this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)

Memes

51387 readers
1308 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

On May 5th, 1818, Karl Marx, hero of the international proletatiat, was born. His revolution of Socialist theory reverberates throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of Capitalism, development of the theory of Scientific Socialism, and advancements on dialectics to become Dialectical Materialism, have all played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.

He didn't always rock his famous beard, when he was younger he was clean shaven!

Some significant works:

Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

The Civil War in France

Wage Labor & Capital

Wages, Price, and Profit

Critique of the Gotha Programme

Manifesto of the Communist Party (along with Engels)

The Poverty of Philosophy

And, of course, Capital Vol I-III

Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don't know where to start? Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!

(page 2) 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Communism is human nature. Communism existed in the Americas and Australia for thousands of years. It probably existed in the rest of the world too before agriculture, but our historical records from other regions were destroyed. By contrast, Australia has the most intact ancient histories in the world.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's important to draw a line between Primitive Communism and Communism as a post-Socialist society. Primitive Communism is founded upon small, isolated communities, while Marx's Communism is one of large industry run along a common plan, democratically, to suit the needs of all.

What's more accurate is to say that what's considered "Human Nature" changes alongside Mode of Production. It was indeed "Human Nature" to have cooperative, communal units, but it is also "Human Nature" to produce under Capitalism, and still further "Human Nature" to move beyond the discordant production of Capitalism to a cohesive Socialist, and eventually Communist, society.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's important to draw a line between Primitive Communism and Communism as a post-Socialist society. Primitive Communism is founded upon small, isolated communities, while Marx's Communism is one of large industry run along a common plan, democratically, to suit the needs of all.

That feels like some noble savage stuff. Societies aren't different because they have different technology with the same economic system. It feels like you're saying indigenous societies wouldn't have been able to industrialise without changing their political system radically.

But indigenous societies made conscious political choices about how to structure society, and drag believes they had the political structure required to adapt to industrialisation without losing their political system.

Drag doesn't buy the distinction you're making between indigenous communism and industrialised communism. Drag doesn't think the difference is relevant to whether something is communism, and the only way drag could see it being relevant is through the noble savage trope.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I believe you're misinterpreting what comrade Cowbee is saying. Primitive here is not a moral term being used to say something is savage, it's merely a descriptor of the system in the past, before the advancements that allow it to take on a new form.

The distinction here is important because both systems are different and because we cannot simply go back to a past mode of production.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thank you comrade, that helps get through what I was trying to say. It's not at all a derogatory and racist term, but one used to describe an earlier mode of production.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm glad to help o7. Your work here is indispensable and greatly appreciated, comrade!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Isn't capitalism itself not only like 100-150 years old?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It really arose during the Industrial Revolution, around 1760. Imperialism, the final stage of Capitalism, began towards the end of the 19th century.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So how is 19th century imperialism different from Roman imperial expansion or Greek colonialism in antiquity for example? Or the various attempts to resurrect the Roman Empire by basically everyone? Why don't we call Roman emperors or Alexander the Great or even Sigismund imperialists? Honest question here, I'm not a historian or anything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

First, it really doesn't matter what we call each system, you can call the older Roman expansionism "Imperialism" and you aren't wrong. What matters specifically is Capitalism as it turns towards Imperialism. We can call it "Capitalist Imperialism" for the sake of clarity, and what's important about it specifically is how it relates to Capitalism.

Capitalist Imperialism largely occurs when a Capitalist nation develops enough to where the economy is dominated by large trusts, rather than small competing factories, when bank Capital and Industrial Capital merge into "Financial Capital," and the only way to continue to compete is to expand outward into foreign markets, essentially where outsourcing labor to the Global South from the Global North occured. This results in a "division of the world among the largest powers," and was the ultimate cause of World War I and World War II.

Colonialism is similar, but wasn't impelled by this system of Capitalism. The necessary distinction is the rise of industrial production and export of Capital to the Global South.

If you want to read more, I recommend Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Lenin's analysis of Imperialism picked up where Marx left off, as Marx had died before he could truly observe Imperialism. Imperialism is actually the reason why Communist revolution never came to the Global North, like Marx predicted, as Imperialism creates a system of bribery for the domestic proletariat and large armies for maintaining this system.

Instead, it came to nations in the Global South, which brought a whole host of questions on how to achieve a post-Capitalist system in countries that were by and large underdeveloped, with large proportions of workers belonging to the peasantry and other non-proletarian classes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Today I honor Cowbee's Sisyphean task of explaining that production/trade and capitalism are two different things 🫡

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›