You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
2
diogenesofthearch on scored.co
1 year ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
It's capitalism being subverted by (((evil forces))). Both communism and capitalism are susceptible to such subversion, but communism much more. This is why the subversion is inherently communist in nature, because it provides the path of least resistance. Subversion of capitalism takes much longer because it has to erode the culture, like a culture's architecture, in ways other than state control to succeed.
Marxism itself is a subversion of communism, which has arguably existed for a very long time and had its modern roots in the English peasants revolt, the German Peasants War, and it was arguably a very coherent faction by the English Civil War.
Why England predominantly? Because norman fuckery made people naturally despise the monarchy and seek the most radical solution.
Was it called communism then? No, and it was actually extremely religious too, but it was communist, just not marxist.
Marx based his communism off of the French revolution, which itself was not particularly communist at all in actuality. It ended up being a movement of the 3rd estate bourgeoisie against the second and first estates. It had little to do with actual peasants and workers. The French revolution was capitalistic and enlightenment in origin. What he did copy from this though was the atheistic and culturally destructive aspect of it.
Which shows that marxism particularly is not concerned with actual emancipation and *actual*, non jewish, communism, but rather destruction of culture, race, religion, and mores. It would not be a particular surprise to me if that was the *only* thing that Karl Marx himself wrote about, and the rest of his theory that is concerned with the emancipation of the working class, was instead written by Friedrich Engels, the aryan who was superior to him in almost every single aspect.
Why England predominantly? Because norman fuckery made people naturally despise the monarchy and seek the most radical solution.
Was it called communism then? No, and it was actually extremely religious too, but it was communist, just not marxist.
Marx based his communism off of the French revolution, which itself was not particularly communist at all in actuality. It ended up being a movement of the 3rd estate bourgeoisie against the second and first estates. It had little to do with actual peasants and workers. The French revolution was capitalistic and enlightenment in origin. What he did copy from this though was the atheistic and culturally destructive aspect of it.
Which shows that marxism particularly is not concerned with actual emancipation and *actual*, non jewish, communism, but rather destruction of culture, race, religion, and mores. It would not be a particular surprise to me if that was the *only* thing that Karl Marx himself wrote about, and the rest of his theory that is concerned with the emancipation of the working class, was instead written by Friedrich Engels, the aryan who was superior to him in almost every single aspect.