Why aren't capitalist countries becoming communist like Marx predicted?
The opposite even happened, socialist countries like China or the USSR went back to capitalism

>>24602024 (OP)
>countries
Marx predicted that the proletariat would compose itself as the universal class. He said fuck all about nationalism's concrete effects on this self-composition. You're going to want to read 18 Brumaire and Capital 1 until you get concrete and abstract in relation to the universal class in Marx. Then you're going to want to read a lot about Imre Nagy and Alexander Dubcek.

>>24602024 (OP)
in the far future marx will be seen akin to malthus

>>24602030
whatever you wanna it. He predicted that communism will replace capitalism, that did not happen
>What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

>>24602024 (OP)
China isn't a capitalist state, retard. The state has firm grip on every aspect of the economy and owns 70% of the biggest companies. Economic goals are oriented towards social needs.
>but much billionaires
The dictatorship of the proletariat and the first phase of socialism overlap. During this phase, the communist society still bears the birthmarks of the capitalist society: the State is yet to wither, class conflicts still exist etc. The DOP is the phase where the proletariat has the political means to make sure other classes are working for its interests. Chinese billionaires can be executed after a trial if they don't follow the interests of the proletariat.
As for capitalist countries, their economies are becoming increasingly socialized as finance capital and cartels grow and face contradictions. In fact, the best indicator of this socialization Marx and Engels predicted is the hegemony of the US dollar.

Sorry for the typos and the bad grammar. I'm extremely tired.

>>24602051
Notice how there isn't a time bounded condition on that prediction? Falsification would require the replacement of capital with another class system entirely. One of the reasons why Djilas or Ehrenreich were so interested in New Class / PMC / Nomenklatura studies.

>>24602030
That's just retarded. Internationalism has never been about suppressing nations. It's always been about different proletarian nations collaborating towards universal communism. Engels confirmed this.

Capitalist countries are becoming communist via frankfurt school thought. Capital serves social, ideological ends.

Socialist countries have become NatSoc through state capitalism. Capital serves national governmental ends.

Source? My ass.

>>24602030
but he was wrong with that prediction too. The working class of today unanimously despises socialist ideas and the only people who actually peddle Marx' ideology these days are ironically today's bourgeois.

>>24602064
>The working class of today unanimously despises socialist ideas
Wrong, retard. The Western working class has been psyopped to reject labels such as 'communism' and 'socialism'. They don't reject communistic ideas when you explain them and you don't use these labels.
>and the only people who actually peddle Marx' ideology these days are ironically today's bourgeois.
Bourgeois are the people who possess the private property of the means of production. Where are the entrepreneurs/industrial capitalists advocating for communism, you retarded faggot?

cus he predicted that progress would take hundreds of years and require new "working tools" to be developed first, of which that AI stuff everyone is talking about is a part of it

>government spending already 30-40% of gdp and rising
Give it time. France is already there

>>24602024 (OP)
Marx failed to take into account two things, either of which could derail the trends pushing global society in the direction he predicted.


1. The effects of resource exhaustion and global warming. If industrial society collapses because of these ecological pressures, that’s it for socialism. We will return to some feudalist form of governance as things like fertile land and the human/animal power to farm become the heart of the economy once more.

2. Islam. Marx grew up in a post-Enlightenment Europe. Muslim societies, even those with well developed capitalist economies, retain a foundation of sharia and the like, hampering the various changes he and Engels thought would emerge in a capitalist society (see Saudi or the UAE or Qatar for examples of this). I can see a future where a global population of Muslims (Muslim majority if current trends hold) keep an Islamist government and societal structure in place indefinitely, crushing any attempts to move towards socialism as being anti-Islamic.

the 60s is when the left turned into a student movement instead of a workers movement, the 30s is when they had capitalism on the ropes but the bourgeoise compromised and let fdr win

>>24602061
You seem to be functionally literate. I didn't discuss the suppression of nationalities, I discussed the composition of the universal class not being necessarily country based.

>>24602064
Again: the prediction isn't time limited. Until now his prediction has been wrong; *not*, his prediction is wrong. If Marx had said that 2 Kondratieff cycles would be required to produce a crisis where a universal class would necessarily form from the production of alienation, then sure, he'd be wrong, but that wasn't his prediction.

