Originally posted by Firefly218
How is Marxism responsible for death in any way??? ^^^
YouTube video
Originally posted by Firefly218
Are you referring to the mass killings under communist regimes? Because that’s not the same thing as Marxism dude.
"Marxism, first developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, has been the foremost ideology of the communist movement."-Wikipedia
To deny that communist regimes are the exponent of Marxist ideology would be absurd, naive, and blatantly intellectually dishonest.
You know what else is a part of Marxism? The idea of a socialist revolution, the proletariat revolting to overthrow the bourgeois... and revolution is violent and forceful, and when a specific group of people is the target of their ire it's obvious that the exponent of such a revolution would be targetted mass murder against a specific group...
Revolution, violence against class enemies, totalitarian oppression, this is all a part of Marxist theory kek. The use of violence, class warfare, and totalitarian oppression to seek Marxism's end-goal is well within the purview of Marxism.
And then you can say "but what if an elected government does this as opposed to violent revolt" but that still wouldn't change the fact that force is being used to oppress people and violate their property rights and economic liberty.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Nazis have a core belief that involved the mass murder of people and hatred and bigotry. Marxism is just a hippy philosophy where there’s no money and we all share things together.
Yeah class warfare against the bourgeois totally doesn't constitute hatred and mass murder... and just because Marxism isn't racialized doesn't mean I'm willing to give them a free pass on their disgusting ideology.
And your description of Marxism is unbearably naive and unreasonably charitable. But I'm going to play along and reduce the horrific aspects of Marxism to as small a degree as I can possibly imagine without being intellectually dishonest.
At best, Marxism is an ideology that is inherently and inescapably oppressive and repressive to the rights of anyone who lives under it, given that it seeks to completely abolish property rights. And given the statistical impossibility of everyone willingly agreeing to it, it is something that would by necessity have to be enforced at the point and threat of violent force, either from the government in the case of a Marxist state, or mob justice in the case of an anarchic Marxist society. The most generous interpretation of Marxism you could hold without being intellectually dishonest still involves a very oppressive repression of people's rights at the point of force.
Now, let's shoot for the best most charitable to Marxism scenario and say there's no murder, Marxism would still be responsible for a lot of death. Capitalism generates wealth because it is a meritocratic system that rewards success, and in doing so it creates the incentive for hard work, for becoming a high skilled worker and for trying to be successful, and it also ensures the people who are most successful with money and economic transactions are free to engage in more economic transactions and this is how investment happens and how jobs are created. If you abolish the system that creates the incentive for hard work and success and ensures that the most competent people are the ones making investments and running businesses, then such a system would generate much much less wealth, and poverty would be way more widespread than it currently is, and no amount of wealth redistribution would be able to fix that. In Soviet Russia, there were really successful farmers known as the Kulaks, and they had their property violently seized and they were executed for being wealthy and part of the "bourgeois," however in doing so they got rid of the most successful farmers that were most successful at growing food, and as a result famine and starvation became more widespread, leading to a lot of death, and even if you don't flat out kill successful people if you discentivize success you're going to see very similar problems. Take a look at Venezuela right now, they're trying socialism, and their currency is worth less than currency in World of Warcraft and it's hard to get ****ing toilet paper. Why would I work hard if I'm not rewarded based on my economic productivity? A ****ton of people won't want to put in the extra effort if all of the wealth will just be equitably distributed anyways, though maybe you can create an incentive for hard work by using force or threats of force to make people work and meet a certain demand, but given we're trying to be ethically charitable to Marxism here I doubt that's a route you want to go down (hint, it's been done before, it's extremely oppressive and has overworked plenty of people to death, and constitutes just one more way in which Marxist ideology can lead to the violation of people's rights).
So yeah, at it's most charitable interpretation, people will have their individual rights seriously repressed and violated, death will ensue from the failure of such a society to be economically productive enough to meet the needs of those who belong to it, and force will almost certainly be necessary to enforce it.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Equating the two is a little ridiculous, if you don’t mind me saying so
Here's the thing right, the disgusting and regressive parts of the right are more blatant and visible on the surface, what with nazism, white supremacy, etc. there's no obfuscation there and these things are rightly abhorred. The disgusting and regressive parts of the left though, intersectional social justice, marxist ideology, etc. are all obfuscated by the veil of "Oh we just want equity! Class equity, racial equity, equity equity equity!" One ideology that is by necessity oppressive and repressive that almost certainly necessitates the use of force against it's opponents isn't going to get brownie points or and wiggle room from me over another oppressive repressive ideology just because it obfuscates it's bullshit behind the utopian veil of "equity." That just doesn't cut it for me, at all.
It's not an accident that the exponent of Marxist ideology is a higher body count than that which exists for any other ideology in human history, and it's easy to see why. Marx included class warfare and violent revolt as part of his writings, and even beyond that Marxism is inherently oppressive to people's property rights, complete shit economically which would lead to a spread of poverty and starvation and a much lower quality of goods and services (like, sanitation, medicine, water, food, basic shit that's necessary for living or having a decent standard of life), the lack of incentive to work and people's resistance to it creates an incentive for violations of people's liberty (through both a restriction of economic liberty, and forcing people to work harder when society isn't doing well enough) and threats of force against people who resist (either from a government or mob).
So in your own words about Nazism at the beginning of this page, "there's no conversation to be had" "there's no rationalizing that bullshit ideology. Much like Nazism, Marxism is rotten to the core and inevitably leads to widespread death and suffering and some pretty hardcore violations of people's rights, in the case of Marxism the complete repression of property rights and economic liberty, an inevitable substantive loss of life whether through the spreading of poverty or direct genocidal acts.
But hey, at least they aren't saying "We hate kikes and niggers" whoop dee ****ing doo for them! That gives their ideology so much more credence despite how obviously rotten and bullshit it is!