• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Opinion I am deeply concerned. The influence of Marxism and current civil unrest

What is the greater threat to our Republic?


  • Total voters
    145
Mikhali Bakunin already exposed this aspect of Marxism in the 19th century (in direct debates with Karl Marx). It's a shame that nobody listened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin#Critique_of_Marxism

To a lesser degree Dostoevsky did also. Despite being sort of a caricature, it's astonishing how closely the USSR came to resemble his described theory of the "nihilist state" (a country established with mass murder/purges, where the 90+% would serve as forced labour for the few "revolutionaries").

Shigalyev is a historian and social theorist, the intellectual of Verkhovensky's revolutionary group, who has devised a system for the post-revolution organization of mankind. "My conclusion" he says, "stands in direct contradiction to the idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism."[49] Ninety percent of society is to be enslaved to the remaining ten percent. Equality of the herd is to be enforced by police state tactics, state terrorism, and destruction of intellectual, artistic, and cultural life. It is estimated that about a hundred million people will need to be killed on the way to the goal.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demons_(Dostoevsky_novel)

Marxism's goal was always intended by idle elitists such as Engels and Marx to be an oligarchy where the brain-washed, unintelligent masses would serve the "intelligentsia", a.k.a lazy hedonistic pricks such as themselves, who had a gift for bullshitting (for both of them, their only source of income was their wealthy, hard-working fathers, neither worked a real "working class" job for a day in their lives).

There's a reason why DDR and USSR and other communist countries were filled with pieces of shit like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria#Sexual_predator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceaușescu#Personality_cult_and_totalitarianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Mielke#Indictments

It's a shame to society that people still haven't figured out this pathetic pyramid scheme which has been run on gullible people so many times, with the exact same results.

What's startling is that we started to see this emerge within a couple weeks at CHAZ/CHOP.
 
It sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about.

Have you ever actually studied economics? Actual economics, not Bernie videos.

Socialism is essentially a universal system of price controls. You get shortages of things you want and surpluses of what you don't want. Which leads to widespread suffering, misery, starvation and death. This have been empirically validated. It requires tremendous feats of intellectual dishonesty and mental gymnastics to truly believe in and defend socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls
Have you ever actually studied economics? Or are you one of these guys that tries to pretend Hayek/Friedman economics are the only kinds of economics that exist? Or are you one of the ben Shapiro types that likes to pretend Austrian school economics are the REAL and ONLY conception of economics?

I guarantee you've never read any marx or Engels in your life. And absolute LMAOOOOO @ your comical claim that its been "empirically validated " that socialism leads to widespread suffering and death.

ABSOLUTE TRIGGERING FACT AHEAD, WARNING


《There hasn't been a workers socialist revolution on the planet that didn't have the most powerful economies in the world unify against it and impose crippling sanctions》

Prove me wrong. No workers revolution has ever been left alone to exist freely undisturbed by mass sanctions.
 
No. Income inequality exists. But not in the way Bernie bros tell it. We are unequal to ourselves over time. Of course we are going to be unequal to others with different skills and ethics.

The rest of your response is a red herring.
I don't listen to Bernie so no idea what you mean there. I'm talking about the difference in rate of income increase between the top 5% or so and everybody else over the last few decades. The rest of my post is more ex of the social/economic issues contributing to the current state of unrest, so completely relevant to my original post.
 
Mikhali Bakunin already exposed this aspect of Marxism in the 19th century (in direct debates with Karl Marx). It's a shame that nobody listened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin#Critique_of_Marxism

To a lesser degree Dostoevsky did also. Despite being sort of a caricature, it's astonishing how closely the USSR came to resemble his described theory of the "nihilist state" (a country established with mass murder/purges, where the 90+% would serve as forced labour for the few "revolutionaries").

