Why did the Proletariat fail to rise up and seize power from the bourgeoisie? The global revolution should have happened by now, but instead the world is more unequal than ever.
You're not paying attention. The 20th century was defined by the conflict of revolutionary proletarians against bourgeois states. Strong-arming, sabotage, and counter-revolution stymied these movements in the early 90s but that is a short history. It took the capitalist class much longer to establish their revolution over the earth.
>the world is more unequal than ever.
And this is precisely why history has not ended.
Ok, basically because Marx never predicted a real date for the proletarian revolution. In terms of concreteness Marx goes never further than ' and then the bourgeoisie will oppress the proletarians to the max and the revolution will start', but when and how that happens is left completely open.
This resulted in a major theoretical whole which left a lot of early marxists gasping for answers. You get people like Rosa Luxemborg trying to calculate the moment of revolution (The Accumulation of Capital), and reformists who want to create the proletarian paradise by using parlementary democracy, but nobody knows exactly what's the route to revolution in accordance to Marx. The only hints he spread was that a civilization should be industrialised and advanced enough, so that the proletariat would cosnsist of actual industrial workers ( and, ironically, so he disregarded Russia as a viable place for the revolution, 'as it wasn't advanced enough'). Marx basically left a void and this is one of the major flaws of marxism
because were in the early stages of late capitalism
remember that feudalism and monarchy was the ruling state for thousands of years before capitalism came along and freed the bourgeois
i have doubts we will ever see another successful socialist revolution in our lifetimes
>Marx basically left a void and this is one of the major flaws of marxism
You're ignoring the biggest flaw of marxism that makes your whole explanation unnecessary:
his materialist conception of history is seriously flawed in the sense that it cannot be falsified.
Anything and everything can be absorbed into marxist analysis. Nevermind the fact that the premisses that Marx used to establish his analysis of capitalism are completely outdated and make no sense in the 21st century too
ITT: People who don’t understand leftism and are sycophantic to the capitalist system due to inability to understand anything with a complexity level above Econ 101 and it’s sweeping inaccurate generalizations. Marx wasn’t wrong, you just can’t interpret philosophy. Manifesto is a bit outdated, but Das Kapital and his speeches still stand.
Capitalism changes the psychology of men once it's fully established, it makes the orient of everyone's thoughts focus toward gain, money and the enlargement of their own material existence. Instead of social movements aiming towards new social systems people end up focusing on issues like wealth distribution.
Couldn't agree more, though I'd say Marx was wrong in a lot of ways that later Marxist theorists corrected. I'm a big fan of EP Thompson and the anti-Stalinists as well as the Frankfurt school.
Because politiciens knew how to control the masses and because the matxist leaders got sleazed by ussr abuses (it started with the goulag archipelago)
Then when ussr collapsed, there was a hole capitalists knew how to fill, they started the "globalization", which is a deregulation of the market to erase the state protection on markets.
That globalization created that world competition and now a revolution seems very far, adding that Samuel huntingon "clash of civilization" which turns salaries/workers of all world against each other, i think marxists have a harsh path to take, and they have to unite and infiltrate governments (like trotskists tried in France) to stop the final phase of deregulation (regional unions, tafta and international trade agreements without any elections)
>but Das Kapital and his speeches still stand
Das Kapital barely made a decent exposure of the mechanics behind 19th century economy, making horrid predictions that were completely crushed before the end of the century, much less explain anything whatsoever about 21st century global capitalism
It has to, either with the option that all life ends because humans were too engrossed in their ridiculous economy to actually stop the destruction of their planet or with the option that humans establish a logical, scientific social order that isn't based on exploitation and capital growth (communism).
Because the tools for the prole to rise have been made obsolete by artillery and aerial dominance.
By nature, all weapons that can be easily manufactured in run-down conditions are tools of the people made for the secession from oppression and the destruction of the ruling class.
Likewise, all weapons that require the use of complicated facilities and expert knowledge to create are tools of the ruling class to enforce their will on the people who cannot reasonably resist without the help of a benefactor who has its own interests.
with the creation of the atom bomb we've entered a post-revolutionary world. From now on the idea of revolution taking place in any powerful country is nothing more than a pipe-dream. The only battlefield for revolutionaries are the already weak and powerless countries which are ravaged by the aforementioned powerful countries through proxy wars and the arming of its citizenry and fringe groups.
>MFW an American claims that america would rise up against an unfair government.
Small arms are nothing if you can't control the air or lay down bombardments.
Do you actually think the US military would mindlessly obey orders to attack its own citizens fighting a just revolution? The desertion rate would be enormous.
