"Neo-Marxism" Is Anti Socialist - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15002963
"Neo Marxism" is anti socialist for two reasons:

"Neo-Marxism" Has Support Of Anarchy - Anarchists are not socialists because they need capitalist motives to motivate them to work, but instead of having socialist causes, they rebel against the capitalist authority by not working. Anarchists get yelled at for this, and then anarchists call the authorities "racist" out of political correctness to defend themselves for not working. Anarchy is a self destructive movement, and socialism embraces the hearts of everyone and ensures maximum survival.

"Neo-Marxism" Incorporates Critical Criminology - People who support this self destructive thought think that rape, arson actions, harassment, kidnapping, domestic abuse, and being an awful, annoying shit is not "criminal." They also think that slackers, people who can work who choose not to work, are not "criminal." These people also think that capitalists, feudalists, fascists, neo-Nazis, and all resistors to socialism are not "criminals."

This is a very self destructive movement coming from a society that purposefully set up its infrastructure to make people hate socialism via manipulation on a massive scale.

Image

The Grinch, a fictional character from a 1957 story, was purposefully made by capitalists to falsely symbolize socialism. This is an example of how capitalists make caricatures of socialism in a false, negative manner. Many neo Marxists come from American societies that promoted things like this on a massive scale. Neo Marxists do not understand socialism because they socially revolted against a capitalist society that purposefully made its culture go against socialism.

Erik Olin Wright is not a socialist because he is a Yankee who believes that his "real utopias" support free, anonymous communities such as Wikipedia, and that this allows Anyone, including non socialists and traitors of socialism, to post false claims about anything that relates to socialism. If Wikipedia had slave supporters, allowing those slave supporters to post things in their anti socialist viewpoints in articles is anti socialist because it allows class rule ideologies to be supported.
#15003696
SSDR wrote:"Neo Marxism" is anti socialist for two reasons:

"Neo-Marxism" Has Support Of Anarchy - Anarchists are not socialists because they need capitalist motives to motivate them to work, but instead of having socialist causes, they rebel against the capitalist authority by not working. Anarchists get yelled at for this, and then anarchists call the authorities "racist" out of political correctness to defend themselves for not working. Anarchy is a self destructive movement, and socialism embraces the hearts of everyone and ensures maximum survival.

"Neo-Marxism" Incorporates Critical Criminology - People who support this self destructive thought think that rape, arson actions, harassment, kidnapping, domestic abuse, and being an awful, annoying shit is not "criminal." They also think that slackers, people who can work who choose not to work, are not "criminal." These people also think that capitalists, feudalists, fascists, neo-Nazis, and all resistors to socialism are not "criminals."

This is a very self destructive movement coming from a society that purposefully set up its infrastructure to make people hate socialism via manipulation on a massive scale.

Image

The Grinch, a fictional character from a 1957 story, was purposefully made by capitalists to falsely symbolize socialism. This is an example of how capitalists make caricatures of socialism in a false, negative manner. Many neo Marxists come from American societies that promoted things like this on a massive scale. Neo Marxists do not understand socialism because they socially revolted against a capitalist society that purposefully made its culture go against socialism.

Erik Olin Wright is not a socialist because he is a Yankee who believes that his "real utopias" support free, anonymous communities such as Wikipedia, and that this allows Anyone, including non socialists and traitors of socialism, to post false claims about anything that relates to socialism. If Wikipedia had slave supporters, allowing those slave supporters to post things in their anti socialist viewpoints in articles is anti socialist because it allows class rule ideologies to be supported.
Your entire diatribe is an unfounded straw man caricature . You paint with a broad brush any Marxist theorist whom differs from your narrow doctrinaire hardline ideological point of view as being a lumpenproletarian illegalist . But in reality , neo-Marxism is simply an attempt to adapt Marxism to the current era , and also to reaffirm the commitment to democracy , and personal freedom .
#15003701
Deutschmania wrote:Your entire diatribe is an unfounded straw man caricature . You paint with a broad brush any Marxist theorist whom differs from your narrow doctrinaire hardline ideological point of view as being a lumpenproletarian illegalist . But in reality , neo-Marxism is simply an attempt to adapt Marxism to the current era , and also to reaffirm the commitment to democracy , and personal freedom .


But many neo-Marxists defend rapists and child abusers. Many neo Marxists support recreational drug usage. Many neo Marxists support labour slackation, which can destroy a socialist society. You see how neo Marxism is self destructive?
#15003707
SSDR wrote:But many neo-Marxists defend rapists and child abusers. Many neo Marxists support recreational drug usage. Many neo Marxists support labour slackation, which can destroy a socialist society. You see how neo Marxism is self destructive?

