"Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as...

Colton Baker
Colton Baker

"Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the center of which is constituted of technology, science, production, ‘productivity,’ and ‘consumption.’ And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence — then we are not even close to what is essential."

All urls found in this thread:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism
John Cook
John Cook

So what is essential Jules? Magick?

Aaron Young
Aaron Young

I always thought Jules favored an anime-based society

Jason Jones
Jason Jones

Feels

Christopher Walker
Christopher Walker

What a brainlet, Marx didn't think that human progress was determined by systems of production, but rather production in general. That's a trivially true statement.

Jackson Jackson
Jackson Jackson

Wealth doesn't matter, the fact that you have 4 jobs and still live in poverty is totally non-essential :^)

James Martin
James Martin

What a brainlet, Marx didn't think that human progress was determined by systems of production

Where does Evola claim that? The term "systems of production" is not used once in the quote.

Do you enjoying strawmanning, brainlet?

Chase Morgan
Chase Morgan

Wealth doesn't matter, the fact that you have 4 jobs and still live in poverty is totally non-essential :^)

Did you even understand the quote?

Julian Campbell
Julian Campbell

Claiming that marxism argues that human progress is defined by systems of distribution is even more retarded.
if anything it was an ironman :^)

Michael Perry
Michael Perry

Claiming that marxism argues that human progress is defined by systems of distribution is even more retarded.

Again, he doesn't say that. You seem to be connecting the initial mentioning of Marxism in the first sentence to this sentence later on in the quote, despite the fact 'Marxism' isn't even used in the misquote you keep using.

Do you enjoy strawmanning, brainlet?

Bentley Thompson
Bentley Thompson

He's an idealist who believes that abstractions are more important than the actual conditions of your existence and that a focus on fixing the causes of these poor conditions is wrong because you should be fixated on spooks instead. Trash.

Anthony Watson
Anthony Watson

He's an idealist who believes that abstractions are more important than the actual conditions of your existence and that a focus on fixing the causes of these poor conditions is wrong because you should be fixated on spooks instead. Trash.

Says the guy who believes that a particular economic 'theory' can solve these matters when in reality they too are complete abstractions. The entire economic field is based on spooks LMAO.

Grayson Parker
Grayson Parker

This is why the milkman should be required reading.

Ryan Jones
Ryan Jones

It's completely true; communism is a capitalist fantasy of completion. It's also why marxists make such poor writers and poets.

Nathaniel Jones
Nathaniel Jones

You're right, he actually does have a point. The disgusting obsession with an accumulation of material things is a sickness of the soul capitalism has wrought and Marxism totally fails to address.

Still doesn't change the fact that negating value is a key component of living in a truly rational society. Technology and economic stability aren't everything, but they sure do mean a lot more than Evola gives credit for.

Aiden Peterson
Aiden Peterson

You seem to be connecting the initial mentioning of Marxism in the first sentence to this sentence later on in the quote
The two sentences are clearly related, but even if they weren't the idea that material things don't have profound effects on our lives is laughable at best. What is essence if not the qualities we observe in the world reflected in our minds?
if anything it was an ironman :^)
lmao

Michael Reed
Michael Reed

le two sides of the jewish coin
this meme is getting old considering reactionaries have always been staunch defenders of capitalism considering it's impossible to return to feudalism (once again proving historical materialism right)
and considering they defend capitalism, the two sides of the same coin would be reactionaries and liberals

Samuel Howard
Samuel Howard

I'm not going to criticize this quote until I know what Evola considered "essential". He was an esoteric so it was probably some extra spooky stuff.

Charles Phillips
Charles Phillips

Take the black pill fam
"The anarcho-syndicalists may talk of abolishing the state, but they will have to reproduce every one of its functions to guarantee the smooth running of their society. Anarcho-syndicalism does not make a radical break with the present society. It merely seeks to extend this society's values so they dominate us more fully in our daily lives. Thus the bourgeois liberal is content to get rid of priests and kings, and the anarcho-syndicalist throws in presidents and bosses. But the factories remain intact, the stores remain intact (though the syndicalists may call them distribution centers) — the entire social system remains intact. If our daily activity has not significantly changed — and the anarcho-syndicalists give no indication of wanting to change it beyond adding the burden of managing the factories to that of working in them — then what difference does it make if there are no bosses? — We're still slaves!"