He was not wrong. His critique of capitalism was accurate, and this is where he gets most praise. It is still very much applicable today. As for his advocation of a communist state? You cannot be wrong for having a political opinion.
>oceans being depleted, becoming too acidic to hold life
>the consumption that causes all of this causes petty political domination maneuvers to maintain the right to continue consuming at ever increasing rates
Capital was a critique of classical political economy and its internal contradictions. I think it was a pretty damn good job at that. Notice the Ricardian school came to an end in the 1870s and mainstream economics had to completely reorient itself with the marginalist revolution after Marxs death. I would say that had a lot to do with Marxs influence.
I'm not a Marxist and personally think Thorstein Veblen's analysis of capitalism is the best ever. Neoclassicalists and marxist both ignore empirical reality with their equilibrium analysis and autrians are just kooks with their praxeological approach.
If the American army was suddenly composed overwhelmingly of conscripts again, than *maybe* that could happen if the USA was embroiled in a war with a bodycount putting WWII to shame or being fought on its own soil.
Professional military are often some of the most proudly right-wing institutions in the entirety of a government. A volunteer force wouldn't hesitate for a moment to crush a violent uprising staged by a bunch of man-bun, granola faggots with AK-47s.
>Do you actually think the US military would mindlessly obey orders to attack its own citizens fighting a just revolution?
US military are brainwashed to do anything they are told, which is why they continue the imperialist wars that are impossible to justify and cause far more harm to Americans than good. But Americans are also brainwashed from birth in the same way.
I have to agree with you entirely comrade. Wouldn’t argue that Marxism isn’t without its flaws. Also a fan of Frankfurt school to a certain extent. As well as being a huge fan of Anti-Stalinits and Thompson. Though, I’m not a socialist.
Tell me how it feels to not have read a text and still make claims.
who cares if you want to take my money?
what matters is that your going to distroy my peoples race, morals, culture, religion, family, sex relations in pursuit of some retarded idea of equality.
>Capital was a critique of classical political economy and its internal contradictions. I think it was a pretty damn good job at that.
I fully agree.
The thing is that from an economic standpoint it is completely outdated.
The labor theory of value was already debunked before Capital was even published. Marx makes ad hoc statements to cleverly hide the missing pieces in his path of argument. He begins his analysis of capitalism in media res with capital firms magically in place. He conceives of capital as machinery/tools and does not account for human capital which has been shown empirically to be far more important than physical capital. Need I go on?
Again, I'm sorry you can't think for yourself. I remember living with a mind that reasoned with socially inherited, ideological tribalism. I really am sorry for you and hope you better yourself one day.
>Why did the Proletariat fail to rise up and seize power from the bourgeoisie?
Because bourgeoisie make up communist leaderships. It's never poor vs rich. Its rich vs rich using the poor to do their bidding.
Throughout history, this has been the case. Even when the rich express interest in the plight of the poor, they are viewed only as disposable pawns.
Maybe it's because Marx was a crock of shit.
>his materialist conception of history is seriously flawed in the sense that it cannot be falsified
THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE, it annoys the fuck out of me. And if you try to falsify it, Oh you're brainwashed, oh you're dirty bourgeois scum, oh you just hate poor people. Nothing could ever be wrong with Marxism because of Marxism. Nothing.
That makes is complete shit.
Man, Marxists getting REKT.
>le enlightened one faec :^)
I hope you die in the most painful way you can possibly imagine.
It is so amusing to watch you foolish Americans get so mad at the concept of Communism or Marxism, shows how you fools have not developed at all in the past 60 years, and that you let this cunt's lies influence your dense minds so much. Quite so, watching monkeys fight is awfully amusing.
By the way - not a Marxist or a Communist, just someone with an open mind.
It hasn't failed, it will come
As society becomes more automated more average people are in competition for fewer jobs. Eventually this will boil over, it may happen in 2016 it may happen in 2100... but it will happen, society is headed towards socialism whether you like it or not. The bourgeoisie took power from the aristocrats and the proletariat/"middle class" will take it from the bourgeoisie
To say something philosophical failed is stupid tee bee ache
But the notion of critique stil makes sense. By exposing the flaws of capitalism it makes a difference. First of all: Capitalism has a spirit that incorporates this critique to sustain itself.
You know that Popper was rekt a long time ago:
The notion of falsifiability itself isn't falsifiable.
And ofcourse the Duhem-Quine thesis. You can't test a single statement in isolation, but only against a theorethical framework. This means that verificating or falsifying don't lead to truth, only to coherence.
Go on until you make an accurate claim, yes.
