What is the difference between the Marxist theory of an inevitable communist revolution and Christian's Day of Judgment

...

...

So do any of you guys actually know anything about eschatology?

Well both were written by jews to enslave the goyim anyway so no surprise there

This infographic is bad because the trend from slave societies to capitalism (really from primitive communism, which is left out, to capitalism) is a trend toward fewer people in control. Global capitalism has a small number of elites controlling a global market. Idealized capitalism would take "fewer people in control of more" to its logical conclusion by having the planet under the control of markets and therefore zero people. Socialism/communism flips this on its head by having as many people in charge as possible until it's possible for all people to have control.

Well sure, of course the bible doesn't claim to study history. It goes one step further and claims to be history. In any case, I'm not shilling for the bible here, I'm trying to point out the utter ridiculousness of claiming that your millenarianist theory is correct because you 'studied history'. Bitch everybody 'studies history' from the lowliest nazi to the most retarded tankie faggot. 'Studying history' and claiming to have received divine revelationdialectical understanding doesn't automatically make your particular interpretation better than anyone else's.

Is a kek above this, the pinnacle of keks, even possible? You can't call something 'predictable' if all you can offer is some vague bullshit about the 'material conditions'. I mean woop-de-fucking-doo, you predicted 5 of the last 3 recessions in an inherently recession-prone economic system. Does that validate your '…and it will lead to communism' conclusion? Maybe you should ask the million other strains of leftist thought that are sure to violently disagree with you on when this 'material reaction' will occur?

That doesn't fucking help your case when you're talking about the activity of the majority of the 8 billion people on the planet. Claiming that you can predict what they'll do outside of the broadest strokes of 'maybe they'll revolt against the boot on their neck every few years' is where the millenarianism comes in. You see the plain historical facts (revolts against oppression) and you take it to your retarded millenarian conclusion (will eventually lead to my magic utopia being established), despite clear and repeated historical evidence to the contrary (in which the exact revolts you hailed led to more suffering and a painful return to the status quo).

You mean history? Whose history? Do you mean the historical record as put forward by any number of bourgeois historians, in which the historical epoch we find ourselves in is the peak of human civilisation, built by many great men in ages past? Do you mean the history of the fascists, which is a story about how the powerful and beautiful White Man brought civilisation to the various niggers of the world before being brought low by the perfidious and eternal Jew? Or maybe you mean history as interpreted by the SJW crew, in which perfect eternal (but not biologically rooted!) dominance of the Fucking White Male is the prime cause of the downfall of the womyn's utopia? OR do you mean history as told by the book Setllers, in which history as we know it is the history of blacks and natives building everything and then getting shot by the cumskins? OR do you mean history as interpreted by marxists, in which history is a grand narrative of the struggle between basically two groups of people (not including all the people who don't fit in either basket even when we squint and who happen to always be the leaders of any of the epochal changes we study) based on how their economy is organised? Or do you mean history as interpreted by Stalinists, in which that same struggle follows a rigid teleological progression toward salvationcommunism?

The point is, you can't just point to 'muh material reality' and expect that to validate your millenarian fantasy. History is a gigantic fucking battleground of different facts and different interpretations of those facts. And that battle's just over what actually happened. You're taking it even further by going on to make sweeping predictions about how the future will inevitably produce your paradisepreferred mode of production.

It's the same shitty psychology at work. Dialectical materialism is not scientific it's non-falsifiable cult shit.

It comes from 19th Century enlightenment whig conception of history where it's a straight line to progress which itself comes from the linear biblical conception of history where it's a straight line into judgment day and the second coming.

Marxism has all of that shitty secular religious cultish psychology at work. Where the "bad men" are gonna receive their divine punishment through a deus ex machina miraculous event, there will be a judgment day and then jesus comes back and the meek inherit the earth etc. In this case it's judgment day in the form of violent and inevitable revolution, with the meek inheriting communism as earthly heaven and utopia

This also works as a very concise explanation of why/how marxist grouplets end up as cults, too.

