Explain cultural marxism

>end of WW2
>Bretton Woods system
dollar speread AIDS?

It's a Nazi conspiracy theory used to rationalize fascist censorship, hegemon-as-the-REAL-victim narratives, and to scapegoat
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism

The Holocaust never happened Schlomo. Open borders for Israel.

Attached: 52c.jpg (680x498, 112K)

Cultural Marxism is theory designed to liberate oppressed minorities from exploitation, it's roots in the west go all the way back to the Greeks and finds its acceleration in the enlightenment.

Cultural Marxists want to save us all from fascism, Americans and superhero movies. God bless them.

m.imgur.com/a/725A7

Mostly a propaganda term but it refers to an actual tendency i.e. the Marxist focus on culture rather than economy. Right-wingers use the term to conflate weird cultural shit that they don't understand with weird academic shit that they don't understand, as well as to make themselves feel like underdogs while also powerbottoming hard for the economic basis of our society

>weird cultural shit
Like telling impressionable children that they'll be happier if they cut their dicks off kek.

Attached: Drag_queen_story_time_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg (810x500, 61K)

No.

It is a conspiracy theory fixated on New Times and Frankfurt School critique.

Amusingly the conspiracy theory is exactly as relevant to class struggle as New Times or the Frankfurt School critique.

Go reread Chapter 10 until you get the primacy of the point of production.

>conspiracy theory
>implying motherfuckers aren't actively and literally conspiring to use Marxist politics to fuck this country and the west more than it already has been over the last century

Attached: eb2.png (640x553, 226K)

yids yidding

Ya gotta jew whacha gotta jew.

>it's not a conspiracy theory
>my bogeymen are definitely conspiring against me tho

Attached: y35d17iwltt21.jpg (2048x2048, 624K)

Whatever I don't like, no matter how removed from Marxism it is
For example: k-on is not cultural Marxism, because I like it.

Attached: 1555709073343.jpg (1920x1080, 201K)

Read Culture of Critique.

>Comrades, by focusing exclusively on the superstructure, we have isolated academic marxism from the class struggle, what ought we do?
>Why critique culture more.

Class struggle made the working class hate communists(practically all big anti-communist riots and protests in eastern block were working-class). Besides CoC isn't about it, if you want to more or less understand what can bring socialism nowadays read Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy - short version goes more or less like - capitalism will produce immense wealth, one that will allow so many people to attain higher education that there won't be enough jobs for their ambitions and expectations and this will cause their resentment, on top of existing in the time the book was written(1930's and 1940's, it was published in 1942 I think?) resentment of academics against businessmen - years of scholarly work will very often bring no recognition outside of your particular autistic field while businessmen will not only get recognition but also money, despite being "worse" in intelligentsia's hierarchy of worth.

Look at them. They're like moths to a flame. They're like children.

>capitalism will produce immense wealth, one that will allow so many people to attain higher education that there won't be enough jobs
Let me stop you mindlessly paraphrasing capital volume 1 on the TRPTD.

is Fredric Jameson a secret right-winger?

Attached: 51bPQ4KBKvL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (324x499, 27K)

keking at the discord dwellers that think they will be able to retake the chans because Zizek made Peterson look like the retard that he is. imageboards are inherently reactionary unless you moderate them heavily like they do at leftypol

Capital was Luddite in this assumption(machines making jobs go away), Schumpeter is iirc the originator of the term "destructive creation"(one could say that Marx may have reached the same conclusion had he lived to see cars replacing horse carriages and effects it had on economy, but he didn't). The important part of it is that he recognised that the "working class" at large is pleased with capitalism and at it functionally brought more improvement to their lives than to the lives of the rich - mass produced clothes don't make any difference to the rich who buy theirs from tailor(and bought them from tailor 500 or 1000 years ago), unless they're noveau riche, but for the poor it means they don't have to handmade theirs. The element of the society that gets angry isn't the workers but the intellectuals. Now this of course has a relation to cultural marxism but Schumpeter doesn't really talk about it.

>inherently

You do realise that you should publish your findings, because the discovery of necessary aesthetic properties will basically revolutionise the theory of mind and language.

