[grafmax]

Violence has been used for good ends such as deposing monarchies and ending slavery. Marx argues that capitalists are akin to the new kings. Witnessing billionaires funding the destruction of democracy, I wouldn’t say he’s wrong.

And you refer to Soviet Russia as if that’s supposed to represent socialism and communism. In fact there are many different kinds of socialists and communists, many who support democracy and oppose authoritarian governments. In fact many such people opposed the Bolsheviks and were killed by them. It’s simply not true that being socialist or communist entails supporting totalitarian government.

[ryandv]

> Violence has been used for good ends such as deposing monarchies and ending slavery.

Under this paradigm it's miraculous that we tolerate hundreds of years of oppression and racism from the whites peaceably.

If you call for bloody revolution and simultaneously identify yourselves as the villains, don't be surprised when we come busting down your doors.

[spwa4]

You know as well as I do that when Marx discussed "capitalists" he did not mean the rich. He meant what we now call the middle class. Managers. Engineers. Store owners. (Small) company owners. Factory owners. Smaller landlords. Perhaps upper middle class, but not the real rich, the families. He saw what everyone else in their time (correctly) saw: that larger land owners were mostly outside of cities, and were well on the way to inevitable bankruptcy. That the uber-rich are very different, and aren't rapidly bankrupting themselves is not something Marx foresaw.

Only the governments themselves, who are of course also very, very, rich would retain their wealth. And quite a few governments in his time were individuals or families, but he didn't see them as the enemy, kind of, but not as the "source" of the evil of capitalism. Of course, communists aren't against a very, very rich government. The Soviets initially offered to make Tsar Nicolas II the leader of international socialism. Only when he kept refusing did he become the enemy.

And then the "that wasn't true communism" argument! Thank you. I kind of agree: most other communists were MUCH worse than the Soviets, and especially lacked most of the redeeming qualities the Soviets retained from imperial Russia.

In fact, I miss that about the Soviets. The Soviets were going to conquer Europe, provide housing and jobs for everyone, and get everyone to work and back each day on rocket powered trams. Seriously. Today's socialists just seem to want to destroy everything, which will then encourage Gaia to save the world and care for everyone. The Soviets were very much going to exploit nature to make everyone rich.

Never mind that even the ancient Greeks knew better: the godess Gaia is a Titan who massacred, and then ate people. Men, women, children. Especially children. She was the embodiment of natural disasters, of the primal, absolute force of nature. She killed to save nature, true. But also just for fun, because it is her nature. Especially children. Especially lost children. She was like almost all Titans: considered completely amoral, not necessarily evil, but she needed to be fought, even destroyed, not for fun, because otherwise a LOT of people would die.

[skinnymuch]

You are making so much stuff up. My god it’s insane. Then you act like people haven’t read the super short Manifesto so you can continue your lies

[ath3nd]

He is trolling to provoke reactions. Mods don't do anything to anyone who spews pro-capitalist and Zionist propaganda, so better not engage.

[skinnymuch]

Of course they don’t. If anything someone like me will get scolded for doing a low quality comment attacking him

Have you seen how YC higher ups talk about capitalism, elitism, etc? Culture comes from top down and within Silicon Valley tech elite it is practically a monoculture.

For that specific guy. It’s weird he invoked such a short text that he definitely didn’t read or hasn’t read in a long time. So easy to respond to that. That’s why I responded.

[grafmax]

Quite a lot of factual inaccuracies here.

> He meant what we now call the middle class.

Capitalists according to Marx are those that own the means of production, not the middle class.

> larger land owners were mostly outside of cities, and were well on the way to inevitable bankruptcy

He saw them as a declining class that would eventually merge with the industrial bourgeoisie. He didn’t predict their inevitable bankruptcy.

> quite a few governments in his time were individuals or families, but he didn't see them as the enemy, kind of, but not as the "source" of the evil of capitalism

Again, inaccurate. His view is that the state is an apparatus of the capitalist class structured to protect its property and interests. The state and the uber-rich are the primary enemies of the working class, in his view.

> Soviets initially offered to make Tsar Nicolas II the leader of international socialism. Only when he kept refusing did he become the enemy.

Citation needed. Are you just fabricating things? The Bolsheviks ideology was based on the idea that there would be a proletarian revolution that would dismantle the old capitalist and aristocratic order, which the Tsar represented.

> that wasn't true communism" argument!

There are many different varieties of socialism and communism. In fact many societies long into pre-recorded history have been peaceful, leaderless and without money - communist. Yet it would be a mistake to call those societies Stalinist for example.

> get everyone to work and back each day on rocket powered trams. Seriously.

Soviet plans were never that fantastical. Fabrication.

> the godess Gaia is a Titan who massacred, and then ate people. Men, women, children. Especially children

Gaia isn’t typically represented that way. She is not a Titan but mother of the Titans. Maybe you are thinking of Kronos.

[dragonwriter]

> You know as well as I do that when Marx discussed "capitalists" he did not mean the rich.

Technically, not precisely “the rich”, but the people whose main interaction with rhe economy is through ownership of capital to which rented labor of others is applied (specifically, this is the haut bourgeoisie in Marxist theory.)

There is also the middle class (the petite bourgeoisie), those who have a (in broad terms) balance between ownership of capital and application of their own labor, most particulatly applying their own labor to their own capital as independent business operators as a kind of capitalists, but it was the haut bourgeoisie that Marx portrays as the problematic, exploitive, ruling class. The main issue with the petit bourgeoisie is their disinterest in improving the condition of the working class being exploited by the haut bourgeoisie; because they are already out of the state of alienation that comes from separation of labor and control of capital, and at risk of losing that status if they sufficiently rock the boat.

> He meant what we now call the middle class. Managers. Engineers. Store owners. (Small) company owners. Factory owners. Smaller landlords.

Nah, what we now call “the middle class” is mostly the middle income segment of the working class (Marx didn't really have a special term for them, for Lenin a lot of them would be in the proletarian intelligentsia.) But the group you name is a mix of them, the petit bourgeois, and in the case of factory owners the haut bourgeois (kind of weird that you think “factory owners” fits any modern definition of “middle class" that also includes line managers.)