Dialetic materialism was the prevailing philosophy in the soviet union. Its how lenin, stalin etc explained what they were seeing at present.

Again, that's stupid.

Marx was living in the world.

Greta probably takes cars to get to places, that doesn't mean she loves it.

Sadhguru got accused of disrupting the lives of elephants to build his Yoga center, but that doesn't mean he hates elephants.

Voltaire was accused of owning businesses and being rich, but he had to pay for his efforts to bring down Catholics and royalty, no one else was paying for him to do it, etc.

Your thinking is childish and feminine.

Was Marx supposed to live like the future he predicted even though it wasn't happening when he predicted it?

No, because how could he?

It's a philosophy that seeks to explain how societies adapt to changes in modes of production.

Stalin's interpretation was just that, his interpretation.

Did I say he was responsible for it? I believe him to have been a truly honest thinker even if I disagree with his outcomes. However, he is the foundation of modern communism and there is no way around that. Can you make the claim the examples of communism have fallen away from his ideals? Sure, but you cannot separate the two just as you cannot separate a structure from its foundation

Did I say he was responsible for it? I believe him to have been a truly honest thinker even if I disagree with his outcomes. However, he is the foundation of modern communism and there is no way around that. Can you make the claim the examples of communism have fallen away from his ideals? Sure, but you cannot separate the two just as you cannot separate a structure from its foundation

Marx wrote almost nothing about communism though. He sporadically threw out a very brief and vague sketch of what it might look like but almost the entirety of his written works are analyses of 19th century industrial capitalism, not speculating on how communism should work

Lenin is the founder of communism.

Ah..... So like the Fraudlerian you have no idea what you are saying... Got it

Is he responsible for the Bolshevik revolution turning into the USSR? Sure, but Communist ideals have their genesis in the enlightenment, and culminating with Marx


If you truly believe he is the "founder" of Communist beliefs then you are so wrong that I cannot even begin to get you to see truth

I'll echo what I said earlier, but are you truly trying to completely disassociate Marx from communism? Regardless of something holding true to his vision or ideals he is still the bedrock. The foundational beliefs of what became 20th century communism are his regardless of what they evolved into

Marxism is a fantasy that ignores human nature.

Marx had little to say about government and politics.

Yes, it explains everything as a result of class struggle. I think you should read Mises' critique of this philosophy. Cliffs: It's nothing more than a pseudo intellectual play on words. We have plenty of empirical evidence validating Mises in that regard.

That's my entire point. Communism as a political system was essentially founded by Lenin.

While the "Austrians" consider their ideology as the single most important thing ever, very few others agree.

Mainly because economics =/= economic history.

Modern, mainstream economics is empirical and based on research, testable hypotheses, and mathematical modelling.

There aren't really separate "schools" of modern economics in that sense. Everything empirically useful from different branches of economic thought (monetarist, Keynsian, neoclassical etc) has already been incorporated into mainstream economics and used in research.

So if you study economics formally you don't get a separate course on the Chicago school for example - the relevant concepts of monetarism are already baked into the modern understanding of the subject.

So no reason why Marx or any heterodox theory would be taught in an econ undergrad class, it just isn't relevant to what said class is trying to teach. It would be much more relevant in some kind of history or philosophy degree.

That said there are some academic economists who do specialise in Marxism (eg. Richard Wolff) but they are fringe and have almost no citations. Same for other discarded schools of thought like Austrian economics.

Yet China's GDP grows at a rate of 8 or 9 percent for several decades while the US grabs 2 or 3.

Our "modern" economics is based on a system that, while maybe isn't completely obsolete, is obviously due for at least a refresh.

Bolded line is something I agree with, but also kind of highlights what I'm getting at.

The revolutionary aim of the political ideology of communism, as laid out in the Communist Manifesto by the Jew Karl Marx, is to have the peasants, or working class, violently overthrow the governments of their respective nations. The manifesto, which demonized the entire middle class as exploiters—everyone from a doctor or a dentist, to a rich capitalist, down to the small business owner—concluded with the battle cry: Workers of the world, Unite!

The promise given to the impressionable peasants,—the “proletariat”—whom the Communists’ evil propaganda was directed at, was that they would live in a “worker’s paradise” after dismantling their “oppressors,” i.e., the middle class, or “bourgeiosie.” Of course, the true aim was for the Communist leaders—mostly Jews—to insert themselves into dictatorial power after the natural leadership had been forcibly overthrown by violent hordes of envious, hate-filled mobs.

Spreaders of the communist ideology believed that revolutions of this nature would take place all across Europe as people lost faith in their governments during the first World War. Much to their dismay, aside from in Russia, these revolutions did not take place, and the war caused the common people to instead become more patriotic and loyal to their countries’ leaders.

