Nice response to the content there!

Do you think that those workers' lives aren't better because of him? Do you think Trump would do that. Do you think Trump wouldn't try to impede socialist progress more than trump?

While this quote does not encapsulate marx's entire view on the state, it shows that Marx sees that the state is bourgeois and therefore antagonistic to the proletariat.

As per my argument to someone else, this can be better understood by comparing contemporaries in each side. Trump is exponentially worse for workers than Biden, as Biden is doing things such as working with unions and cancelling some student debt.

You could call any machine anything, yet it doesn't become the thing.

They're better than rightists for workers

The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

• the Communist manifesto

Baking doesn't cook down the ingredients and claim it's heating them up.

Liberals allow more for workers than rightists.

By voting for socialist leaders who won't get elected, you allow the right to get elected and thereby deny them those scraps. And I think the homeless would rather have some scraps than none. Also, when in a contemporary democracy, this is the spectrum, no one else would get elected.

I was wondering if something like that would lose some meaning as things like that are infamously inaccurate.

Marx said that the state was inherently oppressive. But I guess I missed the part where he said that it doesn't matter if the party brands itself as communist.

🤨

It's called a rhetorical question, glad I could help

No decommodification, no worker owned capital. The US is in an early version of socialism too I guess.

Edit: guys it's called sarcasm

Are you denying that Google is a repository of information. Even duckduckgo is banned. They're not even close to a monopoly. I'm making the point that they're restricting information. Also I'd be happy to read article 590 if you could provide me with an English translation.

Let me simplify this. A lot of people in this thread were justifying oppression saying it was for the people. I'm not saying that Muslims are bourgeois, I'm saying that the Uyghur genocide is unjustified as they're not antagonized to the proletariat, but rather an ethnic group.

Don't conflate liberals and the right. Liberals don't actively try to fuck over workers like rightists are. Further, it doesn't matter what liberals were 100 years ago, do you think Biden is as bad as Trump?

I still don't get how it's controversial to say that to gain power, we need numbers, and we agree with liberals more than fascists, and therefore to get power to us and away from fascists we should unify until we can create a revolution, or a party that will be voted in.

Whether it prevents bourgeois propaganda or western propaganda, it's not worth it when the people aren't free. I also find it to be very opposite to Marx implying that the Chinese government wouldn't try to control their people if they could.