I implore you to address you argument at my argument. Your reliance on directing your argument at me is not effective. I am not the subject of debate. Nor is over complicating a simple issue.

I am not adding a supernatural element. Just that the essential claim is that people will rise up against their oppressors. And specifically that this uprising would be economic in nature and that it would achieve socialist ends. This has happened throughout history. There have been socialist revolutions. I am arguing the people are not going to rise up in a socialist revolution on their own in modern day America. Neoliberalism is actively working against that outcome while at the same time allowing fascism to take root. People who know pro-democracy and socialist ideas have to spread them and fast. The ideas will not spread themselves. Neoliberalism leads to fascism. To achieve a different outcome is to work against people's natural inclination to internalize their societies flaws as values and then implement those values into worse systems. People work with the tools they have been given. We have to give them better tools. Then they can have those tools implemented via democracy.

We are not discussing imperialism. The hundreds of millions of civilians in America aren't oppressing anyone. The US governments actions in the rest of the world are not relevant to the specific topic of Americans forming a political revolution or any revolution at home. The domestic policy is what is relevant. US military spending of course decreases available funding to social programs, but the specific actions of the military are not relevant to this discussion. While wealth was introduced to America via imperialism the boom and bust cycle of capitalism is inevitably extracting that wealth from the working class. The conditions are there but we see a populist christo-fascist movement instead of a socialist movement.

You are deeply misinformed on what Marxism is and isn’t, and as such none of your points on Marxism hold any water.

Again ad hominem. Refuting this line of reasoning is trivial.

I can offer recommendations for reading, if you wish, but if nothing else I ask that you refrain from continuing to confidently misrepresent Marxism, as that only adds confusion.

Your argument is introducing confusion where there need not be any.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I am addressing you at your argument.

You did indeed add a supernatural element, you claimed that Marx claimed Material Conditions force ideas, when that isn't true nor his argument. Base and superstructure, after all.

We are discussing Imperialism, to ignore Imperialism is to ignore Marxism. The United States super-exploits the third world for super-profits domestically, which does inflate lifestyles. No, the average American is not knowingly choosing this, but this is the inevitable endpoint of Capitalism as the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall causes developed corporations to seek higher and higher profits from greater and greater exploitation. Neoliberalism is a side effect of Imperialism.

Yes, the American proletariat is oppressed by the American Bourgeoisie, but the American Proletariat is also the benefactor of American Imperialism and as such is largely reactionary. This is why fascism is rising, not Neoliberalism, not the ideas of Reagan and Thatcher but the Material Conditions caused by Capitalism shifting towards Imperialism.

It is not Ad Hominem to point out over and over that you misrepresented Marx and Marxism. I showed you where and why you misrepresented Marx and you call it Ad Hominem.

If you do not wish to engage with Marxism that's fine, but don't try to pretend you understand it enough to discredit it, that's all I ask. You don't have to take reading recommendations from me, you can find them elsewhere and decide for yourself if they contradict your current understanding.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago

You did indeed add a supernatural element, you claimed that Marx claimed Material Conditions force ideas, when that isn’t true nor his argument. Base and superstructure, after all.

No, not force, naturally lead to. It is logical for the oppressed to want to overthrow their oppressor.

We are discussing Imperialism, to ignore Imperialism is to ignore Marxism.

I'm ignoring both of those things because they are not relevant to the discussion. Only the specifics of the flaw in Marxism we are discussing and domestic policy implications of imperialism are relevant. Your argument is effectively trying to justify the veracity of the Bible with Bible verses. Your argument is self referencing. I addressed the rest of this paragraph in the other comment chain, except the last line.

Neoliberalism is a side effect of Imperialism.

Neoliberalism is a political invention. You'll notice the UK adopted it as well, a year earlier than the US. Even though the UK's actual empire had collapsed at that point. Imperialism had nothing to do with it. Conservatives needed a new ideology to combat progressives movements that were taking hold in those countries. So they came up with neoliberalism.

the American Proletariat is also the benefactor of American Imperialism

This is the part I addressed in the other comment chain again, but here you go. Any benefit they experience is quickly extracted from them. The owner class always wins in the end. The boom and bust cycle is the gradual extraction of wealth. With each bust more American families lose the ability to participate meaningfully in the economy. Where as the owner class is always there to benefit from the next boom.

It is not Ad Hominem to point out over and over that you misrepresented Marx and Marxism. I showed you where and why you misrepresented Marx and you call it Ad Hominem.

This is an ad hominem attack in a nut shell. Your argument is directed at me. The veracity of my argument doesn't depend on me.

If you do not wish to engage with Marxism that’s fine, but don’t try to pretend you understand it enough to discredit it, that’s all I ask.

Ad hominem. Again. What I am doing to refute your argument is trivial. Anyone can do this. I highly recommend you try a different approach.

You don’t have to take reading recommendations from me, you can find them elsewhere and decide for yourself if they contradict your current understanding.

I'll take recommendations, but Marxist and anarchist theory in general is not relevant to this discussion.