I don't personally know this to be true , and you have provided no documented evidence to substantiate your assertions . Plus even if there were any validity to what you claim , it would still be a guilt by association fallacy .
#15003708
@Deutschmania, Evidence may potentially be useless because all forms of evidence could be a lie, depending on what political standpoint one has against it. For example, there are people who believe that the Holocaust is fake. There are people who believe that no human has ever landed on the Moon. There are people who believe in the flat Earth theory, etc. All sides have their own "evidence" but is it true? No. So evidence in this case is not needed because you can purposefully claim that the evidence that I may provide are lies due to going against your political standpoints.
#15003862
SSDR wrote:@Deutschmania, Evidence may potentially be useless because all forms of evidence could be a lie, depending on what political standpoint one has against it. For example, there are people who believe that the Holocaust is fake. There are people who believe that no human has ever landed on the Moon. There are people who believe in the flat Earth theory, etc. All sides have their own "evidence" but is it true? No. So evidence in this case is not needed because you can purposefully claim that the evidence that I may provide are lies due to going against your political standpoints.

Not at all . I would try to weigh its empirical merit , not go by any confirmation bias I might have . So far you have not even provided any specific examples to bolster your allegations , which was what I was getting at .
#15003864
Deutschmania wrote:Not at all . I would try to weigh its empirical merit , not go by any confirmation bias I might have . So far you have not even provided any specific examples to bolster your allegations , which was what I was getting at .


I have already explained why you don't need any "evidence." It's because no evidence can be proven 100 percent, thus making it ineffective, and could be called "lies."
#15004927
SSDR wrote:I have already explained why you don't need any "evidence." It's because no evidence can be proven 100 percent, thus making it ineffective, and could be called "lies."

Then how do you expect to be able to be sure of anything which you assert to be so ? Your philosophical skepticism , I expect , would render any position you might take , including the validity of dialectical materialism , and scientific socialism , uncertain . Thereby , your own claim of being a Marxist yourself would be of a dubious foundation . As to the matter at hand , you seem to be basing your opinion upon personal anecdotal experience , which you have had with a certain sampling of people whom either self describe as being neo-Marxist , or whom you deem to fit your own particular definition of neo-Marxism . In any case , I cannot know upon what you are basing your conclusion , or what exactly it is that you are even getting at .
#15004943
SSDR wrote:But many neo-Marxists defend rapists and child abusers. Many neo Marxists support recreational drug usage. Many neo Marxists support labour slackation, which can destroy a socialist society. You see how neo Marxism is self destructive?


Your point about the validity of evidence is fair, but if you make a statement and someone asks for your source, the validity of it isn't your decision to decide - it is your audience.

Nonetheless I also question your assertion here and wonder why you feel the need to make such bold statement. So how have you reached the conclusion that most Neo-Maxists defend rapists and child abuse?
#15005195
@Deutschmania I never claimed to be a "Marxist." I am no follower of any person. I support some of the views and realizations of Marx, but I am no follower of him, nor anyone. I am a Scientific Socialist. I am not a "Marxist."

"Your philosophical skepticism , I expect , would render any position you might take , including the validity of dialectical materialism, and scientific socialism, uncertain " Oh shit, what the FUCK is that?

It is your problem that you cannot comprehend the fact that neo Marxists are anti socialist.

@B0ycey I do not need to provide a source to anybody if I don't choose to. Having an "audience" is not intended, not wanted by myself, nor needed. If you want an audience, then you need to provide evidence to back up your spouting claims.

Neo Marxists do not recognize crime, thus viewing rape and child abuse as not criminal. They also defend anarchists, of whom are not socialists.
#15005220
SSDR wrote:@B0ycey I do not need to provide a source to anybody if I don't choose to. Having an "audience" is not intended, not wanted by myself, nor needed. If you want an audience, then you need to provide evidence to back up your spouting claims.


Clearly you do want an audience. Why else start a thread? Did you want nobody to read it or something? :roll:

If you cannot provide a reason for your opinion or proof to your claim, why should anyone take your words seriously?
#15005370
B0ycey wrote:Clearly you do want an audience. Why else start a thread? Did you want nobody to read it or something? :roll:

If you cannot provide a reason for your opinion or proof to your claim, why should anyone take your words seriously?


Okay now you're trying to go against me personally. I am not here for conflicts. I am here for political discussions, dialogues, and debates. That's why I started a thread. I have the power to so why not?

I don't need anyone to take my words "seriously" since their mindsets are not in a socialist context. Capitalists tend to not take socialism seriously because their psychologies were conditioned to view feminism and sexual liberation as "non sense."
#15005373
SSDR wrote: I am here for political discussions, dialogues, and debates. That's why I started a thread. I have the power to so why not?


You made a claim and as of yet haven't came remotely close to backing it up. As far as I am aware, the only difference between Marxists and Neo-Marxists is the means to reach Communism. Marxists just assume that Dialectical Materialism will result in Communism and neo-Marxists use critical thinking to understand why it hasn't occur yet and alternative less violent routes for it to happen that can be manipulated by restricting hostile human thinking or beliefs. So if I am missing something out that defends rape and child abuse by the Neo-Marxists either explain how you reached that idea or retract your statement. You cannot have meaningful dialogue, discussion or debate until you do.
#15005376
B0ycey wrote:You made a claim and as of yet haven't came remotely close to backing it up. As far as I am aware, the only difference between Marxists and Neo-Marxists is the means to reach Communism. Marxists just assume that Dialectical Materialism will result in Communism and neo-Marxists use critical thinking to understand why it hasn't occur yet and alternative less violent routes for it to happen that can be manipulated by restricting hostile human thinking or beliefs. So if I am missing something out that defends rape and child abuse by the Neo-Marxists either explain how you reached that idea or retract your statement. You cannot have meaningful dialogue, discussion or debate until you do.


