I'm starting to think that nearly all the pro-Marxists here are only here on the week days implying they are paid useful idiots.

Me too. It's really strange how none of them can address these points seriously. Everytime it's some kind of snark. One even posted a link to Marxism101. Give me a break!

Try again during the week days. Should be an interesting experiment!

I'm going to slowly perfect these questions. These four contradictions came to me pretty quick. So in time they will be refined. Do you have any I missed off hand?

These four contradictions came to me pretty quick. So in time they will be refine

They came quick because you have common sense which most Marxist drones do not.

Do you have any I missed off hand?

Not off the top of my head. You've nailed it so far.

If you think of any please pm. I'm always open for critique. ;)

Will do!

What's a 'pro-Marxist'?

Someone who is pro Marxism. You know Marxists-Socialists-Communists. There's been a surge of them here.

Anarchism and other forms of utopian socialisms fall under that same umbrella.

So a Marxist, then?

Yes or someone who leans towards Marxist ideology ie. pro-Marxists. An example of this would be 'Social Democrats'.

What's the difference between a pro-Marxist and a Marxist?

Or any follower of other utopian socialisms. Especially anything connected to the National Socialist German Workers Party kind in particular.

Shit troll is shit

I take offence to your non argument.

Removed. Rule 10.

you have to trick the goy.

Do I hear Muddy Waters playing?

corporations are the most rigid totalitarian structures ... your thesis is falsified ... your welcome.

More totalitarian than a gulag? That's hilarious. I choose to work at a factory or not. Do I choose to enter and leave a communist gulag?

the corporation imprisons your mind

/r/im14andthisisdeep/

Lol? What if I own my own business?

Lol. What if you don't?

Do you only speak in platitudes?

Not one Marxist can address my questions. How strange...

the replies were quite revealing - would like to see a similar post with questions / contradictions in someone like machiavelli and the responses

Definitely an interesting experiment to consider.

To reiterate a previous point that was made, none of these are actual contradictions. They are questions which you think are difficult.

One; that a classes society of shared ownership of production is the executable outcome of socialism. But how is that enforced?

Socialists generally advocate that the working class form its own governing organs. Historically this took the form of councils that were formed, such as factory councils and town councils. During revolutionary times these social formations are defended through workers militias that are controlled by these worker organs. See for example the POUM that Orwell fought for in the Spanish Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_council

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POUM

Two; An economic theory that denies the value of agreements and contracts. But how does Marx view incentives?

There are two issues here, the first is that as capital is defined by a power asymmetry, a set of contracts and agreements is not important. However, different regional units still have to agree to coordinate production and distribution, etc. So I am not sure what the objection is exactly. Concerning incentives...Marx was clear, that the incentive for the capitalist class was expansion of capital, and the working class participated in this, because it's existence is mediated by wages.

Marx viewed human beings as creative social beings, that engage in activity as an expression of their individuality and affirmation of our social nature. Hence the famous quote in Capital about the bees and architects.

Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, the workman’s will be steadily in consonance with his purpose. This means close attention. The less he is attracted by the nature of the work, and the mode in which it is carried on, and the less, therefore, he enjoys it as something which gives play to his bodily and mental powers, the more close his attention is forced to be.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm

Three; not all business is based in exploitation. But according to Marx...

Well that is obviously where a disagreement is. Marx argued that behind all categories of capitalism are antagonistic social relations. The antagonism revolves around different was that human beings are alienated.

First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like the plague. External labor, labor in which man alienates himself, is a labor of self-sacrifice, of mortification. Lastly, the external character of labor for the worker appears in the fact that it is not his own, but someone else’s, that it does not belong to him, that in it he belongs, not to himself, but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, of the human brain and the human heart, operates on the individual independently of him – that is, operates as an alien, divine or diabolical activity – so is the worker’s activity not his spontaneous activity. It belongs to another; it is the loss of his self.

As a result, therefore, man (the worker) only feels himself freely active in his animal functions – eating, drinking, procreating, or at most in his dwelling and in dressing-up, etc.; and in his human functions he no longer feels himself to be anything but an animal. What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm

Four; Marxism is a system that preaches peace and happiness for the masses yet imposes the most rigid totalitarian structures.

