How come Marxists don't have a plan for post-capitalist society?

We Capitalists developed a vision for a post-Feudal society that people liked. Adam Smith was writing during an era where the system was dominated by aristocrats ruling over slaves without any social mobility or any mobility for that matter. He advocated for a meritocratic system where everyone has a chance to advance in the economic system (with education funded by the state as well) which was extremely revolutionary and progressive. Compared to that system the USSR was and is still seen as a regressive totalitarian state with millions of dead peasants and no social mobility.

How come Marxists get triggered when people ask them to describe their post-capitalist system? Is it because you don't have a plan?? Before advocating for genocide of entire classes of people maybe you should have a plan for what comes after or people won't follow you.

unfalsifiable spoog and happening tier magical thinking

Other urls found in this thread:

There are plenty of different Marxist theorists with ideas for what a post-capitalist society should look like. Marx believed that society will create a new system in reaction to the unique conditions of the time. There is no point to excrutiatingly plan the perfect system little by little. While at the same time, Adam Smith did not write a overencompassing rundown of what his idea of capitalism would look like either.

This article goes into detail about what I just said although it is not its main focus.



But that's what he did. Social mobility, meritocracy and free markets XD

His entire analysis of Feudalism was basically a bunch of unelected aristocrats are oppressing peasants what the fuck is this shit lmao? As opposed to MArxists that spend ages and ages fapping over every autistic detail of the capitalist system and how it produces oppression even manufacturing autistic plots within plots of oppression that was real in their mind while advocating for genocide and mass murder. Maybe you should I have a programme or something lol?

Guess what if Russia would have been liberalised it would have been a superpower without killing all those people and then failing. With the invention of railroads the British trade empire in the late 19th Century was about to be undercut by the Eurasian landmass and railroads, Imperial Russian annual growth at the time was higher than China's in the 1990's and reforms were being implemented but then a bunch of assholes decided to seize power isolate the country kill everyone who disagreed with them and then collapse discrediting their ideas for all eternity.

Nah those are anarchists

God dammit the fucking wrong quote, never mind ffs

reminder that popper is a hack

Because Marxists plan for transitionary societies.

Lmao if it's that easy to compress an entire economic system and all of its cultural and societal change than I suppose socialism can summed us as meritocracy, community, and internationalism. I suppose you who have nothing to lose within this system can afford to sit on an ivory tower to cry about how communists are exaggerating when they say that the system is exploitative.

I am sure the nobles did the same, until the masses could not take it anymore. You forget or simply ignore that Karl Marx looked upon capitalism as a force of progress from feudalism, but the horrific conditions of the industrial revolution led him to theorize that people can transcend capitalism to a better system. A world free from the consumerism and imperialism, free from the whims of the market and greed of the bankers, is possible.

For what, examples and a source if you're feeling generous would be nice. I highly doubt it that it would've industrialized anything short of many decades. The Mensheviks wanted to institute a bourgeoisie government to have capitalism and develop it more, but the Bolsheviks were unwilling to simply trade one reactionary government with another.



Welp, obviously growth would be exponential in regards to where feudal society was and 1990s China which had already industrialized at that point.

I suppose it had the potentiality of industrialization, but I don't think so with the offset of WW1 and just the instablity of the rule of the Czar. Even then, there is no guarentee that the capitalist system would not reproduce the horrific conditions that already existed for the rest of the developed world.

Why do you still think that capitalism continues to be that progressive force of the word today?

"Diamat" itself is an overarching theme and style of argumentation that influences and can be ascribed to various hypotheses, not a hypothesis itself.
Can you falsify "science"? The foundational assumptions to the method, those being that we can approximate reality with various predictive models informed by evidence? What evidence would "falsify" that? Especially as this is an a priori framework that gives "evidence" meaning and epistemic significance in the first place.
Can you falsify a scientific hypothesis? Yes. So too can you falsify specific hypotheses within Marxism, support others, and make testable predictions using historical evidence. Trotsky's happen to be the most well-supported and historically vindicated, while thinkers like Fukuyama scramble to rationalize these observations decades later with bad ad hoc hypotheses.

Do you "have a plan" for what the ideal world should look like when science has "finished"? No, because it's an organic development born of necessity (the mother of invention) and the existing contradictions in society and its relationship with current technology. As you can get closer to a "fully technological" society by pulling the bare threads of today's society and doing what must clearly be done to solve immediate problems, without necessarily writing out in detail precisely what such a society would look like, so too can you get closer to an "ideal" post-capitalist world, by successively making it less shitty, in objective ways.

Wow, such an insightful and fully accurate vision of capitalism with no real flaws!
Come on, man. At least get one in three.
Smith actually warned pretty heavily against firms accumulating market power and using it to suppress competition, which is pretty much at the core of modern capitalism. Even fucking ancaps will acknowledge this, as "cronyism."
From there it's not a huge leap to understand that the state, more heavily influenced by the interests of big business than anyone else, is primarily a device by which they pursue this market control and further their economic interests.