The Communists, who saw their victory as inevitable one way or the other, were undeterred by this setback. They went back to the drawing board to reformulate their revolutionary strategy and it was decided that in the West, for their revolution to take place, they would first have to weaken the foundations of civilization, which they recognized as a stronghold in the way of their agenda. The new strategy, known asCultural Marxism, combined Marx’s theories with those of another Jew, Sigmund Freud, and was to use anti-Western propaganda to attack and tear down all traditions, sexual morality and Christianity and to deliberately break apart the nuclear family.

Many of the preeminent Cultural Marxist thinkers during the 20s and 30s were Jewish intellectuals based in Frankfurt, Germany, at the Institute of Social Research, better known as the ‘Frankfurt School.’ Instead of the ‘class warfare’ that traditional Marxism focused on, they now developed ‘critical theory,’ which attacked Western culture as being evil and oppressive toward minority groups such as Jews, non-Whites, homosexuals, and even women. This served the Communist cause of destroying White society by inciting hatred in all of these so-called minority groups while simultaneously inducing feelings of guilt in normal White people.

They also created ‘political correctness,’ where any objection to the Cultural Marxist agenda would not be met with logical debate but rather with smear terms such as “racist,” “bigot,” “homophobe,” “sexist,” etc.

Germany, home to a daunting number of communists— upward of six million—was facing the dire threat of falling to a violent revolution, similar to what had happened in Russia in 1917. A Communist Russia and Germany would have meant certain death for all of Europe.

Hitler and other European nationalists were largely a response to this madness, which had already brutally exterminated millions of the White elite in Russia. They heroically sprang up like white blood cells to defend Europe from the Marxist cancer that was sure to destroy all of civilization if left unchecked.

Adolf Hitler recognized the Marxist doctrine for exactly what it was: essentially a war on the natural order of the world which can only lead to chaos, decay and destruction, to the temporary benefit of a few, but the eventual detriment of all. He warned of this in his book Mein Kampf, and dedicated every waking moment of his life to fighting against it.

Once Hitler came to power, the Jews were stripped of their power and the Cultural Marxists and Communist agitators were forced out of Germany or interned in concentration camps as enemies of the state. Germany, once free of this plague, quickly rose to glorious heights such as the world has never seen—possibly the pinnacle of all human civilization.

Germany was, of course, destroyed in WWII, thanks to the power that the Jews and Communists already had over the minds and governments of most of the rest of the world, whom they convinced to destroy Germany even though it was against the majority of their best interests.

And so triumphed Marxism over National Socialism, and tyranny over civilization.

Question was answered by this post on the very first page. And yet, here we are again, you dysgenic retards gloss over it and instead argue with the same retarded golems and fraudlerian.

Yet China's GDP grows at a rate of 8 or 9 percent for several decades while the US grabs 2 or 3.

Our "modern" economics is based on a system that, while maybe isn't completely obsolete, is obviously due for at least a refresh.

Bolded line is something I agree with, but also kind of highlights what I'm getting at.

Question was answered by this post on the very first page. And yet, here we are again, you dysgenic retards gloss over it and instead argue with the same retarded golems and fraudlerian.

While the "Austrians" consider their ideology as the single most important thing ever, very few others agree.

Yeah, I didn't expect you to respond to these criticisms directly. Commies gonna commie.

Well China started off very poor. Poor countries always have much higher GDP growth rates than already developed ones.

That said, yes modern neoliberalism is largely a disaster, but that's a political movement essentially. Opposing the economic doctrines that come under neoliberalism is a job for ethics and political philosophy ("it is morally wrong that wealth continues to concentrate in fewer hands while the majority of the population stagnate, we ought to restructure our economy to better distribute resources to all people"), it's just not what you would see taught in an economics class which is onlysupposed toteach the workings/mechanics of markets, government spending, interest rates, etc based on best empirical understanding.

Take a class in social sciences, philosophy etc on the other hand and it's likely that Marxism and ideas that run counter to establishment capitalist norms would be discussed at some point. In fact one of the complaints we usually see from conservatives is that such departments at university are "Marxist indoctrination camps" etc.

Not entirely a fair comparison. China is still developing. And many of their reforms were by adopting market economics, albeit modifying them for Chinese socialist goals.

It's a philosophy that seeks to explain how societies adapt to changes in modes of production.

Stalin's interpretation was just that, his interpretation.

^ChatGPT detected. Again.

It's a political philosophy thatcorrectly diagnosesthe problems with Capitalism but doesn't really offer any suitable solution or alternative.



Outside of that, just read the Communist Manifesto. It's not that long. Das Kapital is a more expansive read but unnecessary.

Wat?

You communicate like a bot, but more robotic. Always.