I think I find the idea of a anime that spouts cliched Marxist notions interesting, but really, you're an idiot if you think any of it makes sense. Marxism was always an extraordinarily ridiculous ideology, (birthed by the one of the most absurd combinations in all of philosophy, that of Hegelianism and materialism, two already flawed systems that are at opposite extremes of error, somewhat similar to trying to combine the flat earth theory ). As knowledge has increased in the field of economics, it becomes more and more outdated, but it was outdated even at its inception. It would be the equivalent of coming up with Artistotle's theory of the heavens around the time of Gallileo, as quite a bit was known about the theory of economics, (as done by Smith, Say, and Ricardo), which, while very incomplete, gave far more compelling arguments and explanations for economic development that made Marx's contributions clearly fallacious in that light. Even something like homeopathy and chiropractic were more plausible theories within the context of medicine when they were introduced.
I'm not sure what would be the right-wing equivalent of Marxist mantas. There isn't really an established set of fascist notions quite as multiplex as Marxism, and fascism is far less popular and much younger than Marxism, (at least in theory). Something like the divine right of kings, which was fairly popular in the 17th century, is, again, far less elaborated, less popular, and even more outdated than Marxism. By the way, even the divine right of kings, (or the idea of an absolute monarch), was a more justifiable theory for its time than Marxism was at any point, and has actually been more successful in its implementation.
So, for shits and giggles, if I wanted to engage in the right-wing counterpart of spouting Marxist doctrine, (along with its own lexicon like the overused terms of "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie" in Marxist terminology), what would it be? I genuinely have no idea
i don't fucking know. Try being a little more concise and not write a fucking wall of text to get your point across. it tends to get lost when you do that.
You're right. I'm sorry. I've been here for a few years, and I think I understand the culture here pretty well, but I'm poor at making replies, and I'm abysmal at making threads. I actually recycled the first part of this post from one that I was going to make in a /tv/ thread with the same image, but the thread was deleted before I could make it.
Jayden Morales
>the fairies deserved the magic power raise and company healthcare
Here it is shorter: what would be the right-wing equivalent of regurgitating Marxist ideology, (that nonsense edgy leftists spout filled with terms like "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie")?
But those are socialist terms from Voltaire. Marxism was made to change power, not to be actualized.
Jace Kelly
Unironically, it might be the Jews. The problem is that there seems to be more truth to jewish conspiracies than the validity of marxist ideology. So the absurdity of it gets lost when trying to mock the right.
>what would be the right-wing equivalent of regurgitating Marxist ideology, (that nonsense edgy leftists spout filled with terms like "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie")? There isn't one, because Marxism is bad faith ideology. It isn't supposed to make sense or do any of the things it claims to want to do, it is just a rationalization for the usurpation of power by the most worthless elements of society. Maybe you could draw a comparison with 'divine right' and that sort of monarchist/reactionary rhetoric, but that stuff is honest about what it wants.
Luis Wilson
Not really the same thing. To be perfectly objective, that's just dark and sardonic humor from edgy contrarians. Marxism is almost a language of its own. I would say when I was in my Objectivist phase, (a philosophy I've moved away from, but have a great deal of respect for), I had a more certain, definite response on almost every issue within the context of that philosophy. I realize I actually sympathize with Marxists because I had a similar phase, but with diametrically opposed philosophy. Still, Objectivism is far less popular than Marxism in every circle, (except maybe among businessmen and programmers), and it's a much more closed system than Marxism, so I don't think it would work.
"The Jews"? Pardon me, but that's even stupider than Marxism, which at least deals with concepts, however invalid, as opposed to racist and bigoted conspiracy theories. But I guess what you're saying has some truth to it, as I do hear da joos quite often from right-wingers, but it's intellectually even more bankrupt.
Wow, that's some pretty ignorant commentary coming from you there, friend. Read Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley and learn the role of internation banking cliques in both world wars, and how the individuals at the top of those structures have suspiciously echoey names.
