Liberals

Modern liberalism in Burgerstan is largely rooted in Marxist ideas though.

Read Marx and say that again

...

Do tell us more, Holla Forums.

t.retard

GOD DAMN THAT FRANKFURTER SCHOOL!

...

If you don't believe that cultural marxism exists, then why would you continue to be Marxists? The proletariat class-struggle already failed in the West, the USSR has collapsed & China is now State Capitalist. If the Cultural revolution isn't coming, then there will be no revolution & the ideology has failed.

Why does Holla Forums pretend to understand anything marxist? This shit is fucking retarded god damn it

They don't want to understand it

They go at length to avoid cracking open a book, instead supplement some retarded ass screenshots from pol… It is a god damn cult on an information diet.

...

Read Marx and find out you infantile disorder

*handwaving intensifies*

Read dude I'm not gonna bash you coz you're ignorant but come on, you have to read the theory to understand the positions of communists right? Know thy enemy and all that

Conflict theory isn't marxist, Class Conflict Theory is. As soon as you remove Class from your Conflict Theory it isn't Marxist anymore.

why does every Marxist assume people who disagree with Marx haven't read Marx? That's why i disagree with him. Stop the "literally read a book" meme, its beyond not an argument

What specific points in Capital/Critique of Gotha/Wage, Labor and Captial do you disagree with? Why?

This is honest to god one of the stupidest sentences I've ever read.

Maybe because you posted two screenshots that from a mongolian throat singing board that fail to cite information or make direct arguments against any of Marx's observations on capitalism which can only lead us to assume you didn't read Marx yourself.

Its probably bait

good job proud of u keep it up

Im ashamed of you brainlet

You are aware that the vast majority of female leftists are feminists, and the rest are tankies, right?

Because the content of your post shows that you haven't read Marx

not the same user

Cultural Marxism is an oxymoron. Marxism is concerned almost entirely with economic relationships, and sees things like culture as products of those relationships. The Frankfurt School were originally Marxists yes, but the intentionally distanced themselves from classical Marxism because they saw it as too focused on economics, and in doing so they ceased to really be Marxists. The same thing happened with postmodernists like Foucault.

Furthermore the Frankfurt school isn't what you think it is, the "western culture" that they advocate dismantling is the mass produced commodified corporate culture of the 20th century. They are talking about the Avengers and Jersey Shore, not Motzart and Shakespeare. They make clear distinctions between culture as a genuine expression of the human condition and culture designed for the sole purpose of creating profits. Essentially what they want to tear down is brain rotting corporate schlock that encourages conformity and a lack of imagination.

you want me to write a book or something? I'm phone posting, I'm not going to phone type out a treatise on my problems with your bible

Shut up and read marx you fag

I find it funny that the user in the second pic actually considers the dialectic half-decent and it's just a way of studying history and society which is exactly what Marxism is. It is the critique of the political economy and class/hierarchical systems within it. It's like these people and you try not to understand basic Marx

I tell you I've read Marx and your response is read Marx. I haven't made any claims about Marxism and you tell me i don't understand Marxism.
Sure thing, champ

...

you must have missed the vote. the Democratic majority speaks for you, didn't you know that?

Because the vast majority never actually did? See, that you say this despite knowing the truth yourself shows you to be arguing in bad faith, and I'm absolutely certain that if you've actually read Marx, which is very unlikely, you did it only so that you could say that you did before continuing on with your critique of Marxism the same way you did before.
One of the major reasons I became interested in Marxism is because I could clearly see that practically all the rightist critique of him is insincere. There are leftists who claim that Marx is wrong, but they don't turn to capitalism in response, as it was never supposed nor is able in any capacity to support a free and equal society. No, the reason rightists criticise Marx is because they don't want a free and equal society. You can only have a private yacht if you took the money to buy from someone else; zero sum game principle is integral for rightists, and as long as you fail to understand that people understand it, you will continue to be called a liar.

...

Please die in a fire. Thank you.

If you're so vehemently opposed to Marx on a theoretical level, it makes sense to explain why. Just say something like SNLT is retarded and why or LTV is retarded and why. I'm not asking for a book.

Because we aren't idealists and don't imagine change comes about from just believing in it really hard. Socialism is the negation of capitalism as will always continue to exist as long as capitalism does. As long as we live in a system where private ownership of production facilities and production purely for profit exists and cause an assortment of problems, public ownership and production for need will remain the logical alternative. Developments such as automation and climate change will provide the impetus for societal upheaval that will turn people against the system, or usher in dystopia beyond measure.

That's exactly what Marx did.

