NATION

PASSWORD

Marxism

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Nevertopia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 701
Founded: May 27, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nevertopia » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:59 am

The Remote Islands wrote:I know there's other stuff Marx wrote about his own beliefs, I just don't know all the titles of his books because, well, I'm not a communist.


All you really need to know is marxism has failed everytime its been tried.
Communism has failed every time its been tried.
Civilization Index: Class 13.2
Tier 6.5: Digital Discoverer | Level 4: Able Acolyte | Type 5.5: Regional Regent
This nation's overview is the primary canon. For more information use NS stats.
Black Lives Matter

User avatar
Kubra
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12876
Founded: Apr 15, 2006
Libertarian Police State

Postby Kubra » Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:02 am

The Remote Islands wrote:I know there's other stuff Marx wrote about his own beliefs, I just don't know all the titles of his books because, well, I'm not a communist.
K but what about capital will make kids averse to communism
Apart from the crippling boredom of their assigned reading
“Atomic war is inevitable. It will destroy half of humanity: it is going to destroy immense human riches. It is very possible. The atomic war is going to provoke a true inferno on Earth. But it will not impede Communism.”
-Comrade Posadas

User avatar
Northern Davincia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16660
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Northern Davincia » Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:40 am

Duvniask wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:Capitalism revolves around the individual deciding what is best for themselves. I do not pretend to know what is best for someone at any given time, unlike command economy planners, but the free market is largely benevolent in design because it lacks controls.

Capitalism revolves around the business cycle, which is (all too often) not the purview of individuals. When the economy crashes, you don't go pointing at Jane Doe that she's not been buying enough consumer goods or invested enough of her meager paycheck-to-paycheck savings or pointing at John Doe that he's not expanded his outfit's production sufficiently to employ all the willing job-seekers, etc. Of course, this does not mean the range of items affordable and available to your average Joe hasn't increased, but these don't appear on the market because he, as an individual, has decreed that they should. I get that what you ultimately mean by the above is that the individual can decide if he wants such and such an amount of flour or such and such an amount of tomato sauce, but such choices are also limited by the state of affairs which he exists in. It's the freedom to decide how to meet his consumption desires, given the choices and disposable income available (which, let's face it, is subject to a myriad of disparities).

To say that the free-market has "design" is a bit misleading, because it is not an intentional state of affairs; it can be steered, but as a supra-individual entity it has a mind of its own, so to speak - that is also the exact reason state capitalist "planning" in the Eastern Bloc failed, for all their attempts at subverting value and bringing it under the control of state actors. And command economies are not the purview of Marxism; when Marxists speak of false consciousness or not following one's interests, it is little different from being critical of the willing slave; they don't do it under some assumption that this means individuals can't decide what goods they want.

Also, lol at the supposed "benevolence" of the free market. I'm sure the externalities generated in the form of chemical factories dumping their waste appears oh so "benevolent" to those who have to drink poisoned water and risk exposure to toxic fumes, or that the

The business cycle is a feature of capitalism, but not what its finer mechanisms depend on. The system maximizes individual freedom strictly in a setting where scarcity is present. Indeed, the free market is pulled by the Invisible Hand that acts as the culmination of every individual's input/choices. You point to the worst instances of occasional wrongdoing on the part of capitalists, yet at the same time technology advances rapidly and becomes cheaper. There is a boom in the field of green energy, or environmentally-friendly products. You blind yourself to all the good that has been done so far.
Hoppean Libertarian, Acolyte of von Mises, Protector of Our Sacred Liberties
Economic Left/Right: 9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."

User avatar
Luziyca
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36018
Founded: Nov 13, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Luziyca » Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:38 am

Do you believe that Marx's views on the class dichotomy are valid, or reductionist? Some modern authors have claimed that Marx downplayed the role of intersectionality in oppression, but Marx himself wrote about gender roles etc often, including in the Manifesto.
I would say they are mostly valid, given that I'd argue that as a basic way of explaining who runs things, it is pretty clear it is proletariat v. bourgeoisie, given the latter controls everything, and the former only have their labor. It may not as be as in-depth into the intersectionality of oppression, but even then, given they would likely be worse off than if they're not in the intersection, we could see how class plays a role here.

