Critique on marxism

Fucking hell man. Marx was talking about THE STATE AS IT EXISTS TODAY, not the earliest agricultural state. The state today protects private property. In agricultural times there was no private property, the ownership of the means of production was organized differently.

So that state that protects the interests of farmers and the extended tribe now continues to protect the interests of farmers and the extended tribe? Wow, much change, such transformation.

Fucking hell. THE STATE DOES NOT SUBJUGATE NOW EITHER, IT IS A TOOL FOOOOR SUBJUGATION BY THE DOMINANT CLASS. Fucking hell, this guy really does not understand shit.

Nobody said that religion and tribalism doesn't exist. However, no matter how much nationalism you have, no matter how religious you are, you will always try to act as your class dictates. Even in nazi germany, even in patriotic america, the bourgoiesie doesn't hire people for their nationality if the economic class system dictates it is against their interest. A nationalistic, tribalist country with a class system will still behave like that class system, even if due to circumstance or whatever they are in conflict with other groups that have the same class system. A class does not even have to work together. The ruling class of one area is also in conflict with other areas, constantly trying to gain more power.

oh boy here we go

Is this writer retarded? It does not "steal power", it merely gives people the illusion of having power to keep them down. We have seen time and time again that once the decisions of "representative democracy" goes against the interests of the ruling class, non-democratic means are used to enforce the will of the ruling class. See greece, chile etc ect ect.

KEK. Yes it has nothing to do with the arresting and breaking up of unions, socialists and communists, the masses of propaganda and the fact that america doesnt even have representative democracy, but a two party system wherein no new partys can be formed in practice.
cont

check em

I think the writer does not understand russian history.

Every day I begin to understand more why they had gulags.

What. The. Fuck. Does this man honestly not know that the electoral state was devised to protect the interests of the manufacturers after they as a class pressured the monarchy (which is a class) into making a representative democracy by threatening to sabotage industry and thus the kings power and income? Does this writer not know that representative democracy only allowed the rich to vote, and that their vote counted in accordance to how much land they owned? It was not until the workers, as a class, unionized and used violence and sabotage to give everyone an equal vote, which still did not matter in the end, because those with vast non-electoral power can use that power to influence, sabotage or simply stop the electoral democratic process.

Need I go on with this article or is this sufficient to show this author or retarded?

Thanks for your post comr8. It's a nice critique of him.

What's worrying is that he isn't as bad as a lot of other sociologists and political scientists, who share the pluralist view of the state.

It was sufficient after your first post

Thanks either way, comrade. I was very interested in your analysis.

All irrelevant. You sir are a fuck head

They weren't Marxists, were they?

...

it ignores The Conflict of the Orders where the plebes went on strike and threatened to leave Rome because the senator class was exploiting the shit out if them

all history is the history of class conflict

If I remember correctly, the brothers grachii and Rome's grain were also important.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi#Aftermath

A substantial proportion of the Roman poor, protective of their muh privileged Roman citizenship, turned against Gaius.[1] With Gaius's support from the people weakened, the consul Lucius Opimius was able to crush the Gracchan movement by force. A mob was raised to assassinate Gaius. Knowing his death was imminent he committed suicide on the Aventine hill in 121 BC. All of his reforms were undermined except for the grain laws. Three thousand supporters were subsequently arrested and put to death in the proscriptions that followed.
Class warfare. They will fight to keep their chains.

How can they say that Marx "ignores" the period following the fall of Rome? Doesn't he talk extensively about Feudalism? I've only read part of the German Ideology but he still gave a pretty concise analysis of it.

I thought there is only one. What are you talking about?

What claims? He is a retard.

Look at this nonsense:
> The idea that all power is rooted ultimately in the ownership and control of the means of production, with the ensuing class struggle providing the motor of history, does not fit the origins of civilization in the years from 3000 to 2300 B.C.E., when most property was held by the state and there was no class conflict
How does he know? And I don't even care what specific civilizations he is talking about, nor his knowledge that property was owned by state.

And then he proceeds to claim that classes did not emerge unitl Capitalism. That's foaming-out-of-the-mouth level of denial. And that's just first paragraph.

There is nothing to reject. He is a fucking retard. Stay away from him. He might be contagious.

If you want a response to Mills whole "power elite" approach read PDF

Thanks for sharing comr8.

I always thought of historical materialism as just a useful way of looking at history. I don't know if it's the best or even the correct way of looking at the past. But in my economics classes, people tend to look at economic history as always describing some form of capitalism. Which is silly.

The Gracchi were important, but to look at the material forces at play is rather fascinating. Class conflict is not only the reason for the Republic, but for the Empire, too.

To be fair to the plebeans, they were in a really tight spot. Even before the Gracchi, the majority of the labor in Italy was done by slaves. Miles and miles of latifundia cranking out expensive cash crops, and all the work was done by slaves.

Italian economics drives much of the historical metamorphosis of Rome. The Republican army used to be made up entirely of volunteer citizens that could provide for their own equipment. These citizens are often driven to bankruptcy because long campaigns keep them away from their farms, which eventually get bought up by the Senators. Eventually, so much of the "middle class" is wiped out by this that Rome can no longer field an army. Then the reforms of Marius.

Now Italy has tons of bodies with no possible use, until Marius institutes his reforms of the military which reorganized the army and allowed anyone to join with the expenses being handled by the state. Rome has an army again, the senators get to stay rich, and the plebeans now have a way out of the economic.

But it doesn't solve the underlying problem. The senatorial class is just continuing to accumulate wealth. Much of the land Rome conquers is transferred into the "ager publicus," which ostensibly is supposed to be administered for the common wealth of all Romans. Instead, what we see happening is senators or their intermediaries buying up humongous tracts of land on the cheap, shipping in a bunch of slaves, and making even more money.

Eventually this wealth becomes so concentrated that individual families are able to disrupt the entire state. The senate's ability to reign individuals in has just about evaporated at this point. We also start to see outright political purges of families. This political instability continues on for a century of constant civil war, usurpation, and military dictatorships. The army is out of the senate's control, and a successive string of powerful generals basically take over. This still doesn't stop it.

Caesar's innovation is monopolizing political power by transferring into one new position just about every major Roman office. It also produces at long last a supreme family that, for a while, outclasses all the other major families, returning stability to Rome.

But, once again, this doesn't really solve the class contradictions and economic forces that lead to these crises to begin with, so the office of the Emperor turns out to be only a stopgap solution at best.

…

Where can I find more stuff like this? I'm sociologically illiterate and want to learn more about the field.