>>24602098
you do know the soviet union had muslims in it right.......

>>24602100
Who else achieved power in states with wage labour and the value form in the 1930s?

>>24602085
They don't reject the lofty humanitarian socialist ideas that you guys often hide behind in a dishonest way. Like for instance you'd ask the average normie "are you pro free healthcare?" And their answer will obviously be "yes". But you don't explain to them how free healthcare would actually work because if you asked them "are you willing to pay for my healthcare with your tax dollars?" The answer would be a resounding "no, fuck off you lazy commie."

>Where are the entrepreneurs/industrial capitalists advocating for communism, you retarded faggot?

I was using the term to describe upper middle class elitists, who look down on the working class, rather than its historically accurate meaning. What almost all modern day socialists have in common is that they are unemployed, have rich parents, have a (useless) college degree and they look down on blue collar workers.

>>24602106
Yeah? What’s your point? Communism came and went without shifting these societies away from Islam. Chechens and Tajiks are among the biggest sources of Salafi jihadists in the world today.

Keep in mind that Communists in their entire history have scored a grand total of 1 victory against Islam, in Albania. Elsewhere, from Indonesia to Bosnia to Afghanistan to the Arab world they have been crushed every single time. IMO the lack of a Muslim majority in East Asia is one of the big reasons communism has been so successful there. (Chinas Uyghurs of course being a case of Muslims being a source of friction for the communist project).

>>24602112

lol, china has more muslims than europe. you must be some jew who hates muslims or something

>>24602024 (OP)
capitalist nations more or less reached enough shared prosperity + technological-social dominance and subsequent mass false consciousness manufacturing to reinforce power

I am surprised that europe didnt go more red beyond russia over WW1 though

>>24602109
That's not communism you fucking retard. Kill yourself.

>>24602119
china actually puts its muslims in their place, while in europe they're allowed to rape and form gangs with near impunity

>>24602085
>Where are the entrepreneurs/industrial capitalists advocating for communism, you retarded faggot?
Engels, Kollontai, Trotsky. Communism always had bourgeois fans. Owens was a factory owner and a socialist. What's stopping the bourgeoisie from having false consciousness like the proletariat?

>>24602130
That's what communism always inevitably becomes. You would know that if instead of just reading propaganda by some 19th century aristocrats who never worked a day in their life, you would read some actual history books.

>>24602024 (OP)
>Why aren't capitalist countries becoming communist
Who says they arent? If they were, would you recognize it?

>>24602112
To add: I would argue that the ideology that won the Cold War was not American capitalism but rather Salafism, championed during that time by Saudi Arabia. It went from being a sect followed mostly in the Arab Peninsula to being a powerful force all over the Muslim world. Since social media became popular it has really taken off in Muslim populations. Saudi Arabia has lost control of it by now, as seen with the rise of groups like ISIS in the 2010s. The ideology is now self-sustaining with proponents all over (Pakistan, Central Asia. the Western diaspora, you name it). A fierce rejection of socialism, secularism and many social liberties bundled with the Marxist cause is a key part of it. The political supporters of this ideology are growing only more powerful (see Syria and West Africa) and there is plenty of evidence to predict it will become a permanent fixture in these societies. If that happens any chance of socialist societies as we imagine them emerging there is effectively zero.

>>24602119
Yeah, and it has spent the last two decades waging an internal struggle to control them. There’s a reason Uyghurs are so commonly seen in Salafi militias in Syria. Indeed China’s Uyghurs are a perfect example of the types of conflicts that emerge when socialist and Islamic societies collide.

>>24602060
so when will that happen? And the fact that China and the USSR went back to capitalism contradicts Marx historical materialism

>>24602024 (OP)

>>24602135
I'm talking about 2025, retard.
>>24602138
No, retard. That's just welfare state used by the bourgeoisie to manage poor people. Communism has nothing to do with welfare.