Is Marxism—Leninism revisionist, or is it merely an extension of Marx's views?
It all depends on how you define revisionism. On one hand, I can agree with Lenin's assertion that imperialism has helped prolong capitalism, and I think Marx would probably approve of that development. However, Lenin's ideas about telescoping the capitalist and communist revolutions together is a bit iffy at best, and I don't think Marx would approve of that. I also don't know whether vanguardism is particularly sound, especially in a more developed society like Canada or the United Kingdom. Then again, I have not really looked into Lenin's works (as opposed to Marx's Communist Manifesto), so I don't think I can make a proper conclusion.

Do you believe that Marx has been vindicated or damned by the more than 170 years since he began to publish his theories?
I'd say he would have been vindicated, particularly in the past decade or so, given how we've had two "once-in-a-lifetime" financial crises, growing inequality between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, austerity measures which hurt the proletariat, and efforts to roll back the protections that the people have secured, just to name a few. While I don't think we can exactly reach Marx's utopian ideal of communism, and while there are some things which have become pretty dated, I'd say his general principles have held up quite well given the distance since he first began writing those theories.
|||The Kingdom of Rwizikuru|||
[13:38] Vnik [Hardhiara] Luz is obviously the worst scout Kylaris has
IIwikiFacebookTwitterKylaris: the best region for five years runningAbout meYouTubePolitical compass

User avatar
Cisairse
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9471
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cisairse » Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:11 pm

Nevertopia wrote:
Cisairse wrote:If the workingmen control both the state and the means of production, it wouldn't be private property.


isnt that just a capitalist democracy?

Not remotely.
Now it's clear as a pillar of smoke
The details of the above post are subject to leftist infighting.

And broken Starbucks glass

Yeah, I support my troops
They wave black flags
They wear black masks

User avatar
Cisairse
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9471
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cisairse » Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:13 pm

The Remote Islands wrote:I know there's other stuff Marx wrote about his own beliefs, I just don't know all the titles of his books because, well, I'm not a communist.

It's absolutely hilarious that you said Marx should be "required reading" and then immediately admitted that you haven't read any of it
Now it's clear as a pillar of smoke
The details of the above post are subject to leftist infighting.

And broken Starbucks glass

Yeah, I support my troops
They wave black flags
They wear black masks

User avatar
UniversalCommons
Senator
 
Posts: 3856
Founded: Jan 24, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby UniversalCommons » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:15 pm

Control means own the means of production. In communism, the party owns the mean of production, and the worker works for the party. The party has never simply dissolved. There are still two classes. This is the fallacy of Marxism.

If the worker owned the means of the production, you would either have a partnership where everyone owned everything, a cooperative where the workers owned the company, or if there was a stock market ( a kind of joint share system where people who worked in a place, had ownership shares, not just a salary, family businesses, individual ownership, union ownership, or some kind of arrangement where the workers owned things outright without intermediaries. In addition, common assets like land and natural resources would probably be controlled by a long term sovereign arrangement where people who lived in the country would get a percentage share in the ownership or formally distributed to the citizens of the country (a kind of pool of sovereign wealth) . Pure salary work would probably be limited to government bureaucrats or salaried military officers. There would also be various kinds of arrangement to own machinery directly that produced things. A society based on direct ownership might not look like what you expected.

You own your house, you own a portion of the business you work in, you partake in a share of the common resources, you partake in the decisions of how things get automated. How you would define this situation would be different legally and ethically. It would neither be ownership, nor communal property. It might be closer to a sharing economy with rights of use for everyone partaking in it. Again in this state there is no party or bourgeoise, there are only citizens.

There would be no party, just a group of people who owned everything in a common legal arrangement. The party would have disappeared in the end state. Turning this into a practical state would be very different than what Marx originally thought. What would it mean to "own" the means of production in a modern state where there were universal common definitions of property. The market does not disappear, it becomes regulated or simulated to a high degree. People are expected to have interests self reliance.