Shigalyev is a historian and social theorist, the intellectual of Verkhovensky's revolutionary group, who has devised a system for the post-revolution organization of mankind. "My conclusion" he says, "stands in direct contradiction to the idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism."[49] Ninety percent of society is to be enslaved to the remaining ten percent. Equality of the herd is to be enforced by police state tactics, state terrorism, and destruction of intellectual, artistic, and cultural life. It is estimated that about a hundred million people will need to be killed on the way to the goal.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demons_(Dostoevsky_novel)

Marxism's goal was always intended by idle elitists such as Engels and Marx to be an oligarchy where the brain-washed, unintelligent masses would serve the "intelligentsia", a.k.a lazy hedonistic pricks such as themselves, who had a gift for bullshitting (for both of them, their only source of income was their wealthy, hard-working fathers, neither worked a real "working class" job for a day in their lives).

There's a reason why DDR and USSR and other communist countries were filled with pieces of shit like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria#Sexual_predator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceaușescu#Personality_cult_and_totalitarianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Mielke#Indictments

It's a shame to society that people still haven't figured out this pathetic pyramid scheme which has been run on gullible people so many times, with the exact same results.
I think most human "systems" always end up the same, a few having a whole lot and a whole lot having a few. The feudal system is more common and frequent throughout human history than a large middle class. Captitalism, socialism, all seem to end up with this result, the journeys just look a little different.
 
The income tax rate has become LESS progressive over the years, so the 1% paying a greater and greater share of the taxes is simply because they have a greater and greater share of the income. This sort of imbalance of wealth is what has led to Marxist takeovers throughout history.

If we want to stop Marxism from taking root we need to deal with the wealth imbalance, and then the crazy Marxist will fade back into the shadows.

Yet I haven't seen a single conservative proposal that would decrease the wealth disparity, so it looks like the Marxists are the only one in the game. Sad.
I'm very pro-free market, but when the CEO salaries in the U.S. are astronomically higher than in other nations, it's definitely a fair point of contention.
 
When you don't deal with social/economic issues, this is the result. Shit on the lower/middle classes long enough and what do you know here come the socialist ideals.
I have a similar take on this. When either system moves away from"merit-based reward", you start to get the unrest.
 
Have you ever actually studied economics? Or are you one of these guys that tries to pretend Hayek/Friedman economics are the only kinds of economics that exist? Or are you one of the ben Shapiro types that likes to pretend Austrian school economics are the REAL and ONLY conception of economics?

I guarantee you've never read any marx or Engels in your life. And absolute LMAOOOOO @ your comical claim that its been "empirically validated " that socialism leads to widespread suffering and death.

ABSOLUTE TRIGGERING FACT AHEAD, WARNING


《There hasn't been a workers socialist revolution on the planet that didn't have the most powerful economies in the world unify against it and impose crippling sanctions》

Prove me wrong. No workers revolution has ever been left alone to exist freely undisturbed by mass sanctions.

Way to avoid my question. I imagine that was the only possible way for you to respond without totally embarrassing yourself.

And yes, I have studied economics.

And yes, I have read some Marx.

"LOL" isn't a sufficient rebuttal. But here you go, since it's clear you have never really learned much about economics.

https://fee.org/articles/price-controls-and-shortages/

"But sanctions!" is always the last refuge for people defending socialism and ignoring its failures. Let's take the most recent case, Venezuela.

More to the point, though, Venezuela’s economic crisis started years before those very minor sanctions were even discussed. The economy already contracted in 2009 and 2010, which prompted then-president Hugo Chavez to declare an “economic war” against the “fatherland-less bourgeoisie”, who he accused of “destabilising” the country. The Venezuelan economy then briefly seemed to bounce back again, but fell off a cliff in 2013-14, and has been in freefall ever since. By the time the US sanctions were brought in, it had already shrunk by a third.

https://capx.co/socialism-not-sanctions-are-to-blame-for-venezuelas-collapse/

Real GDP declined 15% in 2018, back when the only sanction was on PdVSA bonds, hardly an economic mover.

Demarais of The Economist Intelligence Unit says she expects further contractions this year and next. A forecast recovery in 2021 to 2023 rests on the assumption that Maduro (and PSUV) are gone. Then the International Monetary Fund, Chavez's old enemy, will come in to fund this mess. PSUV's worst nightmare would have come true...all thanks to them.

