Guy with hammer and sickle as twitter name LOLs at the suggestion that class in marxist analysis is not defined by...

The irony left was a mistake

Other urls found in this thread:

mobile.twitter.com/EasternMarxist/status/877272352798769155
insurgentnotes.com/2012/10/notes-towards-a-critique-of-maoism/.

The Left was a mistake.

Twitter leftists are red liberals
mobile.twitter.com/EasternMarxist/status/877272352798769155

Just a week ago his banner was Martin Schulz. You just can't make this shit up.

Twitter seems to be doing the same thing facebook has started doing and locking people out of viewing stuff without accounts. Is the site dying?

I think he must have some kind Wheel of Fortune to select his ideology of the month .

it doesn't, but Communism does.

Socialism and communism are the same thing so they both mean abolishing commodity production.

reminds me of Rebel Upturdity

Depend on the socialist school…

Supposedly the Eastern "Marxist" (when he still was) upholds the Marxist understanding of things, and in Marx socialism and communism are synonyms.

Communism is a form of Socialism. Socialism is not always Communism.

Damn, someone should have told Marx that before he made a fool of himself by mixing them up.

where are your citations?

No they are, any leftist who doesnt implement socialism with the end goal of attaining communism doesnt understand leftism

Well gee i always noticed that the terms were used interchangeably which implies they are the same thing. I guess all the theorists of old were wrong.

Most people making that much money ARE at least petit-bourgeois.

Also, Carl Beijer is a shill for Ukraine.

This is what happens when you don't read Marx.

There are non-communist definitions of socialism.

These posts are all proving nobookz is not restricted to Twitter. The differentiation between socialism and communism as two different things starts with Lenin and his stagist conception of socialism as "merely [being] state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly", with communism following it


Bourgeois ones. Like a fourth of the Communist Manifesto is spent explaining why he and Engels abandoned the term "socialism" in favor of "communism" as a polemic against the use of socialism referring to a bunch of bullshit, from "when the State does stuff" to "when workers manage capital". Outside of that socialism and communism were just interchangeable terms.

No, class is not an income bracket. It is entirely the relationship between given individuals and the means of production.

Yes, but MOST PEOPLE making 120K are at very least petite bourgeois. You are probably a porky yourself if you're denying this.

If you are talking about "socialism is the stage between capitalism and communism" then I'm afraid you've been struck by revisionism. The stage between capitalism and communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat which is what will lead to socialism.communism.

You had socialists movement prior to Marx.

You had em afterwards too. In fact, there's still SocDem parties that call themselves "socialist parties" that have politics popularly understood to be socialism that are just slightly more generous with the public spending. What matters at the end of the day is whether or not their proposals would really change anything about capitalism. Reality doesn't give two damns about the nominal; North Korea isn't democratic either.

So you're a 18th century utopian protecting the sanctity of the word from later developments? Do remember that this applies to the word communism and commune also. Proudhon wished for a classless society without private property where people would live in "free communes". He was only not a communist in the sense that he wasn't one in the Marxist sense.

I love this meme. It is no less a democracy than America is.
The DPRK has elections, but Kim Jong Un's party is the only one that exists.
Of America one-party, the "democracy" would be very similar.

Well the thing is that at the time, socialism and communism didn't really have specific connotations like they do now.

This is satire, right? American democracy is ultimately meaningless; capital rules everything ultimately, but to tell me the "D"PRK has any legitimate form fo democracy is retarded. Give proof that isn't propaganda ministry shit or GTFO.

Are these people who are left over from Occupy Wall Street who aligned themselves with the far leftists and never got around to actually educating themselves or something?

any North Korean will tell you they have elections.

Probably. OWS ended with "le 99 percent" including police. This dumbed down proportionalist rhetoric just breeds retardation. These are the types who think small business owners are on their team.

...

So will any American. Neither of them has democracy.

Daily reminder that this is the only accurate definition of the proletariat

also pay attention to the part where it says "does not draw profit from any kind of capital"

Yeah Marx and Engels specifically note that "proletarian" is NOT "worker". The proletariat is specifically that class which owns no private property and subsists primarily off of selling its labor on the market.

whatsa 'red liberal'?

Liberals who like socialist aesthetics and jargon but who don;t know any theory. Basically people who are in it for the looks/edge factor

I do not know what the figures are, but it does no good to conflate class with income. People are confused enough on that point as it is.

that's why the people who are earning money from the welfare state(drawing profit from capital) are not proletarians

Believers in the dialectical science of materialist intersectionality.

They are lumpen.

...

Would for example, a freelance programmer who owns their computing equipment be proletariat or something else then?

The condition is always that these subsidies help them better achieve wage-labor subsistence. A text a mere few years before that explains also that those proletarians who subsist (almost) entirely off of the newly-implemented bourgeois systems of the welfare state indeed remain proletarian, because they are still not obtaining their subsistence through exploiting labor and are on the effective reserve army of labor; future reserves for wage-labor in case of downturn, rising profit rates or even war.

'Red liberals' …. that's pretty good. Did Holla Forums come up with that?

But they do not have any revolutionary potential since they're 'bought up by capitalists' as Mao puts it

Give me one example of a concrete job where you can actually make 150k a year without being bourgeois and participating in the production of a good or a service.

petite-bourgeois

Surgeon

The (temporarily or otherwise) unemployed have generally been the most revolutionary (because they're the most disenchanted), alongside people like Marx who were proletarian but lived largely off of bourgeois sugar daddy dough from Engels.


Doctor.

But these are (for the most part) the minorities, and you can't have a revolution with a minority

Revolutions have almost always started off with small groups of revolutionary workers, which later on assimilated larger masses.

Also real rich for Mao to talk about which workers are revolutionary when he's responsible for almost all of the early revolutionary Chinese proletariat being culled, leading to his "discovery" of the peasants' revolutionary subjectivity: insurgentnotes.com/2012/10/notes-towards-a-critique-of-maoism/.

my point is that for example in china, the peasants were the majority, going with the workers didn't work because they were the minority
I just don't see how can a revolution happen in a first world country that invest so much in the welfare state like denmark since this is the entire purpose of the welfare state

Classless, provided he can support himself.


No.

I remember red liberal being used as an insult by leftists long Holla Forums was invented.

Several STEM professions, a majority of medicine-related fields, gay computer shit