User avatar
Cisairse
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9471
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cisairse » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:18 pm

UniversalCommons wrote:Control means own the means of production. In communism, the party owns the mean of production, and the worker works for the party. The party has never simply dissolved. There are still two classes. This is the fallacy of Marxism.

If the worker owned the means of the production, you would either have a partnership where everyone owned everything, a cooperative where the workers owned the company, or if there was a stock market ( a kind of joint share system where people who worked in a place, had ownership shares, not just a salary, family businesses, individual ownership, union ownership, or some kind of arrangement where the workers owned things outright without intermediaries. In addition, common assets like land and natural resources would probably be controlled by a long term sovereign arrangement where people who lived in the country would get a percentage share in the ownership or formally distributed to the citizens of the country (a kind of pool of sovereign wealth) . Pure salary work would probably be limited to government bureaucrats or salaried military officers. There would also be various kinds of arrangement to own machinery directly that produced things. A society based on direct ownership might not look like what you expected.

You own your house, you own a portion of the business you work in, you partake in a share of the common resources, you partake in the decisions of how things get automated. How you would define this situation would be different legally and ethically. It would neither be ownership, nor communal property. It might be closer to a sharing economy with rights of use for everyone partaking in it. Again in this state there is no party or bourgeoise, there are only citizens.

There would be no party, just a group of people who owned everything in a common legal arrangement. The party would have disappeared in the end state. Turning this into a practical state would be very different than what Marx originally thought. What would it mean to "own" the means of production in a modern state where there were universal common definitions of property. The market does not disappear, it becomes regulated or simulated to a high degree. People are expected to have interests self reliance.

You're describing vanguardism, which is integral to ML and very soundly rejected by most other Marxists, including Marx himself.
Now it's clear as a pillar of smoke
The details of the above post are subject to leftist infighting.

And broken Starbucks glass

Yeah, I support my troops
They wave black flags
They wear black masks

User avatar
Nevertopia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 701
Founded: May 27, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nevertopia » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:20 pm

Cisairse wrote:
Nevertopia wrote:
isnt that just a capitalist democracy?

Not remotely.


could you explain it then?
Communism has failed every time its been tried.
Civilization Index: Class 13.2
Tier 6.5: Digital Discoverer | Level 4: Able Acolyte | Type 5.5: Regional Regent
This nation's overview is the primary canon. For more information use NS stats.
Black Lives Matter

User avatar
Cisairse
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9471
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cisairse » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:22 pm

Nevertopia wrote:
Cisairse wrote:Not remotely.


could you explain it then?

Private property means private (ie individual) ownership of the means of production. If the workers (communally) own the means of production, there is no private property, only communal property.
Now it's clear as a pillar of smoke
The details of the above post are subject to leftist infighting.

And broken Starbucks glass

Yeah, I support my troops
They wave black flags
They wear black masks

User avatar
Nevertopia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 701
Founded: May 27, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nevertopia » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:25 pm

Cisairse wrote:
Nevertopia wrote:
could you explain it then?

Private property means private (ie individual) ownership of the means of production. If the workers (communally) own the means of production, there is no private property, only communal property.

oic, so thats why marxism fails. It has no checks and balances for corruption or rewarding effort. Everything is everybody else's problem right?
Communism has failed every time its been tried.
Civilization Index: Class 13.2
Tier 6.5: Digital Discoverer | Level 4: Able Acolyte | Type 5.5: Regional Regent
This nation's overview is the primary canon. For more information use NS stats.
Black Lives Matter

User avatar
Cisairse
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9471
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cisairse » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:29 pm

Nevertopia wrote:
Cisairse wrote:Private property means private (ie individual) ownership of the means of production. If the workers (communally) own the means of production, there is no private property, only communal property.

oic, so thats why marxism fails. It has no checks and balances for corruption or rewarding effort. Everything is everybody else's problem right?

Marx didn't spend a lot of time discussing how the post-seizure society would work or look like. Plenty of other authors have, though, and there's endless disagreement.
One of the more common ideas is to democratize all of society by having workers elect their managers, similar to how republics solved the same legitimacy issue when they replaced monarchies by democratizing the powers that be.