Josiah Morgan
Josiah Morgan

The disgusting obsession with an accumulation of material things is a sickness of the soul capitalism has wrought and Marxism totally fails to address.
Read Marx before making claims like this, faggot. Or even just read Wikipedia, fuck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism

Robert Watson
Robert Watson

this meme is getting old considering reactionaries have always been staunch defenders of capitalism considering it's impossible to return to feudalism

Evola was not a friend of the reactionaries during his time and regarded many of the reactionary movements as completely plebeian.

Even if it is impossible to return to a traditional time, that doesn't mean one cannot comment on societal decadence.

Isaac Perry
Isaac Perry

You can also be a leftist and support traditional sociocultural values.

Adrian Myers
Adrian Myers

Not really as Leftism is associated with progressiveness which is inherently anti-Tradition.

Nathan Sanchez
Nathan Sanchez

subversive is a meme word that just means "bad"
I hate these people who can't tell the difference between denotation and connotation. Capitalism isn't subversive because it's the foundational operating system of modern society. A system can't subvert itself. Sure it was subversive toward feudalism while that was around, but it's not any more. To be subversive is to undermine something and destroy it by subtly transforming it, as an external agent. Capitalism (or anything) can't subvert itself by definition. It's not good for people, but it's completely a human activity and within human society so it can't be considered subversive to humans either, merely a sickness that we should try to overcome. This stupid fuck literally doesn't even understand the basic definitions of words he's using.

The disgusting obsession with an accumulation availability of material things enough food and other basic necessities to survive without deleterious consequences to health, both physical and mental
Fixed that for you, you consummate shitstain

Christopher Rodriguez
Christopher Rodriguez

Bullshit. Progress isn't necessarily opposed to tradition. But even if it were, irrational adherence to tradition is retarded as hell.

Andrew Gutierrez
Andrew Gutierrez

I'm an anarcho-transhumanist
*awkward silence*

Bentley Nguyen
Bentley Nguyen

Anarcho transhumanist are dumb but this is an even worse critique.
what is boldly going where no man has gone before

Robert Davis
Robert Davis

im materialist thusly i can have any thought at all not orchestrated by the limbic affective circuits
marx didn't think production in general or its modes in actuality were systematic organic unities of determining relations
marx didn't think what the economists labeled distribution and production were really a co-determining unity of moments

Jace Torres
Jace Torres

It's not a critique you dip, it's a meme

Christopher Martin
Christopher Martin

I explicitly noted communism is a matter of negating value, it goes without saying Marx was no advocate of commodities. Still doesn't change my point.

What exactly do you think you're proving here? In my post I was explicitly defending the importance of material wealth in a healthy society. I was just pointing out that it's not the end-by-all for human progress. Our societies today possess wealth beyond the wildest dreams of those centuries ago and yet no one is even slightly happier for it.

What the fuck are you even talking about? I'd sooner refer to myself as a Marxist than that

Brandon Carter
Brandon Carter

So because an ignorant public associates leftism with the liberal label of "progressive", supporting a traditional nuclear family makes you not leftist?

Grayson Phillips
Grayson Phillips

marx didn't think production in general or its modes in actuality were systematic organic unities of determining relations
Good thing that's not what I claimed then, huh? My only claim was that Marx doesn't think that "real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution", dumbfuck. lrn2read.

Liam White
Liam White

What the fuck are you even talking about?

You said Marx failed to address commodity fetishism. Then you mentioned technology. It was safe to assume your ideology at that point.

Camden Parker
Camden Parker

I disagree. Any leftist worth their weight in hoarded grain must understand that values are the result of material conditions and are never static. Tradition says we shouldn't do X because of Y consequences, but suppose we one day have an answer and solution to them? Supporting such values then would be irrational; the new values become the norm or the new tradition. In the end there's really no such thing as objective "traditional" values because of this.

Jackson Reed
Jackson Reed

I wasn't challenging the main point you made, just the claim that Marxism fails to address the disgusting obsession with the accumulation of material things that exists under capitalism.

Jackson Morales
Jackson Morales

I was explicitly defending the importance of material wealth in a healthy society. I was just pointing out that it's not the end-by-all for human progress.
Jesus Christ, read Marx. Like, any Marx at all. Here's some Kropotkin for good measure.

Angel Anderson
Angel Anderson

Oh whoops, thought that third one was capital. I'd post it but I don't have the pdf actually.

