>tfw we live in a societyDid I just summarize the entirety of Marxist thought?
>>12107553Cops are niggers. Lumpen are a reactionary class. Cops are lumpen
>>12107553Not quite. But that sentence is still an order of magnitude more sophisticated than liberalism.
>>12107559>implying Marx isn't just an ultraliberal
>>12107561Marx didn't actually say anything, he plagiarized a lot. Marxism is just libs, Marx himself didn't care.
>>12107553we live AS society
>>12107561>>12107562Are you american?
>>12107553We live in a class society. How about that?
>>12107580Classless societies don't exist. All societies are class societies, so your statement is redundant.
>>12107565Cops are niggers>>12107580Marx didn't say that. Libs argue a hot dog stand owner is a higher class position than a doctor
>>12107553you just summarized all political thought
>>12107582Every society is classless because cops are niggers. You are a worthless retard like the rest.
>>12107588Are you mad I didn't acknowledge you? Your comment was so dumb it wasn't worth replying to, thats why I didn't respond
>>12107582you can say it because marx said itand >>12107580 pointed it outyou just "want to look smart" contrarian faggot>All societies are class societiesnot in marxian waymarx talks about industrial society
>>12107599>not in marxian wayI don't give a fuck about the marxian way because Marx was wrong lmfaoAll societies have classesAll societies have inequalityAll societies have miseryThere's nothing unique about "Marxian" "class society". It's just a dogma fabricated for Marxist doctrine
>>12107604Obviously no society has any class and cops are niggers.
>>12107604you're hysterical trannysaurus who said nothing valuable>because Marx was wrongwhere?>All societies have classesclasses of what kind?you mistook hierarchy with classmarx not denies hierarchy not class as abstract term but talks about specific classes as owners and workers>All societies have inequalitymarx not denies it but not all societies has developed property institution and segregation on owners and workers>All societies have miserymarx not denies it >There's nothing unique about "Marxian" "class society".i can't say if anybody before him looked on the society the way he didbefore hegel here even was no proper ground for idea of class in the way marx use this term>dogma fabricated for Marxist doctrineit's just a discriptionyou can make your ownbut as i can see all nonsense like "gender = class" is just a seething capitalist cope from pure impotence to disprove marxian modeland you seems to be such seething faggot
>>12107652>because Marx was wrongHe didn't mention this.>>All societies have classesIncels vs slayers>you mistook hierarchy with classNo>All societies have inequalityCorrect >marx not denies it Irrelevant .>i can't say if anybody before him looked on the society the way he didbefore hegel here even was no proper ground for idea of class in the way marx use this Yes there was sociology.>>dogma fabricated for Marxist doctrine>it's just a discription
>>12107663gibberishtake your pills
>>12107670Cops are niggers
>>12107670Nice bot reply.
>>12107672either group shows more adequacy than you
>>12107652>where?Labor theory of value, historical view of history, etc. >classes of what kind?Guilds, warrior classes, chieftains, priests. There are many many types of classes>marx not denies hierarchy not class as abstract term but talks about specific classes as owners and workersRedefining a term to make it fit your theory isn't good science. In fact it's circular logic.>Marxian class society exists because marxism is the exploitation of the worker class by the owners and classes are either workers or owners as defined by Marx therefore Marxian class society existsYou know there were slave classes as far as back as 2500 BC right? Is that suddenly a 'proto-bourgeois' Marxian class society? LOL>before hegel here even was no proper ground for idea of class in the way marx use this termYou're saying medieval serfs weren't aware of their status?>it's just a discription>you can make your ownNo, it's a dogma that is not grounded in evidence. Hence why we're here arguing about the semantics of Marxist dogma and doctrine
>>12107683Pathetic weak parasite.
>>12107687i'm not the one who's foaming with impotent rage
>>12107672Cops are based.
