Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Marxism 101

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Marxism 101



    Marxism derives from an almost religious idea that all sentient beings (sometimes including animals) have equal spiritual worth.

    And so if some person lives in a mansion and some other person lives in a tin shack, this is the fault of the social reality / hierarchy that deprives the poorer person of his due equal resources in life.

    According to Marxism everything in the world is involved in a "class struggle" where "class" means that animals are lower than humans, women are lower than men, workers are lower than the boss, citizens are lower than the king/president/senators and so forth, and people who work in McDonalds are lower than Doctors/Lawyers/Intellectuals.

    Also according to Marxism, this "class struggle" is the source of most of the unpleasantness in the world and should be gradually eradicated.

    This is theory of Marxism where other "isms" like Communism, Socialism, Feminism, etc etc are the application of that theory.

    Communism for example advocates "revolutionary" Marxism where the peasants take power by force and kill the land owners.

    Whereas most modern Western governments operate on "cultural" Marxism that wants to achieve the same thing by degrees, ie raise the minimum wage, ie grow the middle class, so that over a long period of time, almost everyone lives the same or similar middle-class lifestyle regardless of whether they work at Jiffylube or do brain surgery.

    Traditional Left vs Right politics ; the left wants cultural marxism to happen faster, the right wants cultural marxism to happen slower (ie, at a "conservative" pace.)

    ~~~~

    The downside of course is a loss of liberty. For example let's say you're an ambitious go-getter who wants a big Mormon family. Well, ambitious go-getters live the same middle-class lifestyle as everybody else, so it kinda disincentivizes you. Also lefty governments tend to enforce heavy controls on reproduction. They basically don't want you having a big Mormon family of 8 kids, and they disincentivize this financially, socially, etc etc. Progressive governments also tend to place draconian restrictions on religion, "hate speech," inheritance, etc etc. They basically don't want anybody getting ahead of anybody else by being from a well-off family.

    Other downsides include a breakdown in decorum, where trashy mobs feel like they have a right to shout down intellectuals, children don't respect adults, women don't respect men, workers don't respect their employers, citizens don't respect cops, and so forth. In other words it breaks down "hierarchal" social order.

    On some level, egalitarianism feels good and most people like it, but over a long-enough period of time it devolves into that rat experiment where the alpha rats lose control and they all turn cannibal and start eating each other.

    This is why Communist governments have a strong hierarchy / apparatus like Putin or China or Kim Jong Un, it's a prosthetic replacement for the natural social order, where instead of the boss being the boss, maybe the local party chief is the boss.

    It's also why the more "equal" the US becomes, the more it feels like North Korea.

    You practically can't say shit on Twitter or Facebook without getting banned, eventually you won't be able to say shit online without getting arrested.

    ~~~~

    While it is often speculated that Marxism is "Jewish" in nature, the roots of Marxism appear in the French revolution, the Magna Carta, European Enlightenment, Martin Luther (Protestantism) and going back even further to Boudica, Greek and Roman democratic experiments.

    The Puritans (you know, the Mayflower?) were essentially Marxists.

    Most gynocentrism in the world, including Victorian manners and chivalry, is based on the idea that since women are physically weaker than men and more emotional, they must therefor be compensated by men with servile behavior and the sole burden of agency - Marxism applied to Eros. Feminism is the legal application of this.

    ~~~~

    The natural order of things is that most people are tribal, ie they care firstly about themselves, then they care about their family, their blood, their tribe, their nation, and only after that, they care about strangers and foreigners.

    Caring for strangers is a Biblical / Abrahamic concept.

    If you think about it, all the Abrahamic religions were born in the desert, and it's common for desert-dwelling peoples to have a strong code of hospitality towards strangers. If you meet someone hungry/thirsty in the desert, it's mandatory that you have to offer them food, water and shelter.

    This is as much a matter of self-preservation because maybe one day it's you who gets lost in the desert.

    It's sort of like the law of the sea, if a ship is sinking, all the other ships have to stop what they're doing and assist. Because one day your ship will be sinking. It's a social contract.

    If we presume that women and men have equal spiritual worth, then a code of physical / material servility towards women also makes sense, as that would encourage women's goodwill towards men in areas other than physical / material ; perhaps in more emotional or social capacities.

    Don't know if that actually happens, but that's the rationale behind cultural marxist gynocentrism, you simply have to trust that your goodwill will somehow come back to you.



  • #2
    Originally posted by dubs View Post
    Whereas most modern Western governments operate on "cultural" Marxism that wants to achieve the same thing by degrees, ie raise the minimum wage, ie grow the middle class, so that over a long period of time, almost everyone lives the same or similar middle-class lifestyle regardless of whether they work at Jiffylube or do brain surgery.
    If that's the intent it's even more misguided than you argue. Raising the minimum wage doesn't pull unskilled laborers up into the middle class. It provides a very temporary boost while prices adjust. But other people's wages don't adjust as quickly as prices do, so the actual effect is to pull people in the lower middle class closer to poverty. People with skills in the middle / upper middle class will be in a stronger position to argue for increased wages and better able to absorb the increase in prices.

    Increasing the minimum wage actually shrinks the middle class.
    "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
    "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by dubs View Post
      You practically can't say shit on Twitter or Facebook without getting banned, eventually you won't be able to say shit online without getting arrested.
      Nah, everyone will be fine......as long as they only say the appropriate / approved things. Unapproved thoughts are counter-revolutionary.

      What really scares me is the calls for everyone to denounce everything else.

      If someone asks someone to denounce racism or homophobia or whatever, what they're really doing is leveling an accusation of racism, homophobia or whatever at that person And as far as I'm concerned the appropriate response is to either ignore them or tell them to fuck off.

      But those are the consequences of virtue signaling: If you're not actively signalling your virtue, than you must not be virtuous.
      "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
      "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

      Comment


      • #4
        So... Marxism is thousands of years older than Marx???

        Comment


        • #5

          Well the idea of MGTOW existed before the name.

          The idea of marxism existed before the name too.

          I'm pretty sure Marx wasn't a Marxist.

          Comment


          • #6
            I think gynocentrism is an innate primitive instinct in our species: To cherish and protect the precious breeders. That is the instinctive purpose of the males.
            Gynocentrism gives women power over society by proxy: They manipulate others emotionally to elicit support and in the end what works is down to natural selection: The powerful men who are amenable to manipulation by the pussy owning classes are the ones who breed and thus white-knightery is inbred and not by intelligent design of any supernatural deity, religion or socialist order.
            ~~~ PEr aRDUa ad asTrA ~~~
            (through adversity to the stars)

            Comment

            Working...
            X