>>24602024 (OP)
Became irrelevant when capitalism provided the vast increases in living standards which Marxism had promised. Might become relevant again as capitalism starts collapsing under its own weight - living standards for the average person are beginning to slip.
>>24602145
If private property were abolished, I would notice.

>>24602024 (OP)
actually because Marx was a piece of shit that got everything wrong... thanks to him we have all the so called communist countries that will fight nuclear war against the so called capitalistic countries one day... jea... you could say Karl Marx destroyed humanity

>>24602024 (OP)
>Why aren't capitalist countries becoming communist like Marx predicted?
No clue

>>24602056
>The state has firm grip on every aspect of the economy and owns 70% of the biggest companies
That's true in the US too.

>>24602085
>They don't reject communistic ideas when you explain them and you don't use these labels.
What ideas? Bread lines? Killing people who wear glasses?

Proletarians don't want to rock the boat too much. As long as they can somehow scrape by with basic animal comforts, they'll happily let capitalists fuck them in the ass. Resistance is risky.

>>24602039
In the long run, Malthus is going to be proven right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmhEOQuUahU

>>24602024 (OP)
He couldn't anticipate all of the stopgap measures capitalist countries would try and would prove successful in placating the lower-classes, such as social security, robust state welfare, free healthcare, and the like. Imagine this: if Western countries started going on a free/cheap housing building spree, all leftist momentum would be appeased and capitalism would become popular again, even among the younger generations. Now, without all of those programs? Yeah, I suspect some kind of revolution would have happened by now.

>>24602131
Why do people defend Muslims in the middle east but then turn around and defend China for bullying them?

>>24602258
I certainly hope not

I really can't get my head around the fact we're still discussing and even teaching what this retard wrote. Isn't this bullshit continuously disproved every single day? Don't they realize that every Marxist today is basically reinterpretating the text again and again to fit the events? Why don't we get rid of a framework that failed so much at explaining anything, instead of salvaging it to the point we're ignoring facts?

>communist revolution will occur first in advanced industrial societies
>happened in third-world countries for about five minutes

>capitalism will collapse under the weight of its contradictions
>it's close now bro, I swear!

>class struggle will worsen and propetariat will get poorer and poorer
>welfare state appears in the 20th, living standards rose dramatically by all metrics, strikes/union/political violence pretty much vanished

>the petite bourgeoisie will be absorbed or crushed so there won't be any middle men between proletariat and the bourgeoisie
>middle class expanded in every single country and became an installed, consumerist population

>international propertarian solidarity will override nationalism
>workers sided with national elites against foreign proles in every single conflict, immigration topping the issues among workers in half the world

>productivity gains of machinery will worsen class struggle
>dramatic rise of non-material labor and total decoupling of labor and productivity

Nothing he wrote proved valid or useful and yet we keep using words like bourgeoisie or proleteriat that don't refer to any real subset of the population. When will this farce end?

>>24602024 (OP)
Buddy Marxism is a religion from an intellectual class that is still too caught up in its priestly roots to let go of dogmafagging.

Lenin tried to put it into practice, it just didn't work out at all like Marx claimed.
The wrong people rose up. In the wrong countries. At the wrong times.

The only thing Marxism is good for is motivating huge numbers of retarded hoi poloi to break their backs for no money and giving intellectuals something diverting to fight about. Same as any other religion.

>>24602024 (OP)

>>24602314
As an analytical framework, it's all quite influential and useful to this day. Anything furthering our understanding of the world and the systems we inhabit is always worthwhile, anon. What would you prefer? The unexamined life?

>>24602342
Influential it is, for the worse, but how exactly is it useful? Whenever I look at any event here or elsewhere in the world, it never seems to be driven the way Marx expected, and whenever I ask someone what about automation, or why workers are increasingly right-wing, or why does immigration rejection is on the rise, I'm consistently told that no, no, Marx anticipated it. Where, exactly? And what's the point of talking about bourgeoisie or proletariat if people are so much determined by non-economical factors?