Oh wait, you are mum.

seethe harder and enjoy your slow failure

As if Yea Forums hadn't had marxists since forever

you're breathing it

You've read Capital exceedingly shallowly. The volume of use-values consumed and the exchange-value of the products consumed aren't related.

>being invested in upholding political hegemony on an anime imageboard
newfag

it's ok to be left wing, but not the sanitized type

I don't think any sanitized person is gonna come here, tovarich

Attached: IMG_20190219_154556.png (368x847, 405K)

Sometimes I use soap when I wash.

bourgeois scum

Is this soap made from the corpses of our class enemies

No, it is soap made from alienated wage labour.

>They're like children
Does that mean you're going to rape us?

Cultural Marxism is a liberal subversion of orthodox Marxist theory that seeks to undermine the class war effort through infiltrating and subverting revolutionary groups toward irrelevant, nonproductive targets. They do this by transposing the class dialectic onto groups besides socioeconomic classes, distracting from and replacing the class struggle with artificial identity political conflict between, say, normal people and sex perverts, for example, or stirring up racial strife, or driving a wedge between men and women. Thus, vast swathes of the working class are excluded and alienated from the revolutionary struggle by these wreckers, simply because their skin is too pale or they have penises, resulting in a collapse of effective leadership and the inevitable implosion of any supposed revolutionary group that adopts this revisionism. Cultural Marxism exists entirely in service of the capitalist market economy and is likely a construct of a CIA psyops intended to push western countries toward fascism by provoking reactionary forces through displays that utterly disgust normal working people. Actual Socialist countries quash this bullshit on their own turf and refer to its advocates in western countries by a variety of untranslatable derogatory names.

>Actual Socialist countries
You poor sweet Yen'an child.

cultural bolshevism
illiteracy

these stop being effective when you throw tact out the window and lash out at people
like it's not wrong or inaccurate but i don't want to agree with the person who made it

pseudo-left leaning moralism, supported by current neoliberal ideology. as zizek said it, it is not some anti-west marxists, its just effect of capitalist society. look how quick all those bullshit ads on toxic maculinity got appropriated by marketing industry.

the pic you posted exists in America and never did in USSR, China. I think the right term would be cultural capitalism

go back

Have sex.

Have dilate.

A version of radical egalitarianism mixed with egoism and certain Marxist undertones.

chan is contrarian and not reactionary, if you think that, you're a newfag.

The fucking irony would be physically painful If i hadnt grown to accept absolute hipocrisy from everyone to the left of Pinochet.

Cultural marxism is the logical result of marxism the economic theory being as thoroughly exploded as a theory can be.
There's no such thing as classes in the context of economic activity and everyone must accept that, but We can still pretend that there are "classes" in other fields of society: We can substitue 'Prolets' with 'women' and 'capitalist dogpigs' with ' the patriarchy' , for instance, or with 'blessed minorities' and 'evil-mordor-like-western-civ' respectively. It still doesn't make sense But pretending THAT still hasnt killed a hundred of milions of innocents and impoverished a few billions more.
Yet.
So, since intellectual pretension is at the core of the left wing, that is What They're trying now.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Cultural Marxism is, in fact, Cultural Deleuzianism-Guattarianism, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Deleuzianism AND Guattarianism. Idpol is not a political philosophy unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning philosophical non-system made useful by Guattari's schizoanalysis, rhizomes and vital deterritorializing components comprising a full philosophy as defined in "What Is Philosophy?"

Many left identitarians use a modified version of Deleuzianism every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Deleuzianism which is widely used today is often called 'Cultural Marxism' and credit is given to the Frankfurt School, but many of its users are not aware that it is basically the Deleuzian non-system of difference, developed by the Liberal identitarians.

