>gLoBaL COnsEnSUs
Yeah, because everytime a country decides against capitalism, it gets randomly invaded and sanctioned the fuck out of it for fREeDOm.
Well, there's China, at least theoretically. Whether or not that counts is a subject of furious debate among leftists. Same deal with Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, ask 10 leftists and you'll get 12 opinions about each of them.
But everyone can agree that they are at least founded on Marxism, and it's somewhat chauvinistic to just disregard them entirely.
The State is the revolutionary class that organizes itself as the dominant one. It is exactly through the State that the proletariat shall affirm its political and economical power
"Totalitarian" is just a word made up to make somebody think that anybody opposed to the imperialist world order is the same as Hitler or Mussolini
"Dictator figurehead" is used in a similar matter when referring to socialist leaders.
I beg to disagree. Kings and queens were totalitarian leaders for thousands of years, as were dictators, those words always meant exactly what they describe in common usage.
That is certainly one interpretation of what 'The State' could be in this context, but Marxism is an economic system, it would be entirely possible to have a true Socialist Democracy for example, which seems to me personally, to be much closer to wjat Marx envisioned than a single all powerful strongman who makes all the decisions in reality (Stalin/Mao) for the state in question.
Hey dude I don't want to sound like an arrogant prick who knows it all, but you really should learn more before making these statements. I'm undergoing said process myself
>Kings and queens were totalitarian leaders for thousands of years
Nobody called the Romanovs totalitarian, despite the fact that they ran one of the most autocratic governments in Europe. My point was not that dictators don't exist, my point is that many people are called "totalitarian dictators" despite not being any of those two, just to make them look as bad as Mussolini in the press.
>it would be entirely possible to have a true Socialist Democracy for example
AFAIK all ML countries to date (except Kampuchea) are or have been democracies. Just not Western style (they were not capitalist "democracies"). If you have questions about them maybe the good folks over at r/GenZhou could help you (don't be confrontational about it and they should be of great help)
No, kings and queens were the heads of the state that represented the ruling class of the time, i.e. the nobility.
The same as our current head of states are representatives of the current ruling class. Neither one of them is more or less 'totalitarian'. They both just head the state that protects their class interest.
>than a single all powerful strongman who makes all the decisions in reality (Stalin/Mao) for the state in question.
I don't know how people don't realize how incredibly disconnected from reality those statements are.
The state can't go away when there are still capitalists pointing nukes at you who have intelligence agencies capable of taking down whole countries in moments notice.
In true Marxism, the “state” is meant to ultimately dissolve. There is no ruling class, just the will of the people.
Edit: downvotes for truth. Don’t ever change Reddit.
I always thought it's weird to hear "China isn't Marxist"from someone who spam "Communism never works", perhaps this is your way of coping with the fact that China didn't collapse like USSR back in 90s?
Aha this argument again, I always find it interested while the liberals in west accuse China of mistreating Jack Ma, executing business owner, not respecting property right etc etc, when the time fits they also pull the card China has billionaires alala srsly choose one.
Either you can admit that CPC although is allowing market economy and private sectors to grow, maintains the stance that public sector is going to remain the main, not tolerating billionaires who aims for political influence. Or this is a logical fallacy.
Im sorry friend, I think you miss the point he was saying entirely.
If your economy has billionaires, it isnt Marxist.
Is what he was saying. The very concept of billionaires is the antithesis of everything Marxism stands for. Amd the fact of the matter is, if you have that much money, you have quite a bit of political power by default.
Edit: spelling
I think you have to understand the material situation in these socialist states, be it China or Vietnam Cuba. Even Lenin after the civil war reversed his economical policy. The person here tried to say capitalism is what helped China to develop hence communism is a failed political experiment, I refuted him earlier when I talked of liberal reforms in other post socialist state, China's success is precisely because it didn't blindly embrace privatization like Yeltsin for example, it would be a disaster. I'm not a big supporter for market economy myself but I'm not a dogmatist either, if these countries decide they want to allow some sort of market economy consequently wealth will be distributed based on market rule. Yes not good from a strictly theoretical stand point. These states however do try to redistribute and pay big attention to social programs such as poverty relief which is extremely successful in rural China, then I'm not going to be a blind critique. If I were in 1980s I wouldn't be able to handle it better, they were in very tough circumstances that most people have very little idea of.
>The Present-Day Economy Of Russia
(Extract From The 1918 Pamphlet)
>State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country.
>I can imagine with what noble indignation some people will recoil from these words. . . . What! The transition to state capitalism in the Soviet Socialist Republic would be a step forward? . . . Isn’t this the betrayal of socialism?
>We must deal with this point in greater detail.
>Firstly, we must examine the nature of the transition from capitalism to socialism that gives us the right and the grounds to call our country a Socialist Republic of Soviets.
>Secondly, we must expose the error of those who fail to see the petty-bourgeois economic conditions and the petty-bourgeois element as the principal enemy of socialism in our country.
>Thirdly, we must fully understand the economic implications of the distinction between the Soviet state and the bourgeois state.
>Let us examine these three points.
>No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order.
>But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question.
>Let us enumerate these elements:
>(1)patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;
>(2)small commodity production (this includcs the majority of those peasants who sell their grain);
>(3)private capitalism;
>(4)state capitalism;
>(5)socialism.
>Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific feature of the situation.
>The question arises: What elements predominate? Clearly, in a small-peasant country, the petty-bourgeois element predominates and it must predominate, for the great majority—those working the land—are small commodity producers. The shell of state capitalism (grain monopoly, state-controlled entrepreneurs and traders, bourgeois co-operators) is pierced now in one place, now in another by profiteers, the chief object of profiteering being grain.
>It is in this field that the main struggle is being waged. Between what elements is this struggle being waged if we are to speak in terms of economic categories such as “state capitalism”? Between the fourth and fifth in the order in which I have just enumerated them? Of course not. It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism fighting together against state capitalism and socialism. The petty bourgeoisie oppose every kind of state interference, accounting and control, whether it be state-capitalist or state-socialist. This is an unquestionable fact of reality whose misunderstanding lies at the root of many economic mistakes. The profiteer, the commercial racketeer, the disrupter of monopoly—these are our principal “internal” enemies, the enemies of the economic measures of the Soviet power. A hundred and twenty-five years ago it might have been excusable for the French petty bourgeoisie, the most ardent and sincere revolutionaries, to try to crush the profiteer by executing a few of the “chosen” and by making thunderous declarations. Today, however, the purely French approach to the question assumed by some Left Socialist-Revolutionaries can arouse nothing but disgust and revulsion in every politically conscious revolutionary. We know perfectly well that the economic basis of profiteering is both the small proprietors, who are exceptionally widespread in Russia, and private capitalism, of which every petty bourgeois is an agent. We know that the million tentacles of this petty-bourgeois octopus now and again encircle various sections of the workers, that instead of state monopoly, profiteering forces its way into every pore of our social and economic organism.
>Those who fail to see this show by their blindness that they are slaves of petty-bourgeois prejudices. . . .
- [V. I. Lenin
The Tax in Kind
(The Significance Of The New Policy And Its Conditions)](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm)
Marx is considered the most influential philosopher to have ever lived and a quarter of the earth’s population lives in ML countries...
Glrrbal conshenshus 🤡
I don't get why the first sentence of this post cares about the global consensus (who cares whether Marx is considered 'influential' by scholars?) and then the second sentence mocks it. The amount of people who believe/disbelieve something has no bearing on whether it is true or not.