It's utopian cult shit. It only claims to not be utopian because the utopian model of socialism involves faith in humanism, technological progress and the gradual transition into a just society while this one has the edgy fire and brimstone violent cathartic shit. They are fighting an evil and want to help the weak people much like protestant movements before them it's all the same psychological feel good shit mixed in with the self righteous the bad men will get theirs at judgment day anyway mentality

This is a really enlightened thread.

Fuck, it took me years to figure out that the marxists didn't know what the fuck they were doing any more than the pastor down the street did. And if anything it's fucking worse on the off chance they actually win. They just end up replicating the only organisational form that makes sense for their outlook (ie, a millenarian cult) on a national scale.

By all means, I'm still a materialist, but the way it's twisted into utopian fervour by most marxists is ridiculous. If you want things to improve you're going to have to put serious work into figuring out what specifically about the economic system and technological situation needs to change to drive society to change. Relying on all of capitalism's sins inevitably catching up to it in a glorious revolutionary holocaust is cultist shit.

pic related

It really isn't even materialism. You gotta whip up some emotional baggage to get people killing other people and that involves promises of non-material rewards; people will fight for non-material shit like justice, vengeance and others for the material promise of loot and pillage which is what happened in Russia. A lot of Western Marxists are now on the same autismo spectrum as lolbertarians and radical centrists reducing everything to economism because you see non material shit like justice, vengeance, rightousness etc are spoopy idpol fascistic concepts which is why their cult is now obsolete and cornered on the market for radical ideas by fascists, antifas, third worldists etc

What are you talking about you circlejerking faggot?

aww babby can't understand?

You are literally shitposting at this point, talking about some cult leaders as if they had to do with the majority of the left.

Kill yourself.

I'm sure the majority on the left are good peoples

Wait, Marxists ditching their non-materialist values has made them obsolete?

...

What do you think history is?

Marxists don't have "values" or "morals" the revolution is the most moral thing that can happen and the best moral end in it of itself. In the meantime you have to do everything to further the cause of the revolution including lying cheating, stealing changing tactics and slogans which was what the Bolsheviks did, modern Western Marxists are too cuckish to do that since they are in it for the signalling but they still reject morality which is why Stirner memes are so popular here

Once again you post this meme, but refuse to say what exactly you are talking about. Latin Americans, US liberals?

The US liberal academia the postmodern Zizek sniff crowd, the ones that recoil in horror at the Bolsheviks and try to convince the liberals that it's not like that but still shitpost about violent revolution on anonymous imageboards

Zizek makes no excuses for revolutionary terror. What are you talking about?

I know he wouldn't get all the publishing deals or get invited to all those speaking events otherwise

What?

...

I'm a different person to porkyposter, by the way. I'm just trying to say that if your vaunted materialism meant anything at all, you'd be working on figuring out a new economic system would work, or at least identifying what technologies would prompt the mode of production to change. But no, your vaunted 'praxis' instead involves whipping people into a revolutionary frenzy with absolutely no idea of how to improve their lives after the civil war's won. The current 'praxis' of most marxists is basically the same as right-wingers but with weaker emotional appeals.

And acting like marxist grouplets aren't universally cults is fucking rich. I posted three of the most blatant examples, but there isn't a single Marxist organisation on the Left today that doesn't have some sordid history of sexual abuse, financial malfeasance, or malignant bureaucratism.

Usually Western Marxism refers to a broad group of Marxists starting with Lukacs and encompassing people like Gramsci, Adorno, and Althusser. Their ideas are definitely dominant on what's left of the Left on the ground, and are absolutely hegemonic in the academy. I don't think porkyposter knows that specifically, but their point remains regardless.

Man, you don't know a ton about Zizek, do you? Dude's a straight-up Stalinist at heart, and his famous "See you in Hell, or in Communism" line speaks directly to the fundamental millenarianism that underpins his conception of communism.

ba-but that's criticial theory and idpol and not at all gobbunism

What does that have to do with the false accusation that Zizek recoils in horror at violence or the Bolsheviks?

They still classified themselves as marxists, even though they had totally abandoned any pretense of materialism, instead zealously focusing on cultural, political, and academic issues that they had absolutely no ability to meaningfully influence. They were a pack of complete fucking idiots who managed to make the Left even more useless than they were before.