For fucks sake literally nobody was industrialised at that point except for the UK, Germany America and partially France while Spain, Portugal, Austria etc were still agrarian fedual shitholes pretty much along with Russia except Russia had the fastest growing economy and unlimited labour supply with democratic reforms rapidly being implmented. So it's always hilarious when gobbunists claim they saved Russia from some Mongolian tier tyrannical serfdom conditions.

Progress in what sense? Social progress? Technological progress? I really don't measure the value of things in terms of how progressive they are.

Just fuck off back to reddit rebel.

Diamat is not science

Previously Unheard of Speech by Abraham Lincoln has finally been found:

" Here's the thing niggers: The economic system of slavery in America is meant to expand more and more until finally almost everyone in the country is a slave and then we finally get a happening where the slaves overthrow the slave owners and create a utopian society. But here's the thing tho niggers: intervention in the specified course of history would not be possible or would even hinder progress on its inevitable way so you niggers might as well kill yourselves right now. This btw is entirely scientific and falsifiable."

Science and Diamat are both methods and guiding philosophies through which you construct theories that allow you to make sense of the world. Neither of these is "falsifiable" because falsifiability is not well-defined for the philosophical foundations of such models, only the models themselves. You're comitting a particularly wishful category error.

Lmao what
The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.
The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.
t. Karl Marx

*inevitable lol

Heres what a post capitalist society would be like. After the revolution a new constitution banning capitalism would be made. Then the people would organize into local municipal council which elect recallable representatives to the supreme peoples council. Mean while workers form small workers councils in each firm. Membership in the firms workers council would be mandatory for employment. Each workers council would also elect a recallable representative to the supreme workers council which makes the economic plan and has the interests of all working people in mind. Firms would be managed by direct democracy and only produce according to need. Everyone would have to work a heck of a lot less and get a lot more pay now that unnecessary labor is no longer carried out. After maybe 100 years money is abolished and replaced with labor vouchers and if the communist order has successfully gone world wide the state will begin to wither away allowing the end goal of anarchy-syndicalism to finally be put in practice world wide.

Oh yes and I am sure those capitalist and feudal states had GREAT conditions for workers in their factories and farms while colonizing and exploiting people at home and abroad.

Works so well that I can really see substantial change within the system in the form of profiting from sweatshops and imperialism. Oh look! Democratic reforms and social welfare! Surely we are better than the evil communists despite subverting these words of law and speeches of freedom whenever it suits us.

It's all a big spectacle that status quo apologists throw around with the assumption of their idealogical successes and legitimacy of their standards while simultaneously avoiding all of its various failiures.

What I mean by progressivism is all of the things you've just said.

progressive af

Yes. Karl Marx did say this. I mentioned it in one of my previous posts. I am talking about le current year.

What is your argument? Are you saying that's not true?

Ok, I'll make an assertion. Marxism is an economic criticism and analytical tool (parts of it outdated I think) as far as a political programme and philosophy tho Marxism doesn't offer an actual political solution towards replacing the system with another system

Sounds cool.


Pretty much. Marx had some conjectures for what to do but he didn't have a solid plan to go about it. He liked labor vouchers and a state though.

Leninism is the actual political system that applies Marxism.

Sure. The Marxist framework itself is rationalist rather than empirical, but timely, relevant empirical evidence is needed to effectively critique things as they are now (or as they were then, Marx used a wealth of empirical evidence in his time) and to determine the right revolutionary course of action for how things are now.
You can't discern the precise mechanics of a successful revolution from absolute immovable principles, because revolution is an inherently context-dependent thing. That said, the general principles are an essential guide.
Marx didn't predict iphones, for instance, but the Marxist analysis of iphone production is still fundamentally correct. But you will want the current figures, if you want to talk about its implications with any precision.

The reason why people aren't particularly eager to provide a definitive blueprint of a post-capitalist world is because there's a wealth of different viewpoints and disagreements on various matters, and nobody wants to assert and defend one as "the only valid Marxist position," and die on that hill. Since you can't arrive at one (at least not to an arbitrary degree of specificity) through a simple deductive argument from Marxist principles. is pretty good, but questions like "so what is the age of consent in this ideal society?" are beyond the scope of the question.

Suffice it to say there is not necessarily one "ideal post-capitalist society" but potentially many, and that resolving the contradictions of capitalism or any mode or production is in essence a convergent evolution towards them, rather than the deliberate construction of a laundry list of aspects possessed by the "One True Communism."

Your mama's not an airplane but they both weight more than a ton.

Please learn basic concepts like analogies before trying to educate someone.>>1362352


I c what u did thar

>The fate of bourgeois liberal-democratic revolutions and workers' movements in the postcolonial third world are directly tied to the designs of international capital, as the length porkies will go to to assert hegemony over their international competitors has been revealed through colonialism and conflict culminating in two world wars, and as such the success of a workers' movement depends on its cognizance of capitalism as an international system and an adequate international response to it
I dunno man, we all have biases. It's pointless to pretend they're not there. The best I can do is seek to justify my own as correct.

This trot is right, for once

why was Lenin so good at politics and modern Marxists so bad at it?

I agree with both of these things, and yet I'm an ultraleft baby. You'll still never convince me to be a trot