Jeremiah Gray
>socialist terms from Voltaire. It's an indelible part of Marxist terminology. >Marxism was made to change power, not to be actualized. Well, I'm convinced if it was never actualized, (which leftists constantly claim to defend their darling system when the countries that profess it turn into dystopias), or never meant to be actualized, (which is a new one for me), the results of actualizing it, or attempting to do so, have been wanting. If I were a liberal, (not a leftist per se), I might defend Marxism by saying it was an intellectual basis for a more fair economic and political system. The problem is that the system is wrong, (which is harder to demonstrate), but, more materially, the intellectual basis is weak, and Marx was clearly against any small movements towards "equality," like the welfare state. That is, however, if read Das Kapital, as opposed to only reading the Manifesto, which I'm sure plenty of leftist have only read of Marx's works, making them ignorant quite ignorant of their own darling system.
Jeremiah Hill
Jewish conspiracies sit somewhere between the truth and nothing more than a scapegoat to blame peoples problems on. If it were inherently wrong or incorrect, it would be put to rest long ago like most other conspiracies. The fact that it still exists and there's entire organizations dedicated to "debunking" them and laws in place in countries around the world to stop people from even thinking about questioning certain things says enough.
>scapegoat This isn't a real thing. Only Jews scapegoat, it is a Jewish meme. Individual people will blame others for things they have done themselves to escape punishment, or make excuses for why they can't solve a problem, but only Jews deliberately try to heap their own group sins onto others in order to justify continuing them.
Isaiah Foster
>'divine right' and that sort of monarchist/reactionary rhetoric, but that stuff is honest about what it wants. Well, I did that, and I don't think it would ever be suitable in today's world, for obvious reasons. To its credit, it's intellectually more flexible than the divine right theory, as there will be poor and working class in most states far longer than there will be absolute monarchies, which has actually been the case for several centuries. >It isn't supposed to make sense or do any of the things it claims to want to do, it is just a rationalization for the usurpation of power by the most worthless elements of society. I want to be fair, but even in defense of fascist dictatorships, (of which I am certainly no fan), practical application is far easier and more feasible. Now, Marxism is clearly more abstract, but to the point that it's implementation is more difficult and open to interpretation. That's why I'm willing to allow to leftist that there really has been no such thing as communism, while there have been right-wing or fascist dictatorships. The issue is that this is because fascist dictatorships are more feasible, and I think the results actually indicate that countries that attempt fascism versus countries that attempt communism have implemented their system better and have generally been more successful.
Oliver Cox
Objectivism is the right-wing equivalent of Marxism, but much better, and spouting Objectivist arguments is the equivalent of Marxist talk.
Again, I'm sorry. I type like a redditor, but I can't stand that place, or even generally anons who make posts like mine.
Jordan Barnes
There are ex colonial countries all around the world who use white people as a scapegoat for their shortcomings. Unless that's also the jews influencing that very dangerous behavior which can only result in racial conflict.
Colton Gray
>Still, lurk moar. No, that's not it. I will never type in a way that's consistent with the board's culture, not matter how much I lurk. It's like if I enjoyed romance novels, but when I tried to write some myself, I wrote absurdist fiction. I can't help it, and I just have to hope that I write in a way that brings my point across, and is not too offensively long-winded.
Most are shills who want to discredit the legitimate theories by continuously bringing up the ridiculous ones in an attempt to paint everyone who holds "conspiracy theories" as wack jobs who shouldn't be listened to. Know your enemy.
Logan Russell
>There are ex colonial countries all around the world who use white people as a scapegoat for their shortcomings That isn't scapegoating, it's just making excuses. I get that people use the term scapegoating to mean any apportioning of blame to others, but that's not what it is. It is a specifically Jewish type of justification for continuing to do something that you know you are doing and know it is wrong but you make a party you know is innocent suffer for it and that somehow makes it ok. They project it onto others, like they do with everything else.
Hunter Torres
> fascism is rightwing > marxism is leftwing > implying the first isn‘t the non-international variant of the latter
Jack Harris
That is possible, but it's not something that has been really fleshed out, and it would difficult to develop an "ear" for it just by reading. A leftist, if his memory were retentive enough and he had an ability to apply the principles of what he has read to various situations, or at least parrot them, could learn "Marx-speak" within a few days of reading him, or simplifications of it. The equivalent doesn't really exist for right-wingers. For one thing, there were far fewer fascist intellectuals. Secondly, I think they dealt more with the moral decay of society than problems Marxists claim to have a solution to that people generally recognize. Most people are concerned with the problems Marxism claims to resolve, like (perceived) exploitation, poverty, and inequality, while the fascist world view of directing everyone toward moral regularity and greatness is generally less sympathetic to people.
