Why is communism/marxism so hard to understand? What is the difference between the 400+ types of marxism?
Why is communism/marxism so hard to understand? What is the difference between the 400+ types of marxism?
It's not hard. Just have to learn it piece by piece. The large number of tendencies are the result of historical divides and disagreements on tactics more than anything.
I've read SOME stuff on it, but it doesn't anywhere answer any questions
Basically it just boils down to a relatively few permutations
Central planning or worker ownership
if worker ownership, markets or not
Democracy or authoritarianism
Do you hate technology, jack off over technology, or appreciate technology as a normal person
Do you believe in social freedom or 'socially right but economically left lmao'
Is nationalism cancerous or neccesary
Should captialist nations be invaded by force to establish socialism
Do you blame first worlders for everything or not
Everyone agrees this is a great idea but because of historical circumstance, geography, tactical disagreements, consumer culture, government or no government, ideology, nationalism, intellectual trends, ecological changes and everything else. Everyone agrees with the goal the problem is finding the right way to get the there and that is what 80% of theory is about. A generous estimate. The remaining 20% is diagnosing the problems with capitalism and criticizing other people's solutions to it.
What does Worker ownership even mean?
but
Well?
also ignore shitpost flag
1. Yes?
2. For no reason? Everyone would be pressured to work for the commune since childhood, they would also understand that the wellbeing of all depends on the fact that everyone works for the commune and lastly they would enjoy it, most of the work could be either automated or eliminated (telemarketing for example, would be completely useless under communism) therefore work hours would be less and jobs in general would be something less alienating than the jobs we now commonly have.
3. Marx flip-flopped on this once so it's a topic of active discussion within Marxism, en.wikipedia.org
Why though? does communism not work with homogenous communities?
It isn't and the difference is who revised Marx the right way.
If there isn't an even mix of browns, whites, yellows, blacks, and vaginas it's not a socialism I want to be part of.
Why can't whites seize the means of production on their own?
Who are whites?
Europeans**
So slavs, PIGS, and πππgingersπππ are all white?
yes
????
yes
Is that why Hitler wanted to exterminate Slavs ?
Slavs are shit but they're still european
PIGS is southern yurop(Porugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain), which isn't considered white by certain nationalists.
But what do all these "whites" have in common? They don't speak the same languages or have the same culture, and in many cases don't even look alike so what unity do they with each other?
define "useless people"
"White" is outdated, and i should stop using it.
PIGS are european.
Class.
What unity do blacks and asians have thats greater than european/european?
Unfit, lazy, shaken morals, hipsters etcβ¦
you get indulgent wastrels in any society though. look at how πππdegenerateπππ the feudal aristocracy was. or look at the dumb shit the roman upper class did. retard neet morons isn't a purely capitalist problem
Ok then, so πππEuropeanπππ it is. What inherit unity do yuropeans have?
They don't. We're not liberals, NiggerNazis or Asian Nationalists are just as retarded as any other kind of nationalism.
Race, obviously.
You think a Euro is gonna side with an african over another euro?
Engels wrote an FAQ for Marxism. Read it. It's very easy to understand.
marxists.org
Also, watch this youtube.com
as far as things are going, yeah they already are.
because they're being influenced by liberal society.
but why should they?
Because we have more in common with each other than other peoples.
...
I dont understand
Look, it's simple. There's actual Marxism (or Marxist-Leninism, or "Stalinism" if you will), and there's revisionism. You can easily recognize revisionism by the fact that its followers are opportunistic as fuck and will come up with millions of different labels for themselves. You need not worry about them, for they are counterrevolutionary and will be the first in the gulags. Marxists can be recognized by the fact that they're well read and dont buy into western propaganda
It's a science. You don't understand mathematics, or even bourgeois economics overnight. You have to study shit. Marxist economics involve more than just skimming wikipedia. It involves actually reading about shit and looking at the mathematical nature of some problems and arguments. I recommend you do more research. I'm not trying to be a dick, but this is a legit science and you need to study more.
i believe is trying to say that your 'white' unity is a complete illusion. honestly only americans even make these 'all white people are united' arguments as europeans know of hundreds of years of wars between monarchies and then nation states.
I am a white european and I share goals with with my ideological comrades in ZA, JP or BR, not with some guy who shares a skin colour or language or culture with me who is capitalist, of the liberal or nationalist types.
Because it's retarded.
Imagine if Abraham Lincoln had announced in the US that first the system of slavery would abound more and more, until almost all citizens of the United States had become slaves; until at last sometime the overwhelming number of slaves would overthrow their slave owners and justify a slave state. Until then, no one could do anything, because this development would be historically-materialistic inevitable and scientifically proven. Human intervention in the specified course of history would not be possible or would even hinder progress on its inevitable way.
Obfuscation. Political opportunists want to use ideology to justify their goals. So they distort it or rewrite it.
There is only one Marxism.
Neither. It is (political) economy. It does not concern itself with other things. However, it makes (political) economy it's primary goal. Therefore "scientific" racism is not tolerated.
Transition state (the one you are going to have in the foreseeable future) does not require people to "work and share for no reason".
Statistically - egoism.
You do realize that Wolff contradicts Engels? I mean, not only he substitutes the basics of Marxism (HiMat) with the ones he "invented" (IRL stolen from Anarchists), but his "Socialism is not about state" requires one to explicitly denounce Engels as State Capitalist:
> Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole β that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.
it's irrelevant, I guess it would depend on your local commune, if you disagree with the policies adopted you can vote with your feet
Pol Pot I guess?
Because Marxist thought is a philosophical model, everything after were political ideologies. Go find what works for you, then collaborate with comrades. Personally I am a Demsoc in the streets and a Luxemburgist in the sheets.
the "differences" are actually tiny tiny squabbles and personal dislikes
You don't even have more in common genetically ayy lmao