If you were Marxist, you would vote Republican

[Grummgug]

I probably got your attention now. Before you handwave me as a dumbass, hear me out. You might learn something if you do.

This seems contradictory, but if you actually read Marx and decided to follow his beliefs, you would vote republican.

Yes, Marx despised capitalism. However, he believed that the effective way of ending capitalism would be to let it run it's course. When capitalism brought things to hell, the proletariat masses would then bring about the revolution and start the transition from capitalism to utopia.

As a matter of fact, Marx thought that capitalism had to come before communism.


Thus, according to Marx, since voting republican would bring "capitalist" policy, you are speeding up the establishment of the communist society you dream of.

Marx missed the part that, once a society tries communism, they reject it and go back to capitalism.

Vietnam went commie after the Vietnam war, and it was hell on Earth. The leaders of the rebellion, who at first were commies, transformed into capitalists and brought free market reforms in.

The Soviet Union was commie, and it collapsed and turned back to free market reforms.

[Nadiru]

Lol, I guess they cant afford guns so it would work for a while. It would get extremely dry in summer though.



This is why the modern left won't work very well in the long run, they have too many different groups and ideologies. A diverse alliance can only come together successfully to fight a common foe. When that foe is gone, they will quickly become balkanized and dysfunctional.

In the future, Democrats will likely experience particularly increased levels of identity issues and in-fighting.

I agree, and the strategy doesn't account for galvanizing events a la 9/11 either.

[Independent voter]

Except that communism never ever existed in any country. Let alone one that's based on Marx' philosophies.
That's some misconception, which made it primarily only into the heads of US population, while the rest of the planet see's that vastly different.

Anyhow, Marx appears to be right on the money (pun intended) with his thoughts. We are at the beginning stages of the collapse of the capitalist system. The proletariat is getting ever more fucked over. Depending on the various countries, the governments giving ever less of a flying fuck about their people. It'll be another 25 - 50 yrs until hell breaks lose and the first capitalist system gets toppled by uprising people.
I'm pretty convinced about that development.

Chicken versus egg. Did communism bring about all those repressive regimes or were they repressive regimes that took on the guise of communism? Why was Russian communism so like Chinese communism?

We have had many communes in the US but all of them were based on religion in some way. Amana_Colonies were an example. All of these communes have dissolved since. Amana changed into a corporation and they make electrical appliances. Israeli kibbutz were also communes but they've all dissolved too. At the end of the day the people doing the work resent the lazy even in religious communes.

[ringpriest]

I probably got your attention now. Before you handwave me as a dumbass, hear me out. You might learn something if you do.

This seems contradictory, but if you actually read Marx and decided to follow his beliefs, you would vote republican.

Yes, Marx despised capitalism. However, he believed that the effective way of ending capitalism would be to let it run it's course. When capitalism brought things to hell, the proletariat masses would then bring about the revolution and start the transition from capitalism to utopia.

As a matter of fact, Marx thought that capitalism had to come before communism.


Thus, according to Marx, since voting republican would bring "capitalist" policy, you are speeding up the establishment of the communist society you dream of.

Just one problem - the Republicans aren't actually particularly capitalist. They're strong supporters of corporatocratic, protectionist, inverted totalitarianism. And voting "for" the Republicans is irrelevant, as the "alternative" Democrats only differ in the same way that Coke differs from Pepsi - they're practically identical, particularly if you don't want a caffeinated, sweetened cola to drink.

[Captainn]

I probably got your attention now. Before you handwave me as a dumbass, hear me out. You might learn something if you do.

This seems contradictory, but if you actually read Marx and decided to follow his beliefs, you would vote republican.

Yes, Marx despised capitalism. However, he believed that the effective way of ending capitalism would be to let it run it's course. When capitalism brought things to hell, the proletariat masses would then bring about the revolution and start the transition from capitalism to utopia.

As a matter of fact, Marx thought that capitalism had to come before communism.


Thus, according to Marx, since voting republican would bring "capitalist" policy, you are speeding up the establishment of the communist society you dream of.