Nolan Richardson
Nolan Richardson

supporting a traditional nuclear family makes you not leftist?

Nuclear families are not traditional. They are a Capitalist concept from the 1950's. Traditional families from hundreds of years ago were far larger.

You still think in terms of Modernity without even realising it.

Christopher Reyes
Christopher Reyes

But even if it were, irrational adherence to tradition is retarded as hell.

t. White male born into a Western Capitalist society with a single mother who thinks the next smartphone coming out = good

Jaxon Reed
Jaxon Reed

Stop taking words out of their context and then debating their definition LMAO.

What a pure example of Modernity.

Oliver Barnes
Oliver Barnes

reflected in our minds
oh yeah the mind works like a mirror how silly of me. by essential i believe evola was talking not about Essences but about how marxists attempt to "recenter the discourse" in today's parlance.

in any case it's one thing to credit historical material analysis of capitalism, it's quite another to therefore, decide it operates by the iron laws divinated by Marx, and yet another fantastical leap to therefore be a Communist. typical marxist disingenuity will always conflate these just because daddy was and they believe themselves to be top I Q.
mystics can't be right
No Hegel no Marx, that simple, Marx himself says it, he just arbitrarily decides what is "mysticism" (everything he doesn't like)
Commodity fetishism related to Political Economists and their inability to use proper science to see past the mere phenomena. Proper science meaning Hegel.
convincing outreach
capitalism is a kernel mode Operating System
muh definitions
nice babby tier logic. Marx absolutely argued capitalism, and all historical developments of production, contains within it the seeds of its own undermining and overcoming.
A particular "system" does at any one time. Capitalism for Marx for instance began to seriously socialize labor for the first time beyond simple cooperation (like with the pyramids), through mass economy of scale and detail work manufacture, and created a massive expansion of the productive forces, with it science of mechanism and so forth.

Matthew Parker
Matthew Parker

t. White male born into a Western Capitalist society
Correct
with a single mother
Wrong.
who thinks the next smartphone coming out = good
Fucking wrong.

Regardless that's not a fucking argument. Notice that I said "irrational" adherence to tradition, meaning adhering to tradition in a way that goes against one's self-interest and/or hurts the community that practices that tradition. You're not seriously going to defend all tradition, right? Do you think wife-burning or honor killings are good traditions?

Caleb Phillips
Caleb Phillips

You're not seriously going to defend all tradition, right? Do you think wife-burning or honor killings are good traditions?

These aren't traditions.

William Jenkins
William Jenkins

his only criticism of other reactionaries was that they weren't reactionary enough
wow, totally convinced me evola was not a capital cuck

Thomas Roberts
Thomas Roberts

it's quite another to therefore, decide it operates by the iron laws divinated by Marx, and yet another fantastical leap to therefore be a Communist.
Marx's analysis of capitalism has a great deal of predictive and explanatory power. I'm a communist because I think Marx made a lot of good points. I'm not dogmatic, and if you actually made any good arguments I'd probably be swayed by them.
typical marxist disingenuity will always conflate these just because daddy was
You're projecting, faggot.

Jack Ross
Jack Ross

These aren't traditions.
Sure they are. Why aren't they traditions?

Dylan Lopez
Dylan Lopez

Proper science meaning Hegel.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Andrew Young
Andrew Young

Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism.
The word "capitalism" doesn't mean anything.

Dylan Mitchell
Dylan Mitchell

The word "capitalism" doesn't mean anything.

DUDE, A WORD PEOPLE USE ON A REGULAR BASIS IN CONVERSATION AND UNDERSTAND IN ONE ANOTHER'S SENTENCES IN A VARIETY OF CONTEXTS DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING, LMAO

Ayden Baker
Ayden Baker

Tell me what Communism exactly entails then and how it is logically deductible or otherwise a reasonable inference from the material premises of Capitalism as in Marx. Because it's most certainly not just Not-Capitalism. What specific predictions did the theory fulfill, do you not think it missed the mark on any? Copernicus long ago showed abstract models can exhibit high degrees of homology despite having wildly different implications.

Jose Clark
Jose Clark

I think what the poster you're replying to meant was "capitalism is such an abstract term that blanket statements about it are usually meaningless".

Ryan Lee
Ryan Lee

I think what the poster you're replying to meant was "capitalism is such an abstract term that blanket statements about it are usually meaningless".

