Alright, since the general sentiment on this board is is that Marx is a complete hack, I have a challenge.
I'll stop reading and believing Marx if anti-Marxists can prove to me that there exists a single society where the social order was not established through violence, and where land ownership was not established through violence. If you can prove to me that capitalism could possibly have started under nonviolent or fair circumstances, which I'm positive you can't, I'll stop shitposting Marx.
You're saying Marx was the first to note that society is violent and that this observation is the foundation of his theories?
>>992691
No, read what I said.
>>992676
Capitalism is the continuism of our base instincts, ever since ugg the caveman reasoned having 2 goats is better than one and ugg the caveman sought out his third or fourth goat under any means
>>992676
>prove to me that there exists a single society where the social order was not established through violence
How does that relate to accepting an utopian ideology that itself advocates for violence to impose a new social order? Except that it is a social order that has failed everywhere and the first ever society to have to build walls to keep people IN instead of keeping people out? Rather just learn basic economics and history.
>>992676
have you even read Marx bro
Division of labour is the real problem
>>992707
I don't accept everything Marx wrote. But I disagree vehemently that he's somehow entirely worthless. His materialist reading of history makes too much sense to me.
>>992705
>under any means
Historically speaking, that means beating your neighbor's head with a club and taking his goats and land, not trade.
>>992717
Marx proposes many different theories, he never had one single idea of "the problem" that he put forth.
>>992676
There haven't been any.
Please explain how this connects to anything Marx wrote though, given that he advocates for the use of violence to create his new system, and mass violence from the proletariat is supposed to be what keeps it together when it is established.
>>992723
You do understand the concept of a barter economy yes?
>>992728
read the German Ideology
>>992723
>Marx is the only materialist historian
>>992731
Doesn't it prove, then, that the masses literally have to rise up and commit violent acts against the rich? Basically, the rich keep promising that if you don't disrupt the social order, then you have a chance to be them, but if I'm right, then a violent revolution is necessary.
>>992743
I've read good parts of it, it's an early work and he changed his mind about some things later.
>>992747
Remind me of ones before him? That worked on the same topics?
Oh yeah, there are none. Are you really gonna pretend he didn't break any new ground in history?
>>992759
okay, how did he change his mind?
>>992676
>prove to me that there exists a single society where the social order was not established through violence
How would that prove or disprove marx either way? I second >>992691 and question the premise of your argument.
I can't wait to see your logic and debate skills in action fellow internet argumenteer. Remember to play by the rules or you are but a pigeon knocking over chess pieces.
*tip*
>>992780
over a cup of coffee? what of what marx said do you believe is actually immutable, unchangeable dogma? literally book two of capital is a competing conception of capital from some of the forms he proposes in book one. he does this constantly, proposes alternate theories of the same concept side by side
>>992759
>Doesn't it prove, then, that the masses literally have to rise up and commit violent acts against the rich
No, it does not. Because he has yet to demonstrate that all societies are zero sum games of economics. Furthermore, simply because all societies have contained elements of violence, that doesn't mean that the sum total of all class interaction is through violence or threat of violence. Economic and other social interactions also play a part, and to say that the "Masses" (who are the masses?) "must" engage in violent action to effect change is reductionist and quite frankly wrong, as evidenced by every nonviolent transition of power from one government to the next.
>Basically, the rich keep promising that if you don't disrupt the social order, then you have a chance to be them, but if I'm right, then a violent revolution is necessary.
And what makes the dominant social interaction one between "The rich" and "the poor"? Especially since Marx himself never claims that, his focus is on productive modes, the level of control one has over one's capital, which has a very loose correlation with wealth or income. A small struggling business owner is a bourgouis, but a highly successful surgeon is a member of the proleteriat, even if the latter is making 10 times what the former does.
His materialism is probably his greatest weakness, or at least his dogmatic insistence of clinging to it: Classes are socioeconomic phenomena, not just economic one, which means that you can't tally it up in totally material factors.
>>992782
It would prove that there is no such thing as a free market, because land distribution is a rigged game.
>>992797
>Furthermore, simply because all societies have contained elements of violence, that doesn't mean that the sum total of all class interaction is through violence or threat of violence.
Of course not, but that's not really all too relevant. It's not like a farmer's plot isn't his based on the day to day actions of laborers. I'm not saying social order is maintained by violence, I'm saying it's established through it, and so is property. Much different distinction.
>Economic and other social interactions also play a part, and to say that the "Masses" (who are the masses?) "must" engage in violent action to effect change is reductionist and quite frankly wrong, as evidenced by every nonviolent transition of power from one government to the next.
No nonviolent transition of power involves a redistribution of wealth, rather a preservation of old orders.
The masses being the proletariat, obviously. And no, it's not an all or nothing thing. Labor unions can affect pressure on the people who own land and force them to give, but to entirely change the social order, who literally owns the land and who has the power, can't be done without violence.
>>992819
> I'm saying it's established through it, and so is property. Much different distinction.
Again, I don't disagree with you, but how do you go from there to Marx's conclusions? Yes, the game is never entirely fair, but you can go even further back into biology to establish inequalities before you even get to societal factors. Differences in health, intelligence, energy, initiative, etc. will matter, and were almost certainly present at the formation of the first societies.
>No nonviolent transition of power involves a redistribution of wealth, rather a preservation of old orders.
Except when it does, such as the shift away from agrarian to urban artisianal wealth in Europe in the 15th-17th centuries, or through the rise of the industrial revolution, or in the post industrial revolution that we're seeing ongoing with the internet. Who died to make e-commerce a thing, with its new set of winners and losers?