There really is a 'Cultural Marxism', developed by Adorno, Marcuse, and Walter Benjamin, but these people aren't using it; it isn't a part of the system they use. Deleuze's repetition is the philosophy of liberals: the difference in the plateaus that allocates the machinic desires against the oppressive totalities and identities that you know. Deleuze is an essential part of Guanttarianist identitarianism, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete liberal college campus. Deleuze is normally used against Frankfurters: Cultural Marxism is actually the whole system of Deleuze and Guattari with the name of Marx added. All the so-called Cultural Marxists are really Cultural Deleuzeans!

have a father

Attached: x11 - Copy.png (454x450, 77K)

>But pretending THAT still hasnt killed a hundred of milions of innocents and impoverished a few billions more.
But pretending THAT still hasnt killed a hundred of BILLIONS of innocents and impoverished a few TRILLIONS more.
ftfy commie retard

>poledditor telling anyone else to have a father

Attached: B4F4F5BB-570A-4A32-BD27-DAC66097EBE2.gif (500x491, 376K)

>implying I'm exagerating
The CCCP alone killed 100 milions people.

The patriarchy is a conspiracy theory. The wage gap is a conspiracy theory.

>There's no such thing as classes in the context of economic activity
"I literally can't tell the difference between someone who does physical labor and those who own means of production, they are same man"

you do realize marxism IS mainly based on class antagonism, and if you remove it or change it with something esle, then its no longer marxism? cultural marxism is an oxymoron, because marx did not talk about culture as main driving force. you do realize every marxist today (e.g. zizek) is critical of this "politically correct" left of today?

100 billion*
ftfy filthy commie

I was just cucking your father while he was having his gender theory seminar at work yesterday.

Wage gap is a conspiracy theory in that it posits a norm.

Patriarchy is a structural theory of social relations, it does not require and in fact functions inspite of individual agents. It is the opposite of a conspiracy theory, it is a surdetermination.

Not that you'd actually, you know, have a meaningful opinion on the fallacy of structuralism.

Eat gyros

But my father is married to my dad.

Yes because there isn't none.
I'm a pennyless fucking student, I work a part-time job.
Since I need more money I subrented a room in my home and since I'm too tired to clean I pay a old Lady to come once a week to help me with the chores.
I also have 2000€ in bank, 1500 of which at any one time being invested.
What the fuck am I? A proletarian? A renter? A Capitalist? What is my economic CLASS as opposed to my economic ROLE (wich i can have more than one of?) What side am I ON in the inevitable war of the classes?

Fucking retard.
500 trillion, deleuzian marxist MONARCH-slave prole.

Fucking degenerate multiple-personality tranny monarch slaves. I thought that was too big to be a clit.

>imageboards are inherently reactionary
What a bizarre thing to say.

>You realize that If You remove classes
And What If You remove classes and proceed to sobstitue them with something else functionally identical?
Who gives a fuck If someone calls the "capitalists" simply "jews"? The concept and the realization of the concept are the same. There's victim group which can do no wrong and evil oppressori group that does everything wrong. The materialist dialectic makes the victory of the first group inevitable.
That We're talking about races, genders, """classes""" or poor woke robot workers against privileged transhumans It's exactly the same, and the error is exactly the same.

it's literally cultural bolshevism under a different name i don't understand how that's disagreeable

wahhh wahhh workerists wahhhhhhhh
pppfpfppfpfpfpffpbbbbbt

Neo-alt-right term used to describe something they don’t understand or arbitrarily don’t like, often followed by the ‘jewish question.’

Ad Hominem tu quoque.
The best communist is the illiterate asían farmer. You'd be welcome amongst them.
Ok you degraded to incoherence in lieu of answering. I'm glad we agree that I'm your intellectual superior and that I'm right on this subject.

You're just a petit bourgeoisie that larps as a boo-hoo worker. if you make surplus money that you can invest into making more money, then you're bourgeoisie, stop acting like a poor worker.
>Who gives a fuck If someone calls the "capitalists" simply "jews"?
then you blame internal antagonisms on external straw-man and by killing de joos dont actually change the structure of society
>There's victim group which can do no wrong and evil oppressori group that does everything wrong
marxism isnt moralism you dumb fuck, marx didnt say capitalists were bad and proles were good
>That We're talking about races, genders, """classes""" or poor woke robot workers against privileged transhumans It's exactly the same, and the error is exactly the same.
it is not the same, the endless substitutions are just capitalist ideology, which functions to substitute the main antagonism by other, partial so the status quo stays the same. modern left is the pure ideology and you have to read zizek

Basically a real phenonomen that needs a rebranding but also why bother because it sends MUH TRVE MARXISTS into a tizzy every fucking time which is entertaining. Its basically just #woke cultures ideology

James Madison alludes to something like it in federalist 10

Talking about factions. Marxism tries to combat other factions by attempting to force citizens to have the same opinions, same passions, and the same interests.

