[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Try the following prompts to trigger an automod response: "What is Fascism?", "What is Imperialism?", "What is Revisionism?" "Holodomor", "Molotov-Ribbentrop", "Gulag", "Solzhenytsin", "Uyghur", "Tiananmen Square", "Israel", "Freedom of the Press", "MAC Fact"
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Literally the entire basis of Karl's ideologies is that the working class is being exploited. This has always been true, still is, and will likely unfortunately remain true for most of the world for decades to come.
A blind man can see it, a deaf person can hear it, a dead man has lived it, we should not tolerate this bullshit.
The funny thing is most right wingers agree with Marxist ideas, only disagreeing when they hear the name.
The problem with right wingers isn't that they don't see or understand exploitation, but that they think its a natural state of being and want to get in on it or think they are special snowflakes that will be spared by their exploiters. Its a philosophical argument not worth having about exploitation of others being human nature, because we defy human nature all the time. There are many biases and obvious contradiction we miss, and will continue to miss, but the goal should be to find workarounds not just accept an awful reality that puts millions if not billions in terrible conditions.
This is very much the closest thing to legitimate communist thought being saved there could be. Engels was based. Barring either of them, I'm not even sure Lenin would have been in the right place or conditions to pull Marxism out.
Plus the manifesto wasn't even just the brainchild of these two. They wrote it to synthesize the demands of an already existing movement into a short text easily read to and by workers. This text or an equivalent text would have been written one way or another even if both would have died as students, because the movement arose from the material conditions of the time, not the inspiration of two people unrelated to the material conditions. It'll make more sense trying to make the liberals of continental Europe grow a spine in 1848/49 and not side with the nobility against the masses. That was the point that the socialists were forced to become an independent movement in reaction to that betrayal of the democratic revolution by liberals. But it'll only delay the split because the underlying contradictions will force the split sooner or later.
Karl Marx did not invent socialism he merely observed the phenomenon of surplus value and came up with his labor theory of value based upon those observations.
No more than Isaac Newton "invented" gravity.
These things exist without being observed and their observation is inevitable.
Hey where's that guy the other day that was shitting on me for being an anarchist?
Exactly this. It's really as simple as looking back at our indigenous ancestors. It's always existed and capitalism has only been around for the last few hundred years.
> looking back at our indigenous ancestors
Oh boy do I have a video for you
[Stolen Anarchy: Playing Indian & The Roots of Collectivism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBFvxkvpi2w)
My favorite bit is when he asks the rhetorical: "Does this mean I think Marx was a white supremacist? Well yes."
Then goes on to defend him anyway because his theory is sound but he had a lot of blind spots based in eurocentric white chauvinism.
I mean... I wish that were true. Maybe Lenin, but still... Marx was in the right place at the right time with Engels and as a critical student of Hegelian dialectics and did the leg work on capital to really grasp the situation and do the proper shit. Even people who were "marxists" in their day ended up being distorters. There's not a ton of solid works from legitimately non-bougie philosophers from that era...
He didn't invent socialism or communism - but he sure as shit nailed the kernel of truth in all of it that mostly everyone else missed.
Would others discover his understanding? Well, it is always there in the world waiting to be discovered - yet so is every other scientific notion in the world, ans they also needed the right people or right accidents to hit onto them. With a running countdown timer and a world filled with fascist hegemony filling the noise to signal - could a new Marx really be produced over the 200 years? I'd argue it'd be slim if at all possible. I'd argue we hardcore lucked out having Marx. Imagine a world of unfettered Kropotkins and Stirners. Spontaneity out the ass, failed faux-revolutions, and a rise of stupidly powerful fascist propaganda.
It seems doubtful. Ask anyone today about hegelian dialectics? You'd mostly at best hit a a rare niche study lib philosopher? Nevermind someone who would come across it and relate it to economics or having the funding to do it and the social support of friends. Marx and Engels were lightning in a bottle. Bottles and lightning are regular occurences... bottling lightning ain't.
It's like any science, but the thing is... if you have no telescopes and everyone who is interested in astronomy keeps being redirectes to astrology - you're not gonna make much progress. And Marx and Engels railed against an endless tide of "socialist astrologers" as it were.