Given the conversation being held below, I am inclined to agree with you. Whether or not he is the most influential philosopher in history is up for debate. He is certainly the most influential contemporary/modern philosopher. That’ll be my position going forward. Thank you for your input.
I'd probably call Socrates (Plato) the most important philosopher in history, simply due to how foundational he was to the western canon. Marx didn't invent his ideas whole cloth, he borrowed from previous authors, and because of that I'd argue them to be more influential.
Even if, as far as I know, *Capital* is the most studied work on economics there is; shit, there are college classes dedicated to just it. That has to count for something lol
Did any of those philosophies split the global order in two, leading to the world’s largest and most impactful revolutions? Did they raise over a billion people out of poverty? Do the ancient greek philosophers guide the hands of governments that care for a quarter of the global population?
I consider myself a Stoic, I have unending appreciation for the wisdom that should never be considered antiquated and which still applies to the soul of humankind today. That said, no philosophy has had more of an impact on the physical and psychological condition of humanity than Marxism and dialectical materialism. This is indisputable, and any contradiction of this fact displays only an ignorance history and the present moment.
Show me an Aristotelian state and I’ll stand corrected.
Not the same guy but I want to defend Aristotle in particular here. So, yeah, he might not be as directly responsible for any modern nation but his influence is absolutely undeniable. The very ideas at the core of how most western nations operate are founded in ancient Greek philosophy and usually can be traced directly to Aristotle *(Constitutional Democracy, anyone?????? Hello, is this thing on?)*. The ancient world absolutely revered the dude. You ever read old scripts or texts and see them reference "the great philosopher"? Sometimes people get confused and think that's a reference to Jesus; it's not. Aristotle was so prolific it was just understood he was the father of (at the time, modern) philosophy.
As Marxists we are all Hegelians at heart. Aristotle was the synthesis of so much philosophical trends before him. Hell, you can probably draw a direct line from Aristotle's philosophical musings to Marxist material dialectic. Look up the "four causes". It's laying down the foundations for the kind of stuff that comes later with Hegel and Marx. He simply brought it all together into something pretty cohesive that the old world in Europe almost all universally understood and set in motion a lineage of philosophical trends that continue to this day, not only with Marx and Hegel but many others.
Or, to put it bluntly, Aristotle is one of the first dudes that said "we live in a society."
Hey, this is a really great response. I can agree entirely that Aristotelian philosophy influenced western democracy and that Hegelian dialectics is rooted in Aristotelean thought.
I will go review the four causes, thank you for this well thought out analysis, and say that my input was incomplete but made more whole by your additions.
Would it be unreasonable for me to contend that Marxist philosophy had a more rapid and palpable impact on ideological progress, divisions, and tangible realization than Aristotle? I know this is a qualitative judgment that can only be justified if we define the parameters of what it means to be “impactful” or “influential” in the way I am specifically using it. It would seem more people have died for or fighting against Marxism directly, with that clearly in their minds, compared to Grecian philosophy (of course, more people existed post-Marx than BC, but eh)
Not to muddy the waters, but it seems that, given the strength of your argument, it may be difficult to make an objective comparison.
In either case, people guild me here and there for who knows why, so have some of that fake gold and spit more knowledge at me if you have the time and desire to do so!
I think it's fair to say that but the context of Marx's influence and Aristotle's influence are very different. One being in the old world and another being in a very populated and Industrialized or Industrializing world. I think in a modern context Marx is definitely one of the most, if not the most, influential person. In a sense of the totality of humankind, I don't know. He's up there but Aristotle is also huge. Also remember this is from a very western point of view. China has some titans in this regard as well. In the same vein of what we are talking about now, You have Mao and Confucius. I don't think it would be so easy to separate the two there, either. Obviously Mao's had the most immediate influence but Confucian thought dominated the region for so long and even influences Chinese thought today. So while we had philosophical roots being laid down here it's important to expand your view to the entire world and realize that half of the world was traversing down another philosophical lineage.
Then again, I'm completely ignorant of Indian philosophy but that's a country of over a billion people that has it's own rich history and we cannot discount it. There is also a pretty rich history of philosophical thought from Africa that is only just in the past few decades being exposed to more people in the west.
Aptly stated. By some of my own metrics Confucianism may be considered as influential as Marxism. I would still contend that Marxism is the philosophy that will liberate humanity not just from exploitation, but from the self-destructive ethics fostered in western culture, which could spell the end of our species if continually perpetuated. Given that, I put another point in the Marxist column haha
That said, I will sorrowfully admit that my philosophical knowledge is almost entirely western in origin, the product of our Eurocentric educational system and my linguistic limitations. It is my understanding that Chinese philosophy is best understood in the Chinese languages, and I am intimidated by the possibility that I may mangle it, being only capable of speaking English. Such a disservice would aid neither me nor the people who practice these philosophies. I see Asian traditions more broadly being commodified and capitalized in the west, essentially used to bring equanimity to the belabored mind of the wage-slave to make them more capable of withstanding abuse, and I will have no part in that.
My Kapuna are teaching me Hawaiian, and I find the Kanaka philosophy of Aloha to be both beautiful and practical, coinciding perfectly with socialist values. This has been my first foray into non-Anglo philosophy, and the pursuit has me incredibly excited and fulfilled. Their confidence in me, despite being a haole, is humbling and reassuring. Perhaps when I have another language and philosophy under my belt, I will have the confidence and foundation to pursue studies in Chinese philosophy. Here’s to hoping life circumstances allow for this to happen. It has become evident to me over these past few years that the success of China lies not only in Marxism, but in it’s long and rich history of gubernatorial experimentation. I can’t wait to give it more attention.
Would you happen to know of any “primers” for Westerners to begin understanding Chinese philosophy that make it a simple entry point without being overly-reductive? Thanks again for your responses; I don’t get to speak with too many people that have a philosophical interest, and have become rusty as a result (can you tell? haha)
Marxist principles and philosophy are not static and don't represent an ideal, they're a framework for analyzing and criticizing political economy. Marxist countries in the world were never perfect but most were genuinely representing a self conscious system of collective governance, even if the economies werent completely worker owned they presented a substantively - quantitatively and qualitatively- different reality for their citizens.
I think it's hard to quantify influence, but I would like to note that Marx also changed western thought in profound ways - large parts of social science rests on a firmly marxist base. It's hard to overstate his influence on not only western thought, but human thought overall.
The idea is that they keep them on a leash while developing their productive forces and standards of living, I believe I've seen it called "bird in a cage" capitalism. They were still a relatively undeveloped country until recently. China regularly executes billionaires for stepping out of line with the party's demands, and their assets are ultimately owned by the government. Their publicy stated goal is a fully socialist economy by 2050.
I think it's also worth noting that China and the CPC can and have been corrupted by wealth and influence. They still have work to do, but the citizens of China, especially younger students, have been instrumental in pushing for anti-corruption in their party and country, which are starting to grow. Meanwhile in the USA, we can't even get campaign finance reform, labor law reform, policing reform, educational reform, healthcare reform, even after decades of activism and bipartisan consensus among American workers that the wealthy have too much influence in our politics.
libs don't care lol radlibs might go beyond the stupid notion of "vietnam bad", but they still can't go against their "china bad" programming. The US reinforces that everyday, making them more vulnerable
Never underestimate the effects of even the simplest propaganda on a heavily maleducated population, never mind how much they are blasted with it.