>>24602349
Because the ideology essentially turned into a religion or cult. Most of the retards that gradute college have no fucking clue how the real world works once they have left the brainwashing center. Every single marxist you will ever meet is incapable of self-reflection seeing their own hypocrisy, they think
>ohh those poor migrants are refuggees we need to do everything we can to save them
Ignore the fact that those migrants are used for cheap slave labour and fuck up the housing/renting market the fact that they are so cultullary different the great a divide not just among people but the workers in general. The marxist is literally to retarded and too brainwashed to answer all these points. Watch now as they reply with some pointless wordsalad that has no meaning whatsoever.

>>24602349
>>24602378
sigh

y'know, anon, you can be right-wing while still acknowledging the value of Marx and incorporating some of his thought and those of his philosophical offspring. For example, I'm a conservative but I still love reading the Frankfurt School for their analysis into modern society and our economic systems and insights into contemporary life.

>>24602388
What value is this?

>>24602392
Awareness and understanding of the dominant economic systems and its forces. You don't have to agree with their solutions to agree with them on the questions, as well as appreciate and incorporate their analysis and critique.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/adorno
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcuse

Many of the greatest critical theorists of the 20th century were leftists, and anyone on any point of the political spectrum can learn from their critiques and analysis of the current systems, even if you disagree on the path forward from there.

>>24602392
know your enemy

Maybe its just because Marx was wrong like how people in general can be wrong and Karl Marx will just be remembered as a guy who wrote things that nobody really cares about anymore just like how people didn't care back then too.

>>24602024 (OP)
Marx fucked up really hard when he said "Historical materialism" and began to "Materialise" the opposite by merely saying it
No other explanation, hes retarded

>>24602414
>awareness and understanding of the dominant economic systems and its forces. You don't have to agree with their solutions to agree with them on the questions, as well as appreciate and incorporate their analysis and critique
But all of this is either wrong or inferior to another framework, which is my point. None of what he proposed explains much about the real world and organisation of society, it doesn't explain trends in politics, reception of multiple themes, failure of globalism, it doesn't explain why so-called dominant economic forces are evidently left-leaning, how automation or non-material labor is changing the market. The whole framework doesn't work, the method doesn't work, the conclusions drawn from them have obviously been proved wrong, what am I supposed to look into?

There's no need to send entries from SEP, I fell prey to Marxism as a young adult and unfortunately read enough of him. I wish it never existed in the first place.

i think it's safe to say that philosophy at a level that requires framework and jargon is retard bait with a net negative impact on civilization

>>24602024 (OP)
It's been obvious Marx was wrong since the works of Bernstein

>>24602314
>communist revolution will occur first in advanced industrial societies
Certainly did not happen in feudal societies. Every communist revolution occured in a country that is either industrialised or industrialising to some extent.

>capitalism will collapse under the weight of its contradictions
This is as true now as it was back then. Only thing keeping it together is a patch work of government policies to stop it from imploding on itself.

>welfare state appears in the 20th, living standards rose dramatically by all metrics, strikes/union/political violence pretty much vanished
Only because the workers fought for it. Even the elites realised how retarded their system is and how correct Marx was about unfettered capitalism leading to revolution.

>middle class expanded in every single country and became an installed, consumerist population
Petty burgeious is quite literally dying. "Middle class" pfft bitch please you are not burgeious.

>workers sided with national elites against foreign proles in every single conflict, immigration topping the issues among workers in half the world
I'll admit that he was too hopeful in this regard. But only because Marx was WAY ahead of his time. Internationalism is inevitable unless we revert back to feudal subsistence farming.

>total decoupling of labor and productivity
In your dreams maybe.

You see, this is the kind of absolute midwit tier takes that permeate the retardation that is anti-marxist thought. No nuance, no understanding, just a constant barrage of talking points and slogans

Case in point, these absolute fuckwits who think that under communism people work for "free" . Not realising that exchange of productive output is the base of human activity and money is simply an abstraction that exists above that base. Like religion or god>>24602319
>>24602327

Marx was perfidious jew but he still makes people seethe like nobody else

>>24603166

Another thing to add how myopic it is that this criticism revolves around the fact that Marx was not a genie with a crystal ball who could divine the future. No one can predict the future like that. And yet the fact that his critique and analysis of capitalism is correct and it's the same thing which lead to the historical consequence of welfare state and middle class flies over their heads. Thus the claim "reinterpreting the texts to fit the events" , even though the historical events are perfectly in line with the social and economic issues being pointed out with the system