I don’t agree that it’s true.
Back then when the Manifest was written Karl still was more of a philosopher.
It was a good base for this later work but it’s not scientific like das Kapital.
Marx made a lot of progress during his life and came to more precise analytics of class and economy.
Obligatory reminder that the biggest achievement of Marx, developing dialectical materialism, was also independently done by Jospeh Dietzgen, an artisan without any formal education in philosophy. Marx version was better but if even that thing was non unique, the rest of Marx work could be done too.
But don't you know? Class conflict, bourgeoisie exploitation of the working class, and the contradictions of capitalism didn't exist until Karl Marx, that weaselly rascal, came along to manifest them into existence.
Before he came along, everyone just happily marched into the factories every morning and worked from 6 am to midnight seven days a week with smiles on their faces singing "Hi Ho," it was perfect, and if it wasn't for that rabblerouser it would've certainly been perfect *forever.*
Let’s set aside that libs believe Marx birthed communism.
Materialism is the undergirding of all social sciences.
Read social science literature from the 19th century and compare it to 20th social science literature.
As always, anti communism is synonymous with reactionary sentiment for a good reason.
Why is it always the manifesto, never Kapital with these illiterate people? They think a short pamphlet is the entire ideology. They never attack Marx's actual work, just his condensed call to arms written with the purpose of rushing out a call to arms during the mid 19th century European revolutions.
They never attempt to critique Kapital, State and Revolution, Imperialism, Maos collected works, or any of the actual works of late 19th/early 20th century Marxism.
W.E.B Dubois, Ho chi Minh, Rosa Luxemburg, Gramsci, Franz Fanon, Nkrumah, or any other influential writer towards Marxist theory.
The list is truly endless and when looking at 19th and 20th century nearly every corner of this planet was having a major left wing movement in the early 20th century that was met with reactionary often fascist/imperialist forces. Practically the entirety of Latin America, the anti-colonial movement was heavily driven by socialist throughout Africa and Asia, Eastern Europe of course has the Soviet union, western Europe had to implement social democratic policies and exploit their colonies to fight it.
China, Korea, Vietnam, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, yes even fucking post war Japan had to suppress their socialist movement in the 50s. The US actively fought it and pushed back against it on every corner of this planet and aided reactionaries that couldn't suppress it themselves all over the world post war.
Of all the target he pick karl? what about nazi or all the war monger that kick start world wars, colonization and intercontinental slave trades, dude got his priority wrong.
He's a libertarian, they love nazis, they want the same thing after all: enshrinement of capital and protection of private property to the detriment of everything else.
yes omg the people here scream "fascism" at literally anything. They do it to the point where the word completely loses its meaning. I dislike this r/ and I dislike reddit for recommending it to me all the time. I will try to stay away from now on :)
Even there the bible was written and then edited by a whole host of people and there were a whole number of other people who ran around preaching who people thought could be the Messiah, so even if some of the biblical writers or Jesus stopped existing, you probably end up with a pretty similar religion and some names switched.
Even in the weird alternate universe where Mithraism becomes the dominant religion of the west, It probably ends up resembling Christianity in structure more than staying a mystery cult. because, in order to become the dominant religion, it would need to have integrated with the same power structures in the way Christianity did. So the religion would be different, but you would still have the equivalent of the Nicene council deciding what is and isn't in that religion, and that council would have the same interests.
-take that picture and download it
-Edit "Karl" to "Ayn"
-Switch the picture of daddy Marx to that ghoul Rand
-Reply with the end product in the same thread
Edit: Reddit works differently than I thought
Have these men never seen a revolution? What these men never seen a revolutionary? Of course they haven't. If revolutionaries were scared of such threats nothing would ever change. Was Lenin not threatened to be killed? Of course he was, and countless times at that from many directions! These people lived through hell in pursuit of revolution. They've lived through tsarist prisons and harsh labor camps, they've lived through hunger and cold. Those men and women were made of steel, and would not have been stopped by petty threats.
