would be the job of the proletariat to resolve them until the commodity form can be abolished altogether.
  "Trade" still exists in Communism, kind of, just not the kind of commodity exchange likely to happen with Capitalist bloc countries. See what the PRC looks like as an example, in order to participate in the world economy, it has to engage in its own degree of private ownership and commodity production. It's still Socialist, but certainly isn't the future state of Communism.
  
  (I'm sorry I keep pestering you with questions, I just keep typing)
  "Brainwashing" doesn't exist, people's opinions most closely coincide with what they believe genuinely benefits them. For more on that concept, Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing."
  I can read that, but I assumed it was understood I wasn't talking about literal brainwashing but simply the fact that propaganda is effective.
  I think the fact we're in agreement the system needs to go regardless of opinion polls so this is sort of a moot point.
  I also don't know what you mean by "truth going against Socialist values." Dogmatism isn't a Socialist value, if something Socialists believe goes against truth, then the Socialist value is to correct course. This is baked-into Marxism from the outset, it's Marx's entire modus operandi via Dialectical Materialism.
  I mean that interactions between humans can not fully be understood through ideological motivations alone, but there are more basic ones like human greed, laziness, or incompetence that can find their way into even the most good faith movements.
  Looking at the ideology of Jesus and then looking at the Catholic Church tells me ideology alone is not enough, but that accountability and anti corruption measures need to be formalized as legal processes into the state as long as it's a seat of power.
  The ideology itself may promote Dialectical Materialism, but does the bureaucracy/system have mechanisms to produce accountability?
  If moderators meant to inspect would be scientific publications or books grow bored, lazy, incompetant or corrupt, they might end up censoring something that is needed for the next transition and according to the principles of Dialectical Materialism could become a new conflict (between state Socialist bureaucrats and developing classless communists) that requires a new theory to progress beyond.
  I'm not intending to unfairly critique socialism, corruption and conflict is a problem for all existent governments and states.
  In Western democracies "freedom of the press" is intended to be a counterbalance against this type of tyranny of the government.
  While Communist democracies may have recognized the susceptibility of the "free press" to being bought up by capitalists and turned into a propaganda arm, and so has put limitations on it, it's also removed the check against tyranny of the government. I'm not sure what its replaced it with?
  If people are intended to vote out corrupt governments, that relationship breaks down if the corrupt government has sole control over the narratives. You'd be relying on the government to accurately report on its own corruption to be properly informed and that seems problematic, and could potentially be a sticking point on the further transition.
  For starters, you're absolutely on the right track, remaining Capitalist countries would see lowering rates of profit over time as they monopolize their own resources, and then would seek the resources and potential customers of other countries. The system has this baked-in, leading to war.
  Is this just inevitable then? That seems like it's the trajectory of capitalism anyway.
  If so, all a Socialist country would have to do is hold on long enough for late stage capitalism to come to roost. Then they're outproducing the capitalists, and if the capitalists decide to wage a war its too late. They don't have the production.
  The US is burning all its bridges, tarrifing itself for no explainable reason, and making enemies out of allies while China, they are leading the green revolution and are capable of acknowledging climate change.
  China is investing in the correct places for the future. I don't even know if the US could win a war against them today, let alone tomorrow.
  Also are there any people who've addressed the unique need for nuclear dearmament in these late term stages? That seems to be a complicated problem.
  
  The brainwashing bit was a "if you want to learn more," not critical to my point.
  I think when you focus too much on ideology, you are missing the core reasons why humans behave the way they do, chiefly material conditions. Human actions are more based on their surroundings than any innate human "greed," same with ideology. I think, ultimately, you are taking too much of an "ideas-focused" view of human history, which Materialists would reject. I suggest you read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. The Mode of Production is dominant over ideological concerns. Ideology may reinforce the Mode of Production, but ideas are formed through experiencing the real world, not random phantasms beamed to your head.
  In Western democracies “freedom of the press” is intended to be a counterbalance against this type of tyranny of the government.
  No offense, but this is wrong. The intention is to give wealthy Capitalists dictatorial control over media, and it is working as intended. The justification for the working class is to "protect against government tyranny," but the government in Capitalism is also subservient to Capitalists. They aren't opposed, the system is working as intended.
  While Communist democracies may have recognized the susceptibility of the “free press” to being bought up by capitalists and turned into a propaganda arm, and so has put limitations on it, it’s also removed the check against tyranny of the government. I’m not sure what its replaced it with?
  Socialist systems are more comprehensively democratic than Capitalist ones. The "free press" in Capitalism is Capitalist press, bought by Capitalists. State press in Capitalism is still Capitalist press, as the State is bought by Capitalists. There are no checks. Press in Socialist countries may have controls, but this also protects against rampant misinformation, such as the "Lab Leak" nonsense or COVID denialism.
  As far as "voting out corruption," easier to do in Socialism than Capitalism, where corruption is the rule. Socialist countries must keep the mandate of the people, or else face unrest and instabilitt, the government has to do its best to uphold that.
  Is this just inevitable then? That seems like it’s the trajectory of capitalism anyway.
  Not quite. Nuclear war, Capitalism winning war, climate change, and more could stop it. Even then, it must still be overthrown, is isn't a won game. Trajectory is on our side, but we cannot be complacent.
  so, all a Socialist country would have to do is hold on long enough for late stage capitalism to come to roost. Then they’re outproducing the capitalists, and if the capitalists decide to wage a war its too late. They don’t have the production.
  See China's strategy, and why it has focused on developing the Global South, as a means to both gain customers and ween itself off of needing US investment. They learned from what led to the collapse of the USSR. The US offshored its production, relying on Imperialism, and now this is weakening as more countries pivot away from it.
  The US is burning all its bridges, tarrifing itself for no explainable reason, and making enemies out of allies while China, they are leading the green revolution and are capable of acknowledging climate change.
  Spot-on. The US is flailing to save itself from the trap it willingly walked into.
  China is investing in the correct places for the future. I don’t even know if the US could win a war against them today, let alone tomorrow.
  Probably not today, unless it went nuclear. Then everyone would lose. China's long-term plan is because of its Socialist system.
  Also are there any people who’ve addressed the unique need for nuclear dearmament in these late term stages? That seems to be a complicated problem.
  Impossible without demolishing Imperialism, as the primary contradiction in the world today, and possibly impossible until the erasure of borders into one global system, IMO.

245 comments