Nice praxis you've got there, just laying on the misogyny when you can't hold your ground.

I never said accusations were bad; you're the one who can't come to terms with them. Don't dish out if you can't eat what you serve, parrot boy.

It's not a strawman because the act of voting is always discreetly done by an individual. It is always one vote. Besides which, this whole exchange began when you told a brother to vote.

Strawmaning is really more your speciality. That, or ad hominem; predictably comparing me to Nazis... what unoriginal disingenuity will you come up with next I wonder.

Funny thing about that poem, it highlights the importance of speaking out. Not voting. It's almost like the idea of active and direct praxis isn't in the least bit novel, for all that it continues to elude you.

Here's something to sit with though:

When they come for the women you're among them, calling people bitches because you think sexist slurs make for good insults.

When they come for the neuroatypical you're among them, calling people mentally ill because you think mentalist slurs make for good insults.

When they come for the lower class you're among them, invoking your class credentials because you think they make you superior.

Don't come at me over praxis, parrot boy. Not when you're deep throating boots this hard.

Marxism is 6 people and two kids getting shot at the CHAZ

Cool. Then capitalism is 9 million people dying of hunger every year.

The other 800 milion must have been Muslim, Communist, and Socialist countries then.

Specifically opposed to capitalism. Or, at least, ideologies in which wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few people. Marxism arose as a result of Marx's class analysis and his critiques of capitalism. What people are very quick to forget is that, regardless of whether you agree with Marx's solution, the problems he identified with capitalism are very genuine.

Marx was not merely critical of capitalism, nor even just of ideologies which concentrate wealth. Minimally, Marx was also expansively critical of contemporary German egoism and illegalism. Moreover, Marx went beyond critique to the point of advocating a particular ideology (what you call "Marx's solution"); this necessarily comes at the exclusion of all other political ideologies, given the nature of ideology.

You are correct, though, that people too quickly dismiss his critique of capitalism (although it was not so original a critique as is often presumed).

But Marxism has no "constitution" [...]

To say that Marxism has no constitution is to assert that it has no substance, i.e. that it does not advance any position at all. You yourself have explicitly acknowledged that Marx did advance a position; you referred to this as "Marx's solution". A person need not have read Marx to conclude therefrom that Marxism advances a position, and that is entirely adequate for the purposes of my claim that Marxism precludes breadth of political choice. Because Marxism represents a political position, it cannot be held in practical or coherent concurrence with other political positions. Therefore, Marxism by its very constitution precludes breadth of political choice. This is not unique to Marxism, but it is nevertheless a fact about Marxism.

[...] and, even if it did, you haven't read it. I see this type of behaviour from Americans all the time. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but your brain thinks it needs to attack Marx in order to defend itself.

Marx had numerous works and Marxist philosophy has considerably more than that; to which are you referring by "it"? I have read the entirety of The Manifesto of the Communist Party, selections from The German Ideology, and various works by contemporary Marxists. I'm by no means a Marxist scholar, but I'm sufficiently well-read to make such basic observations as "Marxism is a political ideology" (ffs).

Incidentally, my criticism of Marxist philosophy derives significantly from my familiarity with the works of their contemporaries; this is owing to my interest in late modern German philosophy, and of the Die Freien especially. My criticism has nothing to do with the happenstance of my geopolitical residence, nor is it a bizarre compulsion as you so disingenuously suggest. If either of us is prone to attack out of a reactionary sense of self-defense, it would appear to be you.

It is such a great shame that you guys have been so dumbed down by revisionist history and political propaganda. You literally vote against your own best interests as workers and attack anybody who tries to explain reality to you.

It is such a great shame that you leap to ad hominem and gross generalization. I literally do not vote. I literally have organized workers' resistances. I literally have not attacked you for advocating Marxism. Your condescension and disinterest in discussion are duly noted, though.

What people are very quick to forget is that, regardless of whether you agree with Marx's solution, the problems he identified with capitalism are very genuine.

And the critiques of Communism and Socialism are very genuine.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/3f/73/a33f738415d71c37cdf5c489b001b4c0.jpg

°

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-liberal-capitalism-is-not-perfect-but-compared-to-the-other-isms-it-s-far- superior-ayaan-hirsi-ali-0-48-67.jpg

So infuriating. The central theme of Marxist ideology is that there is no master.

Hardly. The central theme of Marxist ideology is that the proletariat will overthrow the bourgeoisie, and the latter are the only masters with which this ideology is explicitly concerned (to such an extent that feminists and critical race theorists have roundly criticized Marxism for its narrow concern with economics). Marx did not even advance this prescriptively, but viewed it as an inevitable historical occurrence that would be born out of dialectical materialism (here we see Hegel's strong influence).

That's why Antifa doesn't have a leader. It's why the hacker group Anonymous (before they were compromised by the FBI) didn't have a leader either.

Neither Antifa nor Anonymous are ideologically Marxist. Regardless, being leaderless does not make you masterless. Ideological commitment is also a master. You have a very narrow conception of freedom, if it only extends to the material world outside of your self.

You think Marxism is the literal opposite of what it is because of a combination of bad information, revisionist history, dictators who used Marxist ideology as the basis for military coups and seventy years of anti-Communist propaganda.

What bad information and revisionist history have I invoked, exactly? I haven't made the least mention of dictators either, and I'm not like to do so. Your ready disposition to presume strawmen wherever you see a critique of Marxism has ensured that you haven't even the vaguest notion of my views on Marxism. I'll give you a hint: individualist anarchism.