Eh, but it's not lol

Julian Moore
Julian Moore

Tell me what Communism exactly entails
Sure. Communism entails an economic system in which production is for use, and that doesn't operate according to the law of value. Communism entails a political system that is free of classes and from political domination. Capitalism rapidly developed the productive capacity of humanity to the point where such a system would be possible to implement.
Marx's value theory predicts a wide range of phenomena that occur under capitalism. Not sure exactly what you're asking me, but I hope I've covered it.
Copernicus long ago showed abstract models can exhibit high degrees of homology despite having wildly different implications.
What did they mean by this? Do you mean "homology" in the mathematical sense or the historical sense? And in either case, what does that have to do with models? And if you meant mathematically then you used the word wrong. If a model has different consequences then it's not homological to the other model.

Alexander Garcia
Alexander Garcia

Shut the fuck up AW, your shit's retarded.

Dominic Jones
Dominic Jones

No Hegel no Marx, that simple

Aiden Turner
Aiden Turner

Not homeomorphic to the other model*
autocorrect, wew.

Charles Hernandez
Charles Hernandez

Economic theories don't solve matters, that's why marxism is not a system. Communism is. It is not idealism to understand that systems of production change, and that when they change they produce violent political upheavals.

Ayden Anderson
Ayden Anderson

2148521
culture tbh fam

t. Weber

Jack Garcia
Jack Garcia

found the autist

Landon Harris
Landon Harris

defining words, something that was done even in ancient greece, was modernity

jesus, /pol/yps are this autistic top kek

Dylan Cruz
Dylan Cruz

It is not idealism to understand that systems of production change, and that when they change they produce violent political upheavals.

Evola recognised this on many occasions.

Josiah Butler
Josiah Butler

Of course, this guy thinks Atlantis is real. Striving to be a mythological super man from a fiction novel written way back when is ridiculous.
Communism wouldn't fix everything but it's a step in the right direction.
The entire economic field is based on spooks
Maybe if you're a rightist.
This. Don't bother trying to measure yourself with something outside yourself.
Miss me with that primmie shit.
Quality post. Traditionalism changes era to era, the modern reactionary is just very selective; "go back to 1950s values", why? What about the traditional values that came before then? Why not go back to pirate-era traditional values: Sailing the high seas, getting drunk on a boat, and getting into swordfights? At least it's cooler.
thought that third one was capital. I'd post it but I don't have the pdf actually.
Got u covered fam
It's not a tradition if I don't like it
Honor killings are a part of tradition. It's not even exclusive to muslims.

Kayden Brooks
Kayden Brooks

Capitalism isn't subversive because it's the foundational operating system of modern society. A system can't subvert itself. Sure it was subversive toward feudalism while that was around, but it's not any more. To be subversive is to undermine something and destroy it by subtly transforming it, as an external agent. Capitalism (or anything) can't subvert itself by definition.

[Deterritorializes internally]

Ryder Clark
Ryder Clark

He literally thought systems were based on ideals you fucking idiot. If that was true, capitalism would be all equality fraternity liberty

Lucas Rogers
Lucas Rogers

Brainlet, Evola expressed on many occasions that the ideas he espoused which would result in system change or collapse would be very dangerous and result in mass upheaval due to the frailties of the modern man.

Blake Scott
Blake Scott

Except they won't, because ideas don't change systems.

Blake Nelson
Blake Nelson

le semantics

Stop playing this game, pseud. Stop taking words of their contextual usage and then debating their definitions. It's a very Reddit thing to do.

Nathan Hernandez
Nathan Hernandez

I'm not debating definitions here. Ideas don't change systems period. Not even marxism changed a system. Capitalism will destroy itself because as a system it will become inoperable, not because marxists wish it so.

Kevin Gomez
Kevin Gomez

You're insanely retarded. Ideals don't fucking determine the characteristics of a society. Ideas can often have unintended consequences. The person wasn't debating about definitions, you fucking moron.

Ryder Garcia
Ryder Garcia

"I want a steak!, maybe if I think about a steak hard enoguh I will get one!"

brainlets, ladies and gentlemen

Joseph Brown
Joseph Brown

Ideals don't fucking determine the characteristics of a society. Ideas can often have unintended consequences.

Nothing determines anything, brainlet. That's the whole point of an ideal. You strive towards to it, you do not necessarily achieve it.

