I got such an aneurysm from reading the next reply (see link) I decided I had to let you all read this brainrot:
Also yes, .world is so low hanging fruit. But this one is slightly different.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/23635227/11814221
They lost me on 5th word.
Also what the actual fuck
Show
I guarantee their thought process went something like this: communism is when no iPhone. A "materialist" loves iPhone. Therefore, Marxism opposes materialism
Ah yes, how can I forget this critical piece of materialist theory from Comrade Madonna:
They can beg and they can plead
But they can't see the light (that's right)
'Cause the boy with the cold hard cash
Is always Mister Right'Cause we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl
You know that we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl
I’ve studied the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital in college, which is pretty standard. I’ve also read a few of his shorter works like the Critique of the Gotha Programme and On the Jewish Question (which is interestingly one of the more antisemitic works I’ve ever read despite him having Jewish heritage).
SleezyDizasta ^
I'm not so sure, at least to me he correctly sums up some Marxist thought here: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/23635227/11835855
The issue here is that the “non authoritarian non state” is communism, and communism for all intents and purposes is just a utopia. It was Marx and Engels vision of a perfect society. It’s nothing more than a fantasy. Utopias don’t exist and never will. When these types of violent revolutions happen and the dictatorship of the proletariat is established, it’s going to remain there indefinitely because communism is an unachievable goal. The theory itself is flawed.
You can stop reading there. Whatever accidentally correct points are made afterwards are just that, accidents. Their(the world poster) initial assumption is wrong. They assume that if communism is not achieved within a few years it was failure, despite Marx and Engels already stating that the transition towards to will take many generations. Communism is also not exactly something to "achieve". Once the transition into the communist phase of development is completed, that phase too will change and develop. Precisely not a Utopia. Utopia is per definition perfect, ergo unchanging.
Not to mention that Lenin greatly expanded on these points anyway in State and Revolution in a way that proves Marx and Engels correct anyway, though I do wonder if the person you're referring to has managed to read and purposely misunderstand that, too.
Wow people read. But they don't actually apply the knowledge. The fact this person refers to "Das Kapital" instead of "Capital" shows their lack of expertise. I bet they haven't even read all the 3 volumes, which each one of them is about a thousand pages or so. You can claim you have read a "book" if you only read the first 10 pages. That's literally what they do with Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" book. Despite the book supporting the Labour Theory of Value, liberals claim it to be pro-capitalist because they only read the first 8 pages.
The Communist Manifesto is so easy to read I don't think anyone should flaunt about it. And then they state that the Jewish Question is more "antisemitic" despite its dual-character nature of presenting both sides, one which defends the Jewish people in its first half, and makes a caricature of the anti-Jewish people in the other. This is what happens when a metaphysical person reads a book which is intended to be read from a dialectical point of view. Deeply unserious. Don't say you've read it until you actually apply the knowledge.
The fact this person refers to “Das Kapital” instead of “Capital” shows their lack of expertise
?
Yeah, that one's not a valid critique IMHO
"Das Kapital" is much more immediately obvious what it refers to
Everytime someone says "Das Kapital", it is more likely that person is either not a marxist or is beginning to understand marxist theory. Every marxist who cites Capital refers it as Capital, with its volume next to it. "Das Kapital" is just the original text of the German release, which there is an English edition which calls itself Capital, because we don't call it "The Capital".
Anticommunist Anglophones call it Das Kapital because it sounds more foreign and therefore eviler.
On the Jewish Question (which is interestingly one of the more antisemitic works I’ve ever read despite him having Jewish heritage).
They legit dont understand Marx was satirizing anti-semitism.
Marxism is when no iPhone. Materialism is when iPhone. Therefore, Marxism opposes materialism
I bet their thought process went something like that 🤯
I love absolute buffoons reducing all these different political movements ummm actually AUTHORITARIAN. Jeez stfu.
marxists bitterly oppose individualism
Fuckin ayn rand ova here
"Explicit support of political violence"
Unlike capitalism which is very peaceful.