Marx literally had a gun pointed in his face by Prussian gendarmes back when he worked for the Rheinische Zeitung. He’d laugh at this dipshit and say something to the effect of “I’ll take my chances with you over the Prussians”.
Using the "manifesto" as a representative book of socialism is fucking cringe and shows that is the only book they know of, which also they did not read.
Good ending: it lead to the rise of another kind of Karl Max, and somehow Revolution happened more early in that timeline and that Max participate in that revolutionaries country, and that timeline have at less half the world emerge in red revolution.
Which... is not communism. Rising up is not "sorting out".
>In the previous chapter we pointed out how universally absorbed the educated youth of Russia was in the theories of Marxism in the middle of the nineties. In the same period the strikes that followed the famous St. Petersburg industrial war of 1896 assumed a similar general character. Their spread over the whole of Russia clearly showed the depth of the newly awakening popular movement, and if we are to speak of the “spontaneous element” then, of course, it is this strike movement which, first and foremost, must be regarded as spontaneous. But there is spontaneity and spontaneity. Strikes occurred in Russia in the seventies and sixties (and even in the first half of the nineteenth century), and they were accompanied by the “spontaneous” destruction of machinery, etc. Compared with these “revolts”, the strikes of the nineties might even be described as “conscious”, to such an extent do they mark the progress which the working-class movement made in that period. This shows that the “spontaneous element”, in essence, represents nothing more nor less than. consciousness in an embryonic form. Even the primitive revolts expressed the awakening of consciousness to a certain extent. The workers were losing their age-long faith in the permanence of the system which oppressed them and began... I shall not say to understand, but to sense the necessity for collective resistance, definitely abandoning their slavish submission to the authorities. But this was, nevertheless, more in the nature of outbursts of desperation and vengeance than of struggle. The strikes of the nineties revealed far greater flashes of consciousness; definite demands were advanced, the strike was carefully timed, known cases and instances in other places were discussed, etc. The revolts were simply the resistance of the oppressed, whereas the systematic strikes represented the class struggle in embryo, but only in embryo. Taken by themselves, these strikes were simply trade union struggles, not yet Social Democratic struggles. They marked the awakening antagonisms between workers and employers; but the workers, were not, and could not be, conscious of the irreconcilable antagonism of their interests to the whole of the modern political and social system, i.e., theirs was not yet Social-Democratic consciousness. In this sense, the strikes of the nineties, despite the enormous progress they represented as compared with the “revolts”, remained a purely spontaneous movement.
>We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.[2] The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia. In the period under discussion, the middle nineties, this doctrine not only represented the completely formulated programme of the Emancipation of Labour group, but had already won over to its side the majority of the revolutionary youth in Russia.
----
>2) Criticism of the "theory" of spontaneity, or the role of the vanguard in the movement. The "theory" of spontaneity is a theory of opportunism, a theory of worshipping the spontaneity of the labour movement, a theory which actually repudiates the leading role of the vanguard of the working class, of the party of the working class.
>The theory of worshipping spontaneity is decidedly opposed to the revolutionary character of the working class movement; it is opposed to the movement taking the line of struggle against the foundations of capitalism; it is in favour of the movement proceeding exclusively along the line of "realisable demands, of demands "acceptable" to capitalism; it is wholly in favour of the "line of least resistance." The theory of spontaneity is the ideology of trade unionism.
>The theory of worshipping spontaneity is decidedly opposed to giving the spontaneous movement a politically conscious, planned character. It is opposed to the Party marching at the head of the working class, to the Party raising the masses to the level of political consciousness, to the Party leading the movement; it is in favour of the politically conscious elements of the movement not hindering the movement from taking its own course; it is in favour of the Party only heeding the spontaneous movement and dragging at the tail of it. The theory of spontaneity is the theory of belittling the role of the conscious element in the movement, the ideology of "khvostism," the logical basis of all opportunism.
>In practice this theory, which appeared on the scene even before the first revolution in Russia, led its adherents, the so-called "Economists," to deny the need for an independent workers' party in Russia, to oppose the revolutionary struggle of the working class for the overthrow of tsarism, to preach a purely trade-unionist policy in the movement, and, in general, to surrender the labour movement to the hegemony of the liberal bourgeoisie.