Labour theory not debunked, please elaborate so I can correct your false understanding.
Name one ad hoc example. There are flaws in Marxism, but none of them stem from the “path of argument” rather with the argument itself.
“Magically in place” Really? This simply isn’t true. I honestly don’t know how you even came up with this.
Human “capital” is extensively discussed as well as physical capital.
Basically, have you even read Marx?
>The labor theory of value was already debunked before Capital was even published.
That's completely wrong. The LTV was the orthodox theory of the day accepted by Smith, Malthus, Mill, Ricardo and all major theorists. Marxs surplus approach was different however. The marginalist revolution and attack on the LTV didn't happen till the 1870s. The real advantage marginalism had was it introduced calcus into economics.
The empirical validity of labour theories haven’t been completely overturned, give this a read: http://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf
You are a prime example of sycophants to capitalism. I pity your inability to cope with reality and experience individual thought.
Das Kapital didn’t make “horrid” predictions and the predictions it made have primarily come true. It’s analysis of 19th century economics takes form primarily in parts I and II, in which organic capitalism is discussed.
In that you're correct.
Marxism is an ideology. With as much to justify it as the Austrian School.
>Math can't be falsified
Thats a completely different ballpark.
Anyway, you're technically wrong, go check the Incompleteness theorems
>But the notion of critique stil makes sense. By exposing the flaws of capitalism it makes a difference. First of all: Capitalism has a spirit that incorporates this critique to sustain itself.
I agree. I'm not saying Marxism is completely useless. But thats all Marxism has going for it.
>Why did the Proletariat fail to rise up
1) They did, repeatedly, at the national level, and at the transnational level by the maximalists or by pure chance
2) 2nd International voted for war credits
3) 3rd International was objectively counter revolutionary (class interests of the soviet nomenklatura as a capitalist class)
>and seize power from the bourgeoisie?
Their attempts failed, either through internal coup d'etat such as the Bolshevik's substitution of the geographic councils for the workplace councils OR through direct military repression.
>The global revolution should have happened by now, but instead the world is more unequal than ever.
Uh… looks to me, comrade, like the bourgeoisie have managed to find ways to squeeze more absolute and relative surplus value out of people to stave off the declining rate of profit, chiefly through enclosure proletarianisation, though partly through the creation of new commodities in enclosure of substances like air or thought.
The only thing that will follow from mass automation is mass genocide. Why the fuck would the people manufacturing the robots give a shit about the now obsolete laborers?
Once there's no need for cannon fodder, the rich will divide the world between each other and get rid of everyone else to make space.
that feel when hollywood jew subverter is jailed.
Ah, so lying to the public, and lying in the senate about knowing "secret commies" in the government, as well as secret homos, and thus ruining many careers through coercion, was a good practice?
Americans are so uneducated.
The proletariat thinks they have enough with their social-democrat governments, notice how a big load of communist parties are now just simply backing up a social-democrat party like the CPUSA endorsing the democrats or communist parties in Latin America cheering for their center-left-at-best presidents.
For a communist revolution to happen, or just about any kind of revolution, first you need a country with an extremely unstable political environment, something that contemporary democracy and Keynesian economics, for better or worse, prevent.
I would be really surprised if a country suddenly turned full-Marxist ever again, and even if it does it will probably be a country too geopolitically fucked like India or Chile, with no future for the cause of an international socialist state.
>Labour theory not debunked, please elaborate so I can correct your false understanding.
The marginalists debunked it. It's essentially a metaphysical superstition and Marx's argument uses it poorly as I will say next.
>Name one ad hoc example. There are flaws in Marxism, but none of them stem from the “path of argument” rather with the argument itself.
Marx makes his acknowledgement of socially necessary labor in an ad hoc fashion so as not to collapse his systematic argument. He sets up temporal categories to be advanced, makes ad hoc statements, goes to the next categories, makes more ad hoc statements, and so on.
>“Magically in place” Really? This simply isn’t true. I honestly don’t know how you even came up with this.
>Human “capital” is extensively discussed as well as physical capital.
Of course I am exaggerating. He says capital is the result of past labor. But this results in infinite regress.
I always love how blaise and non-chalant revolutionaries are about taking on the monumental and multivariant task of fighting nature and the very contours of being itself, just all in a days work.
Not only do they not understand the problem, they cannot even comprehend its very magnitude to begin with. And that's why revolution appeals to them.
>Oh but just because some political ideal is really troublesome to implement doesn't mean that its wrong.
Actually, it does.
