• ComradeSharkfucker
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 个月前

    capitalism corrupts

    Also there’s nothing inherently wrong with extreme ideology as a concept. It’s only a call for radical change to the current social order. Liberalism which is to say our modern “democratic capitalist” structure would have been considered extremism during feudal times.

    The extremist boogie man is a lie peddled by those who benefit from the status quo to insure those who don’t are too scared to change it

      • ComradeSharkfucker
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 个月前

        The problem is that some of them don’t have to wait for society to collapse, sometimes society is destined to decay into a specific form. The final stage of capitalism is fascism

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          9 个月前

          Yeah no, just because a socialist philosopher said it doesn’t make it true. Every economic system will eventually collapse for some reason, but the reasons for the collapse and the circumstances matter much more for predicting the future after the collapse than the system that collapsed. If you don’t believe that look at the many ways societies changed when feudalism collapsed.

          • ComradeSharkfucker
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 个月前

            Marxist philosophy isn’t just a prediction of what will be it’s also a analysis of how we ended up where we are and where we are headed. If you’re interested in learning about how Marx processed the world it’s worth reading into dialectical materialism. Marxism is much more complex than a simple capitalism eventually fails and socialism comes next.

            In short, dialectical materialism is a philosophy that emphasizes the effects of material conditions and opposing interests on social relations. It is not specifically an economic philosophy but it is a very useful toolset for understanding the intricacies of socioeconomics. It also suggests that the best way to resolve contradictions is to restructure society so that those contradictions are eliminated. While that last bit sounds really obvious there’s been a lot of fighting about it, I’d elaborate but Hegelian dialectics is fucking gibberish if you aren’t familiar with the terminology.

            So basically yeah some guy saying something doesn’t make it true but it’s worth checking when that guy has had his work holds up after being scrutinized and expanded upon for 2 centuries

            Some of the og stuff

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 个月前

              Yeah no, Marx’s predictions were wrong. The most obvious one is he thought the workers revolutions would come from industrialized nations, that was completely wrong. But, with many of his other claims, those who support his ideology will twist any event happening to fit their narrative, just as a christian may twist any event into fulfilling a biblical prophecy.

              • ComradeSharkfucker
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                9 个月前

                Oh fuck I forgot, Marx did get one thing wrong. I guess the entire philosophical and logical scientific analysis developed by 100s of scholars is just trash, my mistake

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 个月前

                  Where did I say that? I did say he wasn’t a scry, he had no peer reviewed studies. He cherry picked history to interpret what he wanted to. That isn’t “scientific” socialism.