>The masses being the proletariat, obviously. And no, it's not an all or nothing thing. Labor unions can affect pressure on the people who own land and force them to give, but to entirely change the social order, who literally owns the land and who has the power, can't be done without violence.
Why are you connecting land ownership with power? It's at its weakest that it's ever been today, and even in Marx's time, it was a pretty weak link. We haven't had agrarian dominated economies since the 16th century in most places in the civilized world.
Just look at the actions of the U.S. government (I assume you live in the U.S.), over the last 150 years. We've had corporate presidenceies in the 1880s gone to progressive trustbusters in the early 20th century to the lassaiz-faire policies of the WW1-FDR, to the New Society socialist lite state which peaked in the 70s and has been in a decline since. The ranks and wealth between Marx's pseudoclasses have shifted back and forth since then, and I don't remember any violent uprisings around election times.
Why are you so pissy about violence?
>>992676
>I'll stop reading and believing Marx if anti-Marxists can prove to me that there exists a single society where the social order was not established through violence, and where land ownership was not established through violence.
But it has. The problem is that what Marx proposes as a solution will never work, as every communist dictatorship has proven; which are societies that have turned that systematic and controlled violence into direct domination and subjugation instead.
>>992911
As far as I can gather from his thread, his argument goes
>Violence has been inherent in social systems pretty much since day one
>Therefore, given unequal distribution of wealth and power due to aforementioned violent origins of society, most people will never have a fair chance to succeed or fail on their own merits.
>???
>We need marxist revolution to make things fair.
But please note I am not OP and this is just a general sense I get from his posts.
>>992676
But almost everyone agrees that government, and property were established through violence, or at least the threat of it.
That no more proves marx right than it proves anarcho capitalism
OP, I'm a Marxist and technically early matriarchal hunted gatherer society weren't really brought about by violence per se but by biological facts pertaining to survival which proved to be the faculty for human labor prior to it's division and complexity beyond bare subsistence
It's not the history of all hitherto existing societies but the written history of all hitherto existing societies as Engels pointed out. The anthropological natural history of mankind is quite different.
I recommend Marshall Sahlins if you're looking at an interesting take on the history of pre-literate cultures.
>>992733
You understand the concept of law; no.
>>992935
Ancaps believe in a magic noncorporeal self that exerts it's magic pixie dust over arms and factories alike and homesteads it into property
>>992935
Uh, no, ancaps unilaterally reject the idea that owning land is a problem.
>>992978
Of course, I take history to literally mean written history. I don't consider speculations of prewriting society to be history.
>>994868
Cuz its not?
>>992925
I'm OP again. I spent all day working hard at a manual labor job to pay for my STEM degree.
>Violence has been inherent in social systems pretty much since day one
Not really, I mean violence is necessary in the establishment of new societies. Europe basically had one social structure from Napoleon to WW1, with some exceptions, the largest change to the social order in 100 years was WW1. Money moved, land changed hands, it had a real effect. It's my thesis that any significant change in social order is violent in this nature. And that primarily has to do with who owns the land.
>Therefore, given unequal distribution of wealth and power due to aforementioned violent origins of society, most people will never have a fair chance to succeed or fail on their own merits.
If nobody controlled any land, if that concept of property was entirely abolished, capitalism would be a less unequal force. My argument is that, the primary force in creating inequality is disparity in who owns the land, and this ownership can ONLY be established through violence. Nobody ever "agrees" on national borders, or who gets to live in the nice fertile land, they take it with bows and arrows and clubs.
It makes capitalism inherently contradictory. There's no such thing in actual practice as fair and equitable distribution of land.
>We need marxist revolution to make things fair.
I don't believe in the utopian side of Marx. But for any significant change in the social order in America, we need violence. There can't be a WW2 to save us this time.
>>994881
Except it is.
>>994943
Add 100 kg and you have a typical marxist on that pic.
>>992676
There's a difference between violence to establish social order and violence to keep the citizens in line once you have established that social order.
>>994940
The fuck? No.
>>992911
>pissy
Act mature. Just calling spades spades. If you recognize the true source of wealth, you can treat the wealthy as they treat others.
>>994969
You still haven't even attempted to prove the link between wealth and land ownership. How much land does Bill Gates own?
>>994993
How?
>>994984
Bill gates literally has billions of dollars in stock. He's literally a part (significant) owner of every asset of every corporation he's invested in. Including shitloads of land.
>>994996
What are you asking how about?
>>995010
About owning land being bad
>>994999
Which was acquired through ownership of a singe software startup: and as far as I know, land is not a common investment, it doesn't appreciate in value at the se rate as the a&up 500, at least here in the USA. I'm quite sure that a mid scale farmer owns more land than Gates.
>>992676
>the general sentiment on this board is is that Marx is a complete hack
No, some people here disagree with him and some people agree with him. There isn't anything wrong with that at all. You just seem to have this weird problem where you get triggered whenever someone makes fun of your favorite superhero.
>If you can prove to me that capitalism could possibly have started under nonviolent or fair circumstances, which I'm positive you can't, I'll stop shitposting Marx.
I don't really care much if you shitpost Marx. Can any system be 'started' under nonviolent or fair circumstances? Were the Spanish anarchists working under nonviolent circumstances when they attempted to create an anarcho-syndicalist utopia? Since when has there been an attempt to install a radically different kind of system that didn't involve some degree of violence? This doesn't really relate to capitalism. I have a feeling you're really asking something different here.
>>995018
If there was some way to equitably distribute the land, and allow markets to continue in such a way, it would be a good system. But that's not how it ever works. The most significant land is never acquired through violence and force, so the markets are tilted from day one.
Nobody chooses for a king to be king, he becomes king by murdering everyone who dissents and claiming all as his. Land under current social structures will never be applicable to free market economics.