Venezuela's GDP has fallen by around 50% since 2013. Demarais thinks oil production falls to 900,000 barrels a day over the coming quarters. Less oil out of Venezuela, an OPEC country, will have an impact on oil prices. Then again, oil at $100 a barrel won't do much to save Venezuela so long as PSUV is running it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrap...not-killing-venezuela-maduro-is/#3423f8d64343
 
I don't listen to Bernie so no idea what you mean there. I'm talking about the difference in rate of income increase between the top 5% or so and everybody else over the last few decades. The rest of my post is more ex of the social/economic issues contributing to the current state of unrest, so completely relevant to my original post.

Humans have different strengths and weaknesses, so it follows that they will have varying degrees of success and proficiency with different things. If you understand economics, you know that one's income is determined by how valuable your work is, how efficient you are, and how scarce the work you are completing is.

https://fee.org/articles/income-is-...ur-contribution-not-the-value-of-human-worth/

That rate in income increase may be a problem if wealth were a fixed pie. But it is not. Someone earning more does not mean that someone HAS TO earn less. That's not how economics works. One's income increases by function of the above. In fact, one earns more because he or she produces more value for others.

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=80

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-fixed-pie-fallacy/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus
 
Last edited:
I’ll need to see ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of an oligarch suffering the consequences of a revolution.
Just show me one billionaire who has been chased out of his mansion, lost everything, ended up sleeping on the street or killed by a mob.
It hasn’t happened and they are not worried about it actually happening. But they are glad that people earning 30,000-300,000/yr are panicking about this imminent Marxist takeover.
 
Humans have different strengths and weaknesses, so it follows that they will have varying degrees of success and proficiency with different things. If you understand economics, you know that one's income is determined by how valuable your work is, how efficient you are, and how scarce the work you are completing is.

https://fee.org/articles/income-is-...ur-contribution-not-the-value-of-human-worth/

That rate in income increase may be a problem if wealth were a fixed pie. But it is not. Someone earning more does not mean that someone HAS TO earn less. That's not how economics works. One's income increases by function of the above. In fact, one earns more because he or she produces more value for others.

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=80

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-fixed-pie-fallacy/

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

supply/demand and scarcity. ok then, unfortunately that's not close to the whole picture.
https://www.epi.org/publication/secular-stagnation/
 
Have you ever actually studied economics? Or are you one of these guys that tries to pretend Hayek/Friedman economics are the only kinds of economics that exist? Or are you one of the ben Shapiro types that likes to pretend Austrian school economics are the REAL and ONLY conception of economics?

I guarantee you've never read any marx or Engels in your life. And absolute LMAOOOOO @ your comical claim that its been "empirically validated " that socialism leads to widespread suffering and death.

ABSOLUTE TRIGGERING FACT AHEAD, WARNING


《There hasn't been a workers socialist revolution on the planet that didn't have the most powerful economies in the world unify against it and impose crippling sanctions》

Prove me wrong. No workers revolution has ever been left alone to exist freely undisturbed by mass sanctions.
{<jimmies}
 
The Dunning-Kruger effect will prevent the vast majority of these people from acknowledging that though.
Sounds like half the posters when they wax-poetic about race issues in black communities.

I think you might have a misunderstanding of marxism. A system which does not exploit workers by design cannot be capitalism. Capitalism is fundamentally built on profiting from the work of others and redistributing money upwards as a result.

A system in which workers fully own their own labor and its benefits is a form of socialism and would avoid marxist critique.
What would you call a system where 20-40 million people (depending on your source) are out of work because of a pandemic and the stock market reaches new heights?
 
Last edited:
oligarchy is only a step-up (revolution) to Marxism.
 
Yawn, this thread is garbage. You're only pro-capitalism and ant-Marxism because that is what you were brainwashed to be since birth.
 
supply/demand and scarcity. ok then, unfortunately that's not close to the whole picture.
https://www.epi.org/publication/secular-stagnation/

Instead of just dropping a link, offer some new explanation of what this whole picture is.

Yawn, this thread is garbage. You're only pro-capitalism and ant-Marxism because that is what you were brainwashed to be since birth.