Oh, my bad, I thought you were saying he did recoil in horror at that stuff. Anyway the second half of my point (and the linchpin of my criticism of him and the rest of the Left) remains sound.

He doesn't (although he prefers not to talk about it) the libshit university students and the edgy liberals that follow him do though, this happens all the time when you corner a commie or a socialist in a public- university setting in the presence of normies they will back-peddle away from all the violent revolutionary shit denounce all of it but privately I'm sure they will shitpost about violent revolution

They succeeded in influencing a great deal just by looking at modern academia

Nah, the push toward inclusiveness (which I assume is what you're saying they spearheaded) was already a going concern. Once China had been made the good little slave state it is today there was way less pressure to stoke divisions on the home front. Saying that Gramsci, Adorno or Althusser did anything gives those wankers way too much credit. At best all they did was put a name on shit that was already being pushed for.

Faggots who treat marxism as an identity while ignoring its materialist basis are the greatest detriment to marxism.

That shit was pushed for a long time their theories succeeded in gaining hegemony which is why that shit is studied ad nauseum in liberal arts departments.

Also, Gramsci was a true gommie it's just that cuckish academics picked up on his cultural hegemony/superstructure war of position model of revolution and liked it because it involves doing fucking nothing in practice and offers the path of least resistance so they could sit comfortably in the ivory tower and pick the culture apart piece by piece sneakely and non-violently deconstructing all "contradictions" such as race, gender etc until there is only the class contradiction

Yes, but I'm trying to point out that those people aren't the entire problem. The tendencies that treat communism like the second coming also don't end up accomplishing anything more than setting up a multitude of shitty cults.

revolution is a day of judgement.

And it's coming at the same day, and time, too! Set your watches, kids. It'll be Never minutes past Never, on the Neverth of Nevery, in the year Never Thousand Never Hundred and Neverty Never

Well, shit. I never thought that I would be agreeing with this. Come to think of it, there are a plethora of "human suffering will end once we achieve communism" posts on here that are reminiscent of the golden age-type stories that you find in the eschatology of nearly all major religions. It's borderline magical thinking that the revolution can be achieved by hoping others to accomplish it for us, IMO, since it removes a degree of responsibility from your actions. I think it stems from our conditioning to believe that events outside of our direct control, like you'd see in the news, are the more important than our own actions.

before trying to change the world you need to sort yourself out son

That's why I shill for the cybernetics thread so much on this board, the posters there have a sense that there are definite steps that need to be taken to enable society to transition away from capitalism, instead of treating the revolution as something that'll 'happen' due to the action of some abstract concept of the working class. But yeah, I know what I'm talking about when I shit on the cultish millenarianism of lots of Marxist groups - I was in an ostensibly 'good' and relatively 'normal' one for long enough to figure it out.

You (might) joke when you say that, but there's a lot of truth to that. Modern society offers us a series of false dichotomies with regards to how we should approach our actions. For instance, we are shown that we should either hate ourselves or engage in self-aggrandizement. Improving ourselves involves overcoming these, for sure.

Out of curiosity, which theory, if any, do you follow, user?

ITT: Americans project their spooky as fuck national traits onto other people in the West.

What annoys me is that this kind of behaviour is exactly what makes the right-wing moralists scream with delight as if they are correct about leftist theory because the theoreticians who build that theory happen to be shrouding leftist methodology in this kind of eschatological obfuscation. The most that I see to justify this historical projection is 'dialectics', not what needs to be done in any detail by the proletariat. I'm veering sharply towards the left of communism and the most that I see is a cynical and smug criticism of every historical course of action taken by self-avowed 'communists'; there is no general praxis regarding how methodology works. I'm surprised that Satanfag hasn't shat up the thread yet (unless she's masquerading as a certain porkyposter).