Next time hire an astrologer maybe if you wanna see how rich you'd be in the future

>>24603166
>>total decoupling of labor and productivity
>In your dreams maybe.
Given the advances in AI and robotics, it's not unthinkable. What happens in a world where the proletariat becomes entirely superfluous, and automated systems become capable of running the whole show, from production to policing? Predictions of revolution (heck even reform) rely on the assumption that the bourgeoisie need the proletariat and that gives the proletariat the advantage in class struggle. What happens when that's no longer the case?

orthodox marxism is basically dead at this point. It has two main children:

>Western Radlibism (a trotskyite offshoot)
obviously contemptible and anti civilization

>technocratic maoist nationalism
the only ideology capable of taming and neutralizing technocapital-molochism (epstein-thiel-zionist cult)

liberal capitalists are a paper tiger and won't tolerate the protracted people's war when the liberation of Taiwan inevitably happens

>>24602024 (OP)
Because his conception of historiography was retarded.

>>24603166
Sigh.

>every communist revolution occured in a country that is either industrialised or industrialising to some extent
Doesn't work? Change the text. Marx did not say that revolution would arise anywhere there was industry or hardship. This is not what he wrote and this is not what he meant. He argued that revolution would occur first in the countries where capitalism had fully developed and where the proletariat was both numerous and organised, and he meant Britain, France, and Germany, the latter he explicitly named and predicted that the bourgeois revolution would serve only as a prelude to the imminent proletarian one. This was, as we now know, entirely mistaken. Besides, the notion that it spread in industrialised places is a joke, too. Every communist revolution has taken place in countries that were either in the throes of early industrialisation or not even industrialised at all. Russia in 1917, China in 1949, Cuba in 1959. none of them fits the criteria Marx laid.

>this is as true now as it was back then. Only thing keeping it together is a patch work of government policies to stop it from imploding on itself
Literally “this is close, now, bro”.

>only because the workers fought for it
Again a textbook reinvention of what Marx said. Marx was clear in that he didn't believe in workers petitioning the state for higher salaries and a nicer pension. He believed in class war, in the abolition of the bourgeois state, in the expropriation of the expropriators. To attribute the long arc of social-democrat reform to some vague proletarian pushback is another retrofitting. Plus another groundless claim in the process to cement the fallacy.

>petty burgeious is quite literally dying
Really? Half the world is now middle class, up from one quarter only a decade ago. According to the OECD, 110m are entering the middle class annually, and another 700m are projected to join by 2030. China and India alone produced the largest and fastest expansion of the middle class in recorded history, doubling the size of that subset. In the real world, any reasonable theory is tested against data. And what the data tell is that standards of living have never been higher, global poverty has never been lower, and material wealth is more widely distributed than at any point in human history, to the point communism can only look up on speculative, tribal proto-societies to find a flagship model. This isn't just “not what Marx predicted”, it's the opposite of what Marx predicted.

>internationalism is inevitable unless we revert back to feudal subsistence farming
Again some performative claim, no evidence, no definition, no argument, just raw, cult-faith against reality. The workers have never been so keen to get right-wing people in office to fight immigration, against the wishes of the elites, and there's not a shred of evidence to support the idea it will change soon. Again, irrational faith proves the currency of choice for a Marxist.

>>24603475
>>24603184

>Marx was not a genie with a crystal ball who could divine the future
Right, can we then put that idiot back on the shelves with the pre-Socratic who believed Earth was the form of a chariot or a pyramid, and move on?