>>995030
You still havent explained how any of that is bad
>>995030
>nobody chooses for a king to be king
You might want to look up 15th century Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, among others.
>>995027
You're missing the point, really. Most arable land in America is probably owned by a few corporations, and most food is produced by a few corporations. They own most of that land, which was violently taken and enforced by the United States government which predominately serves the wealthy. Bill doesn't have to have a hand in that side of the economy, he's just a part of the system. It's a composition fallacy.
>>995046
>taken
Most of it was just empty af land during the settlements. They took it from beavers and butterflies.
>>995051
Pretty sure the history of United States expansion is bloody as all fuck.
>>995063
Bloody yes, mostly from clashing with Indians, who didn't really own shit. No ownership = no theft.
>>995046
ANd you in turn are missing the point. Yes, a few farming conglomerations own a huge chunk of arable land, and the federal government owns another big chunk. So what?
You take a land ownership comparison, and much more thriving businesses like JPMorgan Chase, Boeing, Microsoft, etc., will own a lot less than a farming company. Once, a long time ago, when economies were dominated by agrarianism because that's what employed some 70-90% of the population, land=wealth. Nowadays, it doesn't matter, there are way better investments, and way better methods of making money. This myopic focus on who owns land and violence used to either acquire or maintain it is quite literally irrelevant if you want to analyze socioeconomics in a modern context.
>>995057
Except it's not true in the "broad strokes" either. Most evidence we have supports the notion that first governments were tribal confederations, ran either by a priesthood or by some warrior aristocracy. Monarchies came later, and often either from a need to have an ultimate authority to mediate between different societal segments, or to run the place in the event of a crisis. While it's probably not how things went down in real life, recall the story in the Bible about how the Israelites got their first king.
Kings WERE originally chosen out, they didn't start by someone deciding one day that he owned everything and murdering anyone who objected too loudly.
>>995094
Except they're chosen already in one cohesive social structure. Society didn't change radically between kings. I'm talking almost exclusively about things bigger than simple one time events, I mean shifts in the fundamental structure of living, epochs.
For instance, Cyrus the great was such a king to change epochs, the English revolution changed epochs, but going from king fuckatard to his son stupidface doesn't necessarily count.
>>995094
'Kings'(in a really general sense) happened around the time when one dude discovered that sperm could make people that looked like him and sometime later another tried the same thing with seeds and people thought he was a wizard 'n' shit
>>992676
>I'll stop reading and believing Marx if anti-Marxists can prove to me that there exists a single society where the social order was not established through violence, and where land ownership was not established through violence.
1. There has not been such a society, and such a society is not possible.
2. There is literally nothing wrong with violence.
>>992676
Marx himself said Communism could only be achieved though violence, why do you care?
Besides, violence is really the only way to formally change a society.
>>992978
There is no evidence that a matriarchal society has ever existed
And how could it, when men are biologically stronger than women?
>>994868
Kinda missed my point. Everyone agrees that violence is used to establish social order. Marx argued that further violence was desirable to overthrow that order and that a new equitable order could be achieved.
that is what people disagree with, that an his idea that all historical phenomena were attributable to class conflict
>>992922
OP is actually making me believe this with his requested completely unrelated to anything Marx said. The problem with Marxism lies in labor theory of value and technological process creating new markets. Not fucking land distribution.
>>995655
who is talking about land distribution?
>>995683
OP made a couple posts about it to support his irrelevant violence problem saying land can only be distributed by force which regardless of whether or not that's true is irrelevant
>>995690
I think is relevant tho.
Private land ->capitalism
Land owned by the lord -> feudalism
how can you change the economic system without changing how land is distributed?
Everyone says marx was correct in his description of what's wrong with our economic system. His prescription is what doesn't work because people are terrible at giving up being all powerful.
>>995735
Both of them require force to distribute, which is the subject.
>>995735
>tfw no ejidos here.
>>992676
>"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
Thats Mao.
Virtually all human order is structured by the possibility of violence. Capitalism is hardly alone in this, is it not?
>>992676
Didn't Marx advocate violence for establishing his social order? You have quotes by him talking about how the Proliterate must be armed or how they should neither give nor expect mercy?
Do people actually think Marx was some sort of hippy?
For anti-Marxists,
Where does Marxism say absolute equality for all?
As far as I can tell, Marx hated lazy deadbeats who don't work, which is what he considered capitalists, and only said profit derived from capital should be spread among society rather than to capital owning individuals, not that profit from one's own labor should be shared with everyone else. Redistribution was limited to meeting every person's needs, and not anything above that, so a person could not be owned by another because of need to meet human needs, and making it so capital could not be used to provide one person with more opportunity than another.
>>992676
>he general sentiment on this board is is that Marx is a complete hack
That's /pol/. Frankly, for this board to ever be good. anyone saying Marx is a hack should be banned on sight.
>>995807
t. pinko communist
>>994934
>land ownership is the crux of capitalist exploitation
You are aware that Marx regarded the rentier class as parasitic on the productivity of capitalist manufactory, yes?
>>995807
Literally everyone but /leftypol/ agrees that Marx is shit and didn't develop a single original thought in his life, especially people who actually read him and his predecessors.
>stole LTV from Smith
>stole dialectics from Hegel
>stole materialism from Feuerbach
>stole egalitarianism from Rouseeau
>mashed them all together and created an incoherent, self-contradictory mess that not even Marxists themselves can decipher
>wherever Marxism was applied practically, it resulted in shit
>the epitome of Marxist academia are arrogant, pretentious fucktards like Zizek and Atlhusser
>the pinnacle of Marxist debating is drowning the opponent in buzzwords and absurd, verbose Marxist newspeak devoid of any substance
>>995856
See how these people "think"? Marx is standing on the shoulders of giants so to them it means he "stole" everything.
