what Marxism really is.....

[phoneutria]

i can't deal with this
someone ping me when the idiot is gone

[Urwrongx1000]

i can't deal with this
someone ping me when the idiot is gone

*Grabs popcorn and starts munching*












Seriously though,

The onus is now upon Silhouette to explain exactly why the "wikipedia definition/explanation" is wrong or inaccurate. Present your case. Why shouldn't people use Wikipedia... or Jordan Peterson, or any popular modern philosophy, and their definitions of "Marxism"? What, Sil, do you believe that 'you' somehow the magical Authority on the topic? As-if you're the grandchild of Marx himself? Are you? No?! Then I guess you don't have a case, do you???

Go ahead, I want to hear it....

[Magnus Anderson]

I am not sure that Silhouette said that Wikipedia definition is wrong.

[Magnus Anderson]

i can't deal with this
someone ping me when the idiot is gone

He was right when he said that you and Sil are making this discussion personal.

No need for that.

[surreptitious75]

The onus is now upon Silhouette to explain exactly why the wikipedia definition / explanation is wrong or inaccurate

Can you provide the link where he specifically states this as I cannot find it at all
The definitions he has provided and the ones from wikipedia are complementary

[obsrvr524]

I was asked about the history of socialism so I provided a Wikipedia paragraph on the history. I provided a definition from WordNik. Wikipedia also had a definition that is worded differently but agrees - government (under the name of "society") owns everything.

Implying that Wikipedia and WordNik were just "partisan misinformation":

Like most Anti-Marxists, you demonstrate no adherence to the actual literature on the subject, instead echoing the same tired misinformation that is spread by partisan parties

So far, the "literature" that I and Sil have quoted is agreeing with what I had said. The only difference is that, as I said, some literature associates favorable sounding words and others do not. Examine the real meaning behind what is being discussed and it comes down to totally government controlled life with no incentive for improvement - totalitarian bureaucracy.

And another critical thing that people seem to be missing is that Marxism is NOT socialism. Marxism is a method, a tactic used to establish first socialism then communism.

Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation.

so•cial•ism sō′shə-lĭz″əm►
n. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved. - [Communism]

The agenda is to turn the USA into China's stepchild.

[phoneutria]

we already went through all of this shit,
and we finally got to the point where
we're able to narrow the discussion down to marx theory
the withering away of the state
and the labor theory of value

i'm not saying don't participate in the discussion
i'm saying read the thread
understand what the people are saying
then present your opinions
don't just fucking come in and start it over
at page 20
it's fucking lazy and disrespectful af

[Magnus Anderson]

Have you thought about linking to the discussion that already took place?

[surreptitious75]

So Marxism unlike Socialism or Communism is not a poltical or economic system as such but the transition between those systems
More specifically Socialism is the transition from Capitalism and Communism is the transition from Socialism
And once Communism has been fully established Marxism no longer exists because the transition is complete

I think that this is something everyone can agree on as its simply explaining what the process is without any ideological bias either way
Important also to emphasise the difference between terms that are often used synonymously when they actually mean different things

[phoneutria]

Have you thought about linking to the discussion that already took place?

it is literally this thread
start on page 1

[Magnus Anderson]

You are telling me that Marx's concept of socialism has been clearly defined and accepted by all parties on page 1?

[obsrvr524]

So Marxism unlike Socialism or Communism is not a poltical or economic system as such but the transition between those systems

Even more than that, it seems to be an intentional method for transitioning from one to another as used in Russia (bolsheviks), northern Europe (Nazi Brown Coats), Ethiopia (Tedros Adhanom), and now in the USA and UK (BLM, Antifa, Soros..) although resisted, promoted by China, Russia, Globalists, and Mainstream Media propaganda.

It involves creating division (black vs white, upper vs lower, male vs female, young vs old), anger (as seen in people easily triggered into irrational hatred), revolutionary violence (rioting and burning), occupation, and rewriting history. A lot of people are killed off and intimidated by threats while the submitters are led by fantasy promises of prosperity and a better life.

[phoneutria]

You are telling me that Marx's concept of socialism has been clearly defined and accepted by all parties on page 1?

no i am saying people are repeating shit that is on page 1

[Urwrongx1000]

The point is that Silhouette's only-remaining-argument is a flop. You can "only use Marxism with what Marx specifically said" as-if Wikipedia, Jordan Peterson, Slavoj Zizek, any other philosopher/source "doesn't know" the subject-matter better than he-himself. It's ridiculous. And then Silhouette wants to carry-on as-if "Marxism" has had no historical progression from Marx to now, nor does he actually give historical prognosis from Imperial France, Communist Russia, two World Wars in between, and the developments of European Socialism and Communism, along with Industrial and Post-Industrial revolutions.

Ridiculous.


And then he has the nerve to talk about "Marxism" today, as-if it has no connection, or some flimsy relation, to today's Pro-Socialist, Pro-Communist, self-admitted "Marxist Revolutionaries".

He's lost the plot. And I think that about does it for all these 'Marx' supporters, no???

[obsrvr524]

He's lost the plot. And I think that about does it for all these 'Marx' supporters, no???

From years of only observing, I can testify that irrational extremists never give up their religion, never disavow their god, and never stop evangelizing - not until death do they part.

[promethean75]

And at some point in history every new kind of economy and society was guilty of the same criticism.... even the one you believe in, obsrvr, was at one point revolutionary and suspicious.

[phoneutria]

wtf sil is far from being an extremist

[obsrvr524]

And at some point in history every new kind of economy and society was guilty of the same criticism.... even the one you believe in, obsrvr, was at one point revolutionary and suspicious.

