Yeah and the entire problem is that you see people that way because Marx said it was right and pointed to some Hegelian end of history, but people don't see themselves that way and most Marxist scholarship since then has been an effort to explain away everything Marx got wrong starting with Gramsci
Gramsci was a Marxist. Nobody said that Marxs was perfect and that his theory couldn't be expanded on by other intellectuals. Not even Marxs himself would say he wasn't above critique or a fuller embodiment of his concept. So I don't know what your point is here?
Because you're not expanding the theory, you're continuously changing it when it demonstrates its actual lack of predictive power. By the time you've layered all the various "it's class except for all the cases where it's not" onto Marx you get to the point where you haven't said anything at all.
Again no one said Marx's theory had to be perfect and you can clearly see we are experiencing late stage capitalism where we are consuming more than our planet can provide for us and destroying the ecosystem in the process. All for an economic system that demands perpetual growth on a finite planet.
What makes you think that's unique to capitalism? Humans have been destroying ecosystems and causing extinctions since the neolithic. The only thing that's changed is technology and scale. Plus, state socialism provides zero answers to that problem--the USSR was an ecological abomination.
Now you're just living in a fantasy world where you think that a perpetual growth economic model is going to work out on a finite planet like we aren't living the glaring flaw in that bit of nonsense, ignoring our bought out gov by the concentrated wealth of the fossil fuel industry. No words. 😬
Lol I never said any of that, I just said that capitalism wasn't innovative in that regard. You intuited the rest for absolutely no good reason
Great! So why are you making a case for capitalism then? Do you believe in the vegetarian tiger?
I'm not "making a case for it." I just don't believe it's any different, except in scale and efficiency, from the rapacious inequality and consumption that has plagued humanity since the dawn of agriculture under every other economic system.
What I find strongly distasteful about a lot of socialists is that they believe capitalism represents some unique evolution and that if we can just undo it everything will be fine, when a) lol, and b) state socialist remedies have proved equally rapacious
Even more ironically, democratic capitalism had a far better response to environmental issues than state socialism did because state socialism polluted and extracted resources with zero accountability while democratic capitalism forced government to respond to people's ecological concerns!
We were all major polluters back in the day and no one...NO ONE beats America for total historical usage of fossil fuel consumption. The major contributor to climate breakdown.
"The world's most dominant economy in the fossil fuel age has consumed the most fossil fuels" Do you have any other shocking news or statistics for me? And of course you have to talk about "historical usage" because China far exceeds the US now on current usage which you don't like
I'm not the one making an argument that socialists are the main polluters you were, so I thought I would point out the reality. As for China's fossil fuel consumption can be attributed in part because we offshored our consumption via manufacturing in other words they make our stuff. Left that out.🤨
You're having a hard time with this, so: 1) state socialism had both no regard for ecology and no popular pressure for environmentalism 2) yes, China is an export economy deeply integrated with the US, and I guess if we all went back to subsistence farming then that would all go away
And you are completely oblivious to the reality that we are not going to survive climate emergency without a planned economy whatever your complaints are socialism will embrace ecology there will simply be no choice and capitalism is entirely incapable of addressing climate emergency.
All of this is dumb because you don't have to be a degrowther to be a socialist
No ecological consumption an exploitation are definitely part of Marx's theory not the main focus or the most well-developed part, but it was definitely a part of his concepts, but sure "dumb".
I just said you don't have to be a degrowther to be a socialist, and that's why this was dumb, not because a guy who wrote by whale oil light had something to say about ecological consumption
CLASS IS CENTRAL AND THE FUNDAMENTAL MOVER OF HISTORY except where it's culture, nationality, race, gender, religion, etc etc It's ridiculous because all you end up doing is describing the world as it is and applying the label of Marxism to it