The establishment vs Uber

[FireIceTalon]

By that logic, everyone at least as "far right" as Bertrand Russell is a reactionary bigot who belongs on Stormfront.org.

Not necessarily. Me and Mr. Russell would probably agree on little, but I doubt there is a racist bone in his body and it would be silly to put him on the same level as the folks over at Stormfront. Nevertheless, it is my experience that most people who refer to Marxism as a religious doctrine are trolling hard. Perhaps Mr. Russell isn't though, and in that case he just has a serious misunderstanding of Marxist theory, and/or is unable to distinguish between Idealist systems of thought and Materialist ones. The same may be true of Schumpter, I don't know. Either way, it is difficult for me to take one serious when they use this logic.

If you are trying to imply that I think the people at Stormfront.org and B. Russell should be lumped together, then I would disagree. Both are reactionary, but reactionaries aren't monolithic (just as Marxists aren't) and there are different degrees of it. Obviously, Russell is a respectable person (even if I agree with little of his theories, that is irrelevant here), while the people over at stormfront are racist scum. Just as Rosa Luxemburg was a great Marxist thinker, brave revolutionary, and beacon of hope for proletarian emancipation; while Stalin was an caricature of Marxism, cult-of-personality dictator, and brutal opportunist.

I can't fault you for inconsistency in your worldview. You do actually seem to draw the line for "reactionary" at "Menshevik."

?? Not quite sure what you are getting at here. What inconsistencies?

The Mensheviks were indeed reactionary. They ultimately supported the Russian Provisional Government which consisted of Liberals, former Tsarist officials and counter-revolutionaries, and they put themselves on the opposite side of the Russian proletariat. Me supporting the Mensheviks in any way would indeed be very inconsistent as a Marxist, since their actions were utterly very anti-Marxist. But I don't. So again I ask, what inconsistencies?

If you'd like to start an actual discussion about Schumpeter's views on the self-destruction of capitalism, that might be neat, except that you've already loudly declared that you're neither interested in reading him, nor would you bother take him seriously if you did.

I think capitalism can self-destruct or degenerate into something even more barbaric, but one of the points to revolutionary socialism is to prevent this from happening, since its self-destruction would likely result in environmental catastrophe and take all of humanity down with it. That being said, I don't see how tighter regulations and state intervention can possibly be responsible for such a scenario. Capitalism needs the state, and the state needs capitalism (or at least some form of class rulership).