>>12107685>historical view of history,Scientific* sorry
>>12107685>abor theory of value, historical view of history, etc. ?>Guilds, warrior classes, chieftains, priests. There are many many types of classesThis is not wow fucking retard>Redefining a term to make it fit your theory isn't good science. In fact it's circular logic.Same >You know there were slave classes as far as back as 2500 BC right? Is that suddenly a 'proto-bourgeois' Marxian class society? LOLSo what?>You're saying medieval serfs weren't aware of their status?Yeah only fucking retards believe that.>No, it's a dogma that is not grounded in evidence. Hence why we're here arguing about the semantics of Marxist dogma and doctrineHow is there no evidence of your argument requires it?
>>12107694Then kill cops or whatever, I mean you're just wasting time. It's not really impressive to shitpost on 4chan.
>>12107702>This is not wow fucking retardGuilds literally "own the means of production" you retarded faggot lmfao
>>12107553it's more like>we live in an economy
>>12107705Still not world of Warcraft you fucking neckbeard
>>12107553>Did I just summarize the entirety of Marxist thought?The opposite. You summarized childish position Marx was objecting to ("if society does something my morals do not agree with, I must throw a shit fit").Marx was closer to Bane (who is a caricature of Robespierre), but even this resemblance is surface only. For obvious reasons, American comics never discuss Marxism.The closest you'd ever get would be this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjogCytzX0s
>>12107553You will never have a communist utopia.
>>12107709>Still not world of Warcraft you fucking neckbeardlol, you don't know what a guild is do you
>>12107713Marx's observation that life is difficult and living beings must struggle to survive is so banal that it's laughable that it's considered insightful. The notion that humans should try to improve their lot being Marxian is also laughable. You really think humans throughout history and pre-history haven't been actively trying to improve their lives? So silly
>>12107685>Labor theory of valuevalue can't be less than labor costsit is question of physical matter no basis = no super construction>Guilds, warrior classes, chieftains, priests. There are many many types of classesseething cope even after i wrote about itpathetic you lost here>Redefining a term to make it fit your theory isn't good science. In fact it's circular logic.seething cope even after i wrote about itpathetic >You know there were slave classes as far as back as 2500 BC right? here was no such word as your beloved term "class" 2500 BC>You're saying medieval serfs weren't aware of their status?they doubtfully used term class or understood it in marxian way or understood old complexity of feodal society they lived in where they was or dependent or even owned by their masters = wasn't free and hired for work proletarians>No, it's a dogma that is not grounded in evidence. Hence why we're here arguing about the semantics of Marxist dogma and doctrinetake pills tranny
>>12107750>value can't be less than labor costsWrong.
>>12107750Please explain to me how a guild is not a class.>here was no such word as your beloved term "class" 2500 BClol>they doubtfully used term class or understood it in marxian way or understood old complexity of feodal society they lived in where they was or dependent or even owned by their masters = wasn't free and hired for work proletarianslol>b-b-but class can only mean things I want it to mean!! Guilds controlling manufacturing or warrior-classes controlling the production of wheat aren't classes because I said so and Marx said so and if it isn't true then Marxism doesn't work!!!! waaaahhhhh
>>12107754you can't dumping for eternityyou can't work if you can't sustain life
>>12107763Cops are niggers. Also they are a class /thread
>>12107763>loli correct =you lose>loli correct =you lose
>>12107768Please explain to me how a guild is not a class.
>>12107792Cops are a guild
>>12107792same as gender
>>12107801yes that is correct>>12107804If you consider them workers but not owners of their labor in your Le Marxian sense, then yes
>>12107813Cops are a class?
>>12107817Cops are niggers
>>12107822jannies take a note
>>12107817Police are a class of society with a specific role. Their labor is enforcement of the law. Because of powerful police unions, The police class owns their own labor
>>12107835No cops are niggers.
>>12107744You seem to have dedicated your life to fighting strawmen.Let me provide tl;dr from Marx himself:>> The general conclusion at which I arrived and which, once reached, became the guiding principle of my studies can be summarised as follows.>> In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. >> The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.