In fact, you can draw a lot of parallels between the transition from absolutism (where states were considered the private property of a monarch) to republics (where states are considered a public manner deriving legitimacy from the people) with the transition from capitalism (where the means of production consists mostly of private property) to socialism (where the means of production are publicly owned).
Now it's clear as a pillar of smoke
The details of the above post are subject to leftist infighting.

And broken Starbucks glass

Yeah, I support my troops
They wave black flags
They wear black masks

User avatar
Nevertopia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 701
Founded: May 27, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nevertopia » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:30 pm

Cisairse wrote:
Nevertopia wrote:oic, so thats why marxism fails. It has no checks and balances for corruption or rewarding effort. Everything is everybody else's problem right?

Marx didn't spend a lot of time discussing how the post-seizure society would work or look like. Plenty of other authors have, though, and there's endless disagreement.
One of the more common ideas is to democratize all of society by having workers elect their managers, similar to how republics solved the same legitimacy issue when they replaced monarchies by democratizing the powers that be.

In fact, you can draw a lot of parallels between the transition from absolutism (where states were considered the private property of a monarch) to republics (where states are considered a public manner deriving legitimacy from the people) with the transition from capitalism (where the means of production consists mostly of private property) to socialism (where the means of production are publicly owned).


so it is capitalist democracy.
Communism has failed every time its been tried.
Civilization Index: Class 13.2
Tier 6.5: Digital Discoverer | Level 4: Able Acolyte | Type 5.5: Regional Regent
This nation's overview is the primary canon. For more information use NS stats.
Black Lives Matter

User avatar
Cisairse
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9471
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cisairse » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:31 pm

Nevertopia wrote:
Cisairse wrote:Marx didn't spend a lot of time discussing how the post-seizure society would work or look like. Plenty of other authors have, though, and there's endless disagreement.
One of the more common ideas is to democratize all of society by having workers elect their managers, similar to how republics solved the same legitimacy issue when they replaced monarchies by democratizing the powers that be.

In fact, you can draw a lot of parallels between the transition from absolutism (where states were considered the private property of a monarch) to republics (where states are considered a public manner deriving legitimacy from the people) with the transition from capitalism (where the means of production consists mostly of private property) to socialism (where the means of production are publicly owned).


so it is capitalist democracy.

No, it is not capitalism. Do you know what capitalism is?

E: Actually did you even read my post?
Last edited by Cisairse on Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Now it's clear as a pillar of smoke
The details of the above post are subject to leftist infighting.

And broken Starbucks glass

Yeah, I support my troops
They wave black flags
They wear black masks

User avatar
The Sovereign Realist State
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Jul 27, 2019
Moralistic Democracy

Postby The Sovereign Realist State » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:31 pm

Cisairse wrote:To answer my own questions:
  • I'm weary of modern socialists who claim that Marxism is "class reductionist," because I believe that Marx was correct to correlate all other oppressive criterion to class.
  • I haven't read anything that shows Marxism—Leninism is revisionist per se, but many supposedly ML states other than the Soviet Union corrupted Marxism to suit their anticolonial agenda and thus became highly revisionist in their actual operation.
  • I believe that Marx's theories have only become more true in society since he began to publish his works.


If you believe the USSR was the only true political implementation of marxism...

...why did it fail?
...Why was it better than many other non-marxist regimes when living conditions and civil liberties were worse?

User avatar
Nevertopia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 701
Founded: May 27, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nevertopia » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:32 pm

Cisairse wrote:
Nevertopia wrote:
so it is capitalist democracy.

No, it is not capitalism. Do you know what capitalism is?

E: Actually did you even read my post?


An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Communism has failed every time its been tried.
Civilization Index: Class 13.2
Tier 6.5: Digital Discoverer | Level 4: Able Acolyte | Type 5.5: Regional Regent
This nation's overview is the primary canon. For more information use NS stats.
Black Lives Matter

User avatar
Cisairse
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9471
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cisairse » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:42 pm

The Sovereign Realist State wrote:
Cisairse wrote:To answer my own questions:
  • I'm weary of modern socialists who claim that Marxism is "class reductionist," because I believe that Marx was correct to correlate all other oppressive criterion to class.
  • I haven't read anything that shows Marxism—Leninism is revisionist per se, but many supposedly ML states other than the Soviet Union corrupted Marxism to suit their anticolonial agenda and thus became highly revisionist in their actual operation.
  • I believe that Marx's theories have only become more true in society since he began to publish his works.