This conversation is the same again, and again. His method is wrong, his theory doesn't explain much of the current society and its evolution, his vision has been refuted at every step and none of the prediction came out verified, but still, “the critique was right”, “he shed light on how the economic forces oppress us”, “his analysis of capitalism was perfect”. No it wasn't. He shed light on his own mythology. His analyses are half-baked and doesn't explain anything, and you're writing a whole thesis to muddle the issue further. It's a waste of time because it's immune to contradiction, detached from data, and maintained by faith alone. Marxism is unfalsifiable, every failure is explained away, and it is in the most condescending way possible, because whenever you make a point, you 're in fact an ignoramus, shucks. Every contradictory fact is akshually consistent with the dialectic. The revolution didn't happen? False consciousness. The working class prospered? Co-optation. Middle class expanded? Temporary illusion. No matter what happens, the Marxist will absorb it into the gospel. There is no imaginable state of the universe that could disprove it. Marxism is a 19-century doomsday cult dressed in Hegelian prose and pseudo-scientific jargon.

>>24603190

Let's take this argument to its logical conclusion. If automation and AI completely replace labour in a self sustaining self replicating manner. Then the world simply wouldn't need that many people anymore and economy would become an equation of how many people can the automative system sustainably manage. The elites then may have no reason to not cull the human population drastically and let the remainder enjoy the system.

But at that point Agent Smith might be right in saying, "when we started thinking for you, it became our civilisation"

>>24603540
>The elites then may have no reason to not cull the human population drastically and let the remainder enjoy the system.
This is gonna blow your Marxist pea brain but have you considered that "le elites" are also human beings who have empathy and a sense of themselves as moral actors, that all their previous atrocities have been justified at some point, and they would hesitate to order or in some way perform the brutal murder of the majority of the population?

>>24603475
>>24603480

If all you could take away from Marx is his predictions on history and how history did not specifically carve out the path he posited. Then that's a fault of your own ignorance. Quite literally no one can predict how these things can go down, and the point was never to use the theory as a magic crystal ball to see the future. If you wanted Marxism to be astrology then it's a YOU problem.

The fact that your entire critique of Marxism as a concept relies on this one aspect and you disingenuously use it to throw the entire framework away because it did not predict your future like some astrological dogma, then it speaks volumes about your own intellectual dishonesty. Which is common in spades among the anti-marxist crowd who rely on thought ending proclaimations more than intellectual discourse. A telltale sign of midwit knee jerk reactions if there ever was one.

Of course as the world evolved so did Marxism , and marxists/socialists of today do not strictly adhere to all aspects of Marx. And the concepts evolved to better fit in with modern reality. Infact Marx himself warned against making such dogma out of him, since his intention was always to change the world. Some of them even abandoned it altogether which lead to the post structuralism/modernism, which denies all historical frameworks. But I'm sure when the average anti-marxist critiques Marx because Marx couldn't predict when they'll get a gf, they are not coming from a post modernist stand point. Instead it's just a thinly veiled capitalism apology.

>Right, can we then put that idiot back on the shelves with the pre-Socratic who believed Earth was the form of a chariot or a pyramid, and move on?

Sure. When we stop living under capitalism his theories will automatically become obsolete. He ultimately describes capitalism for what it is. It's inherent contradictions and the flaws within the logic of the system. Maybe one day when this stops being our reality we can treat Marx like we treat Plato and pick and chose what is relevant for our times. We kinda already do that anyway since many aspect of Marx's analysis are very 19th century.

But of course such nuance is too much to ask for the thought ending anti-marxist mind which refuses to apply itself let alone gain a modicum of understanding.

>Marxism is unfalsifiable, every failure is explained away

These phenomena that you call "failures" shouldn't have explainations at all according to you. The simple undeniable fact that middle class prosperity exists precisely because of socialist policies is lost on you. You don't want to hear any of it. Because according to you acting like a lobotomised idiot who actually things that capitalism brought millions out of poverty is the superior option

It seems that you are the one who are stuck in dogma. Because it is the dogmatic mind which fears explainations , discussions and discourse.

>>24603667
>>24603480

When pointed out that workers have to literally engage in class warfare just to get the 8 hour work day. You'll close your ears and sing la la la la like an idiot.

Constantly coping and seething by proclaiming that Marxists are "explaining away" their "failures". When in fact the class struggle DID happen. And the middle class (which is quickly evaporating) DID gain prosperity due to socialist government policies.