>>995794
>hated lazy deadbeats who don't work
So he hated himself.
>>995068
So if I claim ownership of all the air, through use of violence, that's not a violent, exploitative means of declaring ownership.
>>995899
The settled, civilized Indians were mostly wiped out by plagues and those that remained were mostly nomads. Nomads move from place to place, they really don''t understand the concept of land ownership.
>>995856
Yes and when you do geometry that's you you stealing from Pythagoras and shit.
Fucking Christ, everytime you people try the retardation deepens. Why didn't you try some variation of human nature or the mudpie argument or the 100 millions.
>>995877
Being an extremely prolific journalist and all
>>995900
Just like modern westerners don't understand the concept of air ownership. Therefor, I have the exclusive claim to all the air.
When you say "the social order was established through violence", would it also mean the a priestly class needs violence in order to reach its position?
Because I've yet to find a genealogy of the morals or a history of religion that claims this is how the priests always got there.
Now suppose you had a shaman-king or a priest-king...
>>995944
well, I'd say violence is better stated as force in this case in that a priestly class that could rule couldn't do so without treat of some kind of excommunication.
>>992705
> Capitalism is the continuism of our base instincts
Every ideology from nazi to communism claim this.
>>995969
Excommunicating who? Sounds like you don't know your history of the religions.
It's full of private rituals without even personal relationships with gods in the theology, so people can't even suffer the intoxication of Marx's so-called opium of the people, because the people just aren't anywhere near the "opium", both physically and spiritually.
Knowing you were proven wrong, you redefined violence as having people leave a community, nice try but I'm so gonna reject that bullshit.
>I'll stop believing in Marx if you prove that something totally irrelevant is true
lol no wonder you allowed yourself to be brainwashed, you are so fucking thick
>>996011
So full you can't even give me a single concrete example? You've redefined religion as an asocial behaviour (doubly retarded because it's explicitly because it's in a political context lmao) and that's what's bullshit here. I don't know what kind of fantasy novel you think this universe exists in but for most of history banishment was usually tantamount to death.
>>996070
So now non-violent actions are violence? I guess you are a real Marxist.
>>992676
>Fair
The world isn't a fair place and nor will it ever be. Furthermore, violence is ubiquitous as a facet of life once life itself exists - bacteria, plants, vertebrates, they all partake in the orgy of violence that makes the world turn and for every winner in these contests there must also be a loser.
>>992759
>MUH
>CLASS
>WARFARE
Fuck's sake. Not everything is about class.
>>996104
>for every winner in these contests there must also be a loser
There are no winners or losers, only survivors.
>>995944
A class is only a class in Marxism by it's relationship to the means of production.
>>996108
Wow brah that's deep. Did you get that from Call of Duty?
>>996130
Nah, just talking in terms of biology, feel free to inherit a fortune and die of leukaemia.
>>996070
>So full you can't even give me a single concrete example
Early Zhou dynasty liturgy, gotta make the seasons rotate in time.
Ever heard of ahimsa?
>religion as an asocial behaviour
Because doing drugs like the Vedic priests and forest monasticism innawoods are such spectacular means of controlling the masses by violent means in the name of the bourgeoisie, right?
>I don't know what kind of fantasy novel
It's about time you start getting your history from historians, not failed lawyers.
>>996130
Also
>what are Commensalism and Mutualism
>>996103
When you threaten to kill someone does it matter to them wither you stipulate that you are going to stab them or unplug their life support and let their system fail on it's own?
Apparently there's yet another esoteric retard definition I'm not familiar with.
>>992676
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
>The divine right of kings or divine right is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven
>The Mandate of Heaven (Chinese: 天命; pinyin: tiānmìng; literally: "heaven decree") is an ancient Chinese belief and philosophical idea that tiān (heaven) granted emperors the right to rule based on their ability to govern well and fairly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_king
History is clearly marked by the progressive descent of civilization, power and values from the level of the highest caste to that of the lowest. With the end of those systems based on pure spiritual authority ('sacral civilizations' ruled by 'divine kings'), authority fell into the hands of the warrior aristocracy: here began the cycle of great monarchies - the 'divine right' of the sovereign representing the residual echo of a former sacred dignity. The bourgeois revolution, democracy, capitalism and industrialism then contributed to transfer power into the hands of the representatives of the third caste, that of the wealthy - such transferral radically altering the character of the civilization and the nature of its interests. In the present day, socialism, Marxism and Communism are foreshadowing - and have already partly brought about - the final phase: the advent of the fourth caste, that of servants. Servants ('workers' and proletarians) are here seen to organize themselves in an attempt to gain power and to conquer the world, leaving their imprint on all aspects of life, leading the historical process of regression to its close.
- Julius Evola
>>996142
>spiritual not religious
haha no
>>996171
I know your goal and I'd honestly take Evola seriously if he wasn't desperately shoehorned into every possible subject which he ever had an opinion on regardless of the subject or question. The effort you spend trying to recoup all the time you wasted familiarizing yourself with his work is a sign he's not worth it.
The idea you can use violence to bring about utopia is totally vapid.
>>995794
Isn't this because of meme-communism?
People's Revolutionary parties would tell peasants, free shit for everyone, Stalin said state controlled everything was real communism, and western countries seeing how shit it was called that communism people the people who called themselves communist were already making fools out of themselves.
>>996171
This doesn't represent history at all. Ancient Greece and Rome for example went from democracy/oligarchy to divine monarchy (briefly in Greece with Alexander, but it endured for centuries in Rome after Augustus) with rulers who were viewed as gods.