Actually, I was pretty liberal. That's how schools set me up. K-12 and college. I supported Obama. When he turned his back on many of his promises, I started to really understand politics.
 
Instead of just dropping a link, offer some new explanation of what this whole picture is.



Actually, I was pretty liberal. That's how schools set me up. K-12 and college. I supported Obama. When he turned his back on many of his promises, I started to really understand politics.
Since when did liberalism equal Marxism? You have the 4th graders understanding of politics.
 
Since when did liberalism equal Marxism? You have the 4th graders understanding of politics.

Haven't you heard of the mythical american creature known as ''liberal communist''? A creature embodying antithetical philosophies and possessing the quantum feature of being at the same time pro market capitalism/against market capitalism? They are not hard to spot, they are all over ACADEMIA, this is why as an independent thinker I only trust PragerU and Koch-funded think tanks these days.
 
Something about this subject reminded me to come back to this thread to make a point about moral principles and an issue I have with the use of them in this context.

The idea that this country operates under a unifying set of moral principles is untrue and has been since it's inception. A great deal of the social strife that people see is because of that duplicity no longer being avoidable.

If we start with the most basic principle that all men are created equal then there's a huge set of moral rules that should follow from that. If we follow biblical principles about how to treat your fellow man, there's a huge set of moral rules that should follow from that as well. Yet, historically, rather than implement either the factually correct set of rules or morally correct set of rules, we had centuries of the people in power shifting the moral and factual foundation to entrench the systems of slavery and, later, Jim Crow.

There was a complete abdication of morality and indifference to fact. Both being subservient to the immediate wants of those who believed in racist ideologies.

Similarly, I find the idea of microaggressions being a tool of the modern culture equally unsustainable. What was the prevailing culture of the early nation if not the codification and enforcement of microaggressions against blacks and slaves. Look at someone the wrong way? It's a microaggression. Speak to them as an equal? Microaggression. Compete in the business space? Microaggression.

All of these behaviors have been so commonplace that the only difference between then and now is that all groups are using them and they have a schmancy college title like "microaggression". But the fundamental disregard for fact, for morality, and the use of microaggressions to magnify commonplace exchanges into massive slights is far older than people like to pretend.
 
Similarly, the idea that we've moved away from the idea of individual merit to unearned privilege is equally untrue. This is more of a semantics difference than a difference in conduct. For decades, individual merit in the black community was disregarded and outright dismissed. Black people were univerally not smart enough, not able enough, too lazy, not human enough to be given the same opportunities as others. In function, but not in name, it operated as a dismissal of the individual merit of the black population in this country. As black Americans fought to have their individual merit recognized, they continued to be denigrated as a group. How can anyone realistically argue that we've moved away from individual merit when it was rarely recognized for the black population?

Similarly, we see the same flawed memories when it comes to rioting. Now, let's all agree that rioting is bad. Agreed? Agreed. Great. Yet American history is replete with examples of white American descending on black communities in violent riots destroying businesses and ending lives over perceived slights that the black community rendered unto them.

In area after area, a study of America's history will show the same behaviors that people are alleging to be a destruction of American values were once quite commonplace. What has changed is that while the behaviors used to mostly run in one direction, they now run in both directions.

There is no influence of marxism. The current civil unrest is the exact same civil unrest that's existed for this country's entire existence. But the more equal the society becomes, the more the tools of the past are applied equally in the present, the louder the arguments that there's something amiss.

It's probably why so few of these conversation involve deep analysis of how prior racial conduct set the foundation for current social conduct. People prefer to say "It's the past, it's no longer relevant." But they'll talk about cultures as if the past isn't where the culture comes from. America has a culture. It's a culture that's deeply rooted in the false morality that allowed the early inhabitants of this nation to hold up Bibles on Sunday and practice sinfulness against their fellow man on Monday. As the nation continues to balance out that history, we do ourselves a disservice to pretend that the present is not the result of that past, hoping to shift any responsibility for the future onto external influences and avoid deep inspection of our own past.
 
Back
Top