Cooper Baker
Well, I really don't want to make judgments too much about any of the ideologies I was talking about, (even though I already have), and I will clarify that I meant to say that sort of language is stupider than Marxist-speak. I hold in contempt arguments and statements that are little more than regurgitating Marxist bromides, but I despise even more anti-Semitic conspiracy theorizing. I honestly think of the two, (erroneous) systems, Marxism is preferable, but I think I can separate that judgement to merely say that ranting about the Jews is even more intellectually lazy and idiotic.
Daniel Carter
Theoretically speaking Marxism has nothing in common with hyper-nationalism,economic policies of privatization etc. that are commonplace with fascist regimes.
Ryan Cook
Rewatched Love Live
>School shutting down due to no demand for the product >Idol groups are a new successful promotional campaign for schools >Honoka wants to start an Idol group to create demand and stop bankruptcy >Recruitment of Umi and Kotori to increase partners to increase productivity >Umi in charge of lyrics and kotori of clothing >Get negative comments from school president and many others like people in near bankruptcy >Know it's a high risk tactic but they have nothing to lose >Never give up hope and work hard to be successful >Spread fliers for advertising >First live is a total fail but still give their best without looking back due to honoka and her leadership qualities >Starts motivating others >Maki is recruited for her skills in music after tough negotiations >Hidden talents like hanayo break their shell and have their dream come true >Rin is recruited as a friend of Hanayo who is athletic >Nico (Best Girl) had a dream which failed but then is shown it's never over and joins the team >Eli and Nozomi joins after seeing the progress of the team, both talented >Many plans backfired >Work on different tactics with opinions from everyone >A-rise, the competition is already a known company >High risk completion for exposure begins >Team goes into conflicts but stay together because they have the same goal >A-Rise looks like a huge obstacle and also show intimidating tactics >Kept their ideals and never looked back >Win and keep the school from bankruptcy >Love Live - A Capitalistic Project
>birthed by the one of the most absurd combinations in all of philosophy, that of Hegelianism and materialism, two already flawed systems that are at opposite extremes of error, somewhat similar to trying to combine the flat earth theory
If you sincerely think that Marxism has anything to do with Hegel you have clearly read too much of Zizek and never seriously approached materialist dialectics.
As for your main point, I don`t think that there are equivalents in right-wing language to Marxist talking-points or concepts since right-wing theory or philosophy is fundamentally not interested in class conflict on any level but class cooperation at best and sort of social Darwinism at worst.
I can't entirely disagree with that, but again, as I said in this post , I am judging more how intelligent and versatile a world view is. No doubt, any theory, no matter how ridiculous could become multi-faceted, intricate, and perhaps even compelling. (For instance, I know so little about astronomy that if a knowledgeable flat-Earther wanted to argue for a geocentric system, that might be an argument I would lose.) Separating the two systems, I think that analyzing things from a cliche, orthodox Marxist perspective will result in more intelligent commentary than an anti-Semitic one, and that's my general experience reading comments of both sorts. I will say that anti-Semitic, right-wing jokes are far superior to hard-left jokes, which are just bizarrely unfunny. Also, there's leftist memes.... Like, seriously, what the fuck is pic related?
>Marxism was always an extraordinarily ridiculous ideology it was a product of its times and you're a fool if you don't notice the relationship between marxist thought and the way business is run today
read a book like "the nature and logic of capitalism" and you can see plain as day that the businessmen love marxism down to their very core
Marxism is a terrible ideology but many terrible things persist on this earth in spite of themselves.
Nope. Right-wingers who claim that Nazism is left-wing are idiots. However, left-wingers who claim all autocratic communist countries are right-wing are also idiots, and far more common. I've actually argued with one person who literally believed the worse a government was, the more right-wing it was. How far do they take this? When I asked if the Russian Revolution was between two right-wing groups, with the Bolsheviks being the more right-wing because they were the worse entity. I actually didn't do very well in that argument because the theory was so novel to me, and perplexingly idiotic, but how nonsensical this theory was has become more and more apparent since that day. This is not an endorsement of "horse-shoe" theory, which I think is greatly flawed, but if you think that Nazi Germany was left-wing, or that the Soviet Union was right-wing, you make any horse-shoe theorist look a genius by comparison, you fucking idiot.