In the early middle ages, divine right of kings wasn't really a thing, kings were just very powerful lords to whom lesser lords swore fielty for protection. They only started to talk about divine right much later. Also, power originating from the Pope and from God are not the same thing, people fought wars over this.
>>996177
More like religious but not medieval Catholic.
>>996187
That's what makes it scientific.
>>996224
This is the main problem with Marx's philosophy too btw, the idea that history = series of class struggles if bullshit. There are only a few examples where it was one class vs. another (Spartacus, peasant uprisings), but they were usually minor events, nowhere near the conflicts between parties in the ruling class, between states or religious conflicts
>>996273
You seem to be talking about military campaigns exclusively.
The basic problem with Mrx's theory of history (and any historical materialism) is that it is reductionist.
Cause of social change are complex and we are nowhere near understanding them perfectly. To think that social change (or even only revolutions) can be explained by materialism is an attractive thought because it gives us the impression that we realized some kind of deep social law, but in reality this is simply way too simplistic.
Marxism breaks down when you consider societies such as confucian china and hindu india with utter contempt for capitalism
>>995900
Arabs and East Africans were largely nomadic herders but they still owned land
>>996379
It should be obvious by now that the popularity of Marxism is contingent more on it's usefulness to the political interests of intellectuals than on the strenght of Marxist doctrine as an accurate predictor of reality.
>>995928
Claim air all you want my nigga.
>>997057
it's hysterical how blithely you state that you think groups like intellectuals can have entirely uniform political interests and simultaneously discount the idea that classes with specific economic functions contingent on legal boundaries do in the same sentence.
>>996379
>china
>marxist
>>997226
Classes with "specific economic functions contingent on legal boundaries" are a meme created by intellectuals to advance their own interests. Class struggle doesn't exist. What does existe is caste struggle. Priests against warriors, intellectuals against businessmen.
The "working class" is always divided. Every general strike has it's strikebreakers. Intellectuals are not, organized and politicized intellectuals are ALWAYS communist, with no exception.
>>995921
Journalism is not work, especially Marx' journalism. Just a 19th century version of shitposting.
>>995916
False equivalence cucklord.
>>995928
We bottle and sell it, you fuckwit.
>>992676
>where land ownership was not established through violence
So literally no where on Earth, besides uninhabited islands?
>>996379
>There's not a single other factor in those social changes and revolutions that can't also be explained by materialism.
>There's not a single other factor in those social changes and revolutions that can't also be explained by ideology
>There's not a single other factor in those social changes and revolutions that can't also be explained by culture.
>There's not a single other factor in those social changes and revolutions that can't also be explained by individual actions.
>>997251
>Intellectuals are not, organized and politicized intellectuals are ALWAYS communist, with no exception.
Can't you even manage a coherent sentence?
>>996320
HUman thought and perception is inherently reductionist. You don't understand, well, anything. You could spend a lifetime trying to understand your fucking keyboard, and no change you'd get it.
>>997284
>assuming all of those are useful explanations
Really depends on the circumstance. However, Marx seems to be the only person who is required to provide all answers forever. Idiot.
>>992676
What the fuck does that have to do with the efficacy of the system?
I swear to god Marxists are 100x worse than religious imbeciles because at least they know their system is based on faith and feel good values. Marxists genuinely believe their ideas are based in reality and not merely utopic ideals reflective of unfounded intrinsic values with no concern whatsoever to human psychology and economics.
>>997284
exactly, which is why do single one of those things is used as an theory of history anymore, but are just tools to analyze events.
Which everyone seems to get except Marxists
>>992819
>No nonviolent transition of power involves a redistribution of wealth, rather a preservation of old orders.
Is this going to be like when Zizek explains that "violence" is being used as a term of art?
>>995990
But unlike with those other ideologies, capitalists can point out that no matter what you do, markets still emerge. In North Korea, for example, there's a thriving black market. The USSR had to abandon pure communism and create a currency and shops early on, etc. I'll go see if I can dig it up, but I remember reading a paper by a marxian economist last year lamenting the fact that the black market was so popular in best Korea, as he felt it was proof that at this stage of human development, we are still not ready to move beyond markets as the best system for allocating resources.
>>997912
>which is why do single one of those things is used
>>997704
>Really depends on the circumstance. However, Marx seems to be the only person who is required to provide all answers forever. Idiot.
Marx is the one who claimed to have all the perfect answers forever. It's hardly unreasonable to expect his methods to back up his boast.
>>992676
Who gives a shit how a society started. What matters is how it runs now, how it benefits the people who are actually alive today.
And nowhere in history has there been more violence and misery than those states that attempted to become communist
>>998206
>capitalists can point out that no matter what you do, markets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
http://www.monbiot.com/2013/03/04/a-capitalist-command-economy/
Nice job confounding markets with the control and ownership of the means of production.
>>998256
>Marx is the one who claimed to have all the perfect answers forever.
No he did not.
>>992676
Capitalism was a natural progression from feudalism, as Marx states. He also states that VIOLENT revolution is needed for the transition to socialism to take place. This is basic Marxism. Your question makes no sense. Why should capitalism be proven to start without bloodshed (in Britain to answer the question) when Marx says that socialism can only start through violence?
>>992731
Britain. We never had a violent revolution that transitioned from feudalism to capitalism. It started through innovation and invention which lead to the industrial revolution.
>>992765
Ibn Tufail
Marx simply did it better
>>998263
State capitalism is not the same as competitive capitalism shitlord
>>997284
All of the latter three have been explained at length by materialism you mongoloid.
>>998323
>What is international relations I just shit my pants.
