In the end, it was all based on misunderstanding Marx. They didn't even get far enough to fall for Utopianism or Idealism, they didn't even understand the mechanisms of Capitalism itself. In their eyes, Feudalism is naturally also Capitalism!
That's what's truly frustrating, they didn't even allow for discussion, and clearly hadn't read Marx, just heard a few phrases and concluded that was enough.
The most frustrating thing about libs, is that they always think that they are the EXPERT on every topic, even something they know absolutely nothing about, and being asked to actually learn about a topic so they can form an accurate opinion on it is seen as an insult. They'd much rather do this smug navel gazing.
Absolutely, though that only further cements the necessity for people to actually study Marxism and try to lead fellow proletarians down correct pathways, and combat bourgois socialist ideology from overtaking leftist movements, rather than proletarian socialism.
Yeah, one of the most important things to teach people is that it is ok to be wrong about things, and it's actually a good thing, because it means you get to learn something new. The sorts of smug liberals online are very different from people in actual real life organising, thankfully.
When you hold the consensus worldview and you believe it arose organically from meritocrats scientifically converging on it, rather than from capitalists having massive influence over which ideas are mainstream, you end up with a worldview you are sure is correct but cannot defend
Isn't feudalism capitalist? The landowner allows serfs and to work the landowner's land in exchange for protection, shelter, and a cut of the crop. Are you using a different definition of feudalism than I'm thinking of?
Feudalism is Feudalism. Capitalism revolves around competition, Capital accumumalation, and industrialization, whereas feudalism is a monopolic assurance of rent in exchange for protection.
To quote Engels, in Principles of Communism:
"The serf possesses and uses an instrument of production, a piece of land, in exchange for which he gives up a part of his product or part of the services of his labor.
The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another, for the account of this other, in exchange for a part of the product.
The serf gives up, the proletarian receives. The serf has an assured existence, the proletarian has not. The serf is outside competition, the proletarian is in it.
The serf liberates himself in one of three ways: either he runs away to the city and there becomes a handicraftsman; or, instead of products and services, he gives money to his lord and thereby becomes a free tenant; or he overthrows his feudal lord and himself becomes a property owner. In short, by one route or another, he gets into the owning class and enters into competition. The proletarian liberates himself by abolishing competition, private property, and all class differences."
It is in this manner that the Bourgeoisie were actually once a revolutionary class against the Nobility, along with Proletarians. Because advancements in productivity via industrialization lead to advancements in Mode of Production, Capitalism overtook Feudalism and a new ruling class, the Bourgeoisie, cemented their place.
It's a good idea. You probably won't convince them of anything, but seeing a knowledgeable leftist calmly refuting an anti-communist argument while the anti-communist themselves only responds "fuck you tankie " might just encourage lurkers to give that book a read.
"Under worker co-ops you become both the employee and the employer simultaneously, therefore as a socialist you are obligated by your politics to abolish yourself.
This thread just keeps on delivering lmao
I just wanted them to actually read Marx ):
That involves reading, which they are clearly incapable of doing.
In the end, it was all based on misunderstanding Marx. They didn't even get far enough to fall for Utopianism or Idealism, they didn't even understand the mechanisms of Capitalism itself. In their eyes, Feudalism is naturally also Capitalism!
That's what's truly frustrating, they didn't even allow for discussion, and clearly hadn't read Marx, just heard a few phrases and concluded that was enough.
No investigation, no right to speak.
The most frustrating thing about libs, is that they always think that they are the EXPERT on every topic, even something they know absolutely nothing about, and being asked to actually learn about a topic so they can form an accurate opinion on it is seen as an insult. They'd much rather do this smug navel gazing.
Absolutely, though that only further cements the necessity for people to actually study Marxism and try to lead fellow proletarians down correct pathways, and combat bourgois socialist ideology from overtaking leftist movements, rather than proletarian socialism.
Yeah, one of the most important things to teach people is that it is ok to be wrong about things, and it's actually a good thing, because it means you get to learn something new. The sorts of smug liberals online are very different from people in actual real life organising, thankfully.
When you hold the consensus worldview and you believe it arose organically from meritocrats scientifically converging on it, rather than from capitalists having massive influence over which ideas are mainstream, you end up with a worldview you are sure is correct but cannot defend
Isn't feudalism capitalist? The landowner allows serfs and to work the landowner's land in exchange for protection, shelter, and a cut of the crop. Are you using a different definition of feudalism than I'm thinking of?
Feudalism is Feudalism. Capitalism revolves around competition, Capital accumumalation, and industrialization, whereas feudalism is a monopolic assurance of rent in exchange for protection.
To quote Engels, in Principles of Communism:
"The serf possesses and uses an instrument of production, a piece of land, in exchange for which he gives up a part of his product or part of the services of his labor.
The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another, for the account of this other, in exchange for a part of the product.
The serf gives up, the proletarian receives. The serf has an assured existence, the proletarian has not. The serf is outside competition, the proletarian is in it.
The serf liberates himself in one of three ways: either he runs away to the city and there becomes a handicraftsman; or, instead of products and services, he gives money to his lord and thereby becomes a free tenant; or he overthrows his feudal lord and himself becomes a property owner. In short, by one route or another, he gets into the owning class and enters into competition. The proletarian liberates himself by abolishing competition, private property, and all class differences."
It is in this manner that the Bourgeoisie were actually once a revolutionary class against the Nobility, along with Proletarians. Because advancements in productivity via industrialization lead to advancements in Mode of Production, Capitalism overtook Feudalism and a new ruling class, the Bourgeoisie, cemented their place.
Thank you comrade, my reading is limited.
All of our reading is limited, that's why we are lifetime students.
You can lead a lib to theory but you can't make them read
I should still lead them to theory regardless.
It's a good idea. You probably won't convince them of anything, but seeing a knowledgeable leftist calmly refuting an anti-communist argument while the anti-communist themselves only responds "fuck you tankie
" might just encourage lurkers to give that book a read.
Keep up the good fight
o7
You've done good work
Thanks, comrade o7
I'm pretty sure db0 invented the term "brigading", blame him for the convenient opt out a liberal can use at any time to avoid having to read.
"Under worker co-ops you become both the employee and the employer simultaneously, therefore as a socialist you are obligated by your politics to abolish yourself.
I am very smart (and very socialist) 😏"
What a pathetic, cowardly response
Listen tankie, your worldview and community are despised in my circle, so...