207
Cowbee enters the chat (crazypeople.online)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
180 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -8 points 5 months ago (10 children)

Marxist theory in so far as it was actually written by Marx and marxists (as opposed to marxist-leninists, a deviant offshot that is mainly just post-hoc justifications for people that ursuped state power for personal gain), is largely in agreement with anarchist theory and most of what Marx wrote in his younger days was summaries and borderline plagiats of earlier anarchist and socialist thinkers. It has some flaws, especially in regards to materialism though, and Marx himself became a reactionary after having a fallout with people that showed him the flaws in his arguments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Lenin wrote his most critical theory before the Bolsheviks succeeded in establishing socialism, for example, Imperialism, the Current Highest Stage of Capitalism was published in 1916, and built on his previous studies of imperialism via the Marxist method. Marxism-Leninism is the living Marxism carried forward to the era of imperialism, and is not a deviation from Marxism but a continuation of it. Marx never became a reactionary, it was the anarchist faction that failed to counter Marx and was thus expelled from the First International. Marx has no weaknesses with respect to materialism as far as I know.

    It would help your points tremendously if you gave any examples of the flaws Marx supposedly has, or the ways Marxism-Leninism is a deviation, rather than a continuation. Instead, this seems to follow your strategy of subjectivism, just labeling things you don't like as counter-revolutionary without critically analyzing them. If you could verbalize how and why you disagree with Marxism-Leninism and Marxism, it would help your arguments enormously, as it stands there's 0 chance you're convincing anyone here, who already largely agrees with Marxism-Leninism, or anyone looking on who can see the MLs bring receipts while you refuse to provide any.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    I did provide plenty of arguments, but you seem to be so deep into the fan-fiction that you fail to understand them. And Materialism as proposed by Marx has little resemblence to how actual societies outside of some extreme resource starved communities work, and there is literally a hundred years plus of literature that shows so. That you still stick to a long disproven theory and see "no flaw" in it should give you plenty of thought about how up to date your other ideas are.

    And yes, Lenin's earlier works had very interested readers in the German state security aparatus at the time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

    You did not provide arguments, you provided categorical declarations without backing them up or contextualizing them. Do you not see how enormously unproductive this is for bringing someone over to your side? Asserting that I simply "don't understand" your supposed arguments is also not going to hold any water, everyone can see plain as day that I have carefully responded exactly to what you've been declaring.

    As for materialism being disproven, again, you don't explain how or why, you just say that it has been, and reference "a hundred plus years of literature" without giving any examples, or explaining how it's supposedly wrong. Who are you trying to convince? Even for the sake of hypothetical, even if it was wrong, if your goal was to convince anyone of your argument, you've given them absolutely nothing to go off of to see if you're correct. All you've done is legitimize Marx, Lenin, and myself with this level of logic.

    As for Lenin's theory, you still haven't actually attacked it. You made the claim that it was all post-hoc, and when this was proven false, you deflected. This is just running away from the argument.

    I ask you again: for what purpose are you commenting? Is this how you try to gain comrades in real life? Do you even try to do so?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    I said the arguments of marxist-leninists are mostly post-hoc, and you responded with one example of an earlier text that Lenin wrote. Kinda funny that you chose to ignore that there are more marxist-leninist writers and the very term was coined by Stalin long after the Bolshevik ursurped power. I am sure you know this, so you are clearly not arguing in good faith.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Stalin, by his own admission, added very, very little to Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is, at its core, laid out by Marx and Lenin. If you mean any retrospective analysis is "post-hoc justification," then this is absurd as retrospection must be post-hoc. If you mean most arguments in general are post-hoc, then you're ignoring the core of Marxism-Leninism that predates socialist states.

    I've been arguing in good faith the entire time, asking you over and over for actual arguments and reading, and you respond with insult. Are you aware of how this presents to onlookers? Do you think you're winning over others?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I am aware that I am not going to win this argument here on lemmy.ml which has long purged or actively driven away anyone that isn't deep into the fan-fiction you seem to agree with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •