Are you able to explain the differences between Marxism, Leninism, Stalism and Maoism?
The only thing I know is that they all fall under socialism and have similarities, the differences are between their levels of authoritarianism vs democracy.
I would need a couple of books to explain it properly.
In a few words: Marx was a historian, a philosopher, and an economist.
He reported on the appalling conditions of the working class in England, specifically the men and children working in the coal mines. Their conditions were so atrocious that Marx said they were even worse than the black slaves in America. Surely that would trigger some libtard nowadays.
Anyway, he goes on to explain a complex philosophy where people are alienated from work because of the capitalist system, and a society where people willingly work without caring about their personal benefit (communism). This is however impossible to achieve without a transition period (socialism). Important: Marx didn't call for a revolution, and didn't even envision it. He thought the capitalist system would keep concentrating wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people, until it would simply disappear on its own. He wrote that in 1850.
He was wrong. The capitalist system produced much more wealth than it concentrated it, with the end result that the working class became more and more better off and there were no signs of communism ever happening. The injustices that Marx described became less severe, as conditions of workers improved.
Even though Marx's predictions failed, Lenin et al took his theories on class struggle as an excuse for violent revolution, power concentrated in the hands of the State, and 100 million people died. But they had to immediately throw away half of what Marx said, as Marx envisioned the socialism period as a transition to a stateless and classless society. Obviously nobody would voluntarily relinquish power, and this is why true communism would never happen.
Anyway, we're now facing a much more dangerous threat. Cultural Marxism. Which is basically nothing of Marx, it's just hatred towards the established social and cultural norms and vitriolic hatred towards white men. This movement has no goal other than destroying a civilization from inside.
Nothing to do with e.g. Stalinism - it's actually the opposite of that in many respects. And nothing to do with Marxism either.
Thanks for explaining, it's interesting to read your perspective.
In regards to the 'cultural Marxists' of today, isn't their goal to bring down the structures of society so that there can be anarchy, and then socialism replaces the existing system?
Has not the same methods been used in Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela etc where the bolsheviks have destroyed society, erased history, culture, art etc during 'cultural revolutions' etc?
In my opinion they are completely different things.
Lenin / Stalin etc. produced a viable, strong society. Russia went from being one of the poorest countries in the planet with wooden plows to become the second superpower on earth with nukes.
The reason people must reject their model is 3fold: suppression of individual freedom, economically less efficient, and obviously the risk that the central authority kills millions of people either for political reasons (Stalin) or simply for stupidity (Mao).
However, it is a model for a strong society. The USSR had strong borders, nationalism, focus on STEM, family and procreation, and strong incentives to work (i.e. if you're not productive you end up in the gulags).
Cultural Marxism is not building a different society: it's a destructive force with the only goal of destroying society from inside. How can you based a society on being a non-binary gender fluid Muslim tranny with brown skin? Will people in positions of power be chosen because of their sexuality? What happens if someone doesn't want to work? Can 1 billion Africans move in? How is the economy organised exactly? How do you protect your society against foreign influences?
They don't really say. Cultural Marxism wants to destroy, not build. It's a weapon, not an alternative system.
If America turns into anarchy there's no telling who will prevail. Perhaps we'll become an islamic caliphate: LGBT and drug addicts will be thrown off the roofs. Perhaps we'll become Nazis: LGBT and drug addicts will be gassed.
In any case: if you're in mental anguish looking at your body in the mirror, don't know which bathroom to choose, eat soy and not steak, think lifting weights is for right wing gym rats, you have a bunch of mental illnesses, and you're terrified of guns: you really should not want anarchy or any kind of revolution. Libtards and SJWs are going towards self destruction.
Are you able to explain the differences between Marxism, Leninism, Stalism and Maoism?
The only thing I know is that they all fall under socialism and have similarities, the differences are between their levels of authoritarianism vs democracy.
I'd be interested in hearing your perspective.
I would need a couple of books to explain it properly.
In a few words: Marx was a historian, a philosopher, and an economist. He reported on the appalling conditions of the working class in England, specifically the men and children working in the coal mines. Their conditions were so atrocious that Marx said they were even worse than the black slaves in America. Surely that would trigger some libtard nowadays.
Anyway, he goes on to explain a complex philosophy where people are alienated from work because of the capitalist system, and a society where people willingly work without caring about their personal benefit (communism). This is however impossible to achieve without a transition period (socialism). Important: Marx didn't call for a revolution, and didn't even envision it. He thought the capitalist system would keep concentrating wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people, until it would simply disappear on its own. He wrote that in 1850.
He was wrong. The capitalist system produced much more wealth than it concentrated it, with the end result that the working class became more and more better off and there were no signs of communism ever happening. The injustices that Marx described became less severe, as conditions of workers improved.
Even though Marx's predictions failed, Lenin et al took his theories on class struggle as an excuse for violent revolution, power concentrated in the hands of the State, and 100 million people died. But they had to immediately throw away half of what Marx said, as Marx envisioned the socialism period as a transition to a stateless and classless society. Obviously nobody would voluntarily relinquish power, and this is why true communism would never happen.
Anyway, we're now facing a much more dangerous threat. Cultural Marxism. Which is basically nothing of Marx, it's just hatred towards the established social and cultural norms and vitriolic hatred towards white men. This movement has no goal other than destroying a civilization from inside. Nothing to do with e.g. Stalinism - it's actually the opposite of that in many respects. And nothing to do with Marxism either.
Thanks for explaining, it's interesting to read your perspective.
In regards to the 'cultural Marxists' of today, isn't their goal to bring down the structures of society so that there can be anarchy, and then socialism replaces the existing system?
Has not the same methods been used in Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela etc where the bolsheviks have destroyed society, erased history, culture, art etc during 'cultural revolutions' etc?
In my opinion they are completely different things.
Lenin / Stalin etc. produced a viable, strong society. Russia went from being one of the poorest countries in the planet with wooden plows to become the second superpower on earth with nukes.
The reason people must reject their model is 3fold: suppression of individual freedom, economically less efficient, and obviously the risk that the central authority kills millions of people either for political reasons (Stalin) or simply for stupidity (Mao).
However, it is a model for a strong society. The USSR had strong borders, nationalism, focus on STEM, family and procreation, and strong incentives to work (i.e. if you're not productive you end up in the gulags).
Cultural Marxism is not building a different society: it's a destructive force with the only goal of destroying society from inside. How can you based a society on being a non-binary gender fluid Muslim tranny with brown skin? Will people in positions of power be chosen because of their sexuality? What happens if someone doesn't want to work? Can 1 billion Africans move in? How is the economy organised exactly? How do you protect your society against foreign influences?
They don't really say. Cultural Marxism wants to destroy, not build. It's a weapon, not an alternative system.
If America turns into anarchy there's no telling who will prevail. Perhaps we'll become an islamic caliphate: LGBT and drug addicts will be thrown off the roofs. Perhaps we'll become Nazis: LGBT and drug addicts will be gassed. In any case: if you're in mental anguish looking at your body in the mirror, don't know which bathroom to choose, eat soy and not steak, think lifting weights is for right wing gym rats, you have a bunch of mental illnesses, and you're terrified of guns: you really should not want anarchy or any kind of revolution. Libtards and SJWs are going towards self destruction.