APP - Marxism - What is it really?

Uncensored2008

Uncensored2008

Well-known member
Contributor
As those like Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Occasio Cortez rise in influence over the rapidly collapsing, Marxism has come to define the American democrat party.

So what exactly defines Marxism? Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. The definition of Marxism is;


The opening lines of the Manifesto read;

{The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master‡ and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.}

This statement by Marx is called "Critical Theory." The dialectical contest between oppressed and oppressor. Critical theory and dialectical materialism are the foundation of Marxism and all forms of socialism/collectivism - including the democrat party of 2025.

democrats have put a racist spin and created "Critical Race Theory" which automatically designates white people as oppressors regardless of economic strata, a racist presentation to appeal to American leftists who couldn't relate to the rigid class structures of Europe. American economic classes are in a constant state of flux, generational wealth is rare as is poverty.

The great American middle class has dominated America since the Market Revolution and is the primary impediment to the adoption of Marxism, explaining why the middle class is the primary target of the democrat party to be eradicated.

This debate is directly targeted at @Jake Starkey - but all are welcome to join in. Remember that this is APP and this is actual, scholarly debate.
 
Marx continues; {The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms} except that America indeed did away with class antagonism with the Market Revolution and the rise of the American middle class, which quickly became the dominant economic force in America, sapping the Aristocracy of the economic dominance it enjoyed in Europe and the rest of the world.

Socialists have struggled to gain relevancy absent a dominant Aristocracy to exploit the lower class. With most capital in the hands of small business and middle class owners, Critical Theory fails. Rather than concentrating capital in the hands of a few, the American middle class diversified capital in the hands of the masses. Empowering the middle as the dominant economic power.
 
The next serious mistake by Marx is the misguided view of labor itself;

{Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour,10 is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. }

The primary misstep by Communists here is the attempt to divide the bourgeois - the middle class - from the proletarians - the labor class. Particularly in America, the working class IS the middle class and vice versa. The socialist goal of pitting workers against the middle, the entrepreneurs and proprietors of small business is hence doomed to failure. Socialists seek to pit the same people against themselves in order to secure position and wealth for the aristocracy.

Capitalist society - free markets, by nature cause capital to flow to the middle. In a free market there is no protection for aristocrats and Oligarchs based on family name or societal position. Innovators incessantly arise, new wealth is created as old wealth is squandered by those who inherit rather than create. Hence one of the primary objectives of socialism, the protection of the aristocracy, fairs badly in free market societies. The left will do all possible to regulate and cripple free markets in order to combat the flow to the middle, but the more open an economy, the more futile efforts by socialists are.
 
Communism in relation to the American Democratic Party:

Marx writes further;
{The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere are present the interests of the movement as a whole.}

Here we get to the meat that insofar as the perspective of the democrat party in America, they are we and we are them. That is, as Marx states there is no distinction between Communist and democrat, the Communists do not separate themselves from the left as a whole, but essentially infest any and all left leaning causes and parties. In America this is primarily the democrat party. This heralds back to those such as Mamdani, AOC, Tlaib, Gavin Newson, et al. Per Marxist doctrine, these are not infiltrators who have seized control of the party, but in fact the very definition of the party. The democrat party in inseparable from communism as Marx has molded the proletarian movement of the party.
 
Leftism and the assault on family;

Marx wrote;

{The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property – historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you.

What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property. Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family!

Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based?On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.}

Marx and Engels have a particular hatred for the family. Families represent units of loyalty which usually supercede obedience and subservience to the state. This is intolerable to the totalitarian state. Marx, Hitler, and Mussolini all wrote of the problem of family as parents and siblings will cling to their own in defiance of rulers.

Marx has no idea how to overcome the family unit and starts with the absurd claim that "In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie." But of course not only do the Aristocrats and Oligarchs have families, so do the lower classes. Note again that Marx complains that the Middle Class is allowed families, never mentioning the ruling Aristocracy. The family must be eradicated in the Middle Class to ensure absolute rule by the Aristocracy,

We see this in the democrat party with focus on mechanism that dissolve and dissuade familial ties. The welfare system that is designed to keep fathers out of the home. The LGBT obsession of the democrats, the need to promote non-traditional relationships. The rise of easy divorce. democrats again show absolute fealty to Communism in their prolonged war on nuclear families.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top