Red Pill me on Marxism

I almost exclusively use Holla Forums on h@lf ch@n. I consider myself a nationalist, anti-immigrant, market liberal. I am an atheist, and a materialist. I believe abortion is the slaying of human life, and I am against it past the first trimester. I believe transgenderism is a mental disorder. I'm not inherently anti-gay, but I confirm that they are evolutionary deadends, and thus should not be held up as some proud standard in a civilization which needs reproduction, and continuation. I think that race exists, and it is genetic, and Autism Level is 50-80% genetic. I think culture and Autism Level are more important that class distinctions, and I believe a free market helps everyone in the long-term. I'm open to the idea of a basic income once technology has produced severe unemployment in the latter half of the this century, or in a few decades.
I consider inflation worse than unemployment. I voted Trump over Clinton. I prefer stricter environmental regulations, I believe climate change is a real and devastating thing, and that nuclear power is a tool in reducing climate change. I do not consider myself alt-right, but I clearly have sympathetic tendencies to them. I am 24 years old, and earlier in my life I transitioned to my current position, from the more vague leftist and progressive stances of organizations such as TYT, MSNBC, Huffpo, random facebook groups etc. Before my current beliefs, social democrat was probably my most accurate description, thus over the years I have become far more capitalist, and authoritarian, and traditional. I'm the type of person that may from time to time disparage "degeneracy."

I'm telling you this so that you know who you are dealing with. I want you to, "red pill" me concerning Marxism, and the strains of Marxism. I'm coming here in complete sincerity, and with a genuine desire to fairly examine leftist/Marxist/Communist ideas from an non-mainstream perspective. My teenage and early college "social democrat" days were more feeling based than fact based in my opinion. So, all I ask, is for study material, perhaps a paragraph or two on why I am utterly wrong in my views, or even why I'm right in some. Tell me why you are a leftist today, if you are viewing this thread, why are you what you are, and why should I change? And more importantly, what, if any, are the core problems with how I have described myself.
Thank you.

youtube.com/watch?v=k5B6dytjdMU

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Wage_Labour_and_Capital.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift
scientificamerican.com/article/where-transgender-is-no-longer-a-diagnosis/
archive.is/An7zF
archive.is/I9vEh
archive.is/GFOBo
youtube.com/watch?v=J-fCRcT1D9s
youtube.com/watch?v=93cO8Dxtkkc
8ch.net/freedu/res/5.html
youtube.com/watch?v=dGT-hygPqUM&list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Why the Makhno picture? Just curious

literally no reason besides me listening to his song in Kaiserreich HOI4, and enjoying it, and then researching the origin.

The most coherent revolutionary philosophy of its time. It was unfortunately limited by the anthropology of its time. Bookchin greatly improves upon it while retaining its coherence.

disgusting
disgusting
disgusting
disgusting
based
based
based
false dichotomy it is possible to pursue full employment while preventing inflation from spiraling out of control
see: Market Anti-Inflation plan by Abba Lerner
idiocy read the bible
based accelerationist
based
based
Overall I'd rate you as a real mess that needs to sort himself out. You have a hodge podge of confusing and contradictory stances, anti-immigrant while anti-abortion when to be consistently pro-life is to be in favor of both, in favor of basic income and a (free?) market at the same time, in favor of more environmental regulation yet voting for trump over Clinton, materialist yet nationalist…yeah you need to figure yourself out more.

I don't deny that its an eclectic mix. I'm not open to a basic income now, I would definitely say no now, but I have a fear that work in the traditional sense will become for real scarce by 2040s and beyond. I'm nativist, because of my position on lQ and culture, and my belief in the supremacy of European values. I also do not see any benefit in letting another group ravage your social safety net and capital, just to eventually become the majority in your indigenous lands. I prefer they better their lands, especially due to our genuine lack of space, and the expected population growth.

the only legit Marxist-Leninists were Stalin, Hoxha, and the Juche regime.

Tito was decent for a revisionist

nice Mahkno pic, the only Ukie I ever liked, true anarchist communism, before anarchism was hyphenated.

most Trotskyists are International revisions (imho, same with Luxemburgists) Kropotkin was only good on an economic platform. I prefer Bakunin and Proudhon above all anarchists.

Marxist-Leninism is fine but I prefer Socialism in one state or satellite states. also Blanqui didn't have enough of an army of malcontents to overthrow capitalism. but he tried.

You're going to have to read fam. Wage Labor and Capital by Marx is pretty good for grasping some of the basics, and if you want to learn about the section represented by the pic in OP Malatesta's Anarchy should be read.

The board is generally pretty quiet at this point. I'm pretty tired myself to the point of struggling to construct anything more than some late night shitposts but this pdf should give you a good understanding. It's 32 pages including cover etc.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Wage_Labour_and_Capital.pdf
This wikipedia page is pretty good for bullying people who talk about Basic Economics (aka Libertarian free market economics) and is why Keynesianism worked so well
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift

Fuck me

...

...

