Can you be right-wing or conservative and Marxist at the same time?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
>Can you be right-wing or conservative and Marxist at the same time?
Are you a moron or are you just trying to forum slide?
No.
Legit question, Google says you can, and there are Wikipedia pages about it
Those three things have no definite definition and can mean what ever you want it to mean.
So yes.
Depends on your definition of right wing. Europe’s definition of right wing is aggressive, nationalistic, tribalism. America’s definition of right wing is a fiscally conservative person who may or may not hate brown people. So maybe by some twisted bastardized version of European right wing, you can.
Yes, at this point Marxism would be more conservative than the majority you find in the Alt-Right.
You mean Stalinist or Nazbol?
Yes, since Marxism is ultimately just critique of modern capitalism+hegelianism.
1)Stalinists are not the right-wing of Marxism, Titoists and Dengists are.
2) Nazbols reject Marxism.
the traditional conservative views the family unit as functioning off of rules similar to communism
but if you mean marxist in the sense of expanding those rules to a vast number of people you don't love or care about then no, that is opposed to traditional conservatism since it's opposed to a functioning order of human life and actualization of the soul
sage until you put more effort into your agitprop btw, we see you
This is true.
You can be a conservative socialist (nazbols, Stalinists, Strasserites, etc... etc...) but you can't be a conservative Marxist.
Of course. Marxism is an economic system and
doesnt have much to do with National identities and social issues beyond unions and organized labor.
what the hell is that flag on the left
The Communist Manifesto bemoans the passing of "idyllic feudal relations".
If you think there has EVER been such an idyll, please point us to it, since otherwise Marx is a fucking imbecilic elitist nutwad.
The issue of Marxism/Communism is people take a good idea and follow it like religious people follow their doctrine.
he's not wrong, tight knit communities like that were great and as enriching to the soul as life could get, even given the technical difficulties of the time
where marx goes wrong is everything he concludes about the good life afterward
Tight-knit communities were kinship groups.
Feudal relations were the OPPOSITE of tigh-knit relations. Feudal lords treated the rest as slaves and outsiders. Marx LIKED that kind of subjugative slavery because he was an elitist and a romantic who thought the world was just more "clean" when it was lords exercising easily understood violent control over the rest. He hates capitalism largely because social status isn't fixed in capitalism.
>Legit question,
No, it's not.
>Google says you can, and there are Wikipedia pages about it
Google and Wikipedia say the Holocaust happened. Your point?
GANG GANG
lords being more or less a microscopic point of feudal life where your average commoner would live in a mostly separate village and pay occasional tax to a lord for protection, the fact still remains that tight knit small villages were de-facto in feudal life in essentially any feudal society, the lordship thing doesn't really impact that the way you think it does
although it's worth mentioning lordship necessarily forms out of tight knit filial/community allegiance in times of war
No, marxism is inherently leftist due to the social ideology it has. You absolutely can be socialist and right wing, but marxian communism is completely incompatible.
>lords being more or less a microscopic point of feudal life
That's absolutely untrue. Peasants had extremely burdensome taxes that made their lives very very much worse.
Marx was not talking about familial relations or kinship groups. He knew what those were - he was a historian. He was intentionally exalting *FEUDAL* relations, which are not familial/kinship group relations at all.
there are two kinds of socialism
1. for the state - communism - central government- only thing that matters is the state, not people.
2. for the people - fascism - generally a dictatorship - only thing that matters are the people.
both need to avoid a plutocracy aka corporatism.
NOTE: corporations will always try and run the state or control the man
right now the US is suffering from both. - in the future it might end up being called Americanism.
Americanism is corporations control the central government, mostly jews (marx was a jew, the USSR was run by jews until Stalin died). Further, even though corporations rule the people who prosper and bailed out most are the wealthy, so socialism for a select group of protected people.
The only way to stop this is a massive waking up of the working public -plebs- and vote the crooks out, which has never happens in history, or killing the wealthy, see; French Revolution.
ALSO: Secession in the US would have worked.
You clearly have not read Mussolini even once in your life since you don`t know what corporationism actually means in context of fascist economic policy.
To be a Marxist is simply to agree that in any economic exchange, there is a winner and a loser, and that over time, compounding losses make it impossible to have leverage in future economic exchanges
It’s literally that simple.
“Communism” is an attempt to escape this stasis
>No, it's not.
Nice argument
That's NazBol.
>in any economic exchange, there is a winner and a loser
We know this is false. Marx himself knew it was false - Menger's publications on subjective value were freely accessible to him.