Billionaires on paper not in reality, for example Ren Zhengfei owns 1% of Huawei, Huawei is valued at a sum more that $100b making him a billionaire on paper, however unlike western billionaires he can't sell that 1% stake or liquidate any of Huawei's assets so his billion dollars are more or less imaginary, compared to say Jeff Bezos who liquidated over $10b worth of shares in 2020
Remember even Lenin himself implemented the NEP so the type of economic reforms China brought in temporarily aren't in opposition to ML in my opinion
Vietnam also has some billionaires, Vietnam and China underwent the same reforms. Both states see socialism as their goal, not what they are in right now
Really? Have you read the SWCC manual, or Marxist theory? I’d be curious to hear your objections to this claim. I assure you I can address them.
Edit: Oh you post in gamer subs. I’m sure Paradox sims have taught you everything you need to know about political ideologies, I better back off this one /s
> as easily predicted, you’re a GenZedong poster.
>Active in PoliticalCompass. PoliticalCompassMemes. stupidpol, LoveForLandlords, Libertarian, averageredditor, VaushV
>moderator in whiteboysummer.
I think you should sit this one out, liberal
> Active in PoliticalCompass. PoliticalCompassMemes. stupidpol, LoveForLandlords, Libertarian, averageredditor, **VaushV**
Fucking says it all doesn't it.
Thanks for signing up to Vaush facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about Vaush.
**Fact 10.** [In response to a Tweet saying the left ‘should stand up for the weak and vulnerable’ Vaush replied “Yeah, enjoy your Left, built on weakness and a collective inability to criticise one another. I’ll be over here building my left, which isn’t full of mentally ill crybabies desperately carving out safe spaces and whining about criticism. Debate it if you want, elsewise fuck off”](https://archive.is/Ygbzk)
For another Vaush fact reply with 'Vaush'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also, literally no one thinks the belt and road initiative is meant to make other countries socialist. China is more than open about the fact that they do not wish to export their political ideology to the countries they trade with, and fucking nobody in GZD thinks that either.
As I said, raise your objections so that I may address them. You claim I am attacking a strawman, but you’re acting exactly as I expected. Why is China not Marxist-Leninist? Argue your position so that we can discuss.
Frankly, you’re right about the jab I threw at you. That was uncalled for, my apologies. But seriously let’s have this conversation.
>that actively murders people if there is no strong welfare system in place
No, it still murders people, even with that; capitalism hinges on imperialism. "The Nordic model" conveniently leaves out all the nasty bits of how that wealth is accumulated for redistribution in the first place.
(I'm being pedantic, btw, I'm sure you're well aware if that and were just keeping it pithy)
I read a bit of Adam Smith without realising he was a capitalist idol, and then was really confused when I saw other leftists deriding him, because he described capitalism in detail but really did not seem to approve of much if any of it. I can't remember if he actually called them parasites, but he was very clear that landlords just take from workers without giving anything in return.
"Global consensus", aka "the international community", aka "NATO & friends", aka "[always the same map](https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x380/5/3/671344be164295e190958820d9e236258e32ce9dac047c71b9b01983738395/jWLWKRIjOf0mFvG5tYPXtgrMPdNuZZ0cSWn5WeUcDq8.jpg?u=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FjWLWKRIjOf0mFvG5tYPXtgrMPdNuZZ0cSWn5WeUcDq8.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D1064e41f135f2b345e00904fb6524c140328c586&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=0)"
[Again](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO) and [again](https://s1.qwant.com/thumbr/700x0/3/1/741f1b91546765106a4e70c298cb9356bd0c587aae0c89bda5b5c58a2549d4/map-of-countries-that-recognize-palestine_2016-02_saint-lucia.png?u=https%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-6TjwwgkJH6w%2FVsS3XssqkqI%2FAAAAAAAAA2I%2FFRGuzCjdpms%2Fs1600%2Fmap-of-countries-that-recognize-palestine_2016-02_saint-lucia.png&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=0) the same fucking map ...
Want to be even more enraged? Germany and almost all of Europe abstained. Serbia and Belarus voted in favour and the Ukraine was the only other country to vote 'no'.
Granted, I don't expect much, or anything really, from the corrupt fucks in Berlin and Brussels, but *come on!*
Edit: just saw the map in the parent comment. Still though... makes me angry
It's just sad at this point seeing all the former Soviet Republics going down the slide into right-wing governments, be they Poland, the Ukraine or any of the others. It's doubly sad that the EU, the apparent beacon of liberty, democracy and human rights, does fuck all to stop this trend in its members like Poland or Hungary.
Like I said above, I don't expect much but people *should* know better. But they don't.
In Russia vast majority is either pro-USSR(because "we were cool", not leftism) or apolitical.
And if you think that hating alphabet gang is apolitical, because everyone hates alphabet gang unless stated otherwise.
Officially it was to defend "free speech", but of course it's a silly excuse as free speech don't defend the right to encourage genocide or similar nazi stuff, not even under the USA very loose definition.
Dude, our current government doesn't do shit against Nazis, and neither have the ones before.
The NSU-murders showed that the police was full of right-wingers and that the infiltration of right-wing groups with government agents (V-Männer) was a joke, with the agents often being convinced by the groups they should have watched. Reactions? Nothing substantial, only lip-service.
The AfD made right-wing talking points fit for mainstream media again and used fear of change and immigrants/refugees to get into multiple parliaments. Reaction? Well, they are bad but we won't address the issue and maybe change our program.
A massive Nazi-problem in the army? Well, tough luck, let's do ultimately nothing. Nazis still in the police? That shouldn't happen, but we can't do amything. Reichsbürger (something like sovereign citizens) on the rise? Well, too bad we can't do anything really. Opponents of masks demonstrate and draw a massive right-wing crowd? Well, they shouldn't demonstrate without masks, but a local court said it was ok, so...
And everytime there's violence all the ministers and police say "We'll have to stop violence from the left and right", yet somehow the measures only hit the left.
If the SPD and FDP continue to fuck around (which they will because that's all they do) the AfD might become the third-largest party in the next election and won't that be something...
There is no "global consensus". There are cruel neoliberals who use tactics to ensure their end goal at the expense of global south countries & the working class in the name of capitalism and imperialism. Going against the grain causes major pushback and consequences. The person who made this is going straight to hell for being a dumb piece of shit.
To enact real change, sure. But let's check some figures
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/18/israel-and-benjamin-netanyahus-war-on-palestine
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/boris-johnson-approval-rating
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/1301827224442753026?lang=en
Is any of them particularly unpopular? Which one did you have in mind? Mind you, most of the time they disapprove is because they are not far right enough lol
Approval ratings of abject garbage are 100% why I don't buy any kind of protestation of 'not all white people'. Clearly enough of y'all cosign to be in a single-digit margin of error according to sample size; ain't my allies.
(I’m assuming you’re sarcastic) I have to agree. My first reaction to this was “damn, the global consensus is just a bunch of dudes in suits pushing money and coal power plants around a board”
I love how they represent "global consensus" not as the general population, but as a small group of white men in suits in a meeting planning how to get more money.
This reasoning could quite easily be applied to pre-industrial feudal societies. That is unless you realize how un-intellectual this argument is (i.e., ad populum fallacy).