>>994934
Capitalism is not about fairness. It's about competition and growth. Just because you believe that equality is paramount, doesn't mean you can constrain capitalism to the terms of equality. And I don't understand your hypocrisy when it comes to violence. You seem to oppose the violence required for capitalism to work, but support the violence required for socialism to work.
>>998333
Because socialism is muh feels: The ideology.
Intentions are what matter, not actions.
>>998352
>muh feels: the ideology
You couldn't have put it any better.
>>998333
This has everything to do with who's on the receiving end.
>>998383
Why is it that capitalists catergorise people on what they can bring and socialists catergorise people on what they have got? I guess it creates the illusion of perpetual oppression that is required for the ideology to make sense.
>>998394
Those are the same thing.
Are you actually child? Because your ambiguous phrasing and total reductionism is an embarrassment
>>998352
>dialectical materialism is based on feels
kek, you do realize that rightism is based on feels right?
>muh heritage
>muh culture
>muh race
>>998326
not really.
You can switch the base with the superstructure and you can form a perfectly coherent historical and social picture.
Material conditions influence human society as much as any other element of human experience. they work in reciprocity
>>997704
>Marx seems to be the only person who is required to provide all answers forever. Idiot.
I never implied that in my post.
What I wanted to imply is that Marx work and his historicist approach is highly reductionist, and more importantly, that dialectical materialism is highly dogmatic.
>>998436
>dialectical materialism is based on feels
it is part of an attempt at a rationalization of a political movement based on feels
nevertheless, most theory that supports a political movement suffers from exactly the same fate.
Of course, spookbuster man had warned Engels and Marx about this, but they decided to dismiss him and namecalling him instead
>>995246
The first hunter gatherer societies were the primitive communism. Of course that was mostly in the group, and outside groups which were competing for resources were, you know probably dealt with violently to make them a little further away so there are no resource conflicts.
All other socieites, like slave owning despotism, feudalism with the serfdom, and capitalism with the labor exploitation, they all enforce these exploitation using violence.
>>998333
Even if the violence is necessary for the social change to achieve communism, the violence will not be used against all people who would benefit from communism and thus have no business opposing the social change. Which is like 99% of people. The violence against 1% can be justified since they already use violence or mere threat of it to exploit the labor of the working class.
Capitalism today is mostly built around cheap source of energy, it used to be coal and steam power, today it is oil. The nuclear energy sources have approx. more than million time higher energy density. Wouldn't it bring us more riches if we all cooperate and tap into this almost unending(for humans) energy source in the form of either nuclear fission and fusion?
The ruling class today is way too much invested in the current energy extraction system and labor exploitation to just let go and let the change happen. They would violently oppose the change. And for that they will unfortunately reap what they sow. And you know what one gets back when one sows violence.
tl;dr: Nuclear fusion will bring communism.
>>998333
>about growth
growth of what?
>>998566
>The first hunter gatherer societies were the primitive communism. Of course that was mostly in the group, and outside groups which were competing for resources were, you know probably dealt with violently to make them a little further away so there are no resource conflicts.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate that they were primitive communism.
>Even if the violence is necessary for the social change to achieve communism, the violence will not be used against all people who would benefit from communism and thus have no business opposing the social change.
This is also true of all non-communist societies. You never commit violence against everyo-oh wait, your definition of violence includes any action that goes against your Marxism. Never mind.
>>998666
>There's absolutely no way to demonstrate that they were primitive communism.
Communism isn't a very good word for it. It wasn't post-scarcity, and there probably wasn't total equality (gender roles, war chiefs, shamans). But looking at contemporaneous hunter-gatherer societies, pooling resources and equal distribution is the core strategy of most tribes.
>>998481
They reamed him just like proudhon.
>>998666
>There's absolutely no way to demonstrate that they were primitive communism.
Except the extant h/g societies hurr durr.
>>998459
If you're a creationist. Because material conditions are prior to the existence of human society and your perfect historical picture would be cutoff between you and apes.
>>998319
There is literally not a single scientific thing about Marx. Sociology is not science you cuck.
>>998666
Marx's daughters said he was an absolutely fantastic father and they wouldn't have had it any other way.
>>998333
I don't care about fairness in itself. I'm saying from an egotistical standpoint, socialism makes more sense for poor people than capitalism. If capitalism has absolutely no promise of even a chance for poor to change class, then you have no way to convince the poor it's better
>>998352
Socialism is capitalism for the common man.
>>998360
are you serious rn? What's with capitalists and "muh rationality"? Go jerk off to pictures of Ayn Rand you classcucked child
Socialism is more rational than capitalism for the majority of people, that's my whole argument
>>997896
Why does every anti-Marxist call us religious without argument? Without fail I find anti-Marxist stances 100x more dogmatic.
>>999354
>classcucked
Back to your containment 8gag board, faggot
>>999367
>I find everyone who disagrees with me dogmatic
>why does everyone think I'm dogmatic?
>>997279
Exactly. The history of all hitherto society has been the history of class struggle. This thread sets out to demonstrate that literally anyone without wealth and power in society is getting perpetually cucked by the rich and like it. I hate people who act like capitalism is the best good for the common man that we possibly can do
>>999391
>if I just pretend my opponent said something entirely different I can win every debate!
>>999345
except the poor have a lower standard of living on the whole in socialist regimes. They may have there basics provided them, but they live to a standard that only the poorest of the poor can expect in capitalist countries
>>999398
>I don't understand humor
>>999390
Do you not reaalize we don't want /leftypol/ faggotry here? We aren't interested in debating you, we want you to fuck off.
>>999416
We want YOU to fuck off. /his/ isn't your property, cuck.
>>999404
Cause/effect fallacy. Maybe the already poorest nations turn to socialism because life is so shit, and socialism can't magically turn over world politics?
>>999444
You don't even believe in property you deluded Amerishit
>>997256
*tips*
>>999460
Tips what? What he wrote is correct. It's as much work as this post right here.
>>997057
Lmao, yeah capitalism is totally working great for whites in America, isn't it?
>>999472
>journalism isn't work
>>999416
>We aren't interested in debating you
lol evidently, as you've come up with absolutely zip that's compelling or challenging and quite clearly not even done research about the subject whatsoever. I get how you might be rump roused about fucking around and getting dunked on but that doesn't mean you're in any place to be making demands.
>>999484
>this moron
>>995856
Ebin meme-ing there kiddo ;-)
>>999507
Shut the fuck up subhuman, stay in Amerishittia and stop trying to pretend you're on equal footing with us superior Europeans.
>>999507
The idiots are trying to mimick trump now, they won't admit to being wrong and instead double down on ignorance
>>999513
>this retard who just entered the thread and starts replying to posts from days ago one by one
>>999514
Hooolyy shit what an epikkkk troll you did there!
>>999526
>being this buttblasted about the fact he descends from the biggest dregs and retards of Europe who were so bullied they had to bail to another continent
>>999523
>this angry munchkin who can't raise one good point against Marx so he attacks random people for trivial reasons to assure his ego that "he was only trolling anyway"
>>999532
>this biologically faulty cuck being so desperate to blame his shitty life on someone else he starts worshipping some loser Jew from 19th century
The whole idea of Marxism is profoundly immoral. For all its glorification of the struggle of workers, the fact is, the members of the capitalist class doing the "exploitation" of them are, in fact, genetically superior and deserving of their position in general. The elite are the only ones who make any real contributions to humanity, the proper role of the worker is a commodity for exploitation, as he is too inferior for any other role.
Think of someone in the working class you know. Are they smart enough to run a successful company? No.
>>999450
Maybe, but That does not explain other places that have succeeded after turning to capitalism, or at least something similar to capitalism.
Not saying that capitalism is a magic bullet that bypasses problems like corruption, lack of resources, lack of education, but it has a better record than pure socialist economies
>>999367
Because you believe value is found in ectoplasmic goo which a race of vampiric telepathic lizardmen steal to survive. And this is the fountain of your entire ideology.
While simultaneously clinging to "materialism" and calling yourselves "scientific".
>>999556
>people with power and privilege are genetically superior
I hope you're trolling.
As for the other things you said, yes, Marxism is immoral, morals are just used to trick laborers into not resisting. Marx scoffed at the idea of morals.
>>999573
Marx said, Marx said.
If Marx said walking off cliffs was a good idea you'd all be dead by now.
>>999573
And we scoffle at Marx.
>>999564
That doesn't really say much about socialism. Just that revolution is really hard where capitalism (I.e., concentrated tyrannies of power) are more successful (powerful)
>>999585
Because you're cucked by the rich and enjoy it, because you're a disgusting waste of a human life.
>>999583
They tried walking off a cliff collectively once, it's called the USSR.
>>999573
It's not a joke. In general, the rich today have higher average IQ, which is a good proxy for intelligence and is known to be heritable. I do believe that people with power and privilege are genetically superior, though there are exceptions. Similarly, I believe people who are poor are in general genetically inferior. The superior will find their way to the top, and the inferior will find their way to the bottom, unless the natural order is not allowed to take place. This is why things like universal health care are bad - it allows the genetically unfit to survive.
>>999593
I "am" the rich. You're the cuck.
>>999597
Shame it doesn't seem to have sunk in with these losers yet.
>>999583
>use the term immoral as an insult to Marxism
>Marx prided himself on that fact that his system was immoral
>you go full retard
>>999598
>people who have more resources are healthier and smarter
>wealth is generally passed on
>so hard
Inb4 "muh twin studies"
>the material conditions and health of a mother when babies are in the womb doesn't effect anything
Material wealth causes intelligence, not the converse.
>>999600
*tips fedora*
>>999608
Egalitarianism certainly carries a lot of moral baggage. Marx was a retard.
>>999618
*tips beggar's hat*
>>999598
there's just... this one... thing about 'natural'... you see...
>>999616
I firmly disagree. If the mother was too stupid to not be in good health, then she too is genetically inferior. Intelligence causes material wealth, and not the converse. The whole world is evidence of this fact.
>>999625
Well then your stance is opposed to all modern biology and sociology. Until science comes around I'll stick with the apparently correct stance.
Btw, you might want to tone down the genetic talk. People might suspect you visit /pol/, where pseudoscience and ignorance dominate discussion.
>>999619
Why do you bring up morality when Marxists clearly don't care about it?
>>999619
Egalitarianism is selfish for the vast majority of people, it has nothing to do with morals.
>>999649
I didn't bring up shit you cuck, but the appeal for equality is ALL about morals. The fact Marx uses some alienation materialist voodoo language to make it look less like a moral judgement doesn't really mean anything. It's still a grumpy old kike moralizing.
>>999643
>sociology
>science
Nice try burger flipper
>>999643
What's so controversial about the idea that the material conditions that the poor find themselves in are caused by their own inherited stupidity?
Besides, biologists don't even believe in racial IQ differences, or whitewash it in various ways. The IQ of the average biologist or sociologist isn't even that high, anyway.
>>999664
The desire for equality can be entirely the product of self interest, you know.
>>999682
>self interest and moralizing are mutually exclusive
"No"
>>999673
>A study (1999) by Capron and Duyme of French children adopted between the ages of four and six examined the influence of socioeconomic status (SES). The children's IQs initially averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Most were abused or neglected as infants, then shunted from one foster home or institution to the next. Nine years later after adoption, when they were on average 14 years old, they retook the IQ tests, and all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family's socioeconomic status. "Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average IQ scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average IQ scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98.
