Yup there’s already a ton of people leaving the party

Folks, the bourgeoisie, they're no good. Everyone is saying it. All these workers, very handsome workers come up to me and say, "Comrade Trump there is a specter haunting Europe", and you know what, they're right. These bourgeois are very nasty people very very rude and very unfair to the workers. They are stealing our surplus value and no one is doing anything about it. The proletariat comes up to me everyday and says, "Comrade Trump will you lead the revolution?" And I gotta turn to them and say, "Look the instruments of capitalism will be used to bring about its destruction believe me you gotta trust me on this one." The means of production? Obama never wanted to seize them. Well guess what? I'm seizing them. Landlords? They're done for folks. Everyone told me they said, "Comrade Trump you won't be the vanguard of the revolution" and they would laugh, the media laughed the democrats laughed, guess whose laughing now?

Folks, a spectre, very bad, it's haunting Europe, a spectre – of communism, in Europe, you know when it's in Europe they don't want to tell you about it, but I'm telling you, it's over there, and its haunting them. They're telling me, Karl, all the powers of old Europe, very powerful and very old, are telling me, Karl, we're making a holy deal to stop, we're making a holy alliance to stop the spectre. I think it's a very bad deal, very not good, and not so holy, and you know they say I'm not so holy, I'm telling them they're not so holy. The Pope – Italian – and the Czar… in Russia. They're colluding folks. There's the real collusion. Metternich and Geezo, very tough. French Radicals, when they're radical that means not good, don't you think, and German police-spies.

You all claim to hate feudalism, and yet you toil on the king's land? Curious. You seem to have no problem enjoying the benefits and innovations brought to you by feudalism, the clothes on your back, the road beneath your feet, the hovel you live in… without feudalism, none of these things would exist, and yet you still advocate for your failed, idealistic dream-society.

Feudalism has lifted millions out of poverty, and yet you have the audacity to claim it causes it? Do you even understand basic economics? Without the incentive to keep scores of people in perpetual obligation to them, landowners would have no reason to produce, and no reason to raise the peasants out of poverty.

Greek democracy? Failed. Roman democracy? Failed and turned into a dictatorship several times. Venetian democracy? Failed. English democracy? Failed, and a dictatorship. It's failed every time it's been tried.

But, wait, let me guess. Those 'weren't real democracies', right?

Wouldn’t a revolution be authoritarian? You’re asserting the authority of the working class in the revolution?

Hey guys. How can I learn about the percentage rate of contimanated water over the years?

For instance in the 1800s, only 10% of the water was contaminated. In 2021, 90% of the water is contaminated.

i know youre being facetious but this is legitimately what an incredibly large segment of right wing people believe, there was a twitter thread from one of those "greek philosopher bust profile picture accounts named western gnostic tradtionalist" stereotypes who was arguing a return to feudalism would be beneficial and feudalism produced the highest quality of education and quality of life than anything other system in history. now obviously a lot of this is just twitter aesthetics and contrarianism but aesthetics go a long way as we all know

with that said i actually think this one aspect where questioning otherwise generally observed dogmatic aspects of ml-ism can lead to interesting conclusions. under typical theory, once capitalism is introduced from whatever primitive/primal abstractions before it, the chronology logically succeeds to socialism and eventually to communism. what if typical ML theory is wrong and it's not an inherently linear evolution, but rather the possibility for socialist revolution only exists within a set opportunity, and missing that opportunity leads to a different branch of evolution from capitalism, such as (perhaps) leading back into feudalism? I don't see any real reason to believe that any form of theory is set in stone sacredly beyond essentially ambition or a false sense of optimism. even the strongest attempts at remaining "orthodox" per-se tend to fall back into some level of ignoring contradiction

saw that tweet too

just building off of this if you want further extrapolation i am near certain in one of either marx's or engel's writing they attributed the idea of feudal economics as a separate precursor system from capitalism that also was not universalized and could/did exist only in some parts of the world (i think they said it wasn't in asia iirc?), so the concept of feudalism existing as a localized system doesnt inherently go against even orthodox marxist writing on a fundamental basis, in fact, i mean, the argument could literally be the reason asia theoretically was able to develop a longer standing socialist system (tentatively) than the west was literally because they did not have feudalism (as per-Engels), whereas on the other hand you could argue a regression to feudalism is because of the roots of where capitalism comes from in the west