When faced with these FACTS of history you'll simply close your ears and start shouting NOOOOOOOOOOO YOU ARE TRYING TO EXPLAIN AWAY EVERYTHING NOOOOOOO YOUR DOGMA IS UNFALSIFIABLE NOOOOOO DON'T ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION, DON'T EVEN THINK. THROW AWAY YOUR BRAIN IN THE GARBAGE BIN.

That may worktout well for you but some of us prefer to use our brains.

>>24603540
>The elites then may have no reason to not cull the human population drastically and let the remainder enjoy the system.
But if that is the future, Marx was basically wrong about the evolution of capitalism. Unless you consider a socialism for the elites (with everyone else gone) to be a case of the socialist stage of development.

>>24602024 (OP)
They will be. The next depression/world war will produce another revolutionary period and the new generation of revolutionaries won't make the same mistakes as in 1917-23.

>>24603480

Infact the class struggle is happening right now as we speak all across the world. Sometimes it's overt and sometimes it's covert. But it's there. The logic of capitalism DICTATES that workers will be in a constant struggle to increase their wages and material living conditions against the owners. This dichotomy pretty much dictates the whole political discourse of most modern nations.

And you chose to be blind to it just because you wish to dogmatically reject Marx.

>>24603570

Leaving aside the taste of bootlicking in this post. I never said that the culling would be atrocious in nature. They could simply stop reproduction until only as many people are left as can be SUSTAINABLY managed by the automated system. Birth rates are already falling. Which means the incels among you won't have any future generations with a stake in this supposed utopia.

>Marx was basically wrong about the evolution of capitalism.

Marx works within a framework where labour never stops being irrelevant. The anon I was replying to came up with this scenario where productivity is completely decoupled from labour. Of course in such a scenario Marxist theory will become irrelevant since the whole dialectic would've disappeared.

Marx was not predicting the course of capitalism in a scenario where human labour disappears and human civilisation basically becomes machine civilisation.

>>24603703
>>24603770

>>24602024 (OP)
Just two more weeks bro

74 posts and a lot of yapping yet no Marxist can explain how did Socialist countries like the USSR, China and Vietnam went back to capitalism.
Marx is a Hegelian meaning history has a direction, it makes no sense that a socialist society would go back to capitalism. Even more so because socialism is supposed to be superior to capitalism and yet they all went back

>>24605156
The Soviet Union, China and Vietnam never ceased being capitalist countries as the wage labour system and surplus value determined the structure of capital expansion and class conflict.

Read something: start with Djilas, then Fitzpatrick S.

>>24605156
>>24605350

This just tells you that the advent of communism truly needed to be global with almost a complete reset of the money based imperialist colonial system of trade.

>>24605386
or you know it could involve a self-abolishing proletariat not a nomenklatura state dictatorship?

>>24603697
8 hour work day exists because of social democracy parliemantary struggles, not class warfare. Bargaining is not revolutionary.

>>24605350
There's no private ownership of the means of production in the USSR, Mao's China or Pre Doi Moi Vietnam, therefore they can't be capitalist.

>>24602130
>that's not REAL communism

Illiterate commies got BTFO'd lmao.

>>24605450
You need to expand the contraction for past tenses mate "There was…".

Private capital ownership isn't the capitalist relationship, read the first three chapters of volume 1. Capital is a social relationship of M—C…P…C'—M' etc.

>>24605444
Class struggle is class struggle. Even if what you said was true (which it isn't historically) it won't change the reality of what is going on. Which is the nature of capitalism to suppress the working class as much as possible, forcing the latter to fight back and enter a perpetual struggle for their piece of the pie. And what are "social democracy parliamentry struggles" if not an aspect of that class struggle? Who do you think is politically organising and voting people into parliament who will enact better policies for the working class? It's the working class themselves because if they don't capitalism will crush them. If that's not class struggle (within the parliamentary framework) I don't know what is. You can pretend in your head all you want that this does not vindicate Marx. That we are just "explaining away current events into unfalsifiable Marxist dogma" , as you do when you run out of real arguments.

Of course this is all besides the historical reality that working class literally had to physically fight and engage in literal warfare to get the 8 hour work week.