If you believe the USSR was the only true political implementation of marxism...

...why did it fail?
...Why was it better than many other non-marxist regimes when living conditions and civil liberties were worse?

I don't believe that, because it would be a very silly thing to think really.

Marx left a ton of "blanks" in his "script" for the future of the workingmen. ML is one way to fill in the blanks. There are plenty of other ways.
Now it's clear as a pillar of smoke
The details of the above post are subject to leftist infighting.

And broken Starbucks glass

Yeah, I support my troops
They wave black flags
They wear black masks

User avatar
Cisairse
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9471
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cisairse » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:46 pm

Nevertopia wrote:
Cisairse wrote:No, it is not capitalism. Do you know what capitalism is?

E: Actually did you even read my post?


An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Right. In a socialist society, there is no capital accumulation. That's the key difference.
In fact most of the other "details" of the differences between socialism and capitalism derive chiefly from the fact that there is no capital accumulation in socialism.

Further, the means of production are not privately or corporately owned in socialism.
Now it's clear as a pillar of smoke
The details of the above post are subject to leftist infighting.

And broken Starbucks glass

Yeah, I support my troops
They wave black flags
They wear black masks

User avatar
UniversalCommons
Senator
 
Posts: 3856
Founded: Jan 24, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby UniversalCommons » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:59 pm

You are wrong, it is partially capitalist in that it relies on trade and markets. It draws from the concepts of Mondragon which is a cooperative corporation, SAIC which is an employee owned corporation, and directly employee ownership by workers and unions. It aims to cut down on salaried workers and increase ownership. It is also built around concepts of workplace democracy which is highly productive. It also comes from ideas like the Meissner plan which creates greater employee ownership by allowing people to pay into payroll taxes to buy shares in places they work. The end point is a mixed economy with a much higher amount of employee ownership. If you take it to its long endpoint, you can create a highly productive mixed economy with near complete worker ownership. Thus in a market system you end up with democratic control and ownership of the means of production which cannot occur under communism. It also is more productive, has less layoffs, and is more stable than the communist idea. This is how it is explained from the viewpoint of Bernie Sanders. https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18643032/ ... rship-jobs It is much more of a possibility than what is coming from the Communist Manifesto.

If you remove all the incentives for producing everything by removing all management, then make everything becomes a giant flat bureaucracy where there are no reasons to be productive, you end up with a huge mess which does not support anyone. Suddenly, there is no management, no incentives, no party and a complete lack of direction.

Capital accumulation allows for investment. What is the means of storing wealth for future use in a "postscarcity society". By definition first you get abundance. How do you then take it from abundance to superabundance, or the "terran federation."
Last edited by UniversalCommons on Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Sovereign Realist State
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Jul 27, 2019
Moralistic Democracy

Postby The Sovereign Realist State » Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:01 pm

Cisairse wrote:I don't believe that, because it would be a very silly thing to think really.

Marx left a ton of "blanks" in his "script" for the future of the workingmen. ML is one way to fill in the blanks. There are plenty of other ways.


Such as?...

User avatar
Nevertopia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 701
Founded: May 27, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nevertopia » Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:39 pm

Cisairse wrote:
Nevertopia wrote:
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Right. In a socialist society, there is no capital accumulation. That's the key difference.
In fact most of the other "details" of the differences between socialism and capitalism derive chiefly from the fact that there is no capital accumulation in socialism.