You're not a dumb ass. It's true in a way. We are kind of seeing it going that way. Capitalism isn't going to continue forever, something will replace it. Just like everything else has been replaced. I doubt it'll be communism that wins out though

[Gheld]

The funny thing is that people when they are talking about the virtues of capitalism always wave all these past pictures of the US's bourgeois(upper middle class) around when meanwhile the majority of people lived shit lives up until "The evil socialism" started to creep in.

In the 19th and early 20th century the working class in 'The West' lived shit lives. And "the poor" were in essence slaves.

[Vultana]

Why isn't this post locked and the OP banned like the other post against ACA? It got shut down after 4 or 5 posts even though it was pointing to an actual video for discussion. This is just a rediculous statement meant to start controversy. This really makes it look like the mods are willing to let people bash republicans but not Obama. If you are going to allow polical discussions at all, you should treat them equally.

[Exaelitus]

Except that communism never ever existed in any country. Let alone one that's based on Marx' philosophies.
That's some misconception, which made it primarily only into the heads of US population, while the rest of the planet see's that vastly different.

It's never existed because because it doesn't work. Real free market capitalism has never existed in any country either, just varying degrees of it.

Anyhow, Marx appears to be right on the money (pun intended) with his thoughts. We are at the beginning stages of the collapse of the capitalist system. The proletariat is getting ever more fucked over. Depending on the various countries, the governments giving ever less of a flying fuck about their people. It'll be another 25 - 50 yrs until hell breaks lose and the first capitalist system gets toppled by uprising people.
I'm pretty convinced about that development.

If a capitalist system did collapse, it would most likely get replaced by another capitalist system.

[Theinquisition]

I don't Agree with you here Bigzo.

Besides, When it comes to the "elite" and "status quo" there will be the privledged and the non-privledged in any sort of Government. Communism will have its leaders who will possess extra privledges and rights atthe expense of others, special rights that will be enforced by the government. I think it's naive for people to think that humans would be able to toss aside basic human nature and have a utiopian society where everyone is equal and happy. It's just not going to happen.

Hell even with our most Leftist posters here on MMOC-OT who agree with communistic style governance under the guise of promoting "equality" get pissed off at the masses for not agreeing with them because they are "too stupid to know any better" they think that they would be the ruling elite because they preceive themselves as smarter than everyone else. Of course this will be for the "masses own good"

Unfortunately for them, as a historical trend, Any nation that has embraced communism has immediately killed "intellectuals"

[Endus]

I don't Agree with you here Bigzo.

Besides, When it comes to the "elite" and "status quo" there will be the privledged and the non-privledged in any sort of Government. Communism will have its leaders who will possess extra privledges and rights atthe expense of others, special rights that will be enforced by the government. I think it's naive for people to think that humans would be able to toss aside basic human nature and have a utiopian society where everyone is equal and happy. It's just not going to happen.

Hell even with our most Leftist posters here on MMOC-OT who agree with communistic style governance under the guise of promoting "equality" get pissed off at the masses for not agreeing with them because they are "too stupid to know any better" they think that they would be the ruling elite because they preceive themselves as smarter than everyone else.

Unfortunately for them, as a historical trend, Any nation that has embraced communism has immediately killed "intellectuals"

Like so many others, you're confusion political authoritarianism with economic theory. Nothing you described there had anything to do with economic theory, which means it has nothing to do with communism.

The very fact that you can use the phrase "communistic style governance" demonstrates exactly how badly you've conflated two entirely disconnected issues.

[Theinquisition]

Like so many others, you're confusion political authoritarianism with economic theory. Nothing you described there had anything to do with economic theory, which means it has nothing to do with communism.

The very fact that you can use the phrase "communistic style governance" demonstrates exactly how badly you've conflated two entirely disconnected issues.

How exactly are they disconnected issues if under communism the Government controls the economy.

I think that communism is related to economic theory and government, because under communism the government runs the means of production, and the economy.