I am middle of the road, but right of center and libertarian. I think Marx's writings did a good job pointing out pitfalls that capitalism needs to be wary of. Plus any proud capitalist need to be familiar with Marx to know what he was talking about and shut down the bullshit crazed commies talk about. They really took some of Marx's good intentions and interesting observations and twisted them into totalitarian nightmares.
>I think Marx's writings did a good job pointing out pitfalls
He did more substantive praise of free markets than pointing out any flaws in them that hold water outside superstition.
fuck off commie you have no idea what corporatism is, you can't even spell it
neck yourself POSjew Marxist
Yes, you need to be a high ranking mason and a powerful banker.
Capitalism and communism are products of the frankfurt school
No.
yes
you should read that moron
says I'm correct
that's how the commies do it,
God Murdoch Murdoch is fucking cringy. I don't see why you fags like it.
The only structure of power needed is that of a family
with the sufficient amount of money everything is possible!
>Capitalism is a product of the frankfurt school
That's the most retarded thing I've read today
Can you hate the stupid fucking shit brown people tend to do and not hate brown people as a people?
thats natsoc.
I'm a marxist that supports trump... so... yes?
Marxism is an ideology against capitalism.
Capitalism is saving and investing.
Therefore Marxism is against saving and investing.
Therefore Marxism causes a society to degenerate.
Therefore Marxism is degenerate.
Degeneracy is what right-wingers and conservatives oppose.
Therefore right-wingers and conservatives are opposed to Marxism.
socialism can be worked into a rightist framework of thought.
national socialism would be one example, of the above.
but Marxism is unable to ever have the label conservative preceding it.
Marxism is fundamentally antithetical to nationalism.
is predicated on it’s dissolution; via Lenin’s Thesis on Social Revolution and the Question of National Self-Determination.
feudalism was brutal and worse than communism thats why russians took to it like flies to shit
Basically. Remove race from the equation in Mein Kampf and Hitler was basically a masculinist SJW.
it actually worked thats the thing. i would love america to be a system like that
>Therefore Marxism causes a society to degenerate.
Ironic that that the West is now degenerating while the East survives. Communism saved the East.
Marxism didn't but Stalin did.
You're being ironic right? Those places are amoral cesspits, where the state incessantly murders and coerces people for the benefit and image of the goons.
Marx coined the word Capitalism
Marxism is ZOG
>where the state incessantly murders and coerces people for the benefit and image of the goons
What's wrong with that?
one free ride for you
Yes, because a conservative can be either socialist or capitalist
>What's wrong with that?
Yeah please keep that flag.
Nice job infantilizing national socialism you little faggot.
I'd like to remind you that societies have historically worked that way. Tyranny is natural and healthy.
that's what Christians are.
>I'd like to remind you that societies have historically worked that way
Many have and certainly most in written record.
That has not been a good thing or something that should be lauded - it's evil. The intentional infliction of death and suffering of many for the benefit of the very few.
Marxism means "I don't understand economics".
Litereally the same thing.
>but I only like "x" people
Ah, no than.
Yes.
Marxism means "I don't want to work my entire life so that people who hate me and everything that I hold dear get richer and richer". Now if you want to slave away for Mr. Shlomo Shekelbergstein so bad, go ahead.
You can't be economically right wing and a marxist. That's like believing "the means of production should be private and not private".
>it's evil
It is more evil to live in a failed society like the West.
Socialists have to work for the state. Capitalism is based on voluntary trade. You don't have to work for anyone in true capitalism, there would be nothing stopping you from producing your own food.
You're not responsible for other people's choices.
Evil is a moral quality - it comes from people's choices and intentions. You're not responsible for what you can't be responsible for, like your neighbor's fraud or your uncle's murder of another man. There's nothing evil about existing, while there is a certain evil in thugs and goons attacking and looting innocent people.
>failed society.
>less poverty than anywhere else in history.
this
humans respond predictably to incentives
at the same time, prices are signals that provide information in a free market
In a command economy like the Soviet Union, the government commissioned factories to make glass, but they paid them according to how many sheets of glass they produced.