Asher Allen
I would say the similarity is the subjugation of individual rights to the will of a collective.
Xavier Martin
Maybe I don‘t believe there‘s a left and right wing. Maybe there‘s more than one parameter to characterize an ideology. Just maybe. Redistributing state and private assets to party loyalists isn‘t privatization.
Dominic Torres
Same could be said of any format of government since beginning of history. Individualism is fairly new ideological niche and I doubt that it will last in the onslaught of modern tendency towards authoritarianism be it kleptocratic,plutocratic or even based on ochlocracy.
Bentley Evans
>Redistributing state and private assets to party loyalists isn‘t privatization.
Yeah that is pure kleptocracy and corruption. But privatization of public assets to private market forces was common place in Nazi Germany for example.
Matthew Evans
>If you sincerely think that Marxism has anything to do with Hegel Really, this is too much. Anything the most basic perusal of Marxist theory sees the influence of Hegel. You might as well there is nothing of Aristotle in Thomism, or nothing of Plato in Aquinas, or, in other fields, nothing of Graham in Warren Buffet, or nothing of Beethoven in Brahms. Marx I think was even quite open about the influence. >I don`t think that there are equivalents in right-wing language to Marxist talking-points or concepts I meant in equivalent in how almost any idiot after a shallow familiarity with Marx, (usually reading the Manifesto, and often just the Manifesto), can spout in almost any situation how workers are being exploited, how handouts are used to satiate a populace that should rise up, how we are living a feudalistic society, (which even Marx was smart enough to directly contradict), etc. I am looking for the equivalent of this for a right-wing philosophy. I actually think it is Objectivism, or at least I would say it. I could go into what would be the equivalents, but I don't think that would be that interesting, and you would have to have a basic understanding of Objectivism to see how such bromides easily follow from the system. Again, I'm saying Objectivism is as faulty as Marxism, only that I can say, from my perspective, how it's possible to have a similar way of speaking. I would say that speaking like this, even if can be as intellectually lazy, would not result so frequently as the detached form of commentary that frequently I hear from professed Marxist. But perhaps that is my bias blinding me in favor of Objectivist analysis.
Thomas Jackson
isnt that the witch anime
Adam King
>sort of social Darwinism at worst I really dislike how social Darwinism is thrown around like leftists like that, which is often used like a strawman argument, (similar to trickle-down economics), and invites the rebuttal, "If Darwinism is valid for nature, why not society?" It's also sort of implicit equation of the meritocracy that occurs in free and capitalist societies to the state forcefully eliminating those from society who cannot contribute, as if the best applicant getting a position at a company is equivalent to forced euthanasia of the disabled. You're also not being imaginative enough. The "worst" of right-wing is genocide, which perhaps could be considered "social Darwinism," (if that term has to be used), on a large scale, but I think that would be an extremely questionable application. It should go without saying that the organized genocide that took place in various countries with leftist autocracies has little difference in principle, (if perhaps on a smaller scale and in a less efficient manner), compared to the organized in right-wing autocracies. That former really is "social Darwinism," only it would be the survival of the fittest to the end chosen by the leftist regime. If you say that Darwinism refers to "the survival of the fittest," and that this can not be equated with the motives behind that kind of genocide, which is not mere survival, but equality, or ideological cleansing, that's fine, but I could just as easily defend genocide in fascist countries using similar reasoning.
tl;dr "social Darwinism" is an invalid term, worse things have happened in right-wing states, and comparable things have happened in left-wing states.
Luis Parker
>i'm too retarded to read a complete paragraph so spoon feed me infantile opinions plz found the socialist
Jose James
Name one.