There's a principle in programming that illustrates this very well; if a certain 'bug' keeps reappearing no matter what you try to eliminate it, that's realities way of telling you that the 'bug' is in fact more essential than you presupposed. The elegant solution is often to turn the bug into a feature, make your system work through it, and thereby dispense with all the pernicious bloated hackjobs you've built up trying to circumvent it.
If youve ever read 'new left' writings like Marcuse or the Frankfurt institute of social research from the early half of the twentieth century, or any old hipster news outlet today (since such is the new mainstream) you would get the impression that 'fascism' is lurking everywhere, like subeterranian seeds that could at any moment bloom into reaction.
In a way, they are exactly correct. What they call(ed) fascism is simply the results of right reason applied in praxis. The new left was the answer to the questions of the old left at the turn of the century; where is the revolution? Why does it not start? Why does it not finish? And the answer became, in so many words: reality itself is a counter-revolutionary. In other words, they reinvented late antiquity gnosticism in modern guise.
The mytheo-poetic essence of leftism can be expressed like so: the only wrong is judging right from wrong. Once you dare to discern better and worse, things such as hierarchy, elitism, or exclusivity, follow naturally.
Do classical economics or Keynesian economics trigger you guys? What about the fact that economics classes brush over planned economies?
>The social science that seeks to describe the factors which determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.
>There's a principle in programming that illustrates this very well; if a certain 'bug' keeps reappearing no matter what you try to eliminate it, that's realities way of telling you that the 'bug' is in fact more essential than you presupposed. The elegant solution is often to turn the bug into a feature, make your system work through it, and thereby dispense with all the pernicious bloated hackjobs you've built up trying to circumvent it.
That or you fucked that algorithm up deeply and it's best to just scrap it and try again.
Planned economies have been thoroughly demonstrated to be shit. It's planned chaos.
There has only been one person who fought for the true proletariat and you killed him, the enemy of the merchant, the king, and the nobles.
The biggest criticism of planned economies is the fact that markets are somewhat self-regulating and tend to determine prices with much more efficiency than the limited thinking resources of a few technocrats.
Of course that doesn't mean all planning is bad, the debate is where you draw the line. The most successful corporations and nations don't completely lack planning.
Yo just because something's been proven logically with sound axioms doesn't mean that it's falsifiable. And I'm not familiar enough with mathematical philosophy to really read Godel, but last time I checked it's him who proved math isn't falsifiable.
Humanity is supplanted by its superior children.
Alternately, some subset of humanity hits the transhumanist bootstrap phase and leaves the rest in the dust.
Maybe some blanks are kept around on reservations, just for the fuck of it.
Hitler would of destroyed class.
If you didn't oppose Hitler you would be united with your Volk knowing no class or ranks, one people.
Because Class struggle is bullshit. People naturally compete with one another and sectioning it into arbitrary 'classes' gives the illusion that that society is clearly ordered and confrontational . Also Historical determinism is pretty retarded and cannot be proved. Basically it never happened because the Theory is inaccurate and nothing like reality
The social organisms that have existed heretofore, are the ones that have survived the test of history. The very fact of their existence is in itself proof positive of their adaptiveness compared to any number of possible but non-existent alternatives.
Listen to reality.
McCarthy was right about everything.
>White was accused in 1948 of spying for the Soviet Union, which he adamantly denied, but which was later confirmed by the release of declassified FBI documents related to the interception and decoding of Soviet communications, known as the Venona Project
>At the height of McCarthyism, Belfrage was summoned in 1953 to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).
>In 1995, the decrypted VENONA intercepts—a project between the US and British intelligence services to decipher Soviet wires — were made public. United States intelligence has alleged that Unnamed Codename Number 9 (UNC/9) was Belfrage.
>In 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy referred to Karr as Drew Pearson’s “KGB controller”.
>After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992, in the new atmosphere of openness, Soviet investigative journalist Albats published an article in Izvestia quoting documents from KGB archives that Karr was “a competent KGB source” who ‘‘submitted information to the KGB on the technical capabilities of the United States and other capitalist countries.”
>Called before the HUAC (chaired by Congressman Karl Mundt), Coe denied under oath having ever been a member of the CPUSA.
>A recent investigation into the KGB archives claims that files show Coe to have been a Soviet agent.
>the United States refused to renew his passport in 1954 due to the McCarthyism atmosphere in Washington, DC.
>He appears in the VENONA cables under the cover name 'PAGE', and in Soviet intelligence archives as 'VIM' and as a source for the Golos and Bentley spy networks.
Vietnam was a victory, aside from the lack of resolve on behalf of the americans and their government.