From what I know, the aim of Marxism is to be scientific thus avoiding the criticisms all kinds of moralists who wish to fire their useless spooks at the science (itself spooky but intended and crafted to be useful). Given empirical evidence and tools, why can't accurate projections be made? Why do you insist on attempting to chart the future and then doing a half-arsed job about it?

is an example of one of the only hopes for the left as a movement. The fact that there are people for whom intellectual honesty is key to the left's success on the theory front (thus on the practical front) is one among a dwindling few which keeps me on this board and discussing leftism. I can counter the arguments of thousands of reactionaries and laugh incessantly but this almost makes me sick.

ITT: leftists screech in an autistic fashion and misunderstand the arguments (linked post related) made by reactionaries who've found a hole in the armour of theory they claim to know and adore.

Doesn't look like I'm screeching, looks like you've moved onto projecting tat onto me too.

Die for Healy and Marxist-Healyite thought!

How predictable. Go back to the shitposting threads and stay there.

I'm already in one, this may come as some shock to you but longer posts don't necessarily mean better posts, maybe when you fully adjust from coming over from reddit you'll realize that.

Like every special snowflake idiot, I couldn't really say that I subscribe to any one theory. I've got a lot of points of agreement with the Leftcoms, especially regarding their criticisms of other tendencies. Their insistence that the transition needs to/will abolish the Law of Value is something I also strongly agree with, along with some of their ideas on spontaneity. The rest of my theory is kind of a work-in-progress homebrewed thing centered around the task of figuring out some part of the economic basis for lower/higher-phase communism in order to provide the tools that will enable a transition. I'm also hashing out an idea about the spontaneous development of communist production in the information industry that ties into this. I disdain a lot of the cultural/superstructural stuff (Western Marxism is a pet hate) - my primary focus is on the base side of things. Having said that, I oppose the -isms and -phobias on principle (keeping people down/excluded wastes good brains that could be used to develop muh cancer cures, spaceships, etc), and maybe have some unexamined theory cruft from my trot days rolling around up there. I've had time to do a lot more reading and writing lately, I hope to start presenting some articles and soliciting in-depth criticism soon-ish.

Wow, thanks. I have much respect for you leftcom posters, you guys and a few others are pretty much the only reason this board isn't a complete cesspit. You bring the standard of discussion up despite constant stupid armchair memeing and shitposting, it's a real lesson in resilience.

Think about how evolution works. Imagine, for a second, that there an anomalous planet where the environment never changed, regardless of how much time passed. Life like our own develops on this planet and begins to evolve. Now, since evolution isn't completely random, it has a general direction towards greater survivability and fertility. Every new mutation that sticks serves some purpose to make the organism more survivable or more fertile, so it can more readily pass down its genes, thus preserving and propagating the trait. Given enough time, eventually the organisms on this planet will reach a sort of perfected state, one in which any new mutation in any direction will make them less survivable or less likely to reproduce. They will have achieved an "end of evolution", a state that invites no more change.

Marx's Theory is similar. Societies develop in response developing modes of production and the class antagonisms and contradictions those produce. Each great social shift serves to alleviate the class antagonisms and contradictions of the previous system. Since classes are, by their very nature, antagonistic to each other, it follows that the end-state society will be one without classless. Our way of referring to classless society is "communism".

Lol okay, porky.

What are your biology credentials? Because this account of evolution you gave smells like bullshit.

You need it; empirical Marxism is Marxism as it sets out to be. Again, it is a spook but a useful spook given how valuable science is. I don't make like the trots and fuck off because I still see potential in this board for discussion; it's a case of doing what Dolan Dump failed to do and 'draining the swamp' of the falsely-autistic teenagers who run rampant on the board. For fuck's sake, we already deal with the spillover from Holla Forums and /r/the_donald in addition to COINTELPRO shills.

And now for you, :

The charge against Marxism being 'unfalsifiable' comes from a modification to it based upon the failure of the 1848 revolutions. In other words, you're referring to Karl Popper's flawed argument which says that materialism was the same before and after its modification to account for the empirical evidence.

Secondly, falsifiability is unfalsifiable, thus science cannot describe itself in trying to make a model of itself if this is the model it takes - yet there is great use in describing the scientific method, which is what science is geared towards! Explanatory power is where it's at; that is why we develop science and why we aren't satisfied with the obfuscation of religion given that it assumes causalities to be wholly true.