Ayden Foster
The "right" one is more abhorrent in several ways, but it concisely gets a point across, and it's so stupid, it can at least be defended as "ironic." The "left" one, while clearly much more intricate and intelligent, largely obfuscates various points by using unclear terminology, and is attempting to present an argument that, (more often than not), is shown to be wanting. I might find both worthless, and clearly, less effort was put into the right one, but the latter takes less of my time. It's the equivalent of how there are so many posters here better than me because of how verbose I am, and regardless of whether who is right, they post better because they are more concise, and are usually far wittier. The long-winder, drawn out, and borderline pretentious qualities are found in my posts, and leftist memes. I think right-wingers are at least not so delusional enough as to attempt to make serious arguments with image macros, which I consider a strength.
Henry Roberts
>didn't check canadian flag
Christopher Cox
>fascism is far less popular Fascism originated out of national-syndicalism in France, and became a significant political force in Spain, Italy, Germany, Hungary, Portugal, Austria, numerous South American countries, Japan, and China without any external pressure. That's not even counting countries that would adopt fascism during WW2 as a strategic political move to strengthen economic ties with the Axis.
Marxism, on the other hand, only became a real ruling doctrine in Russia. Even then, it depended on significant material support from the central powers to grow into a self-sufficient movement. In the interwar period, it attempted to spread itself to numerous neighboring countries (Germany, Hungary, the Baltics, Poland, Finland) and failed largely due to lack of popular support.
Europe only became communist when the Soviets invaded and imposed the ideology by force. Marxism is not a popular movement and never has been. Fascism spread almost entirely by its voluntary adoption by numerous countries.
Wyatt Rodriguez
>No one can scapegoat other than jews
imagine being a white nigger
Isaiah Morgan
>it was a product of its times and I am aware of that, (perhaps I should allowed that), but it was totally inconsistent with established economic theory, which, while in so many ways deficient, had made some progress in understanding economies. I don't have much knowledge of pseudoscience theories introduced when there was little excuse for it, but I would say, as far as ranking theories to the extent that they take into consideration context in the their related fields, Marxism is worse than homeopathy, but better than the orgone. I was actually more interested in discussing Marx-speak than Marxism itself, and it might have been a mistake to give that cursory assessment of it.
Logan Wilson
>Really, this is too much. Anything the most basic perusal of Marxist theory sees the influence of Hegel. You might as well there is nothing of Aristotle in Thomism, or nothing of Plato in Aquinas, or, in other fields, nothing of Graham in Warren Buffet, or nothing of Beethoven in Brahms. Marx I think was even quite open about the influence.
If we go down the same logic that just because A influenced B you will be eventually blaming Marxism on Plato. My point is, for example when it comes to historic analysis and continuity of history Hegel and Marx are nothing alike. Hegel's theories are not relevant to Marxist dialectics,materialism or view of history even. Leftist genocides would not quality under international law as genocide as it never was targeted at particular ethnic groups/populations. Read ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
Ian Young
> was part of an international policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven Dude its in the abstract.
William Perez
>aybe I don‘t believe there‘s a left and right wing. Maybe there‘s more than one parameter to characterize an ideology These statement are not equivalent, and if there's a causal relationship, it's not valid. It's like if I said I don't believe in gender, (because) there's more than one parameter to characterize a person. There is such thing as male and female, which does not dictate every aspect of a person, and there is such a thing as the left and right-wing, which doesn't indicate every aspect of a state or ideology. I will not say these distinctions are as easy to make as in gender, (which I'm convinced is fairly clear-cut, even if society is moving away from that notion), and it becomes more difficult to determine standards, but from that conversation I had with leftist with that bizarre theory, I actually learned from it, (because they presented an interesting quandary, but arrive at a solution that was much worse than ignorance), what I think is the proper explanation, even if it's far from complete: in every modern, perhaps every society, there are two opposing and forces for social change, and one will be right-wing and the other left wing. That's all I can say, and I can't even say something like the right-wing is always for free trade, or the left-wing is always for greater economic equality, because even that can change. However, just like you can tell fairly easily "a woman is old enough to vote without knowing her age or that a man is heavier than he should be without knowing his exact weight," you can usually tell which are the left and right-wing factions. Going back to the example in my previous post, the Bolsheviks were the left-wing faction, and the White Army was the right-wing faction. I pity the leftists, which apparently exist, who force themselves to have such a reductionist view of ideological spectrum to think that the Bolsheviks were right-wing.