"When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another such that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call it murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in a position where they inevitably meet an early and unnatural death, a death by violence as much as by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessities of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live, and forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until death ensues, which is the inevitable consequence—knowing that these thousands must perish, yet permitting these conditions to remain—it is murder just as surely as the deed of an individual; disguised, malicious murder, against which none can defend, which does not seem what it is because no one sees the murderer, and the death of the victim seems natural, since the offense is more one of omission than of commission."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/condition-working-class-england.pdf
These lib "definitions" make a lot more sense when you add "against me" where applicable. So it would be "Explicit support of political violence against me." otherwise they don't care who the system is violent against.
Or as Mark Twain put it:
There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
I love when liberals do confident
reddit replies on topics where they've clearly never read a book.It is truly incredibly how a group of people can argue about something that clearly none of them have any hint of understanding of. McCarthyism making communism and socialism dirty words did its work I guess, good fucking gods. I want to scream 'No investigation, no right to speak!' at these people, but they actually think they understand anything about politics.
If these people could understand about politics, they wouldn't be liberalSS.
If you think about it, supporting a militant lower‐class movement that wants to help other workers raise their living standards is really no different from supporting a petty bourgeois party that wants to imprison or massacre thousands of rebellious workers and subjugate the rest to the bourgeoisie. Here are some shocking similarities:
- Both are political.
- Both care about class.
- Both have goals.
- Both want to meet their goals.
- Both want life to be better for somebody.
- Both will use violence for something.
- Both have a red color somewhere in their symbols.
- Both have ideas.
- Both care about things.
- Both do stuff a lot.
"Marxism...tyrannical transitional government...
Tyrannical against who, Ben?
... common enemies...
With fascists, those targeted as enemies have no real power and are not a material threat. With anti-capitalists or Marxists, the enemy is those that have power and are not just a material threat but an existential one.
... bitterly oppose materialism...
... bitterly oppose individualism...
Oh honey... no... just no. Fascist don't want individualism, they want everybody to be the same. That's the whole point of treating anything that deviates from the "norm" as a de * enera * tion of society and must be destroyed or enshrined as lesser. Gays? Nope. Trans? Nope. Mixed race marriage? Nope. Mixed ethnic marriage? Nope. Born with a disability? Not acceptable in a fascist society.
There is nothing in Marxist theory that mirrors this quality of fascism. Opposing individual ownership of the means of production doesn't deny an individual's ownership of their identity.
...support of political violence...
You always have a right to defend yourself from people who want to kill you.
Authoritarianism
This is an irrelevant observation since any government that wants to survive is going to engage in methods that others will inevitably regard as ‘authoritarian’. You may as well say that fascism and communism are the same because fascists and communists both wear clothes. Who cares?
Ideology revolves around common enemies - In fascism this comes in the form certain [sic] ethnicities or nationalities
I like how the author conveniently forgot to mention fascism’s war on socialists. Also, one could just as easily argue that anticommunist ideology — in general, not only fascism — revolves around common enemies as well.
Bitterly oppose materialism - Fascism opposes materialism because it is deemed to lack acknowledgement of the role of the spirit, while Marxism opposes materialism because it is deem [sic] to be a key engine in class warfare.
I think that what the author did here was first use ‘materialism’ in the scientific sense (the principle that everything that exists is material), then used the word in the sense of avarice. This certainly wouldn’t be the first time that an anticommunist forcibly made a clunky false equivalence, and it won’t be the last.
Bitterly oppose individualism
Explicit support of political violence
Anticommunists: famous for never endorsing political violence!
Marxism calls for […] killing the entirety of the bourgeoisie
https://imgur.artemislena.eu/XIvQWno
When you look at the more pragmatic ideologies around, you’ll notice that they don’t have enemies that define the ideology. Take for example, modern day social democracy. Who are it’s enemies? It doesn’t really have any. The ideology is more focused on specific values and approaches to issues rather than trying to define an enemy group as the root cause of everything. The same goes for liberalism.
islam as an ideology revolves around fighting the nonbelievers because they are ignorant sinners
I think that I’ve had enough.