>>24605512
*Work day

>>24602024 (OP)
Marx came up with this idea that history was a series of revolutions to continuously transfer power into lower and lower classes, so he just assumed this would go on forever until power was distributed evenly among the working class. It's a very easy logical trap to fall into, noticing one trend and assuming it will just go on forever.

The truth about capitalism is that its natural endpoint is neither collapse nor socialism: it's the return of the old pagan slave state, a society where the average worker doesn't have the legal right to turn down a job. The truth about socialism is that every attempt to implement it only takes you to the slave state even faster. It's not really accurate to call a state like China either capitalist or socialist. It's just a slave state. The average Chinese worker can't really be called a proletarian because he has no legal right to withhold his labor, and indeed this legal right must necessarily be taken away by any state that seeks to correct the imbalances of capitalism without restoring the average worker to the kind of private property rights he enjoyed before the Industrial Revolution.

>>24605512
First, you make post hoc rationalisation here. You said "class warfare" and then changed it into "class struggle" to appear helpful and more realistic to the working class.

Second, there is plain difference between communism and social democracy movement.

The former focuses on seizing the mode of production. On the contrary, the later invests its time and energy into more achievable things: regulation and mode of distribution.

Giving credit to Marx for a better working condition is blatantly wrong. The only thing Marx contributed to this world was his political impotency.

>>24602215
Yes, and USA is communist. Read Moldbug.

>>24602024 (OP)
>Why aren't capitalist countries becoming communist like Marx predicted?
I don't know if I believe this, but an argument is that they sort of ARE becoming that on a long-term macro kind of scale. Like the role of the state in the economy is pretty vast including in the United States. Then if you look at what Marx and Engels wrote as some initial ideas for a program in The Communist Manifesto, a lot of those measures have been instituted and are very widely accepted. There's universal public education and a graduated income tax. There has been the combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries (mechanized agriculture / industrial farming). Then certainly China goes further with centralized credit in the hands of the state. So the question is: Did Marx win, actually? What sort of system are we in? Is it neoliberal late-late capitalism or is it a modified communism and is that how all this survived? Like capitalism and communism synthesized rather than destroying each other and the world moved on. We're capitalist-communists! And maybe Marx was just wrong about what that synthesis would look like, or that history would end in a certain way. But at any rate, that's an idea. Hope everyone is doing good.

>>24603705
>They will be. The next depression/world war will produce another revolutionary period and the new generation of revolutionaries won't make the same mistakes as in 1917-23.
They'll make a whole new batch of mistakes! Maybe both Marx and the Great Man theories were wrong, and history's shape takes a warped curve caused by the disasters of inept leaders and the suckers who follow them towards doom. We need a name for it like Colossal Moron Theory. As a high-IQ intellectual myself, it's something I've been giving a lot of thought.

>>24605156
>74 posts and a lot of yapping yet no Marxist can explain how did Socialist countries like the USSR, China and Vietnam went back to capitalism.
They didn't have the material conditions for socialism so the requirements of the economic base won out over the socialist superstructure. NEXT QUESTION.

>>24605623

A lot of words but no substance. Talk to me when you graduate out of playing semantic games and shifting goalposts.

>>24602024 (OP)
test

>>24605958
>No u
Lazy refutation, commie tranny.

>>24602024 (OP)
Did he predict companies determining laws with lobbying money?

>>24605855
Marx thought we would run out of nitrogen for farming. He was a drunk midwit.

the highest value companies in the USA are the ones exclusively propped up by government contracts and subsidies, many of which are military and intelligence related. the only companies that receive continued investment and growth are the ones that are in bed with uncle sam. these companies are entirely reliant upon infinite debt creation by the federal reserve, and the government is entirely dependent upon infinite growth within these companies. everything is continuing along clear dialectical lines, only the classless part has yet to manifest. so maybe you could say marx wasn't entirely right - but hegel?

>>24606432
Why do you try to make this sound like some insidious conspiracy? Those companies simply produce incredibly important products, which often times the government happens to need. Nvidia and Microsoft didn't become the first $4 trillion companies because the government propped them up, but because they are key players in a highly important industry. They generate billions of $ of revenue from the private sector. Government contracts make up a fraction of their earnings.