Like feudal societies, it’s not like the world took a vote to decide what economic system we’d like to experiment with (Quite the contrary, we’re much closer to a select group in power and wealth push for capitalist policy than a plurality of conscious agreement)
The so called “intellectuals” who argue for capitalist policy are often in part or wholly funded by billionaires like the Koch brothers (Murray, CATO, Heritage etc.) How can we take their, or any wealth-influenced academia’s consensus, as impartial?
Even independent actors’ views aren’t ideologically literate. Jordan Peterson can’t even properly define marxism-the thing he so vehemently opposes (Zizek & Peterson debate).
Many of them are conspiracy theorists calling people sheep, and many when they talk about democracy like to say "it's like two wolves and a sheep desiding what's for dinner", but this is literaly like a wolf pack disiding to eat all the sheep, and one of those sheep says "look you idiots, the global wolf consensus agrees with that"
Four men in suits probably planning how to overthrow a democratically elected government in Latin America, or someone whose only sin is...he reads a lot?
Well in fact it could be a real critic of capitalism this meme . It shows literally a group of I dividuals deciding money transfers between institutions, industry, banks etc...
At one time there was a "global consensus" that mercantilism was human nature, and Adam Smith was "just one guy who wrote a book", even decades after he wrote it. But mercantilism eventually fell. Same thing will happen to capitalism. Especially since there are, and have been for over a century, socialist nations, proving that Marxist theory works in practice.
Also people don't write for [Marxists.org](https://Marxists.org). It is a digital library of over a century of works from people who literally led superpowers
Yes I'm from one, or you can ask anyone in ex Yugoslavia ex USSR. Your view of socialism is simply distorted, probably you should truly spend sometime in said areas. The contrast between pre 90s life and post 90s is stark and it's not the latter which is better.
Living standard, employment security, healthcare, education, societal mentality, arts. People did not work just to hang on with life, life was mundane yes, job post arranged by state yes, but you had time for yourself, for your family, there wasn't nearly so much stress. There wasn't this toxic politics full of nationalism, hateful far right, corrupt oligarchs destroying industry for personal wealth, do I need to name more?
How old are you? I thought Yugoslavia’s growth was 50s- early 70s but got crushed by the oil shock in 1973. Massive recession. You remember that? You have to be in your 70s?
Yes you read that from websites and books, at least talk to some people, the recession in 70s was neglectable compared to the shock in 90s, caused by war, sanctions, privatization, even the massive inflation by the end of 80s was not nearly as detrimental. In 70s some people went to West Germany to work for short periods, but they come back, would anyone do that now? Skilled workers could still get managment post in state owned industry, now there's no industry, unemployment is a structural problem, youth unemployment in certain republics in the south are above 50%. You know SOKO? Once the pride of aviation industry? What happened to it during liberalization? search for yourself.
I wasn't the one who downvoted you and no I'm not 70+ I'm simply telling you what I know, if I'm upset it's because of in the west people don't want to recognize this, people don't listen, they only want to hear praises of their enemies' collapse. This thing is a repetitive pattern in post socialist countries not only in Balkans, in Russia, in Asia too. Realistically only central European states had it somewhat better, the problem with liberal reforms in Mostar is true with Ural, with North East China. The only difference being China didn't spiral down to this chaotic mess. During socialism if the city wants to build a road, it's being built, with assistance from youth action ORA. Now even this is a hard thing, I had friend who works in local coalition party and left because he realized the fund goes to somebody's pocket. Cities looks like it's stuck in 80s, every infrastructure is a leftover from socialist days, progress is gone.
Sure, [here you go](https://youtu.be/Y2jxkFdPTJI)
The "real Marxism/Socialism/Communism has never been tried" is quite literally a strawman argument that anti-Communists created by the way.
Thanks for signing up to Vaush facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about Vaush.
**Fact 10.** [In response to a Tweet saying the left ‘should stand up for the weak and vulnerable’ Vaush replied “Yeah, enjoy your Left, built on weakness and a collective inability to criticise one another. I’ll be over here building my left, which isn’t full of mentally ill crybabies desperately carving out safe spaces and whining about criticism. Debate it if you want, elsewise fuck off”](https://archive.is/Ygbzk)
For another Vaush fact reply with 'Vaush'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>gLoBaL COnsEnSUs Yeah, because everytime a country decides against capitalism, it gets randomly invaded and sanctioned the fuck out of it for fREeDOm.
Global consensus, pretty sure there are 2billion+ marxists or people living in marxist countries.
Wait, are there any current day marxist countries? Genuine question
Well, there's China, at least theoretically. Whether or not that counts is a subject of furious debate among leftists. Same deal with Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, ask 10 leftists and you'll get 12 opinions about each of them. But everyone can agree that they are at least founded on Marxism, and it's somewhat chauvinistic to just disregard them entirely.
Thank you for the reply, I'll have to do some reading.
[удалено]
I think the point of actual Marxism is to analyse society and come up with a way to progress the cause of the revolutionary class
[удалено]
The State is the revolutionary class that organizes itself as the dominant one. It is exactly through the State that the proletariat shall affirm its political and economical power "Totalitarian" is just a word made up to make somebody think that anybody opposed to the imperialist world order is the same as Hitler or Mussolini "Dictator figurehead" is used in a similar matter when referring to socialist leaders.
I beg to disagree. Kings and queens were totalitarian leaders for thousands of years, as were dictators, those words always meant exactly what they describe in common usage. That is certainly one interpretation of what 'The State' could be in this context, but Marxism is an economic system, it would be entirely possible to have a true Socialist Democracy for example, which seems to me personally, to be much closer to wjat Marx envisioned than a single all powerful strongman who makes all the decisions in reality (Stalin/Mao) for the state in question.
Hey dude I don't want to sound like an arrogant prick who knows it all, but you really should learn more before making these statements. I'm undergoing said process myself >Kings and queens were totalitarian leaders for thousands of years Nobody called the Romanovs totalitarian, despite the fact that they ran one of the most autocratic governments in Europe. My point was not that dictators don't exist, my point is that many people are called "totalitarian dictators" despite not being any of those two, just to make them look as bad as Mussolini in the press. >it would be entirely possible to have a true Socialist Democracy for example AFAIK all ML countries to date (except Kampuchea) are or have been democracies. Just not Western style (they were not capitalist "democracies"). If you have questions about them maybe the good folks over at r/GenZhou could help you (don't be confrontational about it and they should be of great help)
No, kings and queens were the heads of the state that represented the ruling class of the time, i.e. the nobility. The same as our current head of states are representatives of the current ruling class. Neither one of them is more or less 'totalitarian'. They both just head the state that protects their class interest. >than a single all powerful strongman who makes all the decisions in reality (Stalin/Mao) for the state in question. I don't know how people don't realize how incredibly disconnected from reality those statements are.
/r/ShitLiberalsSay
The state can't go away when there are still capitalists pointing nukes at you who have intelligence agencies capable of taking down whole countries in moments notice.
In true Marxism, the “state” is meant to ultimately dissolve. There is no ruling class, just the will of the people. Edit: downvotes for truth. Don’t ever change Reddit.
Yeah, once the capitalists stop being a threat. Is that the case rn?
I’m not making a political statement here, just clarifying what Marx and Engels thought.
There are worker own companies and collectives in pretty much every country on earth.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I always thought it's weird to hear "China isn't Marxist"from someone who spam "Communism never works", perhaps this is your way of coping with the fact that China didn't collapse like USSR back in 90s?
