krishna bound

4y

with your first point in my opinion you're confusing historical and philosophical precedent imo. marxism is not egalitarian obviously. Liberalism may not have been egalitarian in practice, but the philosophy behind liberalism is (I understand it's more complicated than that but I'm not gonna go on a massive historical/philosophical pretextual discourse rant here). also I mean, not all marxists believe in gay rights - nor is gay rights a qualifier to be a leftist despite popular belief - that's just a modern revision. a good chunk of marxists believe the end-goal of marxism is biological essentialism (like deontological ethics means no capitalism = easier fulfillment of biological duty, which is ultimately having kids). Whether or not this is "true marxism" isn't the point; I know Lenin was very pro-gay and there were openly gay bolsheviks. There were also openly gay strasserists, and openly gay fascists. It's just something which has nothing to intrinsically do with the ideology.
marxism is fair in that the political end-process of marxism is not the tenure of systematic racism or the like of course, but in order to recognize marxism through the dialectical system proposed by Engels & Marx, there is some level of fundamental inegalitarianism - including racial inegalitarianism - which is fundamental to the belief system, which is the most controversial part of Marxism I see talked about the least. I don't want to go too in depth with this because honestly I don't want to write a massive wall of text and become a leftie meme, but much of Engel's discourse (as I'm sure you know) was basically "biological non-egalitarianism is why capitalism is unfair to begin with, because not everyone can actually achieve their imperative under a meritocracy", which he more or less chalked up to a form of racialism - however, his lack of mentioning black people specifically (Engels's biologicalism was often focused on the Irish) is why it's not as remembered. After all, Marxism is a Darwinist ideology (albeit not social darwinist).
social reactionaries have never come to power to a degree, yes, but I mean, that doesn't mean the ideology doesn't exist in a separate vacuum. they aren't just always bait for further right reactionaries. that's another case of historical pretext vs philosophical abstract.

Scratchin Mamba

4y

Give me one text where racial inegalitarianism (or any form of racialism) was the focus, or even mentioned by either Marx or Engels as one of the core tenants of Communism. I've read some of Marx and Engels writings about the Irish and none of it ever mentioned any of that. Smells like bullshit to me honestly lol.

a good chunk of marxists believe the end-goal of marxism is biological essentialism (like deontological ethics means no capitalism = easier fulfillment of biological duty, which is ultimately having kids)

Define "a good chunk" lol, I've never heard any Marxist claim this. And the ones that do have apparently not even read Marx's writings about the family in the Manifesto.

"biological non-egalitarianism is why capitalism is unfair to begin with, because not everyone can actually achieve their imperative under a meritocracy"

This is just false lol. Marx and Engels a***ysis of capitalism show exactly how capitalism isn't meritocratic. And speaking of capitalism as a "meritocracy" in order to justify inequality didn't even happen until the mid to late 20th century. I mean the word didn't even exist when Marx and Engels were alive

Your claim is basically that Marx and Engels said that capitalism is unfair because some races are inferior, that's a bogus claim, but please do try to back it up with some of their writings though lol.

krishna bound

4y

i'm gonna be real with you man, i don't have it in me to dig up quotes from old marx & engels writing to win an argument online. it doesn't matter that much to me. you don't have to agree with me if you don't want to but you should really read older theory outside the lens it's presented in typical left circles. Modern distillations of older left theory have been completely lost.
The issue is, yes, Marx or Engels never literally say anything about "this race = stupid", because they weren't saying anything about inferiority. the point was not that races were inferior but rather if were to assume capitalism developed alongside a non-material system made to fit certain dialectical lenses other than sole materialistic virtue, then the hereditary conditions of some people better fit the cultural lens alongside its evolution needed to succeed given captialistic conditions; it's made very clear many times that natural conditioning, hereditary, and explicitly "racial character" are reasons for societal inequalities and natural dispersement/organization; they were saying within the abstract there were fundamental racial differences which were not material inequalities - just differences - which developed into abstract castes as a result of capitalism having non-material elements. It's not "racist" in the typical sense of the word. It's not talking about inferiority; it's racialist however because it discusses intrinsic differences in hereditary & natural being, which are not "inferior", merely distinct, but under capitalism appear as such. They never used the term meritocracy, but we have the term now, so why wouldn't I use it? That's clearly what they were alluding to if they say abstract virtues in an abstract system = more material success arbitrarily. Regarding the second thing, that's just wrong. I've said it before, I don't hang out on leftist circles online, so yes, I know no 20 year old marxists or college professor marxists are saying that. That doesn't mean that isn't a historical belief just because it's not in those circles.

Scratchin Mamba

4y

And liberalism is not egalitarian, not even in theory, but no ideology truly is in any real sense.

krishna bound

4y

while you can argue liberalism does not correctly provide conditions to ensure egalitarianism thus creating a paradox (correct), saying the roots of liberalism do not attempt to establish their own form of egalitarianism is incorrect. do not confuse historical practice with philosophical abstract; much of early economic liberalism was incentivized by Utilitarianism over Deontology; Deontological Liberalism (i.e. Natural-Rights Libertarianism) did not really come around until the 19th-20th century. The core basis of Utilitarianism is egalitarianism in theory (i am aware some scholars disagree but that was how it was originally created).

Moody mann

4y

Former PM of Israel Ehud Barack, former New Mexico Governer Bill Richardson, former Dem Sen Majority Leader George Mitchell, Billionaire Thomas Pritzker among many others.

This man had dirt on EVERYONE. And they couldn't do s*** about it.

Scratchin Mamba

4y

Well I would be interested to read said racialist texts by Marx and Engels if you ever do care to look for them

Because this is the first time that I've heard anybody mention this, I haven't even heard nazbols say this lol.

krishna bound

4y

like 99% (western) nazbols dont know anything about marxist theory they just know heavily distilled reactionary strasserism or like writing from Weininger which they retrofit to stuff they see lefties say. i know there's some non-western nazbols who fit the original national bolshevism but idk what they believe because they dont have an online presence or really any influence on politics. even if they did i doubt theyd cite this because the point isnt really inferiority/superiority, its just innate difference which becomes inequality under capitalism, its not really like a claim that one race is "better" or "worse"

Scratchin Mamba

4y

How does utilitarianism have anything to do with egalitarianism?

Scratchin Mamba

4y

I am aware that it's about inherent traits leading to inequalities under capitalism, but I've never read Marx or Engels write any of these things nor hear anybody claim that they did

Arguing that they not only did have racialist writings, but that it's a core tenant of Marxism is quite a claim to make. Don't think it's unfair to ask where they wrote about that.

Izzy

4y

Damn a Libertarian pedophile thats crazy

rwina sawayama

4y

cool nothing will happen

WhiteChrxsDorner

4y

nothing major but "The anti-weed populist" is maybe the lamest grift in history

hey man relax

4y

oh my god i pray you’re not as stupid as you seem

you realize he’s joking right

Synopsis

4y

Why do you think hes joking

Synopsis

4y

Why do you think hes joking

hey man relax

4y

oh my god i pray you’re not as stupid as you seem

you realize he’s joking right

Womanpuncher69

4y

not if we ktt take action

Pusha P

4y

Another Thread turned into someone making Scratchin Mamba post text walls about socialist writings from 80 years ago.

Edit: NVM Krishna bound started it, but still

Fries

12mo

This is crazy

Mango

4y

The theory goes it was an intelligence honeypot which means he was working with tons of people who weren't just pedophiles. He hooked people up with all kinds of s***. He definitely was not gaming the system. He's just a symptom of it. Everything is rotten.