This, if you want social sciences, look to Engels, he's much more keen on the social science and culture stuff

we're reaching levels of strawmanning your opposition that shouldn't be physically possible m80

Marx reduces labor in ways i dont consider necessary. I don't agree with democratic decision making, especially with respect to labor, and i don't agree with his definition of the state, or his theory that the state will dissolve bc it will become "redundant".

That's not what Marx meant at all by the dissolution of the state, read Marx.

If you don't see economics as the prime driver of human society then you aren't a Marxist.

Oh, please. Are you saying that you'd like for communism to come, you just don't think Marx's way is good enough? Fuck no, you want to be rich, and if it means that others have to suffer for it, then so be it; hell, you even get off on the idea. I've spoke with countless people like you before, and behind the closed doors you all admit that you only care about yourselves and don't like socialism because it means that you'd have to acknowledge that other people exist.
It's not my fucking fault rightists are all hypocrites. If you don't want to be treated like a greedy sociopath, then stop being one.

Why not? Workers understand what's wrong with their workplace much more than a CEO who is thousands of miles away and only operates based on pure data.

i describe my general objections to Marx
you realize you're a literal cult member, right? not even fundamentalist Christians are so dogmatic about their bible

because youre handing the whip to a mob, rather than a boss

are you fully incapable of having a political discussion without autistically strawman blogposting?

This is not at all what Marx said, thereby it cannot be an objection to Marx. If you want to criticize Marx, I recommend reading him.

Democracy at work doesn't necessitate mob rule, I think even most anarchists here would say workers don't have the right to say, kick out the gays or women from the factory just because they're gay or women.

i disagree with his definiton of the state, period

Oh, so I have to pretend you aren't a sociopath? Would you also like to loan me a million dollars that I know you don't have, but hey, let's be nice here, eh?

What is a state, by your definition, and what is a state by Marx's definition?

Cultural Marxism is not about the Frankfurt School, it's specifically about George Lukacs who sought to accelerate the acceptance of socialism by perverting the minds of Hungarian children. His research was funded by straightline economic Marxists. Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis were all but forgotten until Lukacs.
The concepts of Lukacs were carried forward by Alfred Kinsey who developed a scientific basis for exploring pedophilia. He unfortunately couldn't develop a cure for his erectile dysfunction. Kinsey is now considered a cultural pioneer.

But you're part of the mob yourself, matey. Don't you think you can trust yourself? Oh, oh, let me guess, you're better than the proles around you and your current position as a day-dreamer on wage is only temporary, right?
You people are so alike I can't even think of you all as not sharing literally the same personality between yourselves by this point anymore.

the majority is the only part of the mob with claim to coercion over others with respect to law, m80

What the fuck are you on about? I have never seen any ideas about cultural Marxism that didn't include the Frankfurt school. Also ignoring that pedophile bullshit (take it up on /liberty/) all you are basically saying is that Marxists have tried to convince people of Marxism, which isn't so much a conspiracy as it is a basic description of how literally any political ideology or academic school of thought operates.

again, I'm phone posting so i will have to keep it basic but Marx views the bougie state as an instrument of class rule, since it is maintained and dependent on the capitalist class, and thus acts as the enforcement arm of the bougies.
I define the state as the group of people who claim legitimacy in the use of physical or economic coercion to enforce compliance with doctrine

Laughingelfman.jpg

Point proven.

If you're not smart enough to be able to follow instructions then you're not smart enough to understand Marx

this is me. what's incorrect in my interpretation of Marx' definition of the state?

really btfo the brainlet Marxists with that one

Do you realise that these two definitions do not stand at odds with each other, or are you too far gone to bother paying attention to such stuff?
If you're b8ing, great job. If not, then literally kys.

in a classless society, the majority in a democratic decision weild coercion over the minority to maintain compliance. you don't need bougies to stick a gun in someones back and tell them to march. the communists just take the boots off of police and give them to the majority.

You're relatively correct, but that definition clashes with your original claim 'the state will dissolve bc it will become "redundant".' thereby I'm fairly certain you've just pulled that from a wiki

I'm very sorry to have questioned your bible, i should have realized i was arguing about god in church

pathetic

i used redundant in quotations because i hear it used by MLs but i don't really agree with it, so i was kind of being a dick tbh

Then what do you actually disagree with about his characterization of the dissolution of the state?

See? You aren't refuting my point.
And you also explicitly tell of your dislike of democracy. You all really are exactly the same person.

the state, defined as the branch of people who claim legitimacy in using coercion on others, never dissolves in Marxism. like i said, that role shifts from police to the majorty of a mob.

sorry, what point is that?

Academic Agent, is that you?

That's dependent on which form the dictatorship of the proletariat takes, the Leninist model is to have local, recallable, Soviets, appointed by the mob, appoint national Soviets, and so on to the councils and the General secretary. It's a nice fusion of democracy and bureaucratic insulation to prevent direct mob rule.