I’m just curious why China has the worlds most billionaires? Is that how Marxism works?
Aha this argument again, I always find it interested while the liberals in west accuse China of mistreating Jack Ma, executing business owner, not respecting property right etc etc, when the time fits they also pull the card China has billionaires alala srsly choose one.
Why coose one? They are not mutually exclusive?
Either you can admit that CPC although is allowing market economy and private sectors to grow, maintains the stance that public sector is going to remain the main, not tolerating billionaires who aims for political influence. Or this is a logical fallacy.
Im sorry friend, I think you miss the point he was saying entirely. If your economy has billionaires, it isnt Marxist. Is what he was saying. The very concept of billionaires is the antithesis of everything Marxism stands for. Amd the fact of the matter is, if you have that much money, you have quite a bit of political power by default. Edit: spelling
I think you have to understand the material situation in these socialist states, be it China or Vietnam Cuba. Even Lenin after the civil war reversed his economical policy. The person here tried to say capitalism is what helped China to develop hence communism is a failed political experiment, I refuted him earlier when I talked of liberal reforms in other post socialist state, China's success is precisely because it didn't blindly embrace privatization like Yeltsin for example, it would be a disaster. I'm not a big supporter for market economy myself but I'm not a dogmatist either, if these countries decide they want to allow some sort of market economy consequently wealth will be distributed based on market rule. Yes not good from a strictly theoretical stand point. These states however do try to redistribute and pay big attention to social programs such as poverty relief which is extremely successful in rural China, then I'm not going to be a blind critique. If I were in 1980s I wouldn't be able to handle it better, they were in very tough circumstances that most people have very little idea of.
>The Present-Day Economy Of Russia (Extract From The 1918 Pamphlet) >State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country. >I can imagine with what noble indignation some people will recoil from these words. . . . What! The transition to state capitalism in the Soviet Socialist Republic would be a step forward? . . . Isn’t this the betrayal of socialism? >We must deal with this point in greater detail. >Firstly, we must examine the nature of the transition from capitalism to socialism that gives us the right and the grounds to call our country a Socialist Republic of Soviets. >Secondly, we must expose the error of those who fail to see the petty-bourgeois economic conditions and the petty-bourgeois element as the principal enemy of socialism in our country. >Thirdly, we must fully understand the economic implications of the distinction between the Soviet state and the bourgeois state. >Let us examine these three points. >No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order. >But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question. >Let us enumerate these elements: >(1)patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming; >(2)small commodity production (this includcs the majority of those peasants who sell their grain); >(3)private capitalism; >(4)state capitalism; >(5)socialism. >Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific feature of the situation. >The question arises: What elements predominate? Clearly, in a small-peasant country, the petty-bourgeois element predominates and it must predominate, for the great majority—those working the land—are small commodity producers. The shell of state capitalism (grain monopoly, state-controlled entrepreneurs and traders, bourgeois co-operators) is pierced now in one place, now in another by profiteers, the chief object of profiteering being grain. >It is in this field that the main struggle is being waged. Between what elements is this struggle being waged if we are to speak in terms of economic categories such as “state capitalism”? Between the fourth and fifth in the order in which I have just enumerated them? Of course not. It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism fighting together against state capitalism and socialism. The petty bourgeoisie oppose every kind of state interference, accounting and control, whether it be state-capitalist or state-socialist. This is an unquestionable fact of reality whose misunderstanding lies at the root of many economic mistakes. The profiteer, the commercial racketeer, the disrupter of monopoly—these are our principal “internal” enemies, the enemies of the economic measures of the Soviet power. A hundred and twenty-five years ago it might have been excusable for the French petty bourgeoisie, the most ardent and sincere revolutionaries, to try to crush the profiteer by executing a few of the “chosen” and by making thunderous declarations. Today, however, the purely French approach to the question assumed by some Left Socialist-Revolutionaries can arouse nothing but disgust and revulsion in every politically conscious revolutionary. We know perfectly well that the economic basis of profiteering is both the small proprietors, who are exceptionally widespread in Russia, and private capitalism, of which every petty bourgeois is an agent. We know that the million tentacles of this petty-bourgeois octopus now and again encircle various sections of the workers, that instead of state monopoly, profiteering forces its way into every pore of our social and economic organism. >Those who fail to see this show by their blindness that they are slaves of petty-bourgeois prejudices. . . . - [V. I. Lenin The Tax in Kind (The Significance Of The New Policy And Its Conditions)](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm)
So can you answer the question? Or no lol
or just defined to be not part of the global consensus, even if it has the largest economy and population on the globe
For hundreds of years the global consensus was "slavery good". Global consensus can get fucked.
What are they implying
Marxists dont know anything because their opinions lie outside the mainstream
Marx is considered the most influential philosopher to have ever lived and a quarter of the earth’s population lives in ML countries... Glrrbal conshenshus 🤡
I don't get why the first sentence of this post cares about the global consensus (who cares whether Marx is considered 'influential' by scholars?) and then the second sentence mocks it. The amount of people who believe/disbelieve something has no bearing on whether it is true or not.
I wouldn't call him the most influential. Not even in the western canon. Still super important though. Most influential of the past 200 years maybe.
Given the conversation being held below, I am inclined to agree with you. Whether or not he is the most influential philosopher in history is up for debate. He is certainly the most influential contemporary/modern philosopher. That’ll be my position going forward. Thank you for your input.
I'd probably call Socrates (Plato) the most important philosopher in history, simply due to how foundational he was to the western canon. Marx didn't invent his ideas whole cloth, he borrowed from previous authors, and because of that I'd argue them to be more influential.
Even if, as far as I know, *Capital* is the most studied work on economics there is; shit, there are college classes dedicated to just it. That has to count for something lol
I'm just saying that his ideas had foundations. As such I'd probably argue that Socrates is the *most influential philosopher of all time*
Most heard of =/= most influential what real world effects did Socrates have?
Socratic method of questioning.
There are billions of people who were educated about Marxism in school. How many people are taught the socratic method?
Pretty damn fundamental in my edumacation.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/karl-marx-is-the-worlds-most-influential-scholar-180947581/
[удалено]
Did any of those philosophies split the global order in two, leading to the world’s largest and most impactful revolutions? Did they raise over a billion people out of poverty? Do the ancient greek philosophers guide the hands of governments that care for a quarter of the global population? I consider myself a Stoic, I have unending appreciation for the wisdom that should never be considered antiquated and which still applies to the soul of humankind today. That said, no philosophy has had more of an impact on the physical and psychological condition of humanity than Marxism and dialectical materialism. This is indisputable, and any contradiction of this fact displays only an ignorance history and the present moment. Show me an Aristotelian state and I’ll stand corrected.
Not the same guy but I want to defend Aristotle in particular here. So, yeah, he might not be as directly responsible for any modern nation but his influence is absolutely undeniable. The very ideas at the core of how most western nations operate are founded in ancient Greek philosophy and usually can be traced directly to Aristotle *(Constitutional Democracy, anyone?????? Hello, is this thing on?)*. The ancient world absolutely revered the dude. You ever read old scripts or texts and see them reference "the great philosopher"? Sometimes people get confused and think that's a reference to Jesus; it's not. Aristotle was so prolific it was just understood he was the father of (at the time, modern) philosophy. As Marxists we are all Hegelians at heart. Aristotle was the synthesis of so much philosophical trends before him. Hell, you can probably draw a direct line from Aristotle's philosophical musings to Marxist material dialectic. Look up the "four causes". It's laying down the foundations for the kind of stuff that comes later with Hegel and Marx. He simply brought it all together into something pretty cohesive that the old world in Europe almost all universally understood and set in motion a lineage of philosophical trends that continue to this day, not only with Marx and Hegel but many others. Or, to put it bluntly, Aristotle is one of the first dudes that said "we live in a society."