Further, the means of production are not privately or corporately owned in socialism.


doesnt that just create a system where everybody is perpetually poor? Or the very least an inability to rise above their means and needs?

on a sidenote i think its a neat idea for a capitalist communism corporate hybrid where the employees owns the corporation they work for. Its very democratic capitalist.
Last edited by Nevertopia on Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Communism has failed every time its been tried.
Civilization Index: Class 13.2
Tier 6.5: Digital Discoverer | Level 4: Able Acolyte | Type 5.5: Regional Regent
This nation's overview is the primary canon. For more information use NS stats.
Black Lives Matter

User avatar
Alcala-Cordel
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Dec 16, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Alcala-Cordel » Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:43 pm

Nevertopia wrote:
Cisairse wrote:Private property means private (ie individual) ownership of the means of production. If the workers (communally) own the means of production, there is no private property, only communal property.

oic, so thats why marxism fails. It has no checks and balances for corruption or rewarding effort. Everything is everybody else's problem right?

You seem to be basing that on state capitalist regimes like the USSR, which was not Marxist.
. The Red Coalition of Ⓐlcala-Cordel .
--General History--Map--Polandball--Economy--Government Structure--Canon--
Pros: leftism, communim, anarchism, Marxism, antifa, abortion, the environment, LGBTQ+, direct democracy, universal healthcare, decentralized state, open borders, unions

Anti: police, fascism, neoconservatism, neoliberalism, capitalism, state capitalism, racism, sexism, xenophobia, TERFs, military industrial complex, imperialism, nationalism, USA, China, fossil fuels, electoral college, concentration camps, ICE
Join the DankLeft Commune!

User avatar
Nevertopia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 701
Founded: May 27, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nevertopia » Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:45 pm

Alcala-Cordel wrote:
Nevertopia wrote:oic, so thats why marxism fails. It has no checks and balances for corruption or rewarding effort. Everything is everybody else's problem right?

You seem to be basing that on state capitalist regimes like the USSR, which was not Marxist.


yes it was.
Communism has failed every time its been tried.
Civilization Index: Class 13.2
Tier 6.5: Digital Discoverer | Level 4: Able Acolyte | Type 5.5: Regional Regent
This nation's overview is the primary canon. For more information use NS stats.
Black Lives Matter

User avatar
Alcala-Cordel
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Dec 16, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Alcala-Cordel » Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:47 pm

The Sovereign Realist State wrote:
Cisairse wrote:I don't believe that, because it would be a very silly thing to think really.

Marx left a ton of "blanks" in his "script" for the future of the workingmen. ML is one way to fill in the blanks. There are plenty of other ways.


Such as?...

Anarcho-communism, left-communism, Trotskyism, council communism, Luxemburgism, and many others that are either based on or use Marxist ideas.
We have so many factions
Last edited by Alcala-Cordel on Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. The Red Coalition of Ⓐlcala-Cordel .
--General History--Map--Polandball--Economy--Government Structure--Canon--
Pros: leftism, communim, anarchism, Marxism, antifa, abortion, the environment, LGBTQ+, direct democracy, universal healthcare, decentralized state, open borders, unions

Anti: police, fascism, neoconservatism, neoliberalism, capitalism, state capitalism, racism, sexism, xenophobia, TERFs, military industrial complex, imperialism, nationalism, USA, China, fossil fuels, electoral college, concentration camps, ICE
Join the DankLeft Commune!

User avatar
Nevertopia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 701
Founded: May 27, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nevertopia » Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:51 pm

Alcala-Cordel wrote:>:(
The Sovereign Realist State wrote:
Such as?...

Anarcho-communism, left-communism, Trotskyism, council communism, Luxemburgism, and many others that are either based on or use Marxist ideas.
We have so many factions


personally I think Zizekism communism is the most realistic faction to come out of the marxist camp. Instead of focusing on how capitalism is bad, he made a case on how it can be used to provide for the people when not being used soley to accumulate wealth.
Communism has failed every time its been tried.
Civilization Index: Class 13.2
Tier 6.5: Digital Discoverer | Level 4: Able Acolyte | Type 5.5: Regional Regent
This nation's overview is the primary canon. For more information use NS stats.
Black Lives Matter

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Andsed, Caffeinetopia, Camelone, CoraSpia, Doge Land, Dominioan, Google [Bot], Great Algerstonia, Heloin, Infected Mushroom, Majestic-12 [Bot], New Rogernomics, Pax Nerdvana, Picairn, Sylh Alanor, The Rich Port, The Two Jerseys, Tonakistan, Traffic Signal

Advertisement

Remove ads