Marxism does not preach anything. This question is based on a category error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Marxism is an analytic framework for understanding capitalism. The difference between Marxism and regular political economy, is that regular economics has as its goal making capitalism more efficient, less prone to crisis, etc. Marxism has as its goal the transcendence of capitalism.

Now concerning why rigid totalitarian structures were created in the Soviet Union, is a good question. The first is that if the political structures like the vanguard party are anti-democratic and rooted in secrecy, then it follows that the political institutions that they create will be similar. But ultimately these movements were interested in making the majority of the population be workers, they were not, they were rooted in agricultural economies, and they wanted to compete in the global market with their products. So they engaged in a brutal system of primitive accumulation which forced people into factories. The contradiction was that Lenin and Stalin were committed to the view that in order to have 'socialism' you must first have capitalism, so that is what they tried to create.

Lots of very well parroted platitudes. But you don't actually answer any of the questions.

I know what Marxism proposes but I am concerned with Marxism in practice.

1. Worker councils coordinate production and defend this through workers militias.

2. Agreements exist between different political units, but contracts are nonsensical in a society where production is socialized.

3. All of capital is exploitative. Capital is only antagonistic relationships between human beings that become objectified in different categories.

4. You are committing a category error.

1. Sounds like classes to me. I thought socialism was void of classes?

2. Okay then how does a socialist society get people to work harder with no incentives besides you are guaranteed everything in life?

3. Capital itself is not exploitive. It is how it's is used.

4. Seeing how something is used in practice vs theory is not a categorical error. It is an error in Marxism. If it can't even be practiced then it's obviously a a failed system.

Sounds like classes to me. I thought socialism was void of classes?

During the period that the working class is taking over the means of production, there are still other classes to defend against. To give you a historical example, during the early days of the Russian revolution, there were still the nobility and capitalist armies to defend against.

Okay then how does a socialist society get people to work harder with no incentives besides you are guaranteed everything in life?

We don't want people to work harder. That is not a value we share. We want people to have their time be free, and for individuals to choose how they spend it without coercion, economic included.

Capital itself is not exploitive. It is how it's is used.

What Marx did was show that Capital is not stuff, it is not machines, or buildings or money...all those are moments of capital. Capital is a social relationship between people, a class relationship and an exploitative and alienating one.

Seeing how something is used in practice vs theory is not a categorical error.

That is not what you did in a double sense. Marxism is not an economic system, nor is it a political system, nor is it even a political program.

Marxism is only an analytic framework, albeit a critical one, of capitalism. That is it! What we do with it, and what kind of political actions are taken and informed by it is not the same category as an analysis itself. Hence why you are committing a category error.

To give you some examples to support this, whether or not the working class should form political parties which participate in elections in capitalist countries, or whether or not there should be a vanguard of professional revolutionaries that overthrows the state acting on behalf of the working class, or whether the working class itself makes democratic assemblies that overthrow the state, are all political positions that you can find in the socialist movement. There is reformism, Leninism, and 'liberterian socialism'.

Now all of those political projects are informed by Marxism, however they are not themselves Marxism.

It is an error in Marxism.

Obviously there is something to the claim that establishing highly centralized and authoritarian systems is not a good idea, but this has squat to do with Marxism.

If it can't even be practiced then it's obviously a a failed system.

THERE IS NOTHING TO PRACTICE. Marxism is a critique of capitalism!

Ah so Marxism actually doesn't exist? I mean if there's nothing to practice then it is just dogma.

Dogma means an official opinion, like a church holds, which in this case would be analogous to repeating paleo-conservative talking points like facts.

To seriously answer your question. Marxism does exist, it is just not what you think it is. An analytical framework is not reducible to a dogma, nor is dogma reducible to an analytical framework.

If you want to actually critique Marx, you should first be familiar with that which you are attempting to critique.

I've read all three volumes of Kapital.

I doubt this is the case, and there are 4 volumes, with the theories of surplus value being only a draft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_Surplus_Value

I'm in my sixties. I've had plenty of time to read.