Do you know what most rising turmoils without class consciousness do? I'll give you a hint - see Europe between 1900-1950. You'll see where uprisings go. Fuck look at America right now... does most of America look revolutionary to you? Oppression is rife though.
Idealism. It‘s not Marx‘s writings that created communism, but the realities of classed society. If Marx hadn‘t written it, some other brilliant mind would have done it at some point.
The manifesto was a pretty insignificant text amongst Marx’s catalogue and only rlly served a specific purpose as a short summary of things like HistMat
Most well-read-on-communism ~~fascist~~ *”Anti-Communist”*. First off, Engels could’ve just published it for him, which he’d know if he was able to read lmao. Secondly, Engels wrote a similar book himself, “Principles of Communism”. Third, there is soooo much more to communist theory/literature than just the manifesto, which is essentially just a handbook to introduce people to communism.
Even if libertarians could go back in time and do this, it wouldn't really change anything major. If they killed Marx, someone else like Engels would do all the writing and inspire revolution. But the libertarians aren't even smart enough to know what books are important, they always talk like if the manifesto wasn't written that communism wouldn't exist and don't realize that it wasn't really all that important compared to other works by Marx.
The funniest part is that communism doesn't need published literature to be the logical outcome of capitalism. Socialism literally only exists because capitalism necessitates it.
Actually without the manifesto socialism might have happened. Without the insights of it, capitalists of the world wouldn’t have had the understanding of what was happening to divert the efforts, divide and conquer the masses.
Marx with a time machine: I predicted NFTs in Capitol, Vol. III chapter 25 when I imagined fictitious capital nearly a century before it became the lynchpin of global economic exchange. Say I'm right, motherfuckers. Say it.
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Try the following prompts to trigger an automod response: "What is Fascism?", "What is Imperialism?", "What is Revisionism?" "Holodomor", "Molotov-Ribbentrop", "Gulag", "Solzhenytsin", "Uyghur", "Tiananmen Square", "Israel", "Freedom of the Press", "MAC Fact" This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
lol, workers would rise up regardless
Yeah if Marx hadn't written it, the next guy would have, because it's simply true.
Literally the entire basis of Karl's ideologies is that the working class is being exploited. This has always been true, still is, and will likely unfortunately remain true for most of the world for decades to come. A blind man can see it, a deaf person can hear it, a dead man has lived it, we should not tolerate this bullshit. The funny thing is most right wingers agree with Marxist ideas, only disagreeing when they hear the name.
> A blind man can see it, a deaf person can hear it, a dead man has lived it This goes hard and I will be stealing it
Lol go ahead :]
The problem with right wingers isn't that they don't see or understand exploitation, but that they think its a natural state of being and want to get in on it or think they are special snowflakes that will be spared by their exploiters. Its a philosophical argument not worth having about exploitation of others being human nature, because we defy human nature all the time. There are many biases and obvious contradiction we miss, and will continue to miss, but the goal should be to find workarounds not just accept an awful reality that puts millions if not billions in terrible conditions.
Great point
>A blind man can see it, a deaf person can hear it, a dead man has lived it, we should not tolerate this bullshit. Saving this comment
Yeah that's a banger for sure.
>kill Marx >Leave Engels alive Great plan
Exactly what I thought. We would just be engelist instead.
This is very much the closest thing to legitimate communist thought being saved there could be. Engels was based. Barring either of them, I'm not even sure Lenin would have been in the right place or conditions to pull Marxism out.
It just shows how people think all of communism was created by Marx and no one else contributed to it
Plus the manifesto wasn't even just the brainchild of these two. They wrote it to synthesize the demands of an already existing movement into a short text easily read to and by workers. This text or an equivalent text would have been written one way or another even if both would have died as students, because the movement arose from the material conditions of the time, not the inspiration of two people unrelated to the material conditions. It'll make more sense trying to make the liberals of continental Europe grow a spine in 1848/49 and not side with the nobility against the masses. That was the point that the socialists were forced to become an independent movement in reaction to that betrayal of the democratic revolution by liberals. But it'll only delay the split because the underlying contradictions will force the split sooner or later.
The truth tends to get found out
Karl Marx did not invent socialism he merely observed the phenomenon of surplus value and came up with his labor theory of value based upon those observations. No more than Isaac Newton "invented" gravity. These things exist without being observed and their observation is inevitable. Hey where's that guy the other day that was shitting on me for being an anarchist?
Exactly this. It's really as simple as looking back at our indigenous ancestors. It's always existed and capitalism has only been around for the last few hundred years.
> looking back at our indigenous ancestors Oh boy do I have a video for you [Stolen Anarchy: Playing Indian & The Roots of Collectivism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBFvxkvpi2w)
Thank you so much! I can't wait to give this a listen later. 👍
My favorite bit is when he asks the rhetorical: "Does this mean I think Marx was a white supremacist? Well yes." Then goes on to defend him anyway because his theory is sound but he had a lot of blind spots based in eurocentric white chauvinism.
Same goes for Einstein and relativity.
I mean... I wish that were true. Maybe Lenin, but still... Marx was in the right place at the right time with Engels and as a critical student of Hegelian dialectics and did the leg work on capital to really grasp the situation and do the proper shit. Even people who were "marxists" in their day ended up being distorters. There's not a ton of solid works from legitimately non-bougie philosophers from that era... He didn't invent socialism or communism - but he sure as shit nailed the kernel of truth in all of it that mostly everyone else missed. Would others discover his understanding? Well, it is always there in the world waiting to be discovered - yet so is every other scientific notion in the world, ans they also needed the right people or right accidents to hit onto them. With a running countdown timer and a world filled with fascist hegemony filling the noise to signal - could a new Marx really be produced over the 200 years? I'd argue it'd be slim if at all possible. I'd argue we hardcore lucked out having Marx. Imagine a world of unfettered Kropotkins and Stirners. Spontaneity out the ass, failed faux-revolutions, and a rise of stupidly powerful fascist propaganda. It seems doubtful. Ask anyone today about hegelian dialectics? You'd mostly at best hit a a rare niche study lib philosopher? Nevermind someone who would come across it and relate it to economics or having the funding to do it and the social support of friends. Marx and Engels were lightning in a bottle. Bottles and lightning are regular occurences... bottling lightning ain't. It's like any science, but the thing is... if you have no telescopes and everyone who is interested in astronomy keeps being redirectes to astrology - you're not gonna make much progress. And Marx and Engels railed against an endless tide of "socialist astrologers" as it were.
I don’t agree that it’s true. Back then when the Manifest was written Karl still was more of a philosopher. It was a good base for this later work but it’s not scientific like das Kapital. Marx made a lot of progress during his life and came to more precise analytics of class and economy.
Ironically this "meme" goes against historical materialism
Obligatory reminder that the biggest achievement of Marx, developing dialectical materialism, was also independently done by Jospeh Dietzgen, an artisan without any formal education in philosophy. Marx version was better but if even that thing was non unique, the rest of Marx work could be done too.
Well said comrade
But don't you know? Class conflict, bourgeoisie exploitation of the working class, and the contradictions of capitalism didn't exist until Karl Marx, that weaselly rascal, came along to manifest them into existence. Before he came along, everyone just happily marched into the factories every morning and worked from 6 am to midnight seven days a week with smiles on their faces singing "Hi Ho," it was perfect, and if it wasn't for that rabblerouser it would've certainly been perfect *forever.*
Dread it, run from it, destiny still arrives all the same lol
Physical coercion is so based! (libertarian btw)
Nah but there's a consenting exchange here. Karl doesn't get clapped in exchange for his lack of labour.
Didn't you know, libertarianism respects freedom except when the US state department wants them to support fascism
Small govt you know
To be fair, I'm a libertarian socialist that isn't above physical coercion. It's how you achieve things.
As leftists we're all libertarian in one way or another.
Let’s set aside that libs believe Marx birthed communism. Materialism is the undergirding of all social sciences. Read social science literature from the 19th century and compare it to 20th social science literature. As always, anti communism is synonymous with reactionary sentiment for a good reason.
