Debating Marxism

After studiously reading Marx for a little while I realized how Holla Forums keymembers must feel debating politics with anyone…

You can spot someone who hasn't read or was incapable of reading Marx instaneously in any political discussion. All political debate is seen in an entirely new light after a certain development of understanding Marxism.

There are so many misconceptions and myths about Marxism that it's nearly unbearable to debate socialism with someone who hasn't also read Das Kapital or The Communist Manifesto.

The biggest misconception is that true Marxism has been tried. It has not. Any "communist" society with a patriarchal power structure is not adhering to Marxism.

The amount of understanding and enlightenment that comes from taking the marx-pill is astounding. Taking le red pill is easy in comparison. The red pill is undoubtedly just anachronistic arguments from dead tyrants condensed into something any idiot can digest.

Now that I started actually studying Marxism I'm crushing 95% of people in political debates, because I'm debating from a position that doesn't allow for anachronisms and patriarchal polemics (especially the aristocratic retorts).

Marx continues to be a game changer even in modern political dialogue. Unfortunately he is not accessible to most proles.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism#Early_concepts_and_use
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

feminazi detected

>>>/liberalpol/

...

You deny racial differences and are mired in 19th century blank slate sociological theories, the entirety of your world view isn't fitting to wipe my ass with.

>>>Holla Forums

OMEGALUL

Great job at being an ignorant cuck
No really bravo
*claps*

Name a country true Marxism was tried..

HINT: You won't be able to, because it's apparent you haven't read Das Kapital or The Communist Manifesto

Your idpol isn't fit to be shit on by Marx

Think again sunshine

If you've read this thread then you realize that no one has suggested Das Kapital was the communist Turner Diaries which lays out a plan on how to singlehandedly install a communist government. However, it was and still is suggested it's a superior method of scientifically approaching capitalist politics.

But then again, you're probably Holla Forums and enjoy the idea of sucking bourgeoisie asshole.

I can't count how many times OP has made the assertion that if you read capital, you'll see that TrueMarxism™ has never been tried before
Yes, OP was implying that reading capital and the memefesto means you'll understand how to implement TrueMarxism™

Nice anachronism. I see that dead tyrants still rule over your thoughtforms with an icy grip.

You know, I've never heard a single person argue that "pure" Marxism has been tried, but there are many actual misconceptions i do hear on a regular basis. why would you call this the "biggest misconception"? It's not as though "pure" capitalism or fascism or any other ideology has ever been practiced in a "pure" form, it doesn't seem like much of a rebuke.

😏 good one my man

Yes you'll understand that true Marxism hasn't been implemented if you actually pick both books up and read them.

Unfortunately the odds are that you're simply not literate enough to read and understand them. Das Kapital in particular is a serious commitment to read.

Honestly, I think Milo Yanniopolis is more appropriate for your philosophical fluency and reading level atm.

Take your meds.

The Marxism that's been claimed as a philosophy by totalitarian governments and referenced by capitalist brolads is bastardized, and would be discussed with utter contempt by Marx.

People who consider totalitarian governments Marxist are ignorant macedonian banjoplaying brolads

I feel real sorry for them

Totalitarianism is not in the spirit of empowering the working class and removing class caste systems…

Dead tyrants still rule over the world with an iron fist…

From the point of view of the bourg all forms of socialism are "totalitarian." Government "oppression" is not inherently anti-socialist.

It's not oppression if the surplus from people's labor is given back to them. It's freeing the worker from the Aristocracy's chains. Excess billion dollar collections of commodities owned by Aristocrats are not an entitlement. They have no divine rights to horde property and commodities. Only the democratically elected representatives whom vote on laws which are deliberately skewed against the working class protects the Aristocracy.

You could of course dream up a dystopian system of redistribution, but I guarantee it wouldn't be under collective control. Authoritarianism is a class caste form. It lacks an important aspect of socialism as Marx considered: A classless society without exploitation of labor and production forces by power centers in the state and bourgeoisie.

In a sense it lacks the compassion that was evident in Engels and Marx's Communist Manifesto philosophy.

Footnote: I'm sure Marx was aware class would form in any society, but he was quite straightforward about being against class dominance.

I hope y'all dudes realize you're like the 5th Wave of dumbass redneck Bros that we ran off out of Holla Forums. Although you are entertaining go back to Holla Forums.

Marxism is a system to critique the world, specifically the capitalist mode of production
I reiterate my assertion that you haven't actually read capital
Also
Hang yourself

So far it's about labor and commodities (3 Chapters in… But inconjuction with his other writing it's more). Not sure why it bein a book about capitalism downgrades my OP. Did I not mention the manifesto too? Have you never read more than his Wikipedia pages? See if you read the book cover to cover.. Such as the prefaces and footnotes of Das Kapital.. or the manifesto.. or his life story.. or his evolution of ideas.. then you will understand what Marx brings to the table surpasses the philosophical technology of most modern political discourse. It's not only his skill at which he scientifically breaks down capitalism, but also his fiery prose.

There has to be more to it than just that.

Couldn't one just get away with saying the same thing about capitalism? - that we haven't actually tried "pure" capitalism without authoritarian market interference yet, so we can't judge it by its track record of partial instantiation?

What I've started to do is I don't debate people on the merits of Marxism, but you talk about a subject from the perspective of marxism or dialectics with them, both as marxists, and sort out how to understand the news, books, movies.

If someone does know what marxism is I might teach it a bit, but if they're interested they've gotta read about 5 books first.

It's super annoying how "Marx said this" is an argument people take seriously. Someone's quality as a communist isn't related to their understanding of Marx, but their interpretation of communism and action to build it. Marx is obviously important to communism, but cult of personality is only destructive since people just become different strains of dogmatist.

Well part of the issue you can see on this thread is that people are insisting all Marx was doing was defining capitalism (specifically in regards to Das Kapital).

But Marx said "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."

What Marx said is quite important when you're trying to discuss his philosophy.

Totalitarianism doesn't contain a hint of what Marx fought his whole life to define and change.

Marx did not abhorred nations where only a small handful of people win. A place where the power of production was rigidly controlled by a dictatorship is simply not even remotely Marxism.

Exactly, true Socialism would be incompatable with totalitarianism. The problem i have here is that I also think it's disingenuous to say that true capitalism is compatible with totalitarianism - when in actuality totalitarianism inherently involves market control.

...

Totalitarianism is a liberal concept defined for the sole purpose of conflating nazism with the USSR's project of socialist transformation, on the basis that both are characterized by the state holding "total power": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism#Early_concepts_and_use