I personally don't think it's possible to have a communist economic structure without a overreaching heavy handed central government.

[May90]

Also, if I was Marxist, I would breathe and eat. I fail to see what practical relevance this means though...

[THE Bigzoman]

I don't Agree with you here Bigzo.

Besides, When it comes to the "elite" and "status quo" there will be the privledged and the non-privledged in any sort of Government. Communism will have its leaders who will possess extra privledges and rights atthe expense of others, special rights that will be enforced by the government. I think it's naive for people to think that humans would be able to toss aside basic human nature and have a utiopian society where everyone is equal and happy. It's just not going to happen.

Hell even with our most Leftist posters here on MMOC-OT who agree with communistic style governance under the guise of promoting "equality" get pissed off at the masses for not agreeing with them because they are "too stupid to know any better" they think that they would be the ruling elite because they preceive themselves as smarter than everyone else. Of course this will be for the "masses own good"

Unfortunately for them, as a historical trend, Any nation that has embraced communism has immediately killed "intellectuals"

You completly misunderstood me.

I'm not advocating communism here. The OP is only meant to be informative about how Marx thought communism would come about.

[Nadiru]

Like so many others, you're confusion political authoritarianism with economic theory. Nothing you described there had anything to do with economic theory, which means it has nothing to do with communism.

The very fact that you can use the phrase "communistic style governance" demonstrates exactly how badly you've conflated two entirely disconnected issues.

I wouldn't say they are entirely disconnected issues, economics and politics both revolve around the distribution of resources. Were they entirely separate, governments wouldn't concern themselves with nice big money-and-time-saving infrastructure projects, nor would they be overly caring about their unemployment or GDP numbers.

[Mahourai]

The philosophy you're espousing is "accelerationism" and not only is it not something Marx espoused it's just obviously a terrible idea.

[Endus]

How exactly are they disconnected issues if under communism the Government controls the economy.

What you're describing is authoritarianism. Not communism. You can have a relatively hands-off communist government, in principle, in much the same way you can have free-market capitalism.

I think that communism is related to economic theory and government, because under communism the government runs the means of production, and the economy.

Communism requires common ownership, not state ownership. Again, you're confusing two separate issues.

I personally don't think it's possible to have a communist economic structure without a overreaching heavy handed central government.

Same could be argued for capitalism, which is why the entire Western world revolves around managed mixed economies.

[Army Dreamer]

Why would anyone be a marxist nowadays?

[araine]

Assuming those regimes were actually going off what he said.


Marx wrote that communism could only be established in industrialized capitalist societies; capitalism HAD to be a precedent to communism.

The fact that people insisted on trying it in backward ass cow town nations like Russia and China has Marx rolling in his grave.

- - - Updated - - -



All original.

Stop hating bitch.

Russia historically and China etc as well. the form of communism you see is just state run capitalism where the state is the mega capitalistic company that sucks everyone dry. It isnt communism by any means of the definition. It is a capitalistic enterprise looking to suck you dry. It is the ultimate capitalism since you have eliminated all competition. And the system does not have measures and regulations to protect people and environment hence it is the ultimate capitalism.

Which explains why big business are so interested in shipping jobs to china etc

[Theinquisition]

What you're describing is authoritarianism. Not communism. You can have a relatively hands-off communist government, in principle, in much the same way you can have free-market capitalism.



Communism requires common ownership, not state ownership. Again, you're confusing two separate issues.



Same could be argued for capitalism, which is why the entire Western world revolves around managed mixed economies.

I don't understand how you could have a hands-off communistic government. One of the founding principles of Comunism is that the government (masses) control the means of prodution and essentially run the economy itself, how could a communistic government be hands free?

I'll concede the second point, although I could argue that common ownership can be easily translated to government owenership.

I understand the need for some government regulation in the economy, but it doesn't/shouldn't be heavyhanded.

[Rukentuts]

If I were an authoritarian regime, I'd definitely vote Republican. Their candidates are higher on that mold, and if one believes in horseshoe political spectra, closer to me as a whole.