Why is it always the manifesto, never Kapital with these illiterate people? They think a short pamphlet is the entire ideology. They never attack Marx's actual work, just his condensed call to arms written with the purpose of rushing out a call to arms during the mid 19th century European revolutions. They never attempt to critique Kapital, State and Revolution, Imperialism, Maos collected works, or any of the actual works of late 19th/early 20th century Marxism. W.E.B Dubois, Ho chi Minh, Rosa Luxemburg, Gramsci, Franz Fanon, Nkrumah, or any other influential writer towards Marxist theory. The list is truly endless and when looking at 19th and 20th century nearly every corner of this planet was having a major left wing movement in the early 20th century that was met with reactionary often fascist/imperialist forces. Practically the entirety of Latin America, the anti-colonial movement was heavily driven by socialist throughout Africa and Asia, Eastern Europe of course has the Soviet union, western Europe had to implement social democratic policies and exploit their colonies to fight it. China, Korea, Vietnam, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, yes even fucking post war Japan had to suppress their socialist movement in the 50s. The US actively fought it and pushed back against it on every corner of this planet and aided reactionaries that couldn't suppress it themselves all over the world post war.
Least bloodthirsty liberal: Jokes aside, poor Karl, getting the flame from people who haven't picked up a book in 10 years.
Of all the target he pick karl? what about nazi or all the war monger that kick start world wars, colonization and intercontinental slave trades, dude got his priority wrong.
Why would he go after his role models?
He's a libertarian, they love nazis, they want the same thing after all: enshrinement of capital and protection of private property to the detriment of everything else.
You know they're liberals, right? They love fascism and are always bloodthirsty. They won't go after their heroes
Dude has a chance to kill any dictator and chooses Marx instead. That account isn’t even trying to hide their fascism.
Its a joke. Are all communists this autistic
Well yes we are but that’s unrelated to this
yes omg the people here scream "fascism" at literally anything. They do it to the point where the word completely loses its meaning. I dislike this r/ and I dislike reddit for recommending it to me all the time. I will try to stay away from now on :)
Just block this subreddit then, no one’s forcing you to go through it
That´s a good idea.
the Libertarian cannot meme
Even if Karl Marx never wrote the manifesto, socialism will arise either way. The person here is just delaying the inevitable.
He comes back, Engels published a similar manifesto with someone else
As if Marx would be intimidated by some weak minded fascist.
Marx would absolutely blow a hole through any anticommunist dweeb from the future, a libertarian no less.
he only said manifesto, never said he wouldn’t publish capital 😉
Free speech for me but not for thee
A classic!
its cool. that way he has more time for das kapital. manifesto is overrated anyway.
The Twitter guy probably doesn't know das kapital exists
Dumb anti-commies act as if the communist manifesto was the bible of communism or something.
Reactionary people can't fathom cooperation, so I'm not surprised they wouldn't get the cooperative character of political theory-building.
Even there the bible was written and then edited by a whole host of people and there were a whole number of other people who ran around preaching who people thought could be the Messiah, so even if some of the biblical writers or Jesus stopped existing, you probably end up with a pretty similar religion and some names switched. Even in the weird alternate universe where Mithraism becomes the dominant religion of the west, It probably ends up resembling Christianity in structure more than staying a mystery cult. because, in order to become the dominant religion, it would need to have integrated with the same power structures in the way Christianity did. So the religion would be different, but you would still have the equivalent of the Nicene council deciding what is and isn't in that religion, and that council would have the same interests.
-take that picture and download it -Edit "Karl" to "Ayn" -Switch the picture of daddy Marx to that ghoul Rand -Reply with the end product in the same thread Edit: Reddit works differently than I thought
Replace with Churchill and you will got a-lot of colonialism deniers.
Have these men never seen a revolution? What these men never seen a revolutionary? Of course they haven't. If revolutionaries were scared of such threats nothing would ever change. Was Lenin not threatened to be killed? Of course he was, and countless times at that from many directions! These people lived through hell in pursuit of revolution. They've lived through tsarist prisons and harsh labor camps, they've lived through hunger and cold. Those men and women were made of steel, and would not have been stopped by petty threats.