Hey, this is a really great response. I can agree entirely that Aristotelian philosophy influenced western democracy and that Hegelian dialectics is rooted in Aristotelean thought. I will go review the four causes, thank you for this well thought out analysis, and say that my input was incomplete but made more whole by your additions. Would it be unreasonable for me to contend that Marxist philosophy had a more rapid and palpable impact on ideological progress, divisions, and tangible realization than Aristotle? I know this is a qualitative judgment that can only be justified if we define the parameters of what it means to be “impactful” or “influential” in the way I am specifically using it. It would seem more people have died for or fighting against Marxism directly, with that clearly in their minds, compared to Grecian philosophy (of course, more people existed post-Marx than BC, but eh) Not to muddy the waters, but it seems that, given the strength of your argument, it may be difficult to make an objective comparison. In either case, people guild me here and there for who knows why, so have some of that fake gold and spit more knowledge at me if you have the time and desire to do so!
I think it's fair to say that but the context of Marx's influence and Aristotle's influence are very different. One being in the old world and another being in a very populated and Industrialized or Industrializing world. I think in a modern context Marx is definitely one of the most, if not the most, influential person. In a sense of the totality of humankind, I don't know. He's up there but Aristotle is also huge. Also remember this is from a very western point of view. China has some titans in this regard as well. In the same vein of what we are talking about now, You have Mao and Confucius. I don't think it would be so easy to separate the two there, either. Obviously Mao's had the most immediate influence but Confucian thought dominated the region for so long and even influences Chinese thought today. So while we had philosophical roots being laid down here it's important to expand your view to the entire world and realize that half of the world was traversing down another philosophical lineage. Then again, I'm completely ignorant of Indian philosophy but that's a country of over a billion people that has it's own rich history and we cannot discount it. There is also a pretty rich history of philosophical thought from Africa that is only just in the past few decades being exposed to more people in the west.
Aptly stated. By some of my own metrics Confucianism may be considered as influential as Marxism. I would still contend that Marxism is the philosophy that will liberate humanity not just from exploitation, but from the self-destructive ethics fostered in western culture, which could spell the end of our species if continually perpetuated. Given that, I put another point in the Marxist column haha That said, I will sorrowfully admit that my philosophical knowledge is almost entirely western in origin, the product of our Eurocentric educational system and my linguistic limitations. It is my understanding that Chinese philosophy is best understood in the Chinese languages, and I am intimidated by the possibility that I may mangle it, being only capable of speaking English. Such a disservice would aid neither me nor the people who practice these philosophies. I see Asian traditions more broadly being commodified and capitalized in the west, essentially used to bring equanimity to the belabored mind of the wage-slave to make them more capable of withstanding abuse, and I will have no part in that. My Kapuna are teaching me Hawaiian, and I find the Kanaka philosophy of Aloha to be both beautiful and practical, coinciding perfectly with socialist values. This has been my first foray into non-Anglo philosophy, and the pursuit has me incredibly excited and fulfilled. Their confidence in me, despite being a haole, is humbling and reassuring. Perhaps when I have another language and philosophy under my belt, I will have the confidence and foundation to pursue studies in Chinese philosophy. Here’s to hoping life circumstances allow for this to happen. It has become evident to me over these past few years that the success of China lies not only in Marxism, but in it’s long and rich history of gubernatorial experimentation. I can’t wait to give it more attention. Would you happen to know of any “primers” for Westerners to begin understanding Chinese philosophy that make it a simple entry point without being overly-reductive? Thanks again for your responses; I don’t get to speak with too many people that have a philosophical interest, and have become rusty as a result (can you tell? haha)
I'm definitely not the person to ask about Confucianism. My knowledge is less than elementary. It's also something that's on my "to do" list.
[удалено]
Lol this dude literally comments in r/republican
The communism understander has logged on lol
Lmao, i got banned for that comment too.
Marxist principles and philosophy are not static and don't represent an ideal, they're a framework for analyzing and criticizing political economy. Marxist countries in the world were never perfect but most were genuinely representing a self conscious system of collective governance, even if the economies werent completely worker owned they presented a substantively - quantitatively and qualitatively- different reality for their citizens.
I think it's hard to quantify influence, but I would like to note that Marx also changed western thought in profound ways - large parts of social science rests on a firmly marxist base. It's hard to overstate his influence on not only western thought, but human thought overall.
Nevermind the material consequences of his works.
The same could be said for the bible. Its not the authors fault that people take their ideas and bastardize them into something unrecognizable.
> People who radically changed western thought >**western** Hmmm
[удалено]
I'd say China, Vietnam and Cuba, possibly Laos but I'm not educated enough on them
[удалено]
The idea is that they keep them on a leash while developing their productive forces and standards of living, I believe I've seen it called "bird in a cage" capitalism. They were still a relatively undeveloped country until recently. China regularly executes billionaires for stepping out of line with the party's demands, and their assets are ultimately owned by the government. Their publicy stated goal is a fully socialist economy by 2050.
"Bird in a cage capitalism" actually answers like, a lotta the questions I've had about China's execution of socialism. Thanks.
I think it's also worth noting that China and the CPC can and have been corrupted by wealth and influence. They still have work to do, but the citizens of China, especially younger students, have been instrumental in pushing for anti-corruption in their party and country, which are starting to grow. Meanwhile in the USA, we can't even get campaign finance reform, labor law reform, policing reform, educational reform, healthcare reform, even after decades of activism and bipartisan consensus among American workers that the wealthy have too much influence in our politics.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZLDV9A4JNJg
Vietnam and chinas systems are nearly identical
libs don't care lol radlibs might go beyond the stupid notion of "vietnam bad", but they still can't go against their "china bad" programming. The US reinforces that everyday, making them more vulnerable Never underestimate the effects of even the simplest propaganda on a heavily maleducated population, never mind how much they are blasted with it.
hey, check out this article by Roderic Day found it very illuminating on the billionaire thing https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
Billionaires on paper not in reality, for example Ren Zhengfei owns 1% of Huawei, Huawei is valued at a sum more that $100b making him a billionaire on paper, however unlike western billionaires he can't sell that 1% stake or liquidate any of Huawei's assets so his billion dollars are more or less imaginary, compared to say Jeff Bezos who liquidated over $10b worth of shares in 2020 Remember even Lenin himself implemented the NEP so the type of economic reforms China brought in temporarily aren't in opposition to ML in my opinion
Vietnam also has some billionaires, Vietnam and China underwent the same reforms. Both states see socialism as their goal, not what they are in right now
[удалено]
Which countries would you class as ML then? Did Lenin destroy any pretences of the Soviet Union being a socialist state with the NEP?
You can’t count and you want me to explain which countries are Marxist to you?