My issue is with coercion itself, and no form of communism or leftism abolishes coercion, though some forms of chains lay less heavy than others i will grant.

Fundamentally, why do you think a society without coercion is possible or desirable?

First they are capitalist.
Second i don't agree with their ideals

i don't know if it is
i currently dont like being forced to do things at gunpoint, and i don't desire to force others' actions at gunpoint either. i think consent is pretty important for human interaction and the maintenance of a healthy society. but I'm also very into Buddhism and taoism so my vision for humanely is broader than 19th century conceptions of law and order

*humanity

Especially since the end of the cold war the liberal has become nothing but a manger for the elite. Someone who maintains the capitalist status quo

I saved this quote from an article that describes neo liberalism perfectly

And so the democratic party does not work in the interest of the prole, they do not want to improve the material conditions of the worker. They are just capitalist that want to absorb a couple of marginalized people into the capitalist machine and call that progress.

The contradictions of this scheme will not hold up. And we saw it implode in 2016. And we saw the rise of the far right with trump, farrage, le pen, wilders, etc, but also the revitalization of socialism and the far left, awakened from their post cold war coma with guys like sanders and corbyn.

Marxism is a materialistic ideology, meaning that, while it has ideals, it is fundamentally pragmatic.
We'd like a world without coercion too, but that simply isn't possible in the current material condition. Maybe the eventual negation of socialism will be non-coercive but to get there we must negate capitalism in becoming socialism.
Tao De Ching's a cool book, but I'd be reluctant in letting ancient philosophy be too influential on one's conception of modern politics.

What is the difference between liberalism and conservatism?

Because liberals will do things like put "Nevertheless, she persisted!" bumper stickers on their car, and march around with Pussy Hats. Ugh, there's just so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin. No class analysis, they're just pawns of the bourgeois media and political machine.

If we're talking american political parlance then not much, really. Both parties essentially agree on economic policy and the role of the state. Liberals are bigger on social issues though and are more willing to shore up the injustices of capitalism with social programs, even if just barely.

/thread

In American politics, generally conservatives are centre-right to far-right economically and socially. Usually somewhat nationalistic tendencies and staunchly defends the US constitution (despite being against a lot of what's in it).

Liberals are social liberals, so they fall between the centre and centre-right. They generally support free trade, but with some progressive taxation to pay for social programs like minimum wage and more recently, health insurance, with the centrist faction pushing for single-payer while the centre-right faction wants to maintain the status quo of corporate health care. Their social policies usually focus more on identity politics and less strict laws on personal issues. Ultimately they're mostly different on social issues, with the liberals being a bit to the left of them because they support some government intervention in economic matters. Anyone that says they're leftist probably has no experience with politics outside of American politics.

oy vey they're on to us

Anarchism is fundamentally non-coercive, anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand it. in a commune, for instance, you would do what's expected of you because you'd want to help out your community, not because of any threat of force.

This is totally made up and you have no actual sources to back up this claim from the original sources. If you'd actually read Adorno you'd know that you can't find one essay of his not heavily relying on Marx's economics.

OY VEY SHUT IT DOWN IT'S ANOTHER SHOAH

You seem not to understand that Lukacs implanted sexual perversion into the minds of children with a goal to weaken the nuclear family.

The Frankfurt School is a metaphor for only a few men like George Lukacs, Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer.

Wait so does this mean Jordan Peterson is right? The postmodernists are responsible for the lefts decline?