Please hump Popper's works somewhere else and consider joining his disciple, Mr Soros. Pic related.

He can't keep getting away with it

There've been numerous communist revolutions that have produced tangible results, and if you were basing your assessment on dialectical materialism rather than bourgeois idealist determinism you'd know that the "prophecy" of world communism is based on historical processes with variable outcomes and the ebb and flow of development rather than the mirage of linear progression that bourgeois academics like to portray as "history."

wew Soros! Well I guess criticism of Marxism is BTFO now that the Jew has been named

His argument is that it's a confirmation bias akin to a religious prophecy, the only way to prove something is correct is to test in the real world. You begin with a set of assumptions about history and reality which you know are correct and "scientific" and draw a pre-determined conclusion based on said assumptions (violent death of the capitalist class and communist utopia) and you begin to act on those premises. This isn't " scientific" it's ideology and magical thinking there is nothing wrong with ideology per-se all good proper cults and political movements mix in "science" to prove their worldview is correct like Nazis and Scientologists etc

Fuck it, i am not going to wait for you to show up.
Your "account" of evolution is nonsense for many reasons, starting with this one.

These are NOT necessarily related at all. The existence of bacteria, which grow and die quickly, clearly indicates that in many cases, fertility and survivability are actually inversely related. To give a more human example, first world nations have greater survivability and lower fertilities compared to third world nations. For any particular species, evolution may result in survivability, fertility, both or neither.

Wrong. Diseases caused by recessive alleles get passed through generations with no problem. For instance, PKU is caused by the human having no copies of the dominant, functional PAH gene. Children who inherit two recessive alleles from their parents die, but children who only inherit one have normal phenotypes. If evolution worked the way you said it did, then our genetic pools would be a lot cleaner than they are.

Lets also consider the curious case of telomeres. These things are attached to the ends of your DNA, and get shorter every time it is replicated. Naturally, as you get older, these things are completely chewed up by the replication system, causing your genetic data to become more and more corrupt with every passing cycle. Eventually, you die of cancer.

IF TELOMERES ARE SUCH A DETREMENT TO LIVING FOREVER, THEN WHY DO WE STIL HAVE THEM? WHY HAVE WE NOT SELECTED FOR LONG FUCKING TELOMERES SO WE DON'T DIE OF OLD AGE?

Answer: Genes only matter until you have finished raising your family. Any mutations that lead to death later in your life do not matter if you have already propagated your genetic material. This is slightly different for technological civilization, but in general, mutations that help old, unproductive retirees live longer (and nothing else ) are not selected for.

Also completely absent from your conception of evolution is the environment of the species. Evolutionary fitness makes no sense without the environment. Species populations are always fighting to expand their share of the world, so it is entirely expected for the environment they inhabit to change. When the environment changes, you lose “perfection”. So much for evolutionary teleology.

Since you got the environment wrong, it is no surprise you got this wrong too. There is no static environment. Species are constantly mutating and changing the environment. Random accidents wipe out species frequently, opening up more ecological niches and therefore promoting rapid evolution. Occasionally, you get an explosive mutation in a particular species (intelligence in humans) that completely upends the entire ecosystem and ruins any equilibrium it might have had. There is no end to evolutionary history until the sun explodes.

Once you realize that there is no end to evolution, your analogy completely collapses. Come on. Its 2017 and you have no excuse for passing off this Lamarckian bullshit as science.

It was just an analogy.

To you take issue with the analogy?

Your analogy is completely wrong though. If your terrible conception of evolution is structurally similar to your conception of history, that doesn't bode well for your theory of history, now does it?

If this is to be true, then classes must be fundamentally different from species. Explain how they are. Otherwise, your theory of history is dead on arrival. Hell, it was dead before arrival.

…the third of which was have been an assumption made by Marx though I flag that up because I don't know of many people who argue in favour of such a position today.

Also, communism is merely the real movement to abolish capital and its social manifestations, particularly socially-necessary labour time.

Jesus fucking Christ, way to miss the fucking point.