>>12107849Did Marx say anything about cops
>>12107853Sure. They are clearly part of superstructure, and not part of basis. I.e. hired held of capitalists.In the sense of "class" they can be considered equivalent to petit-bourgeois (individual producers; simple commodity production).
>>12107859Then why do cops just act in a zombielike way and disproportionately kill capitalists controlling for density
>>12107553Society lives in us!
>>12107849Lol yes, even if we take as a given that what Marx wrote is true (it's not) then the complexity of modern societies would require the inclusion of more classes. Where would the police exist in Marxian class society? They have no relation to production but are not owners of the means of production either. Marxists' antagonism towards the petty bourgeoisie is symptomatic of their deep misunderstanding of class. And again, Marx is also just wrong. This model Marx created is silly and was most applicable if we are being cheritable at the very beginnings of agricultural society.Again, my point still stands. Marxist "insight" is just >uhh poor people have poor consciousness and rich people have rich consciousness and this makes life awfully hard xDand again, even including 'consciousness' in a material theory is laughable
>>12107878>again, even including 'consciousness' in a material theory is laughableMarx was literally a try hard opposed to actual materialists like Malthus
>>12107866>disproportionately kill capitalists controlling for densitywat
>>12107885>Marx was literally a try hard opposed to actual materialists like Malthus>his whole pseudo-scientific theory is called historical materialism
>>12107878>Where would the police exist in Marxian class society?service for ruling classit is like school age questionsevery ex soc-block person has this knowledge in the same level as earth is round
>>12107910But cops aren't part of the government. They just steal people's cars. They only defend property accidentally.
>>12107878>Lol yes, even if we take as a given that what Marx wrote is true (it's not) Do you admit to arguing with strawmen or not?Because if you don't, then there is nothing to discuss.Because if you do, then present points that you are - apparently - arguing with. I'm not going to spend a second trying to deduce what nonsense you had ascribed to Marx this time.>>12107898Ah. Schizo.
>>12107910>service for ruling classWhere does that fit into your worker-owner class society? Your theory is incoherent and should be discarded
>>12107918Cops are just a gang. They're not even a real thing. Cops are niggers.
>>12107916>saying what Marx argued is wrong is a strawmankekHis understanding of class is wrong. His understanding of production is wrong. His understanding of consciousness and production is bizarro metaphysical garbage and irrelevant
>>12107912>government=/=ruling class>>12107918in the same place where factory securityseethe more tranny
>>12107924There's no reason to defend other people's property.
>>12107924>in the same place where factory securityAnd where is that? Does factory security not labor?
>>12107929It's like asking if stormtroopers are labor. Yes the zombie horde that dies defending a strip mall is "labor". Doesn't make it any less pathetic.
>>12107933>Doesn't make it any less pathetic.That's not really relevant. It just shows how the Marxian understanding of class is incoherent
>>12107928exactlysocialist militia defend socialist order from perpetrators>>12107929not essential labor
>>12107939Your mom is.
>>12107941>socialist militia defend socialist order from perpetratorsSo then cops are leftwing. Which conclusively proves the point stated in the op: that cops are niggers.
>>12107923> His understanding of class is wrong. Can you tell me his understanding of class? You can't.> His understanding of production is wrong. Can you tell me his understanding of production? You can't.> His understanding of consciousness and production is bizarro metaphysical garbage and irrelevantIf you don't know what you are talking about, what worth does your noise have? None.
>>12107948>So then cops are leftwingnot in capitalist society
>>12107952> Can you tell me his understanding of class? You can't.That cops are class> Can you tell me his understanding of production? You can'tThat cops produce or are produced by niggers> If you don't know what you are talking about, what worth does your noise have? None.Cops
>>12107954Yes they are, example
>>12107952>Can you tell me his understanding of class? You can't.>Can you tell me his understanding of production? You can't.Who cares? He's wrong. The definitions you work with are cicular. Anything that disproves his theory of class actually isn't a class according to his theory. Anything that contradicts how production informs class in his theory is actually non-essential labor, and the goalposts are moved. It's pseudoscience and false. If I demonstrate how his understanding of class or production are false you will simply say that those are not actually class or production according to his theory. It's intellectually bankrupt and shouldn't be engaged with seriously to begin with. Marxist theory cant even explain the petty bourgoisie and can only seethe about how they are class traitors and stooges for the mega bourgeoisie
>>12107987Virtually all labor is nonessential, even in marxs time there were tons of pointless union and guild jobs that were legally protected.