Iraq was a victory, but a failure as an occupation. Instead of cleaning house and implementing a real nation-building effort they just came, saw, conquered, then spazzed about before going out because no one wanted to play with them.
Wrong is a child's term, nothing more than a fairytale for the incapable and mentally weak.
The reality is that history is enacted or is enforced depending on which side you stand. The United States has simply made the logical and right conclusion that it is better to enact history on others than to have it enforced on itself. I can assure you that a thousand years from now the words "American Empire" will dot the historybooks of every young child along with the Roman Empire and the Third Reich. Can you say the same of other countries in our current times?
Commies used planning
Capitalist corporations use targets
What's the difference? They both are a planned amount for a period that will be evaluated after that period and adjusted accordingly.
The problem with targeting/planning has been the same in capitalist & communist society: unrealistic schedules, pressure & sanctions.
>Americans are so uneducated.
Regurgitating outdated "red scare" "mccarthyism was alarmist BS" propaganda and calling other people uneducated.
It's amazing to find people like this on a history board.
West: Workers won workers rights in a lot of nations, and even in shitholes where they lost(Brittani, USA) the wage levels went from bad to reasonable.
Also the increased automation and safety rules meant mangled children in work stopped happening, and then nobody cared anymore.
They *kind of* believe history has already ended, but almost every human being alive believes that history will eventually end.
I'm not talking only Fukuyama, I'm talking about Christianism, Kant, Hegel, etc.
I'm just saying, half of these "persistent bugs" are just people trying to "force" some algorithm that makes no sense, and they'd be better of reevaluating and researching instead of just going with it. That's reserved for when you really have no other alternative and reworking to fit the problem in the solution won't turn your code into an Orky code.
>Wrong is a child's term, nothing more than a fairytale for the incapable and mentally weak
Then why is so hard to think that the armed forces will obey the government that paid them and kill some random people who are trying to make a revolution? They are mercenaries after all, they do what they are being paid for.
First of all, having the US military actually operate inside the US against civilian targets would be a massive shitstorm.
>inb4 BUT DEY GON COVER IT UP
Its hard to keep secrets secret theses days.
oh yeah that shit.
I'm of the opinion that after communism is achieved, people will find something else to kill each other about and some other way to organize society. But I'm a Buddhist first and a communist second. Everything dies, even communism.
>mfw I took a class about American culture and my lesbian atheist socialist professor spent most of her lectures saying that anti-Communist sentiments in the US were baseless and the nuclear threat was a myth
>As society becomes more automated more average people are in competition for fewer jobs.
Why do you think welfare schemes are the minimum needed for a western civilization?
Because it turns out the Marxist Revolution will only come if
1. You can't get a job and have no income
2. You have work, and its really shit, and all the people you interact with can't get the ends to met either
Post Scarcity will be approached by unemployment going over 30%, and then keep on going. And it doesn't collapse economically
So long the states keeps welfare up and running, it won't collapse either.
As a programmer, that shit happens only as a matter of practicality and deadlines and not as part of a greater truth. In other words, you were too lazy/short on time to get things really right. Not a good way to vouch for your ideas, honestly.
At their core good algorithms don't get bugs. That's the fault of the guy who has to use it applying it incorrectly.
Find me a:
Sorting algorithm that is used but has bugs
Graph search that has bugs
Furthermore, that kind of thing generally only happens on large bodies of work that aren't organized well and are written like shit.
>implying people want communism
The Proletariat isn't interested in equality, they're interested in elevating themselves to higher status.
The vast, vast majority of people don't see someone driving a luxury car and think "Why should he have a much nicer car than me?", they think "Oh boy I wish I had a car like that".
People living in post-scarcity don't want to rise up against the system, they want to rise up within it.
People don't want to be equal, they want to be better than everyone else.
Sorry Marxists, but there is absolutely zero appetite for revolution, communism or any of that stuff.
The Proletariat aren't interested in Marx or Lenin, they're interested in the Kardashians and the next iPhone. You can wish they weren't all you want, but they are.
>The market mechanism is loosely efficient. But the idea that efficiency is the main virtue of free markets is wrong. Competition itself is highly inefficient. In my home town, I can buy food from about eight different places; I’m sure this system could be much more ‘efficient’ if Waitrose, M&S and Lidl were forcibly merged into one huge ‘Great Grocery Hall of The People No. 1306’. I am equally confident that after a few initial years of success, the shop would be terrible. […] The missing metric here is semi-random variation. Truly free markets trade efficiency for a costly process of market-tested innovation heavily reliant on dumb luck. The reason this inefficient process is necessary is that, though we pretend otherwise, no one knows anything about anything: most of the achievements of consumer capitalism were never planned; they are explicable only in retrospect, if at all.