History and political methods to overthrow regimes repeat throughout history, apparently from the origin in Genesis (if James is right). But can you point out any time in the entire world's history where the US constitution has ever been similarly established and then overthrown by instigated Marxist-like revolution?

I have come to believe that the US constitution is unique throughout history (James might disagree). It was established by revolution against a tyrannical regime but not to merely establish another as has always occurred in the past.

The Marxist scheme was apparently formulated by examining how regimes have been created and then overthrown throughout history then using rumors and media to progressively enhance and propagate the method with the idea of re-establishing the original idea of a paradise of biblical Eden with a Jewish "Man" managing the entire world and thus "fulfilling God's original command". But would Marx himself have chosen to use that scheme against a US constitution-like government? None existed at the time so we will never know.

Marxism always proposes a utopic future through progressive revolutions - a restoration of Eden's supposed paradise (which also didn't work due to inciting division - tree of good and evil). Perhaps Eden's paradise didn't work because it was communist in nature and thus fell to the natural corruption of the managers wanting to be a god (not unlike the CCP).

Marxism's goal is to establish communism proposed to be a utopic paradise. History has proven that the fanciful goal is an unrealistic "carrot on a stick" that does no more than perpetuate continued upevil - endless wars, endless hatred, endless misery for all .. except for those above it guiding the stubborn donkey (US Democrat/socialist party) with a carrot - perhaps the origin of the idea of heaven above and hell below.


And perhaps I should mention that NONE of the prior 21 pages mentioned any of what I just said.

[phoneutria]

marxism proposes utopia and delivers misery is literally half of the content of this thread


though the US constitution as an innovative element has not been mentioned i'll grant you that
but this thread is about marxism so that's a bit off topic

also, i'm laughing my ass off at this:

But would Marx himself have chosen to use that scheme against a US constitution-like government? None existed at the time so we will never know.

ya may wanna check the timelines

[Urwrongx1000]

And at some point in history every new kind of economy and society was guilty of the same criticism.... even the one you believe in, obsrvr, was at one point revolutionary and suspicious.

I don't think so.

Let's rewind 300, 400, 500 years when our ancestors were sailing to America and landing on some poorly defended colonial villages, surrounded by hostile Indians.

Frontier Society is naturally capitalistic. You earn what you make and you make what you earn. Nobody is holding your hand. No "systems" or "government" to stop you doing anything you want. You lived, and died, by your own grit. Never was there a more "self-made" people and society. This is the beginning of American "Capitalism". You can pretend like Capitalism is "just another ideology" but it's not. It's categorically different than European Socialism, which had 3000+ years underneath it. Frontier Society, Colonialism and Post-Colonial, is its own contraption, completely different than the Socialism and Imperialism of the Old Wold.

No excuses in Colonial America. No Welfare. No crying and whining like babies. If you fucked up, you got a axe in the forehead.


You and the other Marxists have forgotten your roots.

[promethean75]

Yeah I know what you mean obsrvr and I share your distress. This site has been overrun by radical leftists like urwrong and phoneutria and wendy, and I dont even post here anymore.

[WendyDarling]

Sil wrote

social organisation is in charge of Socialism: if there's gonna be a chain of command, it's up to the people in the society to organise it.

Explain how a society does that where each person has equal say?

Where did you get "equal" from?

Which part of Marx's writings are you getting this from?

Equal how? In what way?

Didn't he advocate for equal rights for workers, 40 hour work week for all workers, etc.? Isn't the entire idea of socialism everybody gets equal everything? Never heard that socialism was based on merit. Merit would place intelligent, capable, and ambitious people ahead of everybody else all over again.

[WendyDarling]

So Marxism unlike Socialism or Communism is not a poltical or economic system as such but the transition between those systems
More specifically Socialism is the transition from Capitalism and Communism is the transition from Socialism
And once Communism has been fully established Marxism no longer exists because the transition is complete

I think that this is something everyone can agree on as its simply explaining what the process is without any ideological bias either way
Important also to emphasise the difference between terms that are often used synonymously when they actually mean different things

Learned something new because I didn't see how the State withered away but it's just a ruse to progress communism and that makes perfect sense. Thanks obsrvr and surrept.

Obsrvr, who's James?

[WendyDarling]

we already went through all of this shit,
and we finally got to the point where
we're able to narrow the discussion down to marx theory
the withering away of the state
and the labor theory of value

i'm not saying don't participate in the discussion
i'm saying read the thread
understand what the people are saying
then present your opinions
don't just fucking come in and start it over
at page 20
it's fucking lazy and disrespectful af

I look forward to more covering of the withering away of the state and the labor theory of value.

[obsrvr524]

i'm laughing my ass off at this:

If you actually did that, you wouldn't be able to speak (or spew your ...).

But would Marx himself have chosen to use that scheme against a US constitution-like government? None existed at the time so we will never know.

ya may wanna check the timelines

But I'll give you half credit for that. In the 1840's and 50's the US was still considered a fledgling nation hardly in a condition to support a socialist revolution. Karl Marx died in the 1880's, long before the USA was given any serious credibility. I'm certainly not an expert at US history but I don't think socialism was seriously considered in the US until the 1930's or so under President FDR creating their federal welfare programs.

With further reflection, it might be that the US's capitalist first stage was a part of the Marxist first stage. The depressions of 1913 and 1929 certainly had Marxist like footprints creating desperation to precede the socialist agendas and wars in Europe. Or perhaps they were simply to coerce the US to join in the fighting - perhaps both.

So perhaps the story is that the Marxists have only themselves to blame for creating the greatest capitalist endeavor on Earth with a constitutional separation of power government now too powerful to undermine. I guess we won't know until their 2020 elections are decided.