Marxism is Oligarch Astroturf - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it. Note: nostalgia *is* allowed.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15130620
ingliz wrote:That's a thought.

I've been pondering what should be done with the 'incorrigibles'.

Industrial mincer and use the mush to fertilise the fields of a collective farm - Capital idea.

I might even give you a medal. Posthumously, of course.


;)


No, I get it, you're a crazy fascist that's been fantasizing about mass slaughter your whole life. We all get it, you people aren't exactly shy about telling us your crazy plans for murdering and gulaging everyone.
#15130621
Sivad wrote:
I got commietards living in my universities, my NGOs, my social service bureaucracies, my city councils and legislatures, my culture industry, etc. My society is lousy with the commietard minions of the globalist oligarchs and it's a real problem.



"Your" universities, NGOs, bureaucracies, city councils, legislatures, culture industry -- ?

Are you the bourgeoisie's *mascot*?

Who the fuck are the 'globalist oligarchs'?


Pants-of-dog wrote:
champagne socialist



Image
#15130622
@Sivad

Again, which socialist movement have you supported?

If you have not supported any, then you are (at best) an ivory tower or champagne socialist, or (at worst) not a socialist at all.
#15130626
@Sivad

You are silly.

Look closely and you can see me winking.

Hint: I was joking.
#15130629
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Sivad

Again, which socialist movement have you supported?

If you have not supported any, then you are (at best) an ivory tower or champagne socialist, or (at worst) not a socialist at all.


Your logic is fucking retarded as usual, you don't have to be a card carrying member of some group of morons calling themselves socialists in order to support socialism. I support socialism in a million different ways by supporting anything and anyone that advances the principles of socialism within society. I support socialism by supporting individuals and ideas from across the political spectrum that move society in the direction of greater liberty, peace, and prosperity. For me, socialism isn't some fevered ideological fetish that I derive my whole identity from, it's not a retarded cult that I cling to like some fucking idiot, it's something that emerged from a real commitment to basic rational principles and it's the principles and not the label that I'm interested in advancing.
#15130631
Sivad wrote:For me, socialism isn't some fevered ideological fetish

You could have fooled me.


:lol:
#15130635
Thinking to the initial thread post and how Marxism is backef by oligarchs and plutocrats, I wonder your opinion of the asserted masses of peasants and workers who followed certain parties who aligned themselves with Marx’s analysis of capitalism.
And if you say they did not constitute a majority of the society, then what validates the effort of a revolution?
I have this impression of an intense cynicism of groups and thus towards social change as it doesn’t cone about from a few individuals. The prominent persons must have people to lead.
#15130637
Wellsy wrote:Thinking to the initial thread post and how Marxism is backef by oligarchs and plutocrats, I wonder your opinion of the asserted masses of peasants and workers who followed certain parties who aligned themselves with Marx’s analysis of capitalism.


You can't take anything Sivad takes seriously when it comes to Marxism Wellsy because he says he supports Trump. Trump is by definition an Oligarch and a Plutocrat so critising Marxism (or implying I should say) is hypocritical - but in reality completely wrong in any case.
#15130640
B0ycey wrote:You can't take anything Sivad takes seriously when it comes to Marxism Wellsy because he says he supports Trump. Trump is by definition an Oligarch and a Plutocrat so critising Marxism (or implying I should say) is hypocritical - but in reality completely wrong in any case.

He frames his ‘support’ of Trump in still cynical accelerationist terms though. As disrupting the mainstream elites and their upset and those of liberals being to some benefit.
#15130642
Wellsy wrote:He frames his ‘support’ of Trump in still cynical accelerationist terms though. As disrupting the mainstream elites and their upset and those of liberals being to some benefit.


He can frame it how he likes. He backs Trump and he is an oligarch and a plutocrat. By definition that is hypocritical especially as many Marxist don't even support the Frankfurt Institution. If Sivad had a spine he would actually be more like Skinster who doesn't support say someone like Starmer just because he isn't Johnson. She still backs Corbyn and he isn't in the race.
#15130643
Sivad wrote:Your logic is fucking retarded as usual, you don't have to be a card carrying member of some group of morons calling themselves socialists in order to support socialism. I support socialism in a million different ways by supporting anything and anyone that advances the principles of socialism within society. I support socialism by supporting individuals and ideas from across the political spectrum that move society in the direction of greater liberty, peace, and prosperity. For me, socialism isn't some fevered ideological fetish that I derive my whole identity from, it's not a retarded cult that I cling to like some fucking idiot, it's something that emerged from a real commitment to basic rational principles and it's the principles and not the label that I'm interested in advancing.


If your socialism is so real and basic, you should be able to provide an example of it.

At this point, you are defining socialism to mean “vague things that Sivad does” instead of the real and actual socialist movements that everyone else is discussing.

So, you do not support any actual socialist movement. Much the same as your inability to show how any socialist movement was supported by oligarchs.