I'm a leftist because, even with a cursory glance at history, I'm aware that right nationalist movements motivated by race and identity desire not material well-being, not individual liberty, not even untouched markets, but utterly homogeneous societies populated by obedient subjects. Current hierarchies will be enforced and made rigid, with most people stuck performing their "traditional" role in society as dictated by the regime. No moral or rational argument will dissuade a fervent ethnonationalist from removing people he considers different from his country, and he will have no problem using mass murder to do so. This inevitably includes people who disagree with the reigning power, or those within the ruling ethnicity that poe a threat to genetic purity. This regime will also likely position itself as the sole legitimate representative of the people and will only relinquish power through use or threat of armed force.

I became a leftist as I realized how many ways an ethnonationalist would see me or my loved ones a threat. My cousin would be sterilized or murdered because he has schizophrenia. My parents would be beaten for participating in strikes. I would probably be denied employment, sent to a camp or worse for my writing in high school and university.

...

Eh heh about that… Anyway this thread on freedu should set yous straight.

8ch.net/freedu/res/5.html

The question is who controls the resources, the means of production. You might think that the people who currently do deserve to, but you'd be wrong. In reality they have their position because of a long historical process of conquest, and then leveraging one's conquests to conquest even more. This is fucked up, and we think we should have a revolution to change it, so that instead of a tiny group of people enjoying the produce of the people's labor, we all can enjoy the fruits of our labor.

Check the reading list thread in the catalog.

Identifying with your nation-state is a poor substitute for genuine liberation from a globalized system of commodities and exploited labor. Why do you owe the bloated imperialist parasitic waste of resources US government anything? You can love the people in your community and geographic location while hating the nation-state, which you have every reason to because the US government is one of the worst. Read some Chomsky and Zinn for starters.

I think its reasonable/practical to have some restrictions on immigration. But national boundaries are ultimately a spook, they're just some lines drawn on a map. No one really "owns" the land, they just put fences on it and shoot people who cross the invisible barriers. Look into Georgism. Also if anyone has rights to US land it would be brown people, they were here first.

You need to study Marxism and critical theory to understand that capitalism is at the root of a great many of our social problems. Liberalism is a utopian fantasy that we can make capitalism serve our interest, when in reality capital serves only itself.

That's a good start. But being atheist doesn't prevent you from being a politically clueless asshole, like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.

Classical marxists could care less about such social issues - they're a red herring tossed out by the ruling class to distract from real issues. I don't think this is an unreasonable position and it would really only get you in trouble with hardline feminists.

I tend to agree, and there are at least some transgendered people who agree, like Blair White on youtube. But nonetheless the right-wing fixation on transgendered people is pathological, and probably also a mental disorder. Live and let live.

Aren't humans like 99.99% genetically identical, regardless of race? I actually wouldn't be surprised if there are differences in Autism Level results across races, but that doesn't mean shit. Fuck the Autism Level, anyone who thinks that intelligence can be boiled down to one number probably needs their intelligence tested. Even if, let's say, black people were stupider than white people on average, what does that prove? People in general are dumb as fuck including most white people. And nazis aren't the brightest of the bunch.

outdated Keynesian Phillips curve bullshit. Capitalism cannot be managed technocratically, it obeys its own logic. The object of Marxism is to understand that logic.

Meaningless choice between two flavors of bourgeois scum.

Good, it is real. You're free to argue for nuclear power as a solution, but what about disasters like Fukuyama? Last I heard it was still spewing out thousands of gallons of radioactive water per day.

Fuck that milquetoast liberal garbage. Not even leftist.

This, reading is always the best way to understand leftism in its various forms, since it's essentially become a bit of an academic sub-branch. However, here's a quick rundown of my understanding of the thrust of Marx's critique of capitalism: Society is basically split into two distinct groups, centred around the way things are produced. There are those who earn a living by working, and those who passively earn money by investment into the ownership of a business or land etc. Of course, there are those who do both, and those who do neither, but for the most part in a given societal role one does one of these two things. When a commodity (good produced to be exchanged on a market) is exchanged for another commodity, the price is determined by supply and demand as well as the cost of the commodity's production, since if exactly the same number of people are selling as are buying, supply and demand cannot sufficiently explain the cost of each commodity. Marx then outlines that the cost of the commodity's production is determined by the raw materials used, maintenance costs, initial capital cost and the cost of the labour used in production. As such, the owner of the factory or whatever makes money by the worker producing goods for a cost which is lower than the cost of the commodity. By doing so, the owner makes money for owning the factory, while the worker makes an amount of money equal to the monetary value of all the commodities he produced on a given day, minus the owner's share as well as the other costs of production. 1/2