TRANSLATOR'S (E B Ashton's 2004) PREFACE TO NEGATIVE DIALECTICS
The targets cover an impressive range; Adorno spares neither idealists nor positivists of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, and he savages the neo-ontologists, intuitionists, and existentialists of the twentieth. Sub rosa, he polemicizes also against the twentieth-century Marxist establishment—which brings us to the second of the three keys. “The author,” Adorno ends his Preface, “is prepared for the attacks to which Negative Dialectics will expose him. He feels no rancor and does not begrudge the joy of those in either camp who will proclaim that they knew it all the time and now he was confessing.” The two camps—“hüben und drüben”—are East and West, Marxists and anti-Marxists. To the latter, Adorno had nothing new to confess; he had never made a secret of his convictions. But he had striven long and hard against his doubts, and when he could not repress them any more he felt obliged to defend them. At bottom, this book is an apologia for deviationism, a Marxist thinker’s explication of his inability to toe the lines laid down today for proper Marxist thinking. The deviations to which he pleads guilty are numerous. He accords primacy to facts over concepts, and to substance over form. He holds that dark realities can eclipse dazzling ideas, and that theory, however noncontradictory, cannot undo a contradictory practice. He contends that if nonidentical objects belie the identity of subjectivism—even of collective subjectivism— that identity is not truth but a lie. And his defense of all this, the reason why a believer feels compelled to disavow articles of his own creed, is that the negativity of the concrete particular, of things as we see and experience them in our time, makes his the true, the “negative” dialectics. Concretely, all of these sins are epitomized in one: in the contention that history, all reinterpretations to the contrary notwithstanding, has failed to take the course predicted for it as a scientific necessity. Directly following the Preface, the book itself opens with a flat statement of this cardinal heresy: “Philosophy, which once seemed obsolete, lives on because the moment to realize it was missed. The summary judgment that it had merely interpreted the world, that resignation in the face of reality had crippled it in itself, becomes a defeatism of reason after the attempt to change the world miscarried”—two sentences one may be at a loss to understand unless he remembers Marx’s famous dictum about the philosophers who were content to interpret the world: “What matters is to change it.” What matters here is the third key to reading this book. It overflows with such allusions, with paraphrases of renowned and not so renowned quotations from men presupposed as familiar. Adorno has several ways of handling these. The original may be quoted at length, in the text or in footnotes, leaving the parallel to be figured out by the reader. Or the authors—modern ones in particular—are named, assuming only that the reader will know them sufficiently to understand what specific line or aspect of their work is here referred to. But sometimes such aids are dispensed with altogether, on the assumption that whoever reads Negative Dialectics will instantly have the source in mind. The last procedure, I believe, will be responsible for most of the problems one may have in reading; it certainly was responsible for most of mine. To follow the line of thought from detail to detail, you need to know Kant near-perfectly, Hegel perfectly, and Marx-Engels viscerally—not just “by heart.” If you twitch whenever a phrase in this book resembles one from the Marxist Founding Fathers, then and not until then can you think along with Adorno.

I don't know why anyone denies the whole cultural marxist thing. It's not because it's from marx himself because of the way it operates replacing class struggle with identitarian bullshit. The reason being because the revolution of 1968 failed and "communists" of the era found out the hard way that the proletarian will never ever side with them and would rather beat them up. I see Marxism as a failed ideology, Zizek is right. There's a better way and proles are irrelevant now because the majority of labour is service industry in them most relevant economy in the world. More over the means of production can be shared freely, the capitalists do not stop us from creating businesses that are employee owned or co-ops and the like. They know we can never beat their efficiency and talent because greedy is a great motivator. We need to make something new because Marx was wrong.

Oh my, Marx would have never thought about that…

I don't hate them. Most of my friends are liberals.
But they're misguided, they're very ignorant of the class reality. Try to change that, stop supporting Capitalism. At least, at least go SocDem with Berinie Sanders.

Also you guys let themselves be bossed and submitted around all the time, you guys never ballsy stand up against Nazis. We antifa have to do everything every time. I would be grateful if you showed some courage less fear to stand up for progress if we don't do it tbh we won't see results soon & we're going to be stuck in the neo-liberal / neo-conservative times.

Because you are reactionary scum. Now get the fuck out.

Because Das Kapital is 592 pages long or so. And thats for each Volume.
So it's like 1500 pages of knowledge, knowledge the don't have the brains to comprehend.

retards stop falling for the shit bait

You don't need read all three volumes of capital to see that his posts are full of bs.

ofc not but they're ideologues. Totally indoctrinated it's difficult to get out of indoctrination by pure propaganda.
I kinda understand I was there.

Being a tankie is compatible with feminism

Pretty much every single critique I have ever seen from a right-winger leveled against Marx has been founded on either extreme misreadings, extreme misunderstanding, or outright betrays the fact that they have no clue about Marx's actual position on a given topic. Reading a little more of the mans own words couldn't hurt you if you want to convince people who agree with the him that they are wrong my dude.

Lacks something like "Bureau of Real and Official Statistics" in the sources

...

Liberalism is a philosophy that basically says "I dont care what happens as long as it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg" or "Freedom for myself and maybe for others as long as it doesnt come at my expense" or "Fuck you. got mine"

A conservative is on the right wing of liberalism. A liberal is on the left wing of liberalism.

Left liberals are capable of acknowledging that class struggle is a potential threat and are willing to pay to make the problem go away. Conservatives instead are willing to either put their heads in the sand, or fight to make it go away.

This dudes a conservative catholic. This grasps class struggle but says at the end that capitalism has legitimacy because germany is a den of sexual deviancy. I cant believe i sat through that vid for 13 minutes

Because they support capitalism, imperialism, are moderates (not radical enough), believe democracy actually works, and overall suck dick

Speak for yourself faggot
Antifa is nothing but identitarian participation in the perpetuation of capitalism, completely divorce from any sense of class.

Hmmm.

They arent being prevented from organising tho…