Aaron Butler
Well, I am talking of degrees. If there two sets of weather conditions, one boiling hot, and the other freezing cold, and that the similarity was that humans could not live on either, saying there was no essential similarity because weather is virtually never at the ideal temperature for humans, this misses the factor of the degrees to which weather might be inhospitable. I am trying to identify the common principle of why a country that, (from a neutral point), comes closer to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, becomes worse for its people generally. To say the governments have nothing in common, so therefore, there is no principle, is like saying something could be too hot for you, or too cold for you, but since they're opposites, they can have nothing in common. In the latter case, the common principle is a temperature too far from the ideal, (in this case, when the skin cells begin to denature), and the similarity between dystopias, whether right-wing or left-win in nature, is how much the state forces the individual to sacrifice themselves for a cause, which is less in more moderate, or more "centrist" states.
Brayden Powell
>A influenced B you will be eventually blaming Marxism on Plato. Actually, I would to some degree. Furthermore, I am not blaming Marxism on Hegelianism, only pointing that it, in combination with materialism, is an essential basis to it. I will say, however, that I was making a gross simplification, but only because the economic aspect of Marxism doesn't proceed from that mere combination. But philosophically, I defend my point: the philosophical basis of the economics of Marxism, if not necessarily the economic doctrine itself, is a combination of Hegelianism and materialism, which, is absurd. I think this also leaks into some of the conclusions Marx makes, especially in his historical analysis, which is extremely derivative of Hegel, yet is more absurd, as Hegal had idealism to ultimately justify his conclusions, and to believe in abstract forces directing history, while Marx did not have this, resulting in a system even more absurd than Hegel's. Really, I know of no more absurd philosophical combination in history. Thomism is far, far more grounded philosophically, which certainly has problems of its own, but nothing so absurd as combining what is possibly the most idealist philosophy up until that time, (excepting maybe philosophies before the Renaissance), with the most extreme contrary of materialism. Again, I should have clarified that I was talking about the philosophical aspects of Marxism as being a combination of Hegelianism and materialism, or rather, the metaphysics, which should really have given the numerous Freudians who adopted Marxism pause, unless they merely considered the philosophical basis of Marxism to be irrelevant.
Luis King
>>I'm not sure what would be the right-wing equivalent of Marxist mantas. How about: "Nigger faggots GTFO"? >or a more centric view: "OP is a faggot"?
Go suck Marx's decaying, syphilitic cock, you cringing poof
>My point is, for example when it comes to historic analysis and continuity of history Hegel and Marx are nothing alike. Hegel's theories are not relevant to Marxist dialectics,materialism or view of history even. Every part of this sentence is wrong. I wouldn't know where to begin, but to ask a question, without as such implying to the use of a argument from authority, are you aware how generally influential Hegal was generally acknowledged to be on Marx in how history was acknowledged. I don't even know what would be the basis of this extreme comment. It's not like I said Marxism is identical to Hegelianism, but you're making the opposite, but equally unjustifiable statement. It's not consistent with my experience reading Marx, in which I read some judgment he made of history which was totally simplistic, reductionist, and relying on explanatory causes which are questionable in their nature, and even how they apply in certain scenarios; this only makes sense that such bizarre conclusions would be made if he were approaching from a perspective heavily influenced and extremely similar to Hegel's analysis. However, Hegal was far more consistent, relying on idealism, (which is certainly unclear in itself), to justify how certain ideas and causes influence history so much in a certain direction. The zealot who explains miracles by saying God willed it so may have a faulty explanation, but it is a least complete. Marx has the worst of both worlds, as he is such a materalist as to deny free will, (largely making unlikely to actually influence events), but relies so much on a dialectic interpretation of history that would only make sense in combination with idealism. That's why I say it's so absurd. Really, if I were I defender of Marx, the absolute last thing I would ever defend was his philosophical basis, which is immensely absurd. It would be far easier to defend him as a father, for instance. >Leftist genocides would not quality Irrelevant.
Asher Barnes
I did, but I actually quite self-conscious about how I post here. It is nice to know that Jow Forums tolerates posts as long mine more than where I usually go, which is /tv/. However, I am still probably overdoing it.