Read Federalist 10, you'll have a good fundamental understanding why certain governments are structured like they are, and you'll understand how they deal with factions, or political parties.

>I am smarter, therefore am right.

This blog is such ideological garbage it's ridiculous. How can one even take his feigned objectivity seriously when he genuinely considers every right wing critique of the status quo narrative surrounding the Holocaust (whether it be around specific claims which often have had to be revised ala lampshades and numerous first person accounts that have had to be retracted, or whether it be the validity of their central position in our society) to be some pathological "disgusting" Jew hatred, as if that's some form of actual argument against the position.

He does the point and sputter bit fairly often where when someone asks a question I (and not just me, Norman Finkelstein wrote an entire book about the Holocaust Industry) think is fairly valid, which is the question of when did the Holocaust become this central creation myth for America that it fundamentally is today. American history seems to be taught as if the liberation of slaves, the liberation of Jews, the civil rights movement and the liberation of the lgbtiapp2bbq+ were the core historical premises around which this country was organized, while simultaneously blaming the state of things on this "white supremacist capitalist" Boogeyman that nobody can point to but seems to be everywhere. When this idea is brought up that even if the Holocaust was this awful travesty, it's fucking ridiculous that we organize so much of American society around Never Forget^TM when America had fuckall to do with it and the role they did play was in fighting the people who were persecuting Jews, he waves it off as Jew hatred while pointing to empirically verifiable truths like the massive over representation of Jews in Hollywood/Media and halls of power, as if those aren't fucking relevant pieces of information to this story!

A fascist boogeyman term

Attached: 1533311985522.png (640x344, 128K)

>Grug want happy
>Grug have sex to make happy
>Grug no need to think about any other thing but sex because sex makes Grug happy

Why don't you go smoke some more meth you hedonist faggot. Sex doesn't actually come as a replacement for being a thinking human being with a coherent worldview.

Attached: 1541886562773.webm (430x500, 1.85M)

>literally straight up answer what was asked
>guuuuh eth da adh homanehm djuuuh

>IF YOU HAVE SURPLUS MONEY THEN
Then You agree with me that there's no such thing as prolets in the modern western world.
>>MARX DIDNT SAY THAT...
The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women. He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production. For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce the community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial. Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
>>capitalists treat women as property not like based proles!
First fucking example i can remember.
>>it is not the same!
Seeeeeethe more. It is. Marx is pure identity politics and modern identity politics can't exist without Marx.
>>strawman
Let's say that I am a 'capitalist' as You say. By Marx's definition my interests are the same as an Arab Prince's.
Let's say I'm a 'prole'. By Marx's definitions my economic interests are the same as a mamluck slave.
It's not a fucking strawman. Marx is dumb.
>>I am smarter, therefore am right.
I'm right therefore I'm smarter than You in this context.
Always crying strawman and then strawmanning right back. Helicopter Rides are too mercyful.

>Being right makes me smart.

"Neo-alt-right"? Do you want to know how I know you don't know what you're talking about? Have you ever actually interacted with the alt-right in any serious fashion besides getting in some comment war on a YouTube video?

Your concept of litteraly straight up answering a question is offending everyone That doesn't Think exactly as You do to the smallest detail.
I hope You get purged by your comrades and sent straight in the reeducation camps.

Again You admit that I'm right.

>Me saying it again makes me right.

Lampshade never had to be revised the nuremberg tribunal itself proved they didn't exist.

I stopped reading there.

>IF YOU HAVE SURPLUS MONEY THEN
if you have surplus money that makes money you retard
>communist manifesto citation
are you really that retarded to pull out a peterson on me? you gonna act like communist manifesto is a serious conceptual marxist text and not designed to agitate retard workers?
>>capitalists treat women as property not like based proles!
lets say he makes that argument, where is identity politics? in saying that capital instrumentalizes people, how marx is advocating current trends of leftism?
>Let's say that I am a 'capitalist' as You say. By Marx's definition my...
interest is to make money from the money extracted from workers labour, what the fuck are you even trying to say

why is this thread so fast? did we get raided by europoors?