At this point, I think it would be fair to ask you to define socialism, and give concrete examples of socialist practices.
#15130651
Let me say that I'm not a Marxist and while many of his positions are understandable, there are probably some parts of the theory that are not based in reality. Regardless, I don't think it started as an astroturf movement but I do think it de facto became that when certain forms of intersectionality and other crap got mixed in. Many self-proclaimed Marxists who subscribe to that don't even care as much about class issues than shitting on white people as a whole and are easily mesmerized by woke capital. In addition, there are tankies who use Marxism as an excuse to start and support dictatorial governments that in fact do not have the people's interests at heart.
#15130657
Random American wrote:
Let me say that I'm not a Marxist and while many of his positions are understandable, there are probably some parts of the theory that are not based in reality.



Like what?


Random American wrote:
Regardless, I don't think it started as an astroturf movement but I do think it de facto became that when certain forms of intersectionality and other crap got mixed in.



'Astroturf' implies 'groupthink', and so far no one on this thread has been able to explain who the alleged 'oligarchs' are.


Random American wrote:
Many self-proclaimed Marxists who subscribe to that don't even care as much about class issues



Marxism, by definition, is *all about* class, and using the class analysis for political economy.


Random American wrote:
than shitting on white people as a whole and are easily mesmerized by woke capital.



Which Marxists, exactly, are 'shitting on white people' -- aside from what I personally do in the bedroom, of course. (grin)

And what the hell is 'woke capital'?


Would you please at least *attempt* to describe these vague terms you're using, in the process of using them?


Random American wrote:
In addition, there are tankies who use Marxism as an excuse to start and support dictatorial governments that in fact do not have the people's interests at heart.



Like where?
#15130659
Random American wrote:....., I don't think it started as an astroturf movement but I do think it de facto became that when certain forms of intersectionality and other crap got mixed in. Many self-proclaimed Marxists who subscribe to that don't even care as much about class issues than shitting on white people as a whole and are easily mesmerized by woke capital. .....


Marxism and progressivism are two different axes of political thought and action, as far as I can tell.

Some Marxists are conservative when it comes to social justice issues, while others are progressive.

In my experience, conservative views among Marxists depends mostly on their upbringing and social context. So indigenous Marxists are extremely anti-colonialist, while white European Marxists see it as an irrelevant “identity politics” issue that detracts from class. BIPOC Marxists see racism as part and parcel of capitalist oppression, while white Marxists dismiss it as identity politics. Et cetera.
#15130660
Wellsy wrote:He frames his ‘support’ of Trump in still cynical accelerationist terms though. As disrupting the mainstream elites and their upset and those of liberals being to some benefit.


Right, but I wouldn't call it accelerationist. Destructionist is more accurate. Trump is causing the establishment to self-destruct, the establishment is destroying it's own credibility which is the foundation of its institutional power. That opens a space for new possibilities that prior to Trump were so remote they were barely worth exploring. The reason most "leftists" don't want to keep it going and let it play out is because they're not really on the left, they're fascists that don't want to see theses institutions destroyed because they want to sieze them for themselves and use them to dominate society. They want to be the new class manegerial oligarchs and so they need the public's faith in these institutions to remain intact.
#15130662
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Marxism and progressivism are two different axes of political thought and action, as far as I can tell.

Some Marxists are conservative when it comes to social justice issues, while others are progressive.



I don't know how this arbitrary dichotomization of economics and politics can be countenanced, though -- 'civil society' issues have an anti-oppression political history of their own, just as the politics of class struggle and mode-of-production do, too.

As Marxists we should be explicitly *supporting* the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement (postwar U.S.), as well as the preceding U.S. Civil War, that did away with legal chattel slavery.

Social justice issues need to be *anti-oppression*, or 'progressive'. I don't see how *any* Marxist could be *for* class struggle while neglecting matters of social-minority *oppression*.


Pants-of-dog wrote:
In my experience, conservative views among Marxists depends mostly on their upbringing and social context. So indigenous Marxists are extremely anti-colonialist, while white European Marxists see it as an irrelevant “identity politics” issue that detracts from class. BIPOC Marxists see racism as part and parcel of capitalist oppression, while white Marxists dismiss it as identity politics. Et cetera.



But even demographic-sectarian 'identity politics' is still itself *progressive* compared to status-quo nationalism and imperialism. Social minorities *should* be standing up for themselves on whatever identity basis, to counter ongoing cultural-colonialism efforts and financial-imperialism from the empire.

For example, Marxists have been supporting the on-the-ground efforts of Black Lives Matter and Antifa (anti-fascism), because there's no "Marxist" lifestyle-conservatism on these anti-oppression movements, albeit black-identity and anti-domestic-terrorism (single-issue), respectively.


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image
#15130664
Pants-of-dog wrote:Some Marxists are conservative when it comes to social justice issues, while others are progressive.

I must say too many of those progressive Marxists take some of their social justice pet projects too far, that's what I'm saying and they don't realize that they're no longer looking at class enough. My post doesn't refute Marxism as a whole or prove that the whole ideology is unworkable but it wasn't meant to anyway.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

May I ask: As a boy going to elementary school[…]

Racism definition & use

I assume you never read Dr. Robert Sapolski. i s[…]

:lol: Thanks for reviving this funny thread! P[…]

If peaceful and regular constitutional means are[…]