While the anti-commie propaganda in the US could get really ridiculous you must put it into perspective, consider the fact that the soviets would fund leftist parties and groups everywhere in order to further its interests, also compare it to the kind of treatment that a dissident would receive in any socialist country of the time.
That's basics on history, but it goes deeper that just ''killing each other'', history is not just about conflict, but about what stays the same as well.
Also, I'm a Buddhist too, although I'm not a communist.
>But if they're a marxist, don't they want it?
Do you realise how few Marxists there are in the world? If Marxists were a species of animal, they'd be at the top of the endangered species list.
Marxism as a major political ideology has been out of fashion for decades, and it isn't appealing enough in post-scarcity to make a comeback.
>implying there will be warfare
The government only has to use the magical word "terrorist" and the doublethink will do the rest of the job.
The public will turn against the dissenters and the revolution will die without public support.
>But if they're a marxist, don't they want it?
They probably think they do, but how many Marxists do you know that actually live by Marxist standards?
If you don't live as cheaply as humanly possible, donating all of your extra wealth and time to the cause, you're not practicing what you preach.
If you buy luxury goods that you don't need while others go without the essentials, which people do in every country in the world, then you're not practicing what you preach.
I would estimate that upwards of 99% of Marxists are just keyboard warriors who would hate actually living in the system they advocate.
The stereotype of "Marxists" sitting in Starbucks on their MacBooks does exist for a reason.
And that's even assuming a revolutionary movement wouldn't be strangled in infancy.
The prominent figures of the would be revolution will be revealed through the massive information network and quietly assassinated in their bedrooms.
Because the working class was seduced by electronic entertainment. Bread and circuses, basically.
Without electricity, the proletariat revolution is inevitable, which is why deindustrialization is so important.
Any communist worth his salt must preach enviromentalism.
I think you're confusing Marxism, the historical theory that advocates nothing regarding personal behavior, with Christianity, the religion that advocates people doing all the things you mention.
>You are a prime example of sycophants to capitalism. I pity your inability to cope with reality and experience individual thought.
So says the communist. Which is about collectivism as well as a group mentalities/economics.
Arguably, the Iraq War was the turning point at which the public started to distrust the media. The popularity of Trump and Sanders is a symptom of that, especially Trump as even right-wing media hates him yet he's still polling obscenely high support.
>Be overzealous and paranoid
>You where still right
The point is that very few, if any, "Marxists" are actively engaged in agitating for revolution beyond posting about it online and sucking each other's dicks at pointless rallies that no one cares about.
They're too busy enjoying the fruits of a system that they claim to hate, while doing absolutely nothing to A.) create a revolution or movement and B.) alleviate the suffering of those oppressed by said system in the interim period between now and the revolution that they've been claiming is just around the corner for over a century
It is inevitable really. Already the resentment and anger at the effects of unequal wealth distribution is rising. And when more and more industries make the change from human capital to mechanized labor, and the unemployment rates skyrocket the millions of people without jobs, or money will be forced to do something. Trying to predict an exact date will never be precise, or able to factor in unseen developments but the inevitability of global revolution is all but guaranteed.
>>He doesn't think that governments violating due process isn't a hot scoop that reporters would love to pick up, even if it's just something like RT
Hot scoops don't pay as much as the government does. And anything that's not paid by the government is a "russian propaganda network".
>>He didn't realize that the public eventually turned around on that one
Yeah, well, too late.
The revolution will be long and dead when the public realizes they've been had yet again. There'll be some hot air about the whole ordeal but nothing will ultimately change.
>Communism has never been debunked and in fact cannot be debunked.
Even if that were true it would mean it's unfalsifiable AKA bullshit.
seriously though. Marx doesn't remark upon the behavior of individuals, but the behavior of classes. He never tells people to boycott capitalism or anything and most Marxists are fine with people drinking starbucks and using computers. Do you think that the merchants who led the French Revolution advocated for people to not eat bread produced by serfs?
Labor unions and the welfare state made the proletariat very well off in the western world. Capitalists made these concessions in part due to the threat of a viable socialist alternative.
Now as first wold governments are seeing the strong decline of the middle class, decline in availability of well-paying jobs, lack of social mobility, etc., this trend may reverse to some decree and in several decades we might see the kinds of socialist agitation you saw to some degree in the late 19th-early 20th century.
>not memeing the fuck out of it
There are actually a lot of Jews in media and entertainment.
That's not even conspericy theory or anything.
