Are you guys a part of any marxist groups?

[drunkenshoe]

So you actually think that industrialization makes a phase change in human cultural/social/political evolution?

If you don't then you need to make an explanation here. Did you discover something that can acually collapse modern socio-politics? And of course anything filed under the development in the last 200 years?

he is always worth listening to, and he talks a lot like Shoe ;-)

I completely agree with his dream, he is describing a widely known ultimate fantasy of America. I don't share his optimism and hope for the awekening. I find it naive.

Corporate democracy do not get to reboot itself because of an 8 years of Trump reign. Substructure ---> superstructure. Fascism gets along with capitalism very nicely. Conjoint twins.

Chomsky explains perfectly how the American dictatorship works, why it is a dictatorship and why we don't/can't see it as dictatorship at all. You don't need to go for populist, commercial intellectuals.

[Mike Cl]

is anyone here a part of any marxist groups in their area?
I'm curious.
I've seen more marxist groups popping up in the states, some are more libertarian forms of leninism, whilst others are just random forms of marxism
I'm personally a marxist and I'm just curious

What would a marxist group believe in?  So, I'm asking--to you, what is a marxist and what ideals do they follow?

[Baruch]

If you don't then you need to make an explanation here. Did you discover something that can acually collapse modern socio-politics? And of course anything filed under the development in the last 200 years?

I completely agree with his dream, he is describing a widely known ultimate fantasy of America. I don't share his optimism and hope for the awekening. I find it naive.

Corporate democracy do not get to reboot itself because of an 8 years of Trump reign. Substructure ---> superstructure. Fascism gets along with capitalism very nicely. Conjoint twins.

Chomsky explains perfectly how the American dictatorship works, why it is a dictatorship and why we don't/can't see it as dictatorship at all. You don't need to go for populist, commercial intellectuals.

If we are talking Marxism .. not watered down Marxism (socialism) or watered down socialism (progressivism) ... and yes, Marx was an optimist ... just as Capitalists are ... only different.  But Marxism/Capitalism both break on the elitist/populist divide.  This is why Leninism isn't Marxism.  There have been multiple industrial revolutions for 250 years now ... and progressives think this is good, and will continue (no end to history) ... and Marx saw an end to history. a return to Israel eschaton.  I see an apocalypse, of negative proportions, hence I am not a progressive.

Some points ... Hegel created secularized Christian theology (and democratic socialism, with sociology profs as the revolutionary cadre).  Marx took off on that, creating secularized rabbinic theology (with classic messianic pretensions), with the secularized rabbis as the revolutionary cadre.  All messiahs are false ... even secular Jewish ones (see Israel).

Full automation is Marx's and Smith's wet dream.  Except it won't make us all wealthy ... you can't do that in a still feudal structure (see Europe in particular).  Ever read Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy ... that is the plain vanilla socialist dream that leads to Star Trek Next Generation.  Star Trek Classic was classic American fascism.

[Jannabear]

What would a marxist group believe in?  So, I'm asking--to you, what is a marxist and what ideals do they follow?

That government should be used to transition society from capitalism to socialism to communism, sometimes between socialism and capitalism, social democracy.

[Baruch]

That government should be used to transition society from capitalism to socialism to communism, sometimes between socialism and capitalism, social democracy.

That is a theory of history.  It presupposes a lot, basically Progressive-ism of one sort or another.  2000 years ago, Rome was the pinnacle of society (if you ignore most of the rest of the world).  Aristotle said that the end pulls the past into the future (instead of the past pushing us forward ,,, but not clear if it is progress or regress).  Before that Herodotus, the father of History (and Greek propaganda) based his massive history on the idea that the Greeks were the acme of civilization, that everyone else was a barbarian, who are curiosities like animals in a Greek zoo (examples of how not to be Greek).  For Herodotus, history is driven by E-W conflict.  For the Romans, history is driven by Roman manifest destiny and Roman virtue (the Greek destiny isn't as good, even if they do pottery and theater better, and the Greeks are corrupt, not virtuous).

So Marx had a theory like this, based on the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution, of which we are seeing the last flowering of it ... until the oil/gas aka cheap energy, runs out.  Marx didn't understand energy production or global warming.  But he did believe in a manifest destiny, that like the Roman is gotten to thru violent conflict ... but that since human development isn't random, and can't go on forever (once you reach perfection) there will be a final violent conflict, that ushers in a utopia.  And politically, Marx was trying to midwife (see Socrates) this Earth Final Conflict (name of a scifi series) ... which is using aliens instead of teleology metaphysics.  Even in modern times, Francis Fukuyama came up with The End Of History ... which is the Das Capital of neoliberalism.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That government should be used to transition society from capitalism to socialism to communism, sometimes between socialism and capitalism, social democracy.

Communism won't work as long there are humans involved. I told this to the editor of the Marxist Review when I was at Purdue. He spluttered a bit.

[Mike Cl]

That government should be used to transition society from capitalism to socialism to communism, sometimes between socialism and capitalism, social democracy.

I would suggest that pure Marxism has never existed and never will.  But then neither has pure democracy, pure capitalism, or pure anything.  The systems that work best are those that draw from the best of all the 'ism's'.

[Cavebear]

I am no Marxist. 

[Mike Cl]

I am no Marxist.

Why?

[Baruch]

I would suggest that pure Marxism has never existed and never will.  But then neither has pure democracy, pure capitalism, or pure anything.  The systems that work best are those that draw from the best of all the 'ism's'.

Only Puritans believe in purity anyway.  So that seems like a straw man you put up, and then knocked down.  Pragmatism we both agree on ... fanaticism is the opposite of pragmatism.  The Lenin/Stalin/Mao regimes were fanatic .. just like the French Revolution they were emulating.