Why do countries keep falling for this cult/meme?
I mean, If I was a capitalist country and wanted to BTFO, plunder, and buyout for cheap an enemy country I would finance socialist/communist groups in it and hope they take power - wait for it to collapse and take over.
Because it looks good on paper.
Because leftists tend to have rich donors and powerful institutions behind them. Ironic, since they claim to help the oppressed.
That and it's easier to work with something that's been tried and tested in real world scenarios (although let's be real, they never got past the socialist stage).
I'd be more than happy to start writing up a new ideaology/philosophy, however, I'm not an intellectual, I don't have the knowledge or experience in grand-scale things, and it would probably get bashed for "communism 2.0" anyway.
With the above in mind, I'd laugh if you tried comparing me to Marx, and it also illuminates why people prefer the meme to original ideas.
Take Universal Basic Income, for example.I love the concept. Some people see it as empowering the poor, and lifting "government controls how poor spend their government given money".
Other people call it communism because...uh...the government is the proletariat now??? It's a mess.
>Shit's getting bad down here! A little help migh-
>WORK HARDER SLAVE! I NEED ANOTHER YACHT!
Gee, I can't fucking imagine why anyone would ever overthrow blessed, generous porky. You wanna know the reason? Look in the fucking mirror. You're it.
Because starvation + dictator is better apparently.
When you give people no options, they'll always vote for your death. What comes after almost doesn't even matter. We're tired of you. It's the reverse southern strategy. I don't give a fuck if it hurts me, because I know it hurts you more.
Communists, anarchists, hippies, sjws, etc. are all overwhelmingly upper-middle class and, quite ironically, privileged. The actual American working class will never support communism, and so you will always fail.
>dictator
>benevolent dictator
FTFY
Let's be real, there were some pretty great dictators. But then their sons and the sons after that went power crazy and fucked everything up.
Solution: Don't have a son, leave a robot in power instead.
Well that's some cute propaganda, but you're factually wrong. The majority in America is left wing and trump voters were well above the poverty line.
>Other people call it communism because...uh...the government is the proletariat now???
I don't care what you call it if you're technically doing the exact same thing.
> muh porky
When will this fucking meme end?
It won't. Failures always want someone else to blame.
When you're all dead.
UBI
>a time based sum distributed to every citizen with minimal regulation as to how it can be spent or used.
>you can still get a job too for more money, heck, maybe even return the UBI so the gov't can give it to someone else.
>literally getting the most valuable resource ever for free: time
Communism/Socialism
>sieze the means of production
>death to all capitalists!
>give all private property to the government!
I'm afraid I don't follow.
Because Postmodernism has redefined the very way we think of things.
Gone is the modernist enlightenment era which believed in objective truths, the nature of man, reason, and reality.
Today there is nothing, the counter enlightenment in Germany stripped man of reason and severed him from reality(thanks Kant you cunt), disciples then proceeded to gimp reality and truth until there wasn't one. Heidegger did away with the subject and object idea, instead suggest there was only being and nothing. This meant that everything was an extension of the being and there was no objective world.
How does this philosophy relate to Marxism?
Well, Marxism failed even before the 19th century was over, most of Karl's predictions did not come to pass. Conditions for the poor were improving in capitalist, there was a large robust middle class, and class tensions were very low. While the rich owned most of the wealth, the people who made the elite was constantly changing thanks to market competition.
Lenin grew impatient waiting for the proletariat revolution against the bourgeoisie and decided the movement would need a strong leader to initiate it. He believed that the oppression was secretly being exported from Capitalist countries to poor ones. This created one of the worst dictatorships ever created and grassroots Marxism became a stupid dream.
Communism has never happened naturally and never will. It will always be a power grab under the guise equality.
So these Postmodernists deny the brutal reality of Communism in order to Save it from scrutiny and obliteration.
Part 2 of the post will talk about Meo-Marxism.
> export oppression from the wealthy countries to the poorer ones
Don't they actually do this, vis-a-vis sweatshops in Asia or exploitation of resources in Africa?
According to Postmodernism, there is no truth, no right or wrong, and therefore everything is equivalent.
Communism is just an alternative to Capitalism because neither is right or wrong, they're equivalent.
The Marxists realized that communism was untenable. People would not accept its purported moral or economic superiority after the acts of Lenin and Mao came to light.
So the Postmodernists played a sleight of hand by lifting the oppressor(bourgeois)/oppressed(Proletariat) paradigm from Marxism and applying it to everything from race, religion, gender, culture etc.
Through the postmodern lens, every race, religion, and culture is equal. They are simply alternatives and everything is subjective. There's no real purpose in life so it doesn't matter what one chooses.
Since everything is equivalent, it should come into question why there are demographic discrepancies. Why isn't there equal representation in the west when everything is the same or equal?
Apply the Marxist oppressor/oppressed paradigm.
Oppression by the majority group is the cause. If Christianity is the majority in the west, then it is oppressing all other minority religions.
If whites are the majority race in the west, it is due to oppression towards minorities in the form of racism.
If there are discrepancies in work place gender representation then it is due to oppression in the form of sexism.
Etc.
Intersectionality takes this idea even further.
>don't they actually do this
No.
SJWs are as far from socialism as you can get. Socialism is about economic equality, I come from an ex-communist bloc country and I can tell you shit was more conservative than 50s USA. No one here knew what a faggot or tranny was until the Wall was brought down.
Are you saying there aren't children in China working on assembly lines? Are you saying there aren't children in Indonesia assembling shoes? Are you saying there aren't people in Africa with no clean water or air because of mining?
I'm saying that's irrespective of Capitalism in another country.
How is that another countries fault that their leaders exploit them?
China is still feeling the effects of Mao, who promoted some kind of agrarian communism, and the fact that they did not reach the industrial revolution at the same time as the west, partly due to communism.
The world is also not a zero sum game faggot.
Not in ideology, they use the same underlying ideas in order to justify what they are doing.
You need to watch Yuri Bezmenov. Invest 28 minutes of your life.
> western corporations set up sweatshops and buy off the leaders
> how is it another country's fault that their leaders exploit them
China makes sense becase it's under the totalitarian rule of a native corporation (the communist party of China) but in places like Africa and the pacific islands I'm not sure I follow.
>set up sweat shops and buy off leaders
Okay, then the people there don't have to work in the shop.
What were they doing before?
Obviously whatever they were doing was worse off than working on shit conditions for little pay.
Now if conditions remain that way and the people there don't see improvement and worker protection, then that's the fault of their democratically(kek)-elected dictatorship.