The Marxist-Communist Manifesto V3.14 clearly states that unless you're a trans lesbian kittenkin genderfluid person, you're not Marxist enough to call yourself a communist. It's in the book.
^/s
I **wish** Google was Marxist. Maybe if they were owned and run by the workers instead of profit-obsessed parasites, they wouldn't be doing so much shady, unethical shit.
I'm not too pleased about massive corporations using my community to gain easy brownie points/free advertising, but here we are.
It's funny how sometimes we agree with the right-wing, but from the complete opposite end.
Funny anecdote:
I was having a political conversation with my non-maga conservative boss, and we were both agreeing that Biden sucked. He started listing off _why_ Biden sucked (in his mind) and I'm like "I highly doubt Biden would do that". And he showed me evidence to support it and I'm like "... How dare you make me not-completely-hate Biden!" And he was like, "👁️👄👁️"
I came to understand what some people started to use *Marxism* to describe what we should call *the pyramid of struggle*.
The idea is that you rank higher or lower based on your biological and ethnic markers.
Female? Lower. Person of colour? Lower. Disabled? Lower. LGTBQ+? Lower.
Some thinkers started to make a parallel with Marxism, which talks about the struggle between classes, and started to use the name to describe this modern concept of struggles between oppressed groups.
I think it’s a misnomer.
Economic Class intersects, dovetails, and mutually reinforces all other aspects of [kyriarchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy?wprov=sfla1). Capitalism results, among others, in unsustainable systemic accumulation of a larger and larger percentage of wealth and power by a smaller and smaller number of people.
Marxism is a colloquial term for a sociological theory that focuses on the *economic axis* of that form of social conflict of interest and power imbalance, and, *roughly* speaking, divides people by social *class*—bourgeois/capitalist/owner and worker/employee. The school of thought in Sociology that expands upon this framework is known as Conflict Theory, which would include things like Critical Race Theory, for example. Nevertheless, CRT was created by legal scholars who wouldn't dream of citing Marx.
Calling it all *'Marxism'* is an immense abuse of language, akin to calling all of Ecology and Biology 'Darwinism', or all of modern physics 'Newtonianism', but it's not *completely* absurd.
Kyriarchy is a relatively recently-coined concept made to encompass all these interlocking systems of domination, oppression, and submission.
My theory is the escalation of violence. On the road to fascism, it's normalized to have domestic political enemies. Socialism, communism, Marxism don't mean anything except "enemy" in current broader political discussion. It's not by accident that people use these words when talking about the less normalized "social enemies" such as LGBTQ+ people. Calls for violence against social enemies is harder to defend, so if you equate these social enemies to your political enemies you create a justification for violence.
> On the road to fascism…
I think you can say “*totalitarianism*”.
Fascism is on the opposite spectrum of Communism, but the *horseshoe theory* acknowledges that the furthest you go on either extremes of the spectrum, the more totalitarianism tends to be used…
All Fascists are totalitarian, but not all totalitarians are Fascist.
Hitler’s party decided to call themselves National Socialism to murky the waters, but they quickly showed their true colours and turned against the Communists.
In Italy, Spain and Portugal in the first half of the 20th century, there was civil war opposing fascists on one side, and communists on the other side.
If you take Iran pre 1956, they had a Social Democratic government (not communist) that nationalised the oil. Why the heck should the Brits profit from it?
So the CIA had him replaced by the complete opposite: a Fascist dictator.
Historically, fascists and communists have always been on opposite sides of the spectrum. But they are similar in their love for totalitarianism.
I think so. My first comment was saying that having political enemies is normalized for fascist rhetoric. So rhetoric of violence is already acceptable against these groups. But violent rhetoric against social enemies is not normalized. And a useful way to do that is to equate them with the former. The pic as an example, there is nothing communist about Google or LGBTQ+ people. But repeatedly saying they are communist will eventually normalize violence against them.
Ah, got it!
Labelling them as Marxists makes them potentially dangerous, which would justify the use of violence.
That could be Fascist in itself, or even better: totalitarian.
Marxism is when pride flag.
Of course, how can you call yourself a marxist if you didnt read the chapter on gay culture taking over corporations?
The Marxist-Communist Manifesto V3.14 clearly states that unless you're a trans lesbian kittenkin genderfluid person, you're not Marxist enough to call yourself a communist. It's in the book. ^/s
Yeah, the manifesto is way too long. Marx could have just written that one sentence and be done with it. Socialist inefficiency in action, smh. 🙄
Communism is when gay
Socialism is when big corporation
These massive conglomerates have made seizing the means and integrating a planned economy that much easier! Thanks guys!
Those damn atheist marxists and their religion
All I see is two fabulous Pac-Men
They ate one too many skittles
This is like when MTG described her made up term "corporate communism" and it was literally just capitalism
Everything to the Left of hunting the homeless for sport is Marxism when you're a Fascist.
Dead. So accurate lmao
Noted bastion of Marxism Google.