I just go for /winterball/ threads :3 desu~oyveyberginsteinohen.
They didn't. Dipshits like O'Reilly just labeled anyone that was smart enough to realize that going into Iraq was a huge fucking mistake as terrorist sympathizers that gate apple pie or whatever.
Except you're wrong.
>as if history was[sic] a narrative
How would you describe it? As completely disconnected events?
It doesn't even mean history necessarily has a beginning or an end. Listen to Pink Floyd's The Wall, it has a narrative but its beginning and end are only defined by the first and last tracks of the album, musically AND thematically it's written to be cyclical. Like life, like history.
Eventually humans will reach a point where how members of various demographics react to social and technological change will become something incorporated into methods of population control. We are already reaching this point and you'd have to be some sort retard making pointless semantic arguments on 4chan to ignore the growing legitimacy of social sciences.
What does surplus value have to do with keynes? His whole shtick was that something must be up that causes markets to not be so nicely self regulated so the government should come in and fix it.
Those things being that rich save more than poor and that wages are "sticky downward"
I have, but what I have stated is fact.
Marx is out dated and can no longer apply to the modern era.
Kai Murros is a better source if you want to make a class theory argument.
It is not the source of all struggle.
>Lmfao, it was a reason a lot of people distrust the media
I think you overestimate the level antisemitism among Europeans and Americans in the modern world (outside of /pol/).
>half way a joke, more so reality.
That's cool, I'm not trying to bite your head off, but it would be great if we could keep /his/ as /pol/ may-may free as possible. I enjoy /pol/ as much as the next guy but the level of discourse there is /b/-tier and it would be nice if we tried to not let that happen to /his/ for as long as possible.
>You can't deny it as fact, anyway, Jews and Europeans don't get along well historically.
Historically, sure. Modern day? Not so sure. The bulk of modern European antisemitism is the result of large migrations from the Islamic world, it's pretty well documented.
>the nuclear threat was a myth
I can sort of forgive the first part since there were innocent people caught up in the red scare, but how the fuck did she justify this?
there were literally dozens of times when all out nuclear exchange was a button press away.
history is literally our interpretation of the human past, and the fact that events are connected doesn't mean they follow a narrative, what the fuck.
You can't compare the past (because you are not talking about history there) to any work of art, The Wall was made by someone, the past happened. Even though people try to move it in a way, it doesn't mean it goes that way.
How is that relevant to anything I just said? Oh my god this people...
Anyway, I'm out to bed.
Recommended reading: Paul Veyne.
>post list of jewish media owners, with no comparison to number of non-jewish media owners, business partners, executives, writers and other important people at these companies
>list inevitably contains non-jews, making the whole list worthless unless fact checked name by name
>post incendiary quotes from random jews no one has ever heard of, as if by being born jewish, these media owners have approved these quotes
>ignore the high percentage of atheist jews
>claim that all jews have the same opinions and ideology, disregarding that they are as diverse in opinions and views as any other group
>anyone who criticises you is a paid shill
>claim some kind of weird victory
Because that's how it goes every single time someone brings it up. It's not a big deal.
>you can't compare the past to any work of art
Your entire argument in a nutshell.
You can, we have, deal with it.
Here's what you can do next. Go to /sci/ and make semantic arguments about how the fundamental forces aren't really based on 'laws' because the universe doesn't have a criminal justice system.
So, according to this picture, the US Govt will try their hardest to suppress any revolutionary movements at all costs and if one happens anyway, it would become a puppet of russia?
Basically, the US public will be fucked in the ass forever because a revolution would be bad for everyone.
People join the army to get a free education or because they have shit options. The small minority that actually goes on the ground that shoot other people often end up quite fucked up mentally because of it.
I hate to break it to you, but less than 1% of your time in the army is spent shooting at people, if not closer to 0.1% or less.
And even when you are shooting at people? Mostly suppressive fire.
True. I was just posting it because it was a well-written counterpoint to the idea that the
military would immediately BTFO of any revolution.
That said, I think that >>78170 has an extremely good point. Not only would the modern American Left never actually try to rise up in an armed revolution, but the vast majority of the US military and a surprisingly large chunk of the US populace would jump at the chance to hammer them down. The hatred between the Right and the Left has grown large in the opinion-greenhouse of the internet.
I thought you were going to bed?
>people who care more about making relevant points than getting the last post in a thread where I started a pointless debate and then lost it
No John, you are the cancer.
(forgot my second part)
I think the only chance of a successful revolution in America would be against a Democrat-dominated (executive and legislative) government, and only THEN in the midst of an actual large-scale gun grab. Then you have circumstances where a significant amount of the US military defects to an armed uprising.