I wasn't talking about Earth biology you autistic cunt. I specifically stated that it was a hypothetical planet in which the environment didn't change regardless of the passage of time. This is to draw an analogy of how you could predict an "end-state" of a process based on observations on how it develops.

So, since evolution is develops based on an organism's ability to survive and/or reproduce in a given environment, given an infinite amount of time in a hypothetical environment that does not change regardless of the passage of time, you would expect for the organisms to eventually reach a point where any new mutation would cause them to be less likely to survive and/or reproduce, and essentially reach a perfected "end-state" of evolution that invites no more change.

In the same way, you can look at society, determine that it develops in relation to the mode of production and the class antagonisms and contradictions it produces, generally to resolve those antagonisms and contradictions, and determine that eventually society will take on a end-state classless formation, or communism.

That is the thing. Is that not the thing? Im pretty sure that is the major thing underpinning Marxist conceptions of history. Everything is predictable and inevitable with a chain of causality. If you are a materialist who rejects all notions of metaphysical language and concepts then you have to be a determinist.

Aesthetics and nothing else

A bio-materialist? Yeah I agree, genetics are important and so is heredity. We should definitely factor them into the ways we organize civilization.

Oh wait

I don't reject the metaphysical; I simply don't find it to be useful for practical purposes. Indeed, I am putting my faith in practical reason, but this is what science does and I find it useful being the fickle-minded oaf I am.

In any event, you're confusing determinism with scientific projections. One can say that history will follow a certain path; it is just a case of finding out what this path is. For example, there is no use in squealing about the coming communist rapture when there's a comet headed for the planet which our defence systems couldn't detect and deal with in time. To develop science, people must make increasingly 'accurate' and powerful models of the world.

I don't know if Marx referred to 'general tendencies' in the same way that I am, but these are precisely the claims that reputable scientists make unless they have sufficient evidence to make a strong-argument. For one, there are implicit ceteris paribus clauses implied. Again, Marx noted countervailing tendencies against the movement of history along its projected path, such as bourgeois suppression. People today are criticising and trying to amend Marx's materialism and exploring just how powerful it is in terms of explaining our circumstances, exploring things like the impacts of social democracy (particularly the Keynesian kind) on the left as a movement, something that Marx did not foresee in this form.

You keep appealing to Popper's flawed argument when you ignore that he himself made precisely the kind of mistake that you accuse the Marxists of having done regarding the unfalsifiability of the falsifiability principle. If he is moving the scope of his analysis outside science then he isn't using scientific principles which have utility in mind; to my knowledge, I have not found a 'purer' kind of reason which makes less assumptions regarding the world and yet is as applicable as science. Then you compare Marxism with other relatively-esoteric worldviews which attempt to use science to justify themselves. Marxism can be wholly dissolved and remodelled within science while these 'other worldviews' fail when they appeal to their particular conceptions of divine which are to be reached outside of science. The problem is with psuedo-theoreticians and the left as a gigantic circlejerk of a movement where these people's smugness is the flying semen; they don't discuss the nature of Marxism and appeal to how 'scientific' whatever they say is.

Honestly, you're just about the least based porkyposter I've seen.

May or may not have missed the point, but good post none the less.

For the sake of simplicity I will try to explain what the fuck you're trying to talk about:

Popper said that constantly appealing to countervailing tendencies to modify your original theory is pseudoscienctific and done as an excuse every time it's refuted.
In science when your original theory isn't playing out in the real world you either ditch the theory and the conclusion or modify it as to fit the new information what Pooper said was that instead of admiring that parts of the theory are false Marx made it irrefutable making it a proky conspiracy:
the law of the rate of profit to fall imminent crisis happening theory is not happening and is not a law because porky is counteracting that law by fucking with the working class
if the working class is not revolting then the "countervailing tendency" is false consciousness or some other porky machinations

And yes, this is ultimately all a bunch of faggotry because trying to refute social scientific theory or economics especially economic theories from 150 years ago is fucking retarded same as trying to refute shit like Jungian psychology, Freudian psychoanalysis and shit like third wave feminism.

Good post?

He was just sperging out over the specifics of evolutionary biology.

Wew there lad.