Yes there are different scientific approaches on reaching the liberation of the masses. However, some scientific approaches are self destructive. Neo Marxism is one of them because they accept crimes such as rape and domestic abuse. This is because they don't recognize crime.

Violence destroys evil, and the most evil people are those who let evil slide (pacifists). Even Albert Einstein said this.

And you do not have the power to determine that me backing up the claim that "neo Marxists defend crimes such as rape" without giving you an USELESS source makes my dialogue as "meaningful." Nothing needs to be meaningful, since that recognizes the concept of value, thus being anti socialist. Valuing things, such as determining if something such as a dialogue is meaningful, is non socialist due to valuing things in general.
#15005467
SSDR wrote:Neo Marxism is one of them because they accept crimes such as rape and domestic abuse. This is because they don't recognize crime.


Just a source that explains they don't recognise crime would be nice. :roll:

My understanding is that the Neo-Marxists study psychoanalysis and critical thinking and they might study why the proletariat execute crime in the first place. Although this is more down to creating reasoning why the proletariat don't recognise their class distinction and instead act out in other ways such as crime as they understand the proletariat class does not decide the means of social control FYI.

Nonetheless Neo-Marxists are Marxists so would believe in autonomy. So they would recognise crime BTW. Although what would be recognised as crime would be decided locally.
#15005538
B0ycey wrote:Just a source that explains they don't recognise crime would be nice. :roll:

My understanding is that the Neo-Marxists study psychoanalysis and critical thinking and they might study why the proletariat execute crime in the first place. Although this is more down to creating reasoning why the proletariat don't recognise their class distinction and instead act out in other ways such as crime as they understand the proletariat class does not decide the means of social control FYI.

Nonetheless Neo-Marxists are Marxists so would believe in autonomy. So they would recognise crime BTW. Although what would be recognised as crime would be decided locally.


Yeah a source would be nice. But a lot of western (British, Deutsche, French, American, etc.) socialist websites are neo Marxist leaning. They have lots of capitalist foundations, due to the west being dominated by a fiercely, anti socialist nation (United States) since the Second World War. Eurocommunists like Enrico Berlinguer have some neo Marxist leanings, even though I somewhat support some of his views, and that he was admired in the DDR in the 1950's.

Image

WSWS.org is not socialist. RevLeft is an ANARCHIST website. RevLeft is anti socialist.

"Although what would be recognised as crime would be decided locally." This is why I don't support full blown internationalism, because different nationalities tend to have different standards. Does one really believe that a worker in Sweden want the same standards as a worker in Albania?
#15007197
SSDR , you have been continuously committing the "No True Scottman" fallacy
, and then following up by making neo-Marxism into a "strawman " . On another note , one does not have to accept as infallible gospel everything that Marx , or Lenin , among others have said in order to be an authentic Communist / socialist , for instance I would hope that present day students of Marxist thought wouldn't take to heart some of the racially insensitive remarks he had made https://www.theepochtimes.com/karl-marx-the-racist_2217122.html , however Marxism in general , as a social theory , is the ideological foundation which underpins scientific socialist thought , and so cannot in all honesty be ignored . Within the framework of Marxism there is room for a range of different viewpoints . For instance , the key difference that I have with Leninists , including perhaps yourself , is that such Communists adhere to a policy of democratic centralism , whereas I have since come to advocate democratic confederalism . I am still essentially a Marxist thinker however . As to RevLeft.com , I was surmising that you had them especially in mind , as I read what all you posted in this thread . From my experience there , there are an array of different tendencies represented there , so you cannot rightly paint them with the same broad brush . The key problem with them is not really that they are all neo-Marxist , but rather that their administrators , the "Commie Club" , which acts as a central committee doesn't have clear cut rules concerning the content of posts , and will even vote to relegate posters they don't find agreeable to the opposing ideologies section of the forum , just for conflicting with some unwritten code of political correctness they have . I myself had this happen to me , when enough of the Commie Club found my advocacy of the views of Mansoor Hekmat , which I had held to at the time to be objectionable . So I do get where you are coming from somewhat . I just don't consider RevLeft , or even the Commie Club , some of which are fine people , who even had stood by me in the aftermath of my restriction , as being representative of neo-Marxism on the whole . They just haven't been using their moderative authority in a sound discretionary manner , as to what is and is not acceptable opinion .
#15010460
@Deutschmania,

There is no "Commie Club" on the anarchist website of RevLeft because there are no socialists on there. They are all shitty anarchists.

Image

These people look like shit. They have anarchist flags. They are just shitty as fuck.
Trump, Oh my god !

@jimjam Hey Jim! Here is the link to the vide[…]

To tell you AGAIN, this is not about something be[…]

From 2016: Researchers discovered that, unlike a […]

Election 2020

Hindsite wrote: Jesus said in Mark 14:7, "Fo[…]