this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2026
93 points (97.9% liked)
Asklemmy
55894 readers
329 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've literally said these things but you're just waxing on about them to further your condescension and I just don't respect it.
I suggest you scroll all the way to my first few comments. Maybe you will understand why I am calling socialists today national socialists and telling you that Marx would not support them. These nationalist revolutions you're talking about have nothing to do with the national socialists today who want to just cheer on their version of imperialism and cheer the downfall of those they're told are their enemies. It completely goes against what Marx was talking about and your defense of them is where your contradiction lies. I don't care about your opinions, but you keep pushing them.
Again. This isn't true at all. Marx would not support your class reductionism, and Marx would support the Marxists of today that take firm anti-imperialist stances. You have a simplified, non-Marxist view of imperialism and nations.
Marxists today are spoiled, divided nationalists who do not reach to other struggling communities, and instead wish their team, their country would be proven successful while others fail. They do not care for worker unity. They support their bourgeoisie, their power structure and tend to reinforce class from the culture they're from. They do not criticize their own governments believing they can "fix them" or that their government is doing it right. They also invoke his name as a tool. And above all most Marxists today sit atop exploited laborers and pretend by acknowledging certain class divisions and inequalities, they are doing something. Ineffective, divided, moralists who naturally reaffirm class. They are reformers not revolutionaries and in that he would likely say: "all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom" aka, a joke.
No he would not lol. π
This is all vagueposting on your part, again. You keep fighting a vague strawman and not directing your criticism at an actual existing group, and your criticism avoids any direct references because then it falls apart immediately. You still have a shallow understanding of Marx.
Uh huh
Yep.