Any revolution in the US would either have to hijack the state apparatus early on or suffer 10 years of Chinese- and Russian-supported guerrilla warfare that at best ends up as a breakaway state that's a puppet to foreign interests.
>ut how the fuck did she justify this?
She really didn't do a convincing job of it. She basically just kept saying that it wasn't as big a deal as it was made out to be. Her arguments weren't good. As a student of history I was appalled by the way she presented information to my classmates and I. She basically used the class to ram her ideology down our throats while barely pretending to respect people who disagreed with her metaphysical and political views. I'm a registered Democrat planning to vote for Bernie and it was too much idiotic leftism for me.
>I'm going to bed
>but there are still strangely out of context posts being made
>most of them
>an abnormal amount of people are participating in an argument they have no context for
>but it's not me
>I went to bed
>And I just said it's not me
>So it's not me.
>Watch me keep shit posting just to get the last post so I can at least feel good about that.
>isn't based on exploitation and capital growth (communism).
>not as bad as capitalism when it comes to treating humans as economic gears
I'm not talking about in arguments, I mean in terms of who controls the media. Why do you think it's irrelevant? Are you saying g that there's literally no context in which the information could be relevant or are you just taking issue with people who say 'muh Jews' in 4chan threads?
>are you just taking issue with people who say 'muh Jews' in 4chan threads?
Pretty much this, which constitutes 99.99% of the times people mention jewish representation in media on this site. "Jews" without anything to substantiate it is not only not an argument, it's cancerous as hell and spreads like wildfire.
I wouldn't deny that there are a lot of Jewish media owners, no. I would question why it is relevant in 99.99% of cases that it is brought up though. I never see anyone who doesn't believe conspiracy theories bring it up, but that's not really an argument against discussing it in a sane manner.
I would however contest the belief that a lot of people who bring up Jewish media ownership seem to have though- the belief that the media is totally dominated by Jews.
Rupert Murdoch is a good example, he's not jewish yet owns a ridiculously huge and particularly influential chunk of english-speaking media.
He also regularly features on lists of Jewish media owners, despite not being jewish. Standard reply from /pol/ shitposters etc is to decide that he's a crypto-jew and can thus be overlooked.
A theory about high jewish intelligence has just occurred to me.
What if high jewish intelligence is the result of historical antisemitism? In the event of a pogrom or the Holocaust, surely the most intelligent and perceptive jews, along with jews with desired and sought-after skills (doctors, etc) would be the ones with a higher chance of survival? Could this sort of pseudo-natural selection be the cause of higher average IQs?
Possible additional factor: the richer members of the Jewish community would be more able to up and leave at short notice and find somewhere safer to be (adding to their odds of surviving), so if you believe that "new money" people (which many jews had to be as they had to be self made due to aforementioned historical disadvantages and constant migration around Europe, often at short notice) are more likely to be intelligent rather than just lucky.
TL;DR- Are jews smart because the stupid ones got purged regularly by European antisemitic outbursts?
Don't worry, we still have "progressives" and "social-democrats" to pick up where the commies left off
seconding with an addition to >>77518
1. All governance is ultimately a competition between systems for information and resource management.
2. The most successful system is the one that maximally predicts and therefore controls the present information/resource economy (the means of production) through policy and action at the lowest cost to those that govern.
3. A bad system will fail as and in the degree to which its policies or actions disregard or misinterpret information that affects the survival or prosperity of the system.
4. If no better system more efficient or effective is in evidence, the most modern or efficient government system may disregard performance up until it dips below the efficiency/effectiveness level of that which it overthrew.
5. The success of a system needs must create the conditions for its successor in so far as efficient policy and action necessarily permit more action or more sophisticated actions for the system to deal with as its low cost high value decisions free resources for other uses.
As a result, the abuses of an information economy may meet but not exceed the abuses of an industrial economy, which may not exceed that of an autocratic or feudal economy etc.
Should a system's excesses exceed those prior high water marks for human mendacity the system endangers itself to a coup by people willing to (sensibly) adopt the other model.
A proletarian governance system requires an effective and efficient proletariat capable of governance. Factories provided the environmental tools necessary for the logistical, but not the decision making side of government.
Only when the survival of a governing system depends on an educated and informed class of peasants will power be relinquished in everyone's best interest to them.
>tfw all the men (and some women) are marines
>tfw someone believes we'd fire on our friends, families and general Americans
The armed forces are fallible people nothing more.
The armed forces are fickle like people nothing more.