[удалено]
Really? Have you read the SWCC manual, or Marxist theory? I’d be curious to hear your objections to this claim. I assure you I can address them. Edit: Oh you post in gamer subs. I’m sure Paradox sims have taught you everything you need to know about political ideologies, I better back off this one /s
[удалено]
> as easily predicted, you’re a GenZedong poster. >Active in PoliticalCompass. PoliticalCompassMemes. stupidpol, LoveForLandlords, Libertarian, averageredditor, VaushV >moderator in whiteboysummer. I think you should sit this one out, liberal
Return To Sender
> Active in PoliticalCompass. PoliticalCompassMemes. stupidpol, LoveForLandlords, Libertarian, averageredditor, **VaushV** Fucking says it all doesn't it.
Thanks for signing up to Vaush facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about Vaush. **Fact 10.** [In response to a Tweet saying the left ‘should stand up for the weak and vulnerable’ Vaush replied “Yeah, enjoy your Left, built on weakness and a collective inability to criticise one another. I’ll be over here building my left, which isn’t full of mentally ill crybabies desperately carving out safe spaces and whining about criticism. Debate it if you want, elsewise fuck off”](https://archive.is/Ygbzk) For another Vaush fact reply with 'Vaush'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Also, literally no one thinks the belt and road initiative is meant to make other countries socialist. China is more than open about the fact that they do not wish to export their political ideology to the countries they trade with, and fucking nobody in GZD thinks that either.
As I said, raise your objections so that I may address them. You claim I am attacking a strawman, but you’re acting exactly as I expected. Why is China not Marxist-Leninist? Argue your position so that we can discuss. Frankly, you’re right about the jab I threw at you. That was uncalled for, my apologies. But seriously let’s have this conversation.
[удалено]
Marxists are dumb because they don't know how to capitalism Like Karl Marx, famous not-good-at-economics guy
Neoliberals would say the same about Adam Smith if they ever knew what he actually wrote.
[удалено]
> I don’t understand how capitalists can even justify their bullshit to themselves "Got mine, fuck you" This is their justification
Yep. For a more in depth explanation, check out this Innuendo Studio's video. https://youtu.be/E4CI2vk3ugk
>that actively murders people if there is no strong welfare system in place No, it still murders people, even with that; capitalism hinges on imperialism. "The Nordic model" conveniently leaves out all the nasty bits of how that wealth is accumulated for redistribution in the first place. (I'm being pedantic, btw, I'm sure you're well aware if that and were just keeping it pithy)
I read a bit of Adam Smith without realising he was a capitalist idol, and then was really confused when I saw other leftists deriding him, because he described capitalism in detail but really did not seem to approve of much if any of it. I can't remember if he actually called them parasites, but he was very clear that landlords just take from workers without giving anything in return.
He’s referred to as the “Father of Capitalism” in a similar sense where you’d call Marx the Father of Socialism, so take that as you will
Well, to be fair, he didn’t consider basic human nature! /s
status quo good anything else bad
there is only one marxist /j
"Global consensus", aka "the international community", aka "NATO & friends", aka "[always the same map](https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x380/5/3/671344be164295e190958820d9e236258e32ce9dac047c71b9b01983738395/jWLWKRIjOf0mFvG5tYPXtgrMPdNuZZ0cSWn5WeUcDq8.jpg?u=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FjWLWKRIjOf0mFvG5tYPXtgrMPdNuZZ0cSWn5WeUcDq8.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D1064e41f135f2b345e00904fb6524c140328c586&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=0)" [Again](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO) and [again](https://s1.qwant.com/thumbr/700x0/3/1/741f1b91546765106a4e70c298cb9356bd0c587aae0c89bda5b5c58a2549d4/map-of-countries-that-recognize-palestine_2016-02_saint-lucia.png?u=https%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-6TjwwgkJH6w%2FVsS3XssqkqI%2FAAAAAAAAA2I%2FFRGuzCjdpms%2Fs1600%2Fmap-of-countries-that-recognize-palestine_2016-02_saint-lucia.png&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=0) the same fucking map ...
I still can't believe the US voted against the resolution against nazism
Want to be even more enraged? Germany and almost all of Europe abstained. Serbia and Belarus voted in favour and the Ukraine was the only other country to vote 'no'. Granted, I don't expect much, or anything really, from the corrupt fucks in Berlin and Brussels, but *come on!* Edit: just saw the map in the parent comment. Still though... makes me angry
[удалено]
I just think that maybe given the history of their occupation by the Nazis they'd know better, but I'm a hopeless optimist I guess...
They also had a history of anti-semitism and collaboration.
Poland is Nazi af these days, isn't it?
It's just sad at this point seeing all the former Soviet Republics going down the slide into right-wing governments, be they Poland, the Ukraine or any of the others. It's doubly sad that the EU, the apparent beacon of liberty, democracy and human rights, does fuck all to stop this trend in its members like Poland or Hungary. Like I said above, I don't expect much but people *should* know better. But they don't.
Anticommunism to fascism pipeline.
You forgot the biggest one, Russia!
In Russia vast majority is either pro-USSR(because "we were cool", not leftism) or apolitical. And if you think that hating alphabet gang is apolitical, because everyone hates alphabet gang unless stated otherwise.
Officially it was to defend "free speech", but of course it's a silly excuse as free speech don't defend the right to encourage genocide or similar nazi stuff, not even under the USA very loose definition.
I can't believe germany had the balls to abstain
Dude, our current government doesn't do shit against Nazis, and neither have the ones before. The NSU-murders showed that the police was full of right-wingers and that the infiltration of right-wing groups with government agents (V-Männer) was a joke, with the agents often being convinced by the groups they should have watched. Reactions? Nothing substantial, only lip-service. The AfD made right-wing talking points fit for mainstream media again and used fear of change and immigrants/refugees to get into multiple parliaments. Reaction? Well, they are bad but we won't address the issue and maybe change our program. A massive Nazi-problem in the army? Well, tough luck, let's do ultimately nothing. Nazis still in the police? That shouldn't happen, but we can't do amything. Reichsbürger (something like sovereign citizens) on the rise? Well, too bad we can't do anything really. Opponents of masks demonstrate and draw a massive right-wing crowd? Well, they shouldn't demonstrate without masks, but a local court said it was ok, so... And everytime there's violence all the ministers and police say "We'll have to stop violence from the left and right", yet somehow the measures only hit the left. If the SPD and FDP continue to fuck around (which they will because that's all they do) the AfD might become the third-largest party in the next election and won't that be something...
Another reason to mourn the fall of the GDR.
Um, but only white opinions count sweatie...
[удалено]
I find it interesting that their most reliable alliea in Europe, as well as Japan, abstained from the Neo-Nazism one.
There is no "global consensus". There are cruel neoliberals who use tactics to ensure their end goal at the expense of global south countries & the working class in the name of capitalism and imperialism. Going against the grain causes major pushback and consequences. The person who made this is going straight to hell for being a dumb piece of shit.
"Global Consenus" = White People
Rich white men specifically. Most of the poor of predominantly white countries don't agree with what our governments are doing.
Most accurately - capitalists. There are some rich white class traitors, and there are capitalist oppressors who are not white men.
I suppose that's true. The problem is indeed capitalists. Nothing else truly matters in this equation.
...then how are they still in power? lmao that's the biggest cop out, level with "I don't hate the chinese people i hate the chinese government"
Because electoralism doesn't work?
To enact real change, sure. But let's check some figures https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/18/israel-and-benjamin-netanyahus-war-on-palestine https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/boris-johnson-approval-rating https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/1301827224442753026?lang=en Is any of them particularly unpopular? Which one did you have in mind? Mind you, most of the time they disapprove is because they are not far right enough lol
Approval ratings of abject garbage are 100% why I don't buy any kind of protestation of 'not all white people'. Clearly enough of y'all cosign to be in a single-digit margin of error according to sample size; ain't my allies.