>>999688
Are you saying that any attempt to establish a social change is moralizing, no matter the inspiration?
>>999649
>marx's wife, his children and his close friends all described him as a wonderful, kind person. Marx actually isn't against morality, he's actually pretty nietzschean in regards to morality: he sees it as primarily being a tool to control, far from what actual virtues people should have. It's more of a counter to Bastiat than an actual dismissal of morality
>>999702
>only 98 IQ
Too low to matter. We shouldn't really care a whole lot about <130.
>>999703
Not necessarily. Marx was a collosal moralfag though, remember he wrote the Cuckold Manifesto first and only THEN attempted to justify his fucktarded position with "science" (read: philosophy).
>>999726
He wrote Wage Labour and Capital before he wrote the Commiefesto
>>999643
>People might suspect you visit /pol/
Doesn't take long for faggot leftists to turn a discussion into tribal posturing. Don't be so quick to assume you know it all faggot, you clearly don't.
>Well then your stance is opposed to all modern biology
No, what you mean to say is "modern conceptions of biology as presented to the masses by media and politically correct society." Bit of a mouthful. Read Pinker's "The Blank Slate" or "The Bell Curve;" it makes far more sense from an evolutionary point of view that man's intelligence is biological in nature and distributed on a spectrum.
>>992858
>Again, I don't disagree with you, but how do you go from there to Marx's conclusions? Yes, the game is never entirely fair, but you can go even further back into biology to establish inequalities before you even get to societal factors. Differences in health, intelligence, energy, initiative, etc. will matter, and were almost certainly present at the formation of the first societies.
There can't be any reason then why violent revolution is bad, wrong, or shouldn't be done. That's point I'm getting to: if I'm right, then the rich deserve it if we kill them and take their shit. There can be no order to society.
>>992858
>Why are you connecting land ownership with power? It's at its weakest that it's ever been today, and even in Marx's time, it was a pretty weak link. We haven't had agrarian dominated economies since the 16th century in most places in the civilized world.
>Just look at the actions of the U.S. government (I assume you live in the U.S.), over the last 150 years. We've had corporate presidenceies in the 1880s gone to progressive trustbusters in the early 20th century to the lassaiz-faire policies of the WW1-FDR, to the New Society socialist lite state which peaked in the 70s and has been in a decline since. The ranks and wealth between Marx's pseudoclasses have shifted back and forth since then, and I don't remember any violent uprisings around election times.
It's grown more complicated, but is still essentially true. For instance, I may own a deed to a house, but if the police, who respond primarily to government who respond primarily to private interest, can violate that property, then it's not effectively mine. The police "own" the land more than you "own" the land in many respects.
>>995794
>expecting anti-Marxists to actually know what Marx said
>>998206
>Marx is against markets
you're doing this poorly, kiddo.
>>999767
>faggot leftists
>the bell curve
>THE BELL CURVE
people unironically still cite this? >>>/pol/
this isn't even posturing, you're just an idiot.
>>999722
Why does every anti-Marxist inevitably out themselves as a fedora-tipping racist retard?
>>999820
Are you white?
>>999726
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
>>999824
yes
>>999827
>atheism
I guess that's you in the picture considering Marx' stance on religion.
>>999830
Swedish?
>>999841
Nope. I like that you're angling toward ebin /pol/ memes though!
>>999850
British then?
>>999851
Nope.
>>999852
German?
>>999858
Nope.
>>999777
The rich are the ones killing the poor, as it should be.
>>999839
Marx was right when he said it was the opium of the people, but this is not actually a bad thing. The state basically exists to defend the property of the rich, but this is actually good, because the poor are ultimately a drain on the rich while they continue to exist.
>>999865
Do you enjoy the fantasies of your female partner fornicating with men other than you?
>yet again, another thread where spastic anti-Marxists can't raise a single good point about anything
>shit up the thread with retarded memes and half-assed insults
pic related, we need a containment board for autism to contain these people.
>>999891
Why do you lie on the internet my friend?
>>999880
I think the point has been made countless times that there's notihng wrong with social order established and enforced by violence.
>>999928
Good, so then you have nothing wrong with violent socialist overtakings, and won't oppose us.
>>999811
They do, and Pinker is highly respected and far more restrained in his discussions of race and IQ; might be easier for you to palate.
The idea that races have different IQ's isn't even controversial in the scientific community, the debate is about whether its genetic or environmental in nature.
>"there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
-James Watson, some random dude who discovered the double-helix.
But the scientific community is in complete consensus that IQ is completely environmental so forget about that
>>999936
It would be wrong to support a violent revolution by the poor against the rich, so no.
>>999939
>-James Watson, some random dude who discovered the double-helix.
he was also the guy that literally said he racially and sexually discriminates
>But the scientific community is in complete consensus that IQ is completely environmental so forget about that
not complete, but they believe it's by far the largest factor.
>>999945
>there's nothing wrong when rich people use violence to enforce their order
>there is when poor people do it
good to know you're a cuck
>>999946
>He racially and sexually discriminates
Not an argument.
In fact if I'm right, you could just say he believed in meritocracy
>>999586
ignoring your silly definition of capitalism, it stands to reason the better system would be more powerful or perhaps a better word would be successful. pure socialist economies are proven failures, and ant country even approaching such a system is a basket case. That not even getting into the human rights record of these systems supposedly set up to benefit the people
>>999962
Sure, but for now, you should just hang out in /pol/ with your kind.
Also do you unironically like Stefan Molyneux? Because if so you're fucking hilarious.
>>999964
You refute yourself with your own points, t. contradiction. I'll let you work out how, because this is getting seriously boring.