Justin Lewis
Truly, I meant intellectually, but I question what you're saying. You would have to include, for one thing, every country that was annexed by the Soviet Union, and China. It is then really unfair to say fascism was more popular? Again, this really isn't relevant to the point I was tying to make in that instance, which is that you will find far more intellectual, or pseudo-intellectual Marxist thought than fascist thought. I'm not counting statements like, "gas the kikes race war now," which are just edgy jokes.
John Jenkins
Really not necessary. I usually find these types of comments funny, but it's just annoying when I'm trying to have a serious discussion. I'm probably in the wrong place for it, but reddit is probably wrong for everything, except maybe if I have a simple, but uninteresting problem to solve. reddit might be more helpful.
John Reed
That would be a close equivalent of pic related. I think. Actually, I'm not sure, as those Ancap ball memes are clearly satire and often funny, but while the ones to the left are incredibly bizarre. I've read this one several times and I still don't get it, and I'm pretty sure it's a legit one.
Oh, I get it now. It's obviously from some black radical, whom I'm going to look up. At least, it's obvious, but not immediately so.
Kevin Johnson
>and returns to the original form of bullion Wow, that sure aged well! Anyway, something about the style of writing suggests to me it was written by a leftist, but there's really particularly leftist about it, or controversial, or profound. Something more explicitly leftist, but perhaps equally bewildering and poorly written, would have been better.
Marxism in my opinion isn't bad at all, it's just a failed development in a lot of ways because it emphasized class to the exclusion of other forms of social organization. I think Marxism is valid in the technical sense: if his assumptions are right then much of the conclusions he derives are also right. There is some small danger of class-based thinking being something of a totalizing theory, which is partly why I think Marxist thought persists even though the gains of liberal economies looked nothing like he predicted, at least from the perspective of someone who isn't mired in class-based thinking.
Unfortunately, class-based thinking represents a massive re-interpretation of evidence in such a way that it becomes extremely difficult to convince people to look at things in any other way.
Joshua Hernandez
>if his assumptions are right then much of the conclusions he derives are also right. This is just a, "work in theory" response. I wrote in another post about not only how absurd the philosophical basis of Marxism is, but how uniquely absurd it was because it attempted to combine two diametrically opposite theories that, in my opinion, are false, but which results in theory that's worse than either. >class-based thinking represents a massive re-interpretation of evidence in such a way that it becomes extremely difficult to convince people to look at things in any other way. This is a good point, (though I do not think Marxism is particularly unique in this regard, as there are other theories that its adherents, so devoted to understanding it, have the rest of their thinking distorted as a result, like Freudianism). However, I think it is uniquely multi-faceted for a political theory. Unfortunately, this is because political theories and historical analysis I think are inherently more difficult to systematize than other fields, so if there's a great deal of systematization, it's mostly castles in the sky. Reading Marx's purely economic analysis shows the poverty of his thought as far as systematization is concerned, in which he was well behind not only his contemporaries, (most notably, John Stuart Mill), but even his predecessors.
William Young
>what would it be? "Deus Vult"
Sebastian Adams
Keynes dismissal of very forward-looking theories and speculations seems very apt here in estimating Marx's worth, in which the latter was able to deduce the inevitability of some proletariat revolution, (even though he made the blunder of implying that it would be soon), but produced little of value to the actual science of economics. I'm actually somewhat curious as to what would have been the strongest influence of Marx's economic theories. It's possible that was extremely original in regard, unlike in his dialectical analysis and materialism, which has obvious forebearers, but I'm less certain about his economics, not that nobody but him could have come up with them, but they seem original to me. However, if they were truly original to Marx, that would explain how erroneous they were, ignoring so much of what economic thought preceded his or was contemporary to his, and I suspect they are very original because of how terrible they were: that his economic theories were derived from his metaphysical and political theories, and, those being such bunk, without surprise produced such absurdities. Much like "[h]appy families are all alike[;] and every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way," great minds think alike, and will often reach truth without direct influence or cooperation, but Marx's economic theories are so ridiculous, (and, quite frankly, his political theories as well), that they easily could have been very original to him, but this is worth very little, and it is better to be right than original.