A well read ML would not claim that

Markov model representation of transitions between forms of economy. Examples of the labeled transitions:(a) Mongolia;(b) Germany transition to feudalism; (c) Slave economy West Africa;(d) Chinese revolution;(e) Britain; (f) East Germany; (g) Roman republic;(h) Late West Roman Empire;(i) Russia.

paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2018/04/16/stochastic-historical-materialism

Edit: Check the article for the picture. Doesnt work on KTT

Mongolia: Clan society - socialism -capitalism

Germany: Clan society - Peasant society - Capitalist Society - Socialist Society (East Germany) - Capitalist Society

Romans: Clan to Peasant to Slave to Peasant

China: Peasant to Socialism

I’m paraphrasing because I’m on my phone sure I agree with the point being made but I don’t really understand what’s different in what you’re saying vs I’m saying and at worst writings like this seem like cope to justify originating writings as not being as dogmatically simple as they were originally regarded as

F***ing idiots

Historical materialism never said "this system to that system to that system", not even Marx says it. Just a simpflication some people made. Dengoids abuse hismat especially tho

Cockshott makes the comparison to Markov models to say different transitions are possible but some have higher likeliness than others. Markov chains come from linguistics to predict which letter or word comes next. Capitalism to peasant society is extremely unlikely though.

There is no difference in extrapolations of this theory back to Marx & Engels themselves than there is Godel using math to justify Christianity

I mean, I don’t speak German so perhaps it’s because I’m reading English translations and the English meaning of works is disseparate from the German, but I mean, that is definitely claimed in some manner

Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

Marx and Engels knew that for example Rome developed from a peasant economy to a slave economy and back to a peasant economy. They spend some time discussing why Rome could not have developed capitalism yet while they had slavery despire having an advanced output. They were aware that it was not a straight path and that economies developed differently outside Europe. They later discarded the Asiatic mode of production

There is a Marx letter where he says that it is imaginable that semi-feudalist Russia jumps directly to socialism while skipping capitalism, which is more or less what happened later. Marx spent his last years paying more attention to Russia, China and India as he believed these societies might turn socialist first. The claim that he only thought Europe could develop socialism then was one he made a few decades earlier. People love citing it though to prove "he was wrong" (even if he were, he was never pretending to be Nostradamus)

Regardless of what Marx said, updating historical materialism is not a cope, it is just science to modify your theory as time goes on. That's how it is supposed to work.

Outside of semantics how would that dispute the idea of questioning socialism or communism as linear evolutions though? If you were to assume things jump between abcd arbitrarily but then are assumed to always end in e, that’s still linear? It’s still based in an understanding of theory of how means of production develop relative between classes, even with the strongest insistence on HM the only way to basically assert that result is completely guaranteed (especially if you claim it is regardless of root primitives before it) is to either modify the theory (which, sure, I agree updating is not cope, but it’s an admittance that questioning is valid regardless) or to hold it to the standard of universal objectivity, of which puts holes in other needed prerequisite beliefs.

1. Not arbritary. Likelihoods are there.
2. Nobody says communism is inevitable or socialism. Why should socialists exist then? We would just sit back and relax if it would develop automatically. That's a strawman. What we say is that capitalism will end like any system before, but we don't know what will replace it. Socialism is the conscious attempt of using this decline to the advantage of the workers.

The famous phrase is: Socialism or barbarism. This already implies other systems can also replace capitalism.

Yes

Is this not antithetical to anarchism?