>>12107987>Who cares? He's wrong.You can't even tell what he is wrong about.
>>12107956>socialist societyif you would understand dialectic you would know that if you want to move from A to B you need to start from Achina's condition is A+ where society has socialist government which controls police and such control used to keep process of transformation goingyour argumentation basically analog of Achilles vs turtle story "here's always a little bit being left"according to you society is not socialist until it's obviously socialist but socialism is exactly society which is going thru transformationsocialist is A+ onlynot A - capitalistnot B - communist
>>12107999>You can't even tell what he is wrong about.Labor theory of value, his historical materialism has been demonstrably proven wrong, his understanding of class in society, etc. Cope about it
>>12108031Buzzwords. You don't know what LTV is, nor HistMat, nor class.>>You can't even tell what he is wrong about.
>>12108006>if you would understand dialectic you would know that if you want to move from A to B you need to start from Aand yet neither the USSR nor China, which both adopted Marxism, started from point A. So Marxist dialectic of wrong lmaoooo
>>12108049from what they started?
>>12107563That would be ideal.
>>12108046value is not derived from the labor of productionhistorical materialism has not manifested as marx predictedmarxist class fails to explain the existence of groups such as the petty bourgeoisie or the managerial class who do not own the means of production and yet cannot be considered proletarian, and thus marxist theory of class is incoherent and bunk QQ moar. Read something besides Marx lel
>>12108058both were pre-industrial societies
>>12107922Prisons are very real and hard to escape.
>>12108060Did we have the discussion about strawmen in this thread? Yes, we did.Please, loop back to: >>12107849>You seem to have dedicated your life to fighting strawmen.
>>12108065>pre-industrialunderdeveloped =/= pre-industrialpre-industrial cannot produce forvard level technological product an masse ie "on industrial scale"russian empire produced full specter of military tech mainly domestically with a fewer importpre-industrial country wouldn't stand a year against any european (therefore industrial) countrysituation of china was more backwards but still Achilles vs turtle+ you'll need to ignore aiming to A for development purpose by chinayou cant call it A it is still A+ because party can make decisions on private property and use of it in socialistic purposeas some american gun enthusiast said "we doesn't really have a gun right if cop can legally kill us just because he suspects that we're armed "
>>12108087you're just stupid and don't understand marx's points m8. Even the passage you quote has incoherences that disprove itself. In fact, your passage is irrelevant to the points I raised which shows you don't really understand it. You really have to be a stupid cunt if you think debunking core tenets of Marxism is fighting a strawman kek. Quoting Marx like the bible doesn't save you from its inconsistencies you midwit. That text fails to account for how classes which don't relate to production even form in society. If classes are formed by their relationship with the means of production, then classes like the petty bourgeoisie, managers, and police, should simply be an impossibility and should not exist. But they do. So even your short passage is woefully inadequate. I do love how you literally cite dogma just like the catholics do tho, really drives home how retarded Marxism is
>>12108106>pre-industrial cannot produce forvard level technological product an masse ie "on industrial scale">russian empire produced full specter of military tech mainly domestically with a fewer import>pre-industrial country wouldn't stand a year against any european (therefore industrial) countryYes, that is why Lenin's whole doctrine emphasized mobilizing the agricultural peasant class rather than the proletariat right? Retard
>>12108116>Achilles vs turtle againwill you ignore existing domestic industry and proletarian class and pretend that only agrarian majority is entire entire thing?more, industry competitive on the first rank level