Marx realised that the owner is not necessary in this process. Even if the owner does non-physical work, such as coordinating the distribution and sale of commodities, he can just hire a manager to do this and can make money without being critical to the process. The worker, on the other hand, is not recieving the value of his labour. This is the critical imbalance, not simply a hatred of the rich or whatever. By removing the need for capital intrinsic to capitalism, one can remove the need for an owner and still produce commodities for people to use. If workers collectively own the factories and land etc of the society, they can receive the fruits of their labour without the owner skimming off the top. This is important because, under capitalism, workers (the vast majority of people) cannot buy back the goods they produce, meaning that on aggregate they do not have enough money to buy all the commodities of the society on aggregate. Since the capitalists constitute a far smaller portion of the population, they too will not buy back the remainder of goods for the simple fact that they don't need so many of them and it's not in their self interest to buy things they don't need. This leads to prices being driven down by the oversupply of commodities, resulting in a number of things. First, supply is artificially restricted to prevent prices from free falling. Second, capital is moved overseas to extract the value of poorer nations' workers, thus allowing for goods to be produced far more cheaply and profit margins to be maintained by selling to richer nations. Third, capital compounds on itself to form things like credit and speculative industries, which use the management of capital to increase capital without actually contributing anything to society on a fundamental level. All of these are things are inefficient and harmful, and result in shit like chronic poverty and wars as countries defend economic interests overseas. This is what creates the immigrants you are worried about, this is the reason unemployment is a problem despite the fact that it really doesn't need to be. This is the reason there's homeless in a society with an excess of empty housing, or starvation despite an excess of food. I'm not trying to appeal to your "feels", but rather just trying to show how inefficient and needless the system is. Anyway, I'm a bit of a booklet and brainlet so people can feel free to tell me I'm wrong. 2/2

In regard to the social issues you outlined, I'd ask why you care at all. If gays are an evolutionary deadend, let them die out. At no point will a majority of the population be exclusively gay, so it's not a problem. In regard to race, races are far from constant. The genetic makeup of ancient populations was wildly different from those today, there are whole fields dedicated to studying shit like this. Evolution simply doesn't happen on such a small time scale, and why would it be evolutionarily advantageous anyway for, say, Bantu Africans to have a lower Autism Level than East Asians or Western Europeans? I can't see any good reason for this to be the case. In regard to the historical development of these peoples, plenty of significant scientific and civilisation-forming work was done by various Eurasian peoples, normally situated in the Middle East, but only recently towards Western Europe. Why prioritise such a recent phase of historical development? I agree on abortion, and disagree on materialism, but I wonder why you care about the slaying of a human life which feels no pain or loss as a result, as a materialist. Under a utilitarian framework the 'slaying of a human life' is not intrinsically wrong, and the maximum benefit principle would appear to justify abortion. Finally, onto the biggest sticking point. Why would a free market help everyone in the long term? Inequalities are critical to its proper function, as this allows for the concentration of capital and thus the continuation of the cycle of production. This is why alt-right types tend to harp on about the necessity of hierarchy and inequality. In the end though, free markets mean that workers participate in a race to the bottom in terms of wages, since the lowest possible wage will be the norm. Also, it is objectively in the interest of capitalists to not create a free market, since by controlling the market they advantage themselves. You can't remove this imperative, so why would you think that free markets are sustainable? 3/2

You're probably not materialist m8, at least not in the sense most people here would use it.

read the Ego & It's Own first.

This. OP is clearly an idealist.

Wait a moment, being anti-gay is inherently reactionary

could you relink those race debate archives? They appear to be dead links.

nvm they work now… for whatever reason my connection was timing out. my idiocy.

I just vomited

Pick one and only one.

A+ shitpost, almost raged too.

are you literally capable of anything except regurgitating the same substance-devoid posts in every thread?

thank god this stupid bookchinite meme is dying

Read:

Wage labor and capital
Value price and profit
The german ideology
Socialism utopian and scientific

Once your done if you are still interested try Capital volume 1-3.

don't do this

do this

Watch this full video series.

youtube.com/watch?v=dGT-hygPqUM&list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7

Bookchin will never die you gigantic faggot

It's like you're trying to turn a non-argument into an argument. Why?

i don't get why people don't include in this list: "On The Jewish Question" (identify liberal democracy and the need to overcome it insofar as the conflicting duality of man's existence in the civil and citizen sphere ask him to work against himself) as well as his "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right" and perhaps even "King of Prussia and Social Reform" (identification of the shortcomings inherent to political revolution in the emancipation of humanity from capitalism followed by what characterizes a social revolution and why even a failed social revolution is closer to achieving emancipation than any political ones will ever be).

these are the best preliminary readings to gain an insight into early Marx which reveals the Marxian philosophical underpinnings that are felt throughout the rest of Marx's writing and well into the Marxist materialist methodology to history.

sorry i'm tired but I really feel that overlooking the early philosophy, which is easily digestible enough to appeal to people interested in Marx at large and not too dragged down by overly technical jargon; is overlooking one of the most important components of Marx's thought. I have found more people who get inspired to read further into Marx just simply by reading his early philosophy (all of these are relatively short). one of the best comprehensive books compiling Marx I've found is pic related

Anyway just please consider all this!! sorry if my post is a little sloppy

yummy videos

...