This is happening
I fail to see the problem with this. People are lead astray by incorrect ideologies all the time, or am I to respect the fucks that think evolution and global warming aren't real?

no ofcourse not in 2017. But in the 19th and early 20th Century this autism is precisely what it meant because intellectual honesty drove it to it's logical conclusion. Positivism led to the widely accepted conclusion that working class fun is hereditary, race inferiority and the justification for second class status, eugenics etc.

is it? In America if there is a fall of the in the industrial rate of profit then nobody will give a fuck. Factory ownership is fairly irrelevant in todays economy

You know Marx didn't buy into any of that shit, right? Just because some other intellectuals of the time did doesn't mean that factored into Marx's theories.

His materialism was primarily economic.

What, you don't see heightened levels of turmoil and poverty? Just not paying attention?

W E W

that image is shit and not a proper marxist analysis
it's ML revisionism

It's the same cancerous thinking based on the same foundations and presuppositions.

And? Because turmoil and poverty exist you are correct?

very clever for a fucking retard

Wew.

Weren't you just saying that these things weren't happening?

My point stands. Saying that the physical production of goods somehow doesn't matter implies that economy is all about collecting higher numbers of whatever currency you're after. Commodity fetishism at its finest.

they came from the same era, therefore they're the same thing
I'm suggesting that you examine how autistic this way of thinking really is once you take your philosophical presuppositions to their logical conclusion which you should try doing as a thought experiment.
Did I? I may have insinuated that the law of falling rate of profit theory is old and cannot into a modern financial crisis.
I'm not saying it doesn't matter I'm saying that Marx's crisis theory is irrelevant when it comes to analyzing the modern day economy

How do you explain existence of information and free will with materialistic determinism?

please post a proper Marxist analysis MSPaint comic

none.

Why is information inconsistent with materialistic determinism?

No.
Explain.

…or someone making an empirical observation and modifying their theory. Marx changed his theory by invoking countervailing tendencies such as the bourgeois tendency to suppress revolutions for the sake of their perceived power; if this was not the case, Stalin would likely have not been as anti-imperialistic as he was - along with the rest of the Marxist-Leninists. I presume that all Marxists would have no way to show how Marx explains this use of political economy and we would have to fill in the gaps ourselves.

Does science itself not make assumptions regarding the world such as its existence? The assumptions must be tested once they are made to see if they are useful on a scientific basis; if they aren't like science itself is intended to be, then they are to be amended or discarded based on how useful they are. There are often multiple modes of language and theoretical formulation to explain certain things, hence why many arguments of different kinds can be levelled against the same line of fallacious thinking.

>ignoring the words: general tendency

k

Are you ignoring the existence of measures such as extensive propaganda campaigns against communism and social-democratic compromises such as the New Deal?

Furthermore, you imply that proletarians will automatically want communism if all the countermeasures disappear. Marx doesn't assume all of them will. He gave the group proletarians who oppose the communist movement the (admittedly derogatory) name: 'lumpenproletariat' and I haven't seen any statement which argues that all proletarians will not be these 'lumpens' given the rise of communism. With effective praxis, these people will not be required and can be fought against by the proles who wish to further their mutual interests against those who offer no use to them in being granted the benefits of a socialist society. Does might not make right?

see pic

To my knowledge, it can be expressed as a geographical tendency and may encompass several things such as the movement of manufacturing jobs in the USA and UK to China given that lower rates of profit can be caused by higher wages. This example can cause revolutionary moments if the cuts to wages fuel the fires of labour movements and the bourgeois state doesn't respond.

In short, you're a hack who ignores, projects and doesn't lurk. I don't realistically consider myself to be that based and I'm still destroying you. If anything, you're helping me by compelling me to research.

t. knowelegeable person

What the fuck. I've just realized that I, the disgusting marxist assume things that I don't really know. You know, like that stupid shit that the earth is a sphere. How can I know that? I haven't really been in outer space (if that exists at all). I just assumed that what I was told is right. Holy shit. Thank you for enlightening me porkyposter.

imagine being so immersed in right-wing conspiracy theories that you can't even read "material reality" without sperging this hard about something completely unrelated