Humans respond predictably to incentives, so they just pumped out a shit ton of super thin glass sheets that were shitty and too fragile to be of use, because they were getting paid for how many they could make, and wanted to put in the least amount of effort as possible
So they starting paying them according to how many pounds of glass sheets they could make, rather than how many glass sheets
so they just started making the glass sheets too thick so they could put in the least amount of work but still fill the quota
Command economies like this don't work because, in the absence of a free market and competition, there is no incentive to improve or innovate, and workers will inevitably look for ways to cut corners to make their lives easier if they're just going to get paid the same. It's like a single mom in the United States who doesn't want to get a job because she will lose her welfare benefits and also make less at the job than she would on the benefits. I don't blame her, I would make the same decision as its the only logical one.
The only problem with the west is the number of socialists and keynesians in power.
I haven't read Locke. Sorry.
> the intentional infliction of death and suffering of many for the benefit of the very few.
this is literally capitalism, yet the East is still a shithole because you build greatness on mass exploitation
The establishment wants you Marxists to be unemployed and voting for measures to loot the middle class. How anti-establishment are you really?
N A Z B O L G A N G
>this is literally capitalism
Free trade is by definition mutually beneficial. People don't engage in transactions that they don't think benefits them - state thuggery is the opposite, given they force you BY INTENTIONAL VIOLENCE to obey them and pay tribute.
This is keynesianism, not capitalism. The state borrows money to pay people to do pointless work to reduce unemployment. Private businesses have nothing to do with that.
lol
literally the most prosperous society at any point in history, "poor" people are using iPhones and walking around not fucking dying from starvation
The only reason why the West is failing is because it became a breeding ground for people like you. If we get rid of you, then society would unironically improve
The only way your retarded utopia would ever work would be if government forced people to work jobs. No one is going to do that shit willingly if there's no monetary incentive.
Eric Striker can be
It's clearly impossible to be morally responsible for other people's choices. You don't have to read anyone. Moral responsibility falls on willful activities and intentions, and you can't make other people's choices.
you mean like a mixture of some sort of socialism and nationalism
No, outside of a primal tribe, communism don't work.
>implying subversives would spend months or years on this board and not be able to blend in successfully enough to seem like an honest person
people can choose only if they are well-informed and sovereign, beggars are not choosers
No, not really. You can be opposed to capitalism (in some respect or another) and be right wing. In fact, in the current year that is the correct position with respect to economics.
>Socialists have to work for the state
And the state gives them back the fruits of their labor through public services.
>muh real capitalism
Let's take your own example. Say you bought a property and decided to grow food alone. How would you enforce your property rights? All by yourself? Probably not. So will you have to hire a private company (and therefore be in a position in which you're forced to somehow make money)? I'm guessing you'll say you'd form some kind of volunteer militia, but I'd like some more details on that.
>Europe’s definition of right wing is aggressive, nationalistic, tribalism.
There is nothing like that in the US. That's pretty fucking gay
>people can choose only if they are well-informed and sovereign
People are necessarily sovereign - the will is completely inalienable on a meta-moral level.
You don't need to be "well informed" for trade to be mutually beneficial either. When I buy a steak from the supermarket, I'm not "well informed" as to its quality or lackthereof. I'm buying it based on assumptions, and when I make the purchase I do so willingly and of the mind that the steak is worth more than the currency I'm exchanging to get it. Just because it's possible for me to regret my decision later does not in any way change the fact that I make the purchase with a believe that it's to my benefit to do so.
Yes, but you'll be seen as retarded regardless
>The establishment wants you Marxists to be unemployed and voting for measures to loot the middle class
Huh? I thought we were discussing abstract philosophy. Regardless, the establishment is both left and right, both marxist and hardcore capitalist. Remember: You're only guaranteed to win if you play both sides.
Believing the means of production should be public is the incorrect position. Voluntary trade is mutually beneficial. Being for voluntary trade (aka capitalism) is the correct position.
I think so....?
Something I can compare is like people who advocate free market capitalism, but support more on the farmers and reject the bankers, cities, and industrialist. Aka Jeffersonian Republicans.
Yes that’s what hitler was
>And the state gives them back the fruits of their labor through public services.
Private businesses give back for the work you do, and because it's voluntary, it's mutually beneficial. The government usually doesn't give back as much as it takes.
>How would you enforce your property rights?
If it's possible to enforce property rights privately, property rights should be enforced privately. This depends on wether the people are willing to fight any state that tries to pop up.
>No one is going to do that shit willingly if there's no monetary incentive.
Maybe, maybe loving their nation, loving their culture and people would be incentive enough. Capitalism denies that and claims individualism is natural, I wouldn't take that for granted, though. But I'm a socialist, not a communist. I don't argue for a classless, stateless society.