You being sixty, is not really relevant. Especially if you live in capitalist social system, where more and more of our time is sucked by capital accumulation.

If you think I don't understand Marxism your mistaken. I know about the totalitarian nature of Praxis when applied though dialectical purity.

The camps. The vanguard party. Ah yes the councils that are completely equal to workers. All are equal to the great council of distribution.

I think I read something in the Talmud that is very similar to your points here. Very interesting.

I doubt you read the Talmud.

Why's that?

People won't just share and they we r work with no incentive. You know nothing of human nature. Even less of how the real world works.

People won't just share and they we r work with no incentive. You know nothing of human nature.

I know that even in capitalism which has brutalized us people still share without incentives, and I know that in anthropology human beings, for most of their history, existed in a state of 'primitive communism, and I know that human beings don't wan to work bullshit jobs, which they do in capitalism. That is knowing enough.

Even less of how the real world works.

I know how the world works, I just don't share your ideological commitments.

People only help family or their tribe without incentives. It's human nature.

People only help family or their tribe without incentives. It's human nature.

Well at least we are making progress, and you concede that the claim that people are not engaged in social productive activity without incentives is not true, they do. Now we impose some ad hoc critiria like the family and 'tribes'.

Here is the thing, I don't think you know what human nature really is like, or at least I don't share you Augustinian commitments. I think Marx was much more astute here than you concerning human activity.

Now families and the culture and society a person grew up in I.e. socialisation. Are "ad hoc critiria". Give me a break with all the critical theory BS.

Now families and the culture and society a person grew up in I.e. socialisation. Are "ad hoc critiria".

Yes, because you impose them to limit the sphere where human social activity occurs without economic incentives, and you did it in an ad hoc way. Where the point is that you yourself admit that human activity, that is productive, can occur without economic incentives.

Give me a break with all the critical theory BS.

Same to you buddy, concerning your paleo-conservative talking points. Try stepping out of that bubble for a second and read some primary sources.

I impose those limits? Their limits are well known by every anthologist.

Their limits are well known by every anthologist.

You believe this is the case, but empirically this is very false. Here is a very good anthropologist discussing the issue:

http://openanthcoop.net/press/http:/openanthcoop.net/press/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Graeber-On-the-Moral-Grounds-of-Economic-Relations4.pdf

You can also read a book dealing with this:

https://www.routledge.com/Anthropology-and-the-Economy-of-Sharing/Widlok/p/book/9781138945548

Why do people die quicker in nursing homes than at home with family? Is it the care that's different between family?

Shouldn't the most advanced systems keep people alive longer. It is well known in anthropology that people treat their children and family I.e. tribe differently from others. Please. Stop trying to deny known science with some Talmudic hermeneutics.

Why do people die quicker in nursing homes than at home with family?

I don't know what you are asking here. People go to nursing homes for a verity of reasons. Sometimes they don't qualify to go to acute rehabilitation so they go to lower lever of care instead, but temporarily, sometimes they go there on hospice, sometimes they are long term residents. I really don't know what it means to state that they die quicker in a nursing home than at home with a family.

Shouldn't the most advanced systems keep people alive longer.

Absolutely not!!! You don't know what you are saying. We can put people on a ventilator, pace their heart, feed them artificially, and dialyze them, but I would not think that is not any kind of quality of life. Quality is more important and it is not measured how long you can keep a body going.

It is well known in anthropology that people treat their children and family I.e. tribe differently from others.

A tribe is not reducible to the family, and it is not really accurate, we treat strangers differently from those familiar to us. We form in groups, that are defined by outgroups, etc. I don't really know what this has to do with Marxism, nor your claim that all anthropologists hold to a view about activity that does not have an economic incentive is only found in the family and 'tribe'. That is a false statement. Graeber is the example that falsifies it.

If you have not read his book Debt, The First 5000 Years, you should drop everything and pick it up.

https://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf

Why do people die quicker in nursing homes than at home with family? Is it the care that's different between family?

Shouldn't the most advanced systems keep people alive longer. It is well known in anthropology that people treat their children and family I.e. tribe differently from others. Please. Stop trying to deny known science with some Talmudic hermeneutics.