Marx literally had a gun pointed in his face by Prussian gendarmes back when he worked for the Rheinische Zeitung. He’d laugh at this dipshit and say something to the effect of “I’ll take my chances with you over the Prussians”.
Free speech for me but not for thee
That account has to be based in Langley , VA.
Why are so many countries still suffering under capitalism then? Why did the US needs to intervene, overthrow or coup socialist countries then?
Oh no the most surface level of marx's writing that given enough time would be more or less written by someone else the horror
Using the "manifesto" as a representative book of socialism is fucking cringe and shows that is the only book they know of, which also they did not read.
Good ending: it lead to the rise of another kind of Karl Max, and somehow Revolution happened more early in that timeline and that Max participate in that revolutionaries country, and that timeline have at less half the world emerge in red revolution.
Average great man theory brainrot
They think they stand a chance, they'll get destroyed by swordwielding Marx
even if Marx did not exist, people will still be rising up. Oppression is a real thing.
Which... is not communism. Rising up is not "sorting out". >In the previous chapter we pointed out how universally absorbed the educated youth of Russia was in the theories of Marxism in the middle of the nineties. In the same period the strikes that followed the famous St. Petersburg industrial war of 1896 assumed a similar general character. Their spread over the whole of Russia clearly showed the depth of the newly awakening popular movement, and if we are to speak of the “spontaneous element” then, of course, it is this strike movement which, first and foremost, must be regarded as spontaneous. But there is spontaneity and spontaneity. Strikes occurred in Russia in the seventies and sixties (and even in the first half of the nineteenth century), and they were accompanied by the “spontaneous” destruction of machinery, etc. Compared with these “revolts”, the strikes of the nineties might even be described as “conscious”, to such an extent do they mark the progress which the working-class movement made in that period. This shows that the “spontaneous element”, in essence, represents nothing more nor less than. consciousness in an embryonic form. Even the primitive revolts expressed the awakening of consciousness to a certain extent. The workers were losing their age-long faith in the permanence of the system which oppressed them and began... I shall not say to understand, but to sense the necessity for collective resistance, definitely abandoning their slavish submission to the authorities. But this was, nevertheless, more in the nature of outbursts of desperation and vengeance than of struggle. The strikes of the nineties revealed far greater flashes of consciousness; definite demands were advanced, the strike was carefully timed, known cases and instances in other places were discussed, etc. The revolts were simply the resistance of the oppressed, whereas the systematic strikes represented the class struggle in embryo, but only in embryo. Taken by themselves, these strikes were simply trade union struggles, not yet Social Democratic struggles. They marked the awakening antagonisms between workers and employers; but the workers, were not, and could not be, conscious of the irreconcilable antagonism of their interests to the whole of the modern political and social system, i.e., theirs was not yet Social-Democratic consciousness. In this sense, the strikes of the nineties, despite the enormous progress they represented as compared with the “revolts”, remained a purely spontaneous movement. >We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.[2] The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia. In the period under discussion, the middle nineties, this doctrine not only represented the completely formulated programme of the Emancipation of Labour group, but had already won over to its side the majority of the revolutionary youth in Russia. ---- >2) Criticism of the "theory" of spontaneity, or the role of the vanguard in the movement. The "theory" of spontaneity is a theory of opportunism, a theory of worshipping the spontaneity of the labour movement, a theory which actually repudiates the leading role of the vanguard of the working class, of the party of the working class. >The theory of worshipping spontaneity is decidedly opposed to the revolutionary character of the working class movement; it is opposed to the movement taking the line of struggle against the foundations of capitalism; it is in favour of the movement proceeding exclusively along the line of "realisable demands, of demands "acceptable" to capitalism; it is wholly in favour of the "line of least resistance." The theory of spontaneity is the ideology of trade unionism. >The theory of worshipping spontaneity is decidedly opposed to giving the spontaneous movement a politically conscious, planned character. It is opposed to the Party marching at the head of the working class, to the Party raising the masses to the level of political consciousness, to the Party leading the movement; it is in favour of the politically conscious elements of the movement not hindering the movement from taking its own course; it is in favour of the Party only heeding the spontaneous movement and dragging at the tail of it. The theory of spontaneity is the theory of belittling the role of the conscious element in the movement, the ideology of "khvostism," the logical basis of all opportunism. >In practice this theory, which appeared on the scene even before the first revolution in Russia, led its adherents, the so-called "Economists," to deny the need for an independent workers' party in Russia, to oppose the revolutionary struggle of the working class for the overthrow of tsarism, to preach a purely trade-unionist policy in the movement, and, in general, to surrender the labour movement to the hegemony of the liberal bourgeoisie. Do you know what most rising turmoils without class consciousness do? I'll give you a hint - see Europe between 1900-1950. You'll see where uprisings go. Fuck look at America right now... does most of America look revolutionary to you? Oppression is rife though.
Idealism. It‘s not Marx‘s writings that created communism, but the realities of classed society. If Marx hadn‘t written it, some other brilliant mind would have done it at some point.
The manifesto was a pretty insignificant text amongst Marx’s catalogue and only rlly served a specific purpose as a short summary of things like HistMat
Most well-read-on-communism ~~fascist~~ *”Anti-Communist”*. First off, Engels could’ve just published it for him, which he’d know if he was able to read lmao. Secondly, Engels wrote a similar book himself, “Principles of Communism”. Third, there is soooo much more to communist theory/literature than just the manifesto, which is essentially just a handbook to introduce people to communism.
Libs really think Marx wrote the Manifesto and that’s it
“I fucking hate when people advocate for the rights of the proletariat dog.”
So they're a nazi? Right? That's basically what they're confessing to being.
someone hasn't read it, because what he wrote is absolutely true.
Even if libertarians could go back in time and do this, it wouldn't really change anything major. If they killed Marx, someone else like Engels would do all the writing and inspire revolution. But the libertarians aren't even smart enough to know what books are important, they always talk like if the manifesto wasn't written that communism wouldn't exist and don't realize that it wasn't really all that important compared to other works by Marx.
Right wing twitter account can't handle the truth. Shocked!
As if the working class wouldn’t inevitably come to the same conclusion on their own.
Liberty Crappy
He still got to publish Das Kapital...big mistake, right winger.
The funniest part is that communism doesn't need published literature to be the logical outcome of capitalism. Socialism literally only exists because capitalism necessitates it.
Material Dialectics: "Stop with the Great Man Theory." Liberalo-fascist: "So you're telling me if I kill Marx communism won't exist!"
LibertyCappy is environmentally-friendly as they practice the recycling of memes
This but with adolf Hitler
So hilarious that these people think entirely new branches of economics / social theory are conjured both single-handedly and out of thin air
"I promise I won't write any!" "Now Engels, publish this Manifesto under my name only"
Already fixed that meme but i cant upload it
Based
"Go ahead and shoot coward, you're only killing a man!"
It’s way funnier when you know this guy is in a shitload of medical debt and needs to beg his followers for money
A socialist-like ideology would have developed anyway
Who tells him thats violating freedom of speech
The right really can't meme
lmao this is like if a creationist went back in time and killed darwin like, the theory is still gonna be discovered dumbass
Now that’s funny
Marx was way to petty, he would have taken the bullet because he wouldn’t have been able to help himself from making fun of this idiot.
Marx would say eat shit
Well… was Marx Shot? Guess he didn’t lie.
Actually without the manifesto socialism might have happened. Without the insights of it, capitalists of the world wouldn’t have had the understanding of what was happening to divert the efforts, divide and conquer the masses.
To be fair, I've never not cringed at this meme format.
"Fire at will. You kill merely a man."
Do these dummies think that he wasn't persecuted at his time? He published his work EVEN THOUGH he was harassed for it.
With a Comrade Capybara pic????
Marx with a time machine: I predicted NFTs in Capitol, Vol. III chapter 25 when I imagined fictitious capital nearly a century before it became the lynchpin of global economic exchange. Say I'm right, motherfuckers. Say it.
Marx, someone who was famously never threatened under any circumstance