>Then You agree with me that there's no such thing as prolets in the modern western world.
Actually lets qualify this:
By previous definition (anyone who can't invest money is a capitalist) then there never was such a thing as a proletarian ever in the history of mankind and a fortiori you "marxists" agree with me.
There never was any law or limitation beyond material lack in the ability to invest money in western Europe since after the middle ages.

Nuremberg trial used testimony from torture victims and didn't require a piece of "submitted" evidence actually have physical evidence to correspond to it. It was a show trial and nothing more.

>anyone who can't invest money is a capitalist
I gues you mean can invest? If you mean that, then, if you invest your money into making more money (investing in buisiness or something) then you accumulate capital. If you accumulate capital, you're capitalist. Let's say you do it while struggling (doing some labour in the restaurant you opened up and have workers working for you) then you're petite bourgeoisie, your end-point is accumulation of profit.

>There never was any law or limitation beyond material lack in the ability to invest money
Funny you should say that, since that's literally the argument. "Legally allowed" means literally shit.

>>pull a peterson
Go fuck yourself.
>>the Manifesto isn't true communism!
Have We reached the APEX of no True scotsman fallacy? It's fine tho I can quote other texts If You want:
>Under private property ... Each tries to establish over the other an alien power, so as thereby to find satisfaction of his own selfish need. The increase in the quantity of objects is therefore accompanied by an extension of the realm of the alien powers to which man is subjected, and every new product represents a new potentiality of mutual swindling and mutual plundering.
Private property is mutual plundering, Luthor stole 40 cakes and That's bad.
>interest is to make money from the money extracted from workers labour, what the fuck are you even trying to say
Interest is the demonstration that economy isn't a 0 Sum game. To You It must be and my interests are either the same as the prince's (getting the bigger slice) or the same as the mameluck (eating, surviving) because there isn't anything else to strive for.

>lets say he makes that argument, where is identity politics?
"Prolets" and "capitalists" are arbitrary identities.
Btw with that quote I'm answering the assertion that there is no such thing as moral wrong or right in Marx.
There is little but.

>Interest is the demonstration that economy isn't a 0 Sum game.

Attached: 1554136222543.jpg (436x446, 20K)

Yes I meant can.
Again, there was not a single proletarian in the history of mankind Then.
So Now the argument is simply against corruption in the system That doesn't let You invest meaningfully. You're getting far from Marx's ideas.

>last century

Admitt yourself to a hospital.
Alternativelly go play darts in a bar or something.

If the cake fucking grows you're still getting a bigger and bigger slice. I'm sorry it will never be as big as other people's, mine won't either; but That's just Pareto's principle.

Again, in the case of the lampshade this is blatantly wrong because they examined said lampshade who was supposed to be made of human skins.

Why are you lying? What's your goal?

Cultural Marxism is quite simply the adoption of identity politics by Marxists. That's literally it. Marxists nowadays are far more concerned with trannies, immigrants and other kinds of undesirables than with working class people, and you can see this in the amount of opposition they reserve for, say, someone who is economically close to them but socially hostile vs the opposite.

Have sex.

>Go fuck yourself.
watch your mouth, son
>Have We reached the APEX of no True scotsman fallacy?
I'm not saying that Marx is never moralizing, he literally talks about how capitalism destroys "old good" traditional values, it is just not the crux of his theory, you ARE really pulling a Peterson on me.
>To You It must be and my interests are either the same as the prince's or mameluck
what other kinds of interests are you talking about? If you are accumulating capital, your basic interest is of making profit, it might even be so, that you will more to prole, so he stays in good shape, you may even invest some of your profit into 3rd world country to make yourself look moral, but it all boils down to making profit. If you don't, then you're not a capitalist.

>Again, there was not a single proletarian in the history of mankind Then.
why?

>what other kinds of interests are you talking about?
Not him but literally anything else. The "proles across the world have more in common with each other than with capitalists in their own country" is so patently untrue to anyone who has ever been with both groups that it's amazing Marxists still push it.

