83
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] RedColossus@lemmygrad.ml 38 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Marx said eventually the contradictions of capitalism will cause it to collapse on itself. Later on in life he agreed with revolutionaries, of the Lenin ilk, that perhaps it won’t collapse on its own and direct intervention has to happen. He might have just been wrong about the timing and it might have taken an extra hundred years. We see that the liberal foreign policy has created a checkmate.

How can you claim Ukraine is this horrific tragedy when it’s significantly tamer than in Palestine where a genocide is going on and the government is telling people to relax that it’s not that bad? How can they rally the normie liberal to really care about Ukraine again without making Israel look bad? If anything the US might just throw Kyiv/Kiev under bus to save Tel-Aviv.

[-] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 24 points 6 months ago

I get what you mean, but that first line is a bit silly in the sense that Lenin was 13 at the time of Marx’s death lol.

[-] RedColossus@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 6 months ago

Lol, thanks I reworded it to make more sense.

[-] wheresmysurplusvalue@hexbear.net 21 points 6 months ago

I think the way Marx should be understood is that there isn't a way capitalism can remain stable in the long term, contradictions will lead invariably to crises. Not that he can predict the future exactly how that unfolds. It's like looking at a house built on a cliff prone to mudslides and predicting that shit's gonna collapse eventually

[-] Charlie@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 6 months ago

It loosely reminds me of the Foundation Sci Fi series. In the novel, a Mathematician creates a new field he calls psychohistory, basically a mathematics of sociology, vaguely dialectic materialism. Using statistical laws of mass action, it can predict the future of large populations, and the first thing he sees is the inevitable collapse of empire.

[-] wheresmysurplusvalue@hexbear.net 9 points 6 months ago

Haha I was thinking of Foundation when I wrote that comment!

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

SPOILERS AHEAD

I'm reading the Foundation now (some prequels and in 6th book now) and while at first it was deep disappointment that the Seldon plan was not only just the second imperium, but achieved by the mind control and mentalist ubermensch ruling the galaxy (got a real good heads up how stellarly would that work in 5th book), but with the introduction of Gaia it turned out to be incredibly hilarious.
Gaia is basically utopian communism, sustainable, classless, moneyless society, which furthermore is centrally planned and follow literal democratic centralism (or at least it works like that because group consciousness). But seen by the lib eye, "human nature" problem which no liberalism ever can overcome even in speculation, is eliminated by being group consciousness. Even funnier, arguments used against Gaia by Trevize and some other people mirror arguments used by liberals against communism. If i didn't know Asimov was ultimately a lib and anticomunist i would thought it was a bait.

Also, never allow mathematicians to plan the future.

this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
83 points (98.8% liked)

World News

2175 readers
15 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS