• ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    Your assertion that people on average knowingly work against their own self-interest requires mountains of evidence.

    Alcoholism and drug addiction? Failure to address global warming? Nuclear proliferation?

    but the entire class of the proletariat above the rest of the classes

    And the proletariat was below the political class.

    because reforms under Gorbachev undermined the socialist system,

    So much for the democratic system you claimed existed. It’s almost like that is an inherently failing of Marxism.

    China is in the developing stages of socialism.

    No country has ever gone beyond the developing stages of socialism because Marx was wrong.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Alcoholism and drug addiction are just as you said, addictions. Nuclear proliferation is a good thing to protect against the US Empire, as we can see with the DPRK remaining. The fact that we have not adequately addressed climate change is because capital is at the driver’s seat, not humans. None of this discredits Marxism.

      There is no such thing as a “political class.” Administrators were part of the rest of the working classes, receiving an income in the form of wages, without owning capital.

      The fact that democracy exists does not mean every change is good.

      Marx is not incorrect, all you’ve proven is a lack in understanding Marx.

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        What is an addiction other than acting against your self interest? Nuclear proliferation is objectively a bad thing for humanity as a whole. It is game theory (another concept not included with Marx’s archaic concepts) that causes nations to act against their interests by endangering us all with nuclear weapons.

        capital is at the driver’s seat, not humans

        Capital can’t make decisions, only humans.

        There is no such thing as a "political class.

        Another way that Marx fails. The president can own no capital (ex. Carter) but can command the largest army in the world and fire nuclear weapons as they choose. Actually ownership of capital is irrelevant. Control of capital is what matters. Power is what matters.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Addiction is not an intentional action against self-interest. People can know something is bad, but they seek it out anyways for the positives. This does not contradict Marxism whatsoever.

          As far as nuclear proliferation is concerned, it is necessary in the context of the genocidal US Empire. Without nukes, you end up like Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, bombarded and blockaded. With nukes, you survive, like the DPRK.

          Capitalism is a control system. Capitalists do not have control over capitalism, capital does. It selects for profits and resources are allocated in a manner that best secures profits. Humans are not the masters of capital, capitalists are better described as priests of capital.

          As for presidents, even if they own no direct capital, they derive their power from capitalists giving them legitimacy. They are representatives of that class in society that has dominance over the economy. Carter in your example has legitimacy as far as he acts in the interests of capitalists, he had no power over capital.

          You again are proving, above all, that you do not understand Marxism, and therefore your critique rings extraordinarily hollow. How can you hope to critique that which you have never even tried to understand?

    • 秦始皇帝@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      Alcoholism and drug addiction

      People largely partake as coping mechanisms or to fit in with groups etc. which would be in their immediate perceived interest of coping, fitting in etc.

      Failure to address global warming?

      Addressing global warming would impact the bottom lines of the capitalist class and thus be against their interest as a class of constant accumulation and expansion to among other things fight the falling rate of profit.

      Nuclear proliferation?

      Having nuclear weapons is directly in the self interest of states that wish to remain sovereign and not be destroyed by the western US lead empire as has been proved repeatedly.

      political class.

      Not a thing. Class is predicated on relation to the means of production mainly the ability/lack there of to privately own productive property and appropriate surplus value as capital.

      So much for the democratic system you claimed existed. It’s almost like that is an inherently failing of Marxis

      I don’t even know what you’re trying to say here. If the USSRs collapse was due to an inherent issue with Marxism why hasn’t the PRC collapsed? Or is it possible the USSR faced challenges unique to their position and situation which lead to stagnation and eventually being pillaged as opposed to some inherent part of Marxism (which you seem incapable of pointing to beyond vague posting).

      No country has ever gone beyond the developing stages of socialism because Marx was wrong.

      If you just say this without elaborating on the how and in what way it’s meaningless. Also Marxism wasn’t jesus or some prophet Marxism doesn’t end with Marx it continues with Lenin Stalin Mao Xi Cheng Xie Losurdo and more who continue to this day to study and develop.

      In the nicest way possible you seem to very clearly have very little idea of what you’re talking about and be way out of your depth leading you to do lots of vague posting.

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        People largely partake as coping mechanisms or to fit in with groups etc. which would be in their immediate perceived interest of coping, fitting in etc.

        They still know it is against their best interests.

        Addressing global warming would impact the bottom lines of the capitalist class and thus be against their interest as a class of constant accumulation and expansion to among other things fight the falling rate of profit.

        See previous answer.

        Having nuclear weapons is directly in the self interest of states that wish to remain sovereign and not be destroyed by the western US lead empire as has been proved repeatedly.

        It is against the best interest of humanity as a whole and we all know it.

        Not a thing. Class is predicated on relation to the means of production mainly the ability/lack there of to privately own productive property and appropriate surplus value as capital.

        It’s a thing in reality. It’s not a thing in Marxism which is another fault of the philosophy. The political class controls the capital that ostensibly belongs to the people. On reality they often wield the power of that capital for their own ends. This is true regardless of the economic system.

        If the USSRs collapse was due to an inherent issue with Marxism why hasn’t the PRC collapsed?

        Because the PRC Isn’t Marxist. It is a totalitarian dictatorship run for the benefit of the ruling class where the people are little more than serfs toiling for their local lords. The whole “communism” thing is an opiate similar to religion which encourages people to make personal sacrifices and not rise up.

        If you just say this without elaborating on the how and in what way it’s meaningless.

        One of the central points of Marxism is that socialism is a transitional phase that leads to communism. This has never happened.

        • 秦始皇帝@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Because the PRC Isn’t Marxist. It is a totalitarian dictatorship run for the benefit of the ruling class where the people are little more than serfs toiling for their local lords. The whole “communism” thing is an opiate similar to religion which encourages people to make personal sacrifices and not rise up.

          What is it with you whiteys calling me and my family serfs and your complete lack of understanding of my country. I wish I could understand how you could be so racist and dimwitted while speaking so confidently it’s truly impressive.

          One of the central points of Marxism is that socialism is a transitional phase that leads to communism. This has never happened.

          Wow the transition has yet to complete so thus isn’t real. Genuinely impressively dense.

          You really are just coping hard and further proving you have no understanding of Marxism how people view their interests as a class or really anything outside your white liberal bubble.

          • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 days ago

            What is it with you whiteys calling me and my family serfs and your complete lack of understanding of my country.

            Because my country allows free speech and I can speak the truth, unlike you.

            • 秦始皇帝@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 days ago

              Just showing how completely uninformed and racist you are. Politely go fuck yourself pig.

              • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 days ago

                It is an objective fact that Chinese citizens have no right to free speech. Nothing I have said is racist. The fact that you have to resort to personal attacks just shows you know I am right.

                • 秦始皇帝@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 days ago

                  It is an objective fact that Chinese citizens have no right to free speech

                  Yeah I guess my visits to the local offices with complaints and criticisms just never happened, I guess the 12345 hotline just doesn’t exist please tell me more white saviour educate me on my country.

                  Nothing I have said is racist.

                  Nothing racist at all about you spreading orientalist nonsense calling Chinese people serfs and generally being a white saviour pig /s

                  The fact that you have to resort to personal attacks just shows you know I am right.

                  I’m not “resorting to personal attacks” I just see no need in being polite to chauvinist white saviour pigs who are comfortable with talking down on entire races and ethnicities with unmatched arrogance to accompany their less than 0 understanding.