>So Now the argument is simply against corruption in the system That doesn't let You invest meaningfully. You're getting far from Marx's ideas.
No the argument is wheter or not you are legally allowed to do something is relatively meaningless. You need to consider if you actually can make use of that right. How many people have the money to pay for just the legal fees to open a business? Let alone the rent of an office or a shop or a factory or a field? Oh and the machinery? And even if you manage somehow to finance all of that, how many workers can afford to go several months without pay to build up the business?

That's the fundamental difference between proles and burgies: the first NEEDS to sell his labor to survive, the second can live on his capital alone.

also I am not the same user
This argument only works if we abstract all problems away. In particular it assumes that all slices are the same, which is not true, some are better, some are worthless; it also assumes that slices do no interact with each other, which is also not true, since the owners of the bigger slice will hold much more power than the owners of the smaller slices regardless of their relative weight against the whole, said power imbalance will produce inevitably also an imbalance in the effective cake distribution; it also assumes a world where the cake keeps growing uniformily, thus providing everyone with some new cake, which is obviously false; it also assumes that wealth is accumulated only through growth, which is also another wrong assumption; finally it assumes that the cake can grow indefinetly, which is obviously impossible.

So you see, it's all fun and games in the fantasy world of theoretical economics, but the truth is quite different. And that is marxism at its core.

Attached: 781a1200c79f67305b3167cfd9ff6a652bf4a45ea906d81cba971e7a589d10c5.jpg (498x760, 68K)

It's the cultural paradigm that follows a revolting generation gaining power.

can you prove it is not true?

I mean, are you implicating that Marx said proles "do this and want this and only this"? Of course they are social beings who have other interests, only as economic agents, they are defined by certain structural relations. If you make profit that makes more profit you're capitalist. If you work for capitalist you're prole. There are in betweens and marx acknowledges them.

>You ARE really pulling a peterson
I won't sit here being fucking insulted by a brainlet commie.
>"old good"
Ok then, I will ply it with pincers out of You If I must. Does Marx prefer this supposed "old good" to "capitalist ethics"?
If he does then He's Obviously making an ethical judgement.
>If You're making profit...
Repeating the same bullshit over and over doesn't constitue an argument. Making a profit is the Object of the field of economics. The "how" representa my economic interests.
There is no such thing as a prole as an actual class by What You're saying only people who make less money than others.

Fucking thank You.
I dont care How many camels I can sell before next rhamadam.

I guess tomorrow I'll go to bumfuck, Laos and I'll have some interesting conversation with the locals.
Except I can't talk to them because we don't share a language in common.
And even if I were to talk with them, our cultures and religious backgrounds would be so different that common references and subjects would be scarce to nonexistent.
And if we talked about more material matters, our lifestyles are so different while still both being proles that there's nothing meaningful to talk about even there.

The term as it’s used amounts to little more than conspiracies about evil Jews hiding under the beds of those who use it. There might be some value in the term if used to describe the influence of Marxism in the development of contemporary cultural studies, but even that might be a stretch.

I'm saying other interests are as important or even more important depending on what we're talking about than their existence as economic agents, which makes the characterization of them by primarily economic (and extremely broad) means useless.

Holy fuck! This is your brain on memes.

>I won't sit here being fucking insulted by a brainlet commie.
I'm not even a leftist you retard
>Ok then, I will ply it with pincers out of You If I must.
You must be fucking retarded, because I agreed with you, that he makes ethical judgements. I'm just saying that it's not relevant to his theory, and comes up only as rethorical strategy to agitate the reader.
>There is no such thing as a prole as an actual class by What You're saying only people who make less money than others.
how does it follow from what I say?

Marxism set out to free the poor and the workers from the tyranny of the upper class and the powers that be. Basically a new christianity without God. The idea of liberation was able to unlock massive social energies and was used to establish communism.

After the 20th century, the working class got outsourced to Asia and Africa, so there's noone to liberate anymore in the west, which meant that the left had lost its cause and wasn't able to move people to vote for them with the same message of liberating the poor and the working class. So they bascially shifted their target of liberation from the working class to minorities and women to mobilize the social powers within our society.

This new left is the movement that is called by many names )sjw's, culture-left, feminism, black lives matter, etc.) is often labeled cultural marxists, since they apply Marx's ideas of liberation to cultural minorities in order to mobilize social energies.