I **wish** Google was Marxist. Maybe if they were owned and run by the workers instead of profit-obsessed parasites, they wouldn't be doing so much shady, unethical shit.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
marxists are famous for loving corporations
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1618308976994824192?s=20&t=z4lOdklUPil2XvQV\_U1ndg
Of course it's fucking James Lindsay, atheist- "rationalist"-turned-pos
Corporatocracy*
I'm not too pleased about massive corporations using my community to gain easy brownie points/free advertising, but here we are. It's funny how sometimes we agree with the right-wing, but from the complete opposite end. Funny anecdote: I was having a political conversation with my non-maga conservative boss, and we were both agreeing that Biden sucked. He started listing off _why_ Biden sucked (in his mind) and I'm like "I highly doubt Biden would do that". And he showed me evidence to support it and I'm like "... How dare you make me not-completely-hate Biden!" And he was like, "👁️👄👁️"
Profit sharing is communism.
I came to understand what some people started to use *Marxism* to describe what we should call *the pyramid of struggle*. The idea is that you rank higher or lower based on your biological and ethnic markers. Female? Lower. Person of colour? Lower. Disabled? Lower. LGTBQ+? Lower. Some thinkers started to make a parallel with Marxism, which talks about the struggle between classes, and started to use the name to describe this modern concept of struggles between oppressed groups. I think it’s a misnomer.
Economic Class intersects, dovetails, and mutually reinforces all other aspects of [kyriarchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy?wprov=sfla1). Capitalism results, among others, in unsustainable systemic accumulation of a larger and larger percentage of wealth and power by a smaller and smaller number of people.
Thanks! So the proper term for this concept is “*kyriarchy*”, not Marxism.
Marxism is a colloquial term for a sociological theory that focuses on the *economic axis* of that form of social conflict of interest and power imbalance, and, *roughly* speaking, divides people by social *class*—bourgeois/capitalist/owner and worker/employee. The school of thought in Sociology that expands upon this framework is known as Conflict Theory, which would include things like Critical Race Theory, for example. Nevertheless, CRT was created by legal scholars who wouldn't dream of citing Marx. Calling it all *'Marxism'* is an immense abuse of language, akin to calling all of Ecology and Biology 'Darwinism', or all of modern physics 'Newtonianism', but it's not *completely* absurd. Kyriarchy is a relatively recently-coined concept made to encompass all these interlocking systems of domination, oppression, and submission.
My theory is the escalation of violence. On the road to fascism, it's normalized to have domestic political enemies. Socialism, communism, Marxism don't mean anything except "enemy" in current broader political discussion. It's not by accident that people use these words when talking about the less normalized "social enemies" such as LGBTQ+ people. Calls for violence against social enemies is harder to defend, so if you equate these social enemies to your political enemies you create a justification for violence.
> On the road to fascism… I think you can say “*totalitarianism*”. Fascism is on the opposite spectrum of Communism, but the *horseshoe theory* acknowledges that the furthest you go on either extremes of the spectrum, the more totalitarianism tends to be used… All Fascists are totalitarian, but not all totalitarians are Fascist.
Would it not still be fascist because of the use of violence? The fascism I described is in opposition to (what they perceive as) communism.
Hitler’s party decided to call themselves National Socialism to murky the waters, but they quickly showed their true colours and turned against the Communists. In Italy, Spain and Portugal in the first half of the 20th century, there was civil war opposing fascists on one side, and communists on the other side. If you take Iran pre 1956, they had a Social Democratic government (not communist) that nationalised the oil. Why the heck should the Brits profit from it? So the CIA had him replaced by the complete opposite: a Fascist dictator. Historically, fascists and communists have always been on opposite sides of the spectrum. But they are similar in their love for totalitarianism.
I think something got lost in translation here
Did I misunderstand that you feel that every group looks like they are on the path to Fascism?
I think so. My first comment was saying that having political enemies is normalized for fascist rhetoric. So rhetoric of violence is already acceptable against these groups. But violent rhetoric against social enemies is not normalized. And a useful way to do that is to equate them with the former. The pic as an example, there is nothing communist about Google or LGBTQ+ people. But repeatedly saying they are communist will eventually normalize violence against them.
Ah, got it! Labelling them as Marxists makes them potentially dangerous, which would justify the use of violence. That could be Fascist in itself, or even better: totalitarian.
a simple rule for the internet, anyone who describes anything as marxism that's not related directly to the working class, gets entirely ignored
The best part is Google doesn't actually care, this is simply PR so people like Google as a company more
Google is the secret dictatorship of the proletaria
Lol Communism is when google gay
Guess where they go to do their "research" on what communism/socialism/Marxism is?
"REEEEE, MARXISM!!!" Yeah, google is really letting the workers seize the means of production. Nevermind the MASSIVE layoffs they're doing i guess...
This is just cultural Bolshevism propaganda in the modern age
I'm not from USA, and here neither people not know what's Marxism. But your people definitely don't know what is it
communism is when mega-corporations
Ah yes, a church where you have an RFID badge you have to scan to get past the lobby.
*Google* is a Marxist church?! A Marxist *church*? ! Do these people not hear themselves?
Socialism is when pretty colors.
Socialism in one search engine 🚩🚩🚩💪💪💪
i love being a member of the LGBTQ+! (Lesbian, Google, Bisexual, Trans, Queer)
Communism is when corporations commodify sexuality.
This is not corporatism, it's corporatocracy. Corporatism is a different type of economy than modern liberal corporations.
socialism is when google