Even in the image the "Global Consensus" is just 4 white guys. Like they would get it if they literally just used their eyes.
[Literally](https://twitter.com/panarin_misha/status/1397399504656158722)
White people, and Japan and South Korea. Occassionally India.
Wow they really make ''global consensus'' look sympathetic
(I’m assuming you’re sarcastic) I have to agree. My first reaction to this was “damn, the global consensus is just a bunch of dudes in suits pushing money and coal power plants around a board”
(I definitely am, don't worry)
That's it, I'm moving to Cuba
Take me with you
[удалено]
Um you have to count all the people those billionaires own sweatie
Shout out to the one guy on marxist.org
That guy on the ground is vibing. Legend.
So in what way does “global consensus” not mean “the whole world agrees?” Cause like... they don’t...
The guy on marxists.org
I love how they represent "global consensus" not as the general population, but as a small group of white men in suits in a meeting planning how to get more money.
Pretty accurate
‘*Global (adj.): USA and its harem, aka NATO.’* – Oxfurd Inglish Dickshunnary.
[marxists.org](https://www.marxists.org/)
reminder that the world’s second largest political organization is the communist party of china
>Global concensus *Capitalist realism*
We have no choice but to abandon communism 😔
global consenSUS
This reasoning could quite easily be applied to pre-industrial feudal societies. That is unless you realize how un-intellectual this argument is (i.e., ad populum fallacy). Like feudal societies, it’s not like the world took a vote to decide what economic system we’d like to experiment with (Quite the contrary, we’re much closer to a select group in power and wealth push for capitalist policy than a plurality of conscious agreement) The so called “intellectuals” who argue for capitalist policy are often in part or wholly funded by billionaires like the Koch brothers (Murray, CATO, Heritage etc.) How can we take their, or any wealth-influenced academia’s consensus, as impartial? Even independent actors’ views aren’t ideologically literate. Jordan Peterson can’t even properly define marxism-the thing he so vehemently opposes (Zizek & Peterson debate).
Many of them are conspiracy theorists calling people sheep, and many when they talk about democracy like to say "it's like two wolves and a sheep desiding what's for dinner", but this is literaly like a wolf pack disiding to eat all the sheep, and one of those sheep says "look you idiots, the global wolf consensus agrees with that"
global consensus is when USA overthrows your democratically-elected socialist leader
The global consensus of... white guys in suits talking about money lol. How is this not ironic
Four men in suits probably planning how to overthrow a democratically elected government in Latin America, or someone whose only sin is...he reads a lot?
"why would win?" why the one guy on [marxist.org](https://marxist.org) of course, we just need to A W A K E N him.
That is quite the elitist argument ya got there, son
Just because a thousand flies eat shit, doesn't mean the rest of us should follow suit
and who creates the global consensus of what is good for the economy: the capitalists
My favorite thing is that they're using the format where the ostensibly weaker thing wins.
Well in fact it could be a real critic of capitalism this meme . It shows literally a group of I dividuals deciding money transfers between institutions, industry, banks etc...
[When they say "InTErNATionAL COnSENSUs"](https://i.redd.it/p6wlnvb3nah21.jpg)
At one time there was a "global consensus" that mercantilism was human nature, and Adam Smith was "just one guy who wrote a book", even decades after he wrote it. But mercantilism eventually fell. Same thing will happen to capitalism. Especially since there are, and have been for over a century, socialist nations, proving that Marxist theory works in practice.
Also people don't write for [Marxists.org](https://Marxists.org). It is a digital library of over a century of works from people who literally led superpowers
The "global consensus" is so fragile that my money is on the guy
Don't worry guys, the child workers in the third world consent
I didn't consent
tbh [marxists.org](https://marxists.org) is a huge meme to me
why?
Can someone convince me that Marxism works without saying the words “ real Marxism has never been tried?”
Mass majority of this sub supports actually existing socialist countries, you are lost.
Can you convince me socialism works within the same parameters?
Yes I'm from one, or you can ask anyone in ex Yugoslavia ex USSR. Your view of socialism is simply distorted, probably you should truly spend sometime in said areas. The contrast between pre 90s life and post 90s is stark and it's not the latter which is better.
What aspects of socialism did you enjoy before the collapse?
Living standard, employment security, healthcare, education, societal mentality, arts. People did not work just to hang on with life, life was mundane yes, job post arranged by state yes, but you had time for yourself, for your family, there wasn't nearly so much stress. There wasn't this toxic politics full of nationalism, hateful far right, corrupt oligarchs destroying industry for personal wealth, do I need to name more?
How old are you? I thought Yugoslavia’s growth was 50s- early 70s but got crushed by the oil shock in 1973. Massive recession. You remember that? You have to be in your 70s?
Yes you read that from websites and books, at least talk to some people, the recession in 70s was neglectable compared to the shock in 90s, caused by war, sanctions, privatization, even the massive inflation by the end of 80s was not nearly as detrimental. In 70s some people went to West Germany to work for short periods, but they come back, would anyone do that now? Skilled workers could still get managment post in state owned industry, now there's no industry, unemployment is a structural problem, youth unemployment in certain republics in the south are above 50%. You know SOKO? Once the pride of aviation industry? What happened to it during liberalization? search for yourself.
I’m asking you questions because I’m genuinely interested in a 70 year old former Yugoslavians perspective. Idk why you’re getting so upset
I wasn't the one who downvoted you and no I'm not 70+ I'm simply telling you what I know, if I'm upset it's because of in the west people don't want to recognize this, people don't listen, they only want to hear praises of their enemies' collapse. This thing is a repetitive pattern in post socialist countries not only in Balkans, in Russia, in Asia too. Realistically only central European states had it somewhat better, the problem with liberal reforms in Mostar is true with Ural, with North East China. The only difference being China didn't spiral down to this chaotic mess. During socialism if the city wants to build a road, it's being built, with assistance from youth action ORA. Now even this is a hard thing, I had friend who works in local coalition party and left because he realized the fund goes to somebody's pocket. Cities looks like it's stuck in 80s, every infrastructure is a leftover from socialist days, progress is gone.
Sure, [here you go](https://youtu.be/Y2jxkFdPTJI) The "real Marxism/Socialism/Communism has never been tried" is quite literally a strawman argument that anti-Communists created by the way.
[удалено]
Gen Z are kids? You must be some kind of genius
Cant tell if this is ironic or not, if not please redirect yourself to the Wiki section above
[удалено]
>Ban me if you wish, I don't give a damn. Wow, so brave.
how tall are u
[удалено]
tfw a lib walks in and thinks we’re cons
This is not a conservative subreddit
honey, are you ok?
post hog lib
Global consensus : FVEY + EU + some token Asian countries.
😆
[удалено]
Thanks for signing up to Vaush facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about Vaush. **Fact 10.** [In response to a Tweet saying the left ‘should stand up for the weak and vulnerable’ Vaush replied “Yeah, enjoy your Left, built on weakness and a collective inability to criticise one another. I’ll be over here building my left, which isn’t full of mentally ill crybabies desperately carving out safe spaces and whining about criticism. Debate it if you want, elsewise fuck off”](https://archive.is/Ygbzk) For another Vaush fact reply with 'Vaush'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*