Ok Sorry for confusing You with the other user.
>can i make use of that right
Again now the problem is not in the principle of investing money But in the fact that the system isn't perfect and that some people somewhere dont get to.
>In particular it assumes that all slices are the same,
I assumed the opposite from the get go.
>the owners of the bigger slice will hold much more power than the owners of the smaller slices regardless of their relative weight against the whole,
This looks like an argument against economic dirigism rather than for.
>it also assumes a world where the cake keeps growing uniformily, thus providing everyone with some new cake,
How many chinese can afford a car nowadays? How many indians shitpost on /pol/ nowadays?
How many could afford a train ride before the british raj when there were no trains?
Looks like the cake still grows, not homogenely or perfectly But it grows.
One of the main points of "the Capital" is that it can't.
>So you see, it's all fun and games in the fantasy world of theoretical economics, but the truth is quite different.
I agree, Marx doesn't. He just pitched his rival theory of economics and once people attempted to apply it (and don't give me 'no True communism" shadow: i say attempted) it was proved wrong.

Marx was not talking of cultural vicinity, but of class vicinity. I know it soulds extremely unstettling to understand that to a capitalist you are as worthy and relevant as 15 year old kid in Indonesia slaving away its childhood in a sweatshop, but it's our reality.
And you know how I know this? It's because the white working class of Europe and the US was treated just as badly in the 1800s and the early 1900s. Full blooded whites Christians, 100% culturally European or American were treated as literal dirt, thrown in barely livable conditions, forced to abandon their homes and farms to work dangerous factories and mines, refused medical treatment, treated as parasites and a dead weight on society; and whenever they dared stand up, lethal force was used to keep the rabble at bay, until after countless murders some rights were recognized to workers.... Sounds familiar?

At the end of the day, your friendly boss will immediately throw you on the street if it meant he makes 0.005 more dollars, while that Indonesian kid will offer shelter for the night, because to the first you are an extension of the factory, a gear that can be substituted if needed, to the other you are a person.

Attached: S6xW5E6.png (540x540, 540K)

>>i agree with You
Fucking retard no You don't.
You were just saying that his philosophy is not ethical and I provided examples of him making ethical judgements based on his philosophy. It's not hard.
>how does it follow from what I say?
Suppose I'm a proletarian in 1800 london. I live alone and save money. I invest in the company that hired me.
Am I now a capitalist?

Characterization of people by primarily economic mean are useful when we talk about well being of many people. I mean you would still work 12 hours per day if not socialist movements. I don't deny that in other fields other interests prevail (some marxists agree with that, e.g. Pierre Bourdieu). But when you can't pay for medical treatment and worry about your rent and food, then other kinds of interests are non-existent.

>Basically a new christianity without God.
We agree marxism is an heresy of Christianity. As other heresies it takes part of the doctrine out of context and makes It the single most important thing.
I disagree that it doesn't have a God: "History" is the God of Marxism and it will inevitabily bring a classless society.
Which is funny because while It has economic roles that different people can fill, society is allready economically classless.

>Marx was not talking of cultural vicinity, but of class vicinity.
How am I the same class as a 15 years old indonesian kid? I have no economic interest in common with him.
My economic interest is having a free market where I can eventually start my own indipendent economic activity, his economic interest is eating tomorrow.
It doesn't matter How much You repeat the same bullcrap it remains bullcrap,

Communism with American characteristics.

Never gonna make it.

>Fucking retard no You don't.
>his philosophy is not ethical and I provided examples of him making ethical judgements
I just said that it is not the crux of his theory and only rethorical tricks to agitate the readers. If you had read wikipedia page of marx you would know that morality for him is ideology.

>Suppose I'm a proletarian in 1800 london. I live alone and save money. I invest in the company that hired me.
Am I now a capitalist?
If you accumulate some money that starts making money then yes, you're a capitalist. Let's say you still work for that company and get some money from the investments, then you're petite bourgeoisie (a low level capitalist). It's not that hard to understand. And no its not black and white identity camps for marx. I repeat: there are in betweens. Restaurant owner that does labour himself and bill gates are capitalists. But they are different kinds of capitalists.