Jason Powell
Jason Powell

What's funny? Marx thought Science of Logic was a scientific, rational, empirical method, it was just tainted with what he determined were fictional constructs, and also inaccessible to an "ordinary brain". Hegel even discovered the concept of a "mode of production". His "rejections" of Hegel were polemical devices of his time period that were parroted by ideologues up to and including the Soviet organ. The latter's seemingly slavish dedication to the anti-humanist, anti-mystical, anti-theist reading and so on, seem to prove Evola's point about actual Communism as he viewed it at the time, regardless of your own idiosyncratic exegesis of Marx, it's inescapable that to be remotely consistent you must hold that the interpreters of his who actually made history through action, are who constituted the Communist real movement, and your personal opinions are meaningless.

Sure. Communism entails an economic system in which production is for use, and that doesn't operate according to the law of value.
I asked for not "Not-Capitalism" and you basically gave me just that. Pre-Capitalist societies already had this.
Communism entails a political system that is free of classes and from political domination.
Again an apophantic and entirely formal definition. That sounds good, but then so did liberalism. Does it not have ANY positive content to you people? You have not shown how you logically deduced or extrapolated this from just the material premises within the existing system. Is all you've done really just removed a few cog wheels and said, "yep, still looks good"? There's surely much more to it than that.
Capitalism rapidly developed the productive capacity of humanity to the point where such a system would be possible to implement.
Prove it. Show WHY it is possible, i.e. elucidate the precise relationship between "productive capacity" (how have you operationalized this?) and systematic, generalized econo-political "implementations".
Marx's value theory predicts a wide range of phenomena that occur under capitalism. Not sure exactly what you're asking me, but I hope I've covered it.
List them. Are you really saying Marxists have made no bad predictions given the theory? Because I've got news for you.
What did they mean by this? Do you mean "homology" in the mathematical sense or the historical sense? And in either case, what does that have to do with models? And if you meant mathematically then you used the word wrong. If a model has different consequences then it's not homological to the other model.
I meant in a general sense, I can make it more precise if you like but I didn't think there was much need to. For another physical example: Relativity exhibits high degree of "homology" with Newtonian mechanics except in the limit v/c, where the consequences can be dramatic. But what's more important outside of instrument calibration, abstract measurements, and exact computations, in both examples is dramatically divergent in their "essential" (or "immaterial") implications TO human beings, considering the philosophical consequences of both.

More like Das Grundrisse, beeeeeeeeatch.

Austin Fisher
Austin Fisher

>The word "capitalism" doesn't mean anything.
DUDE, A WORD PEOPLE USE ON A REGULAR BASIS IN CONVERSATION AND UNDERSTAND IN ONE ANOTHER'S SENTENCES IN A VARIETY OF CONTEXTS DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING, LMAO
It's a word has a different meaning depending on who you talk to. There's no formal definition for it because there is no system that calls itself capitalist. It's either used pejoratively or in a reclaiming kind of way like the n-word.

Thomas White
Thomas White

And Evola is using it in the sense he means it. Your point?

Henry Thompson
Henry Thompson

Reminder Evola was so assblasted he couldn't refute Stirner's philosophy, the only counter he could come up with was accusing him of being a jew. Truly, a symbol of /pol/.

Nicholas Richardson
Nicholas Richardson

'Refutation' is a meme.

Even if Stirner's arguments hold in their attack, that does not change my preference for a particular belief or manner of action.

Could you please link to these quotes of Evola's on Stirner?

Gabriel Allen
Gabriel Allen

no one was accusing you of no longer being an autist

Xavier King
Xavier King

non-compulsory labor = anprim
miss me with that authoritarianism for real

Justin Lewis
Justin Lewis

Reminder Evola was so assblasted he couldn't refute Stirner's philosophy, the only counter he could come up with was accusing him of being a jew. Truly, a symbol of /pol/.
evola commented on Stirner? that sounds like a beautiful trainwreck

Zachary Bailey
Zachary Bailey

'Refutation' is a meme.
the laws of formal logic are a meme

how post-modernist of you, faggot cuck

Jackson Lee
Jackson Lee

the laws of formal logic are a meme

Logic applied to language and argument is a meme and was revealed to be such 100 years ago during the emergence of the autistic Analytic school which was so obsessed with applying Logic to language.

Evan Gonzalez
Evan Gonzalez

That whole meme is supposed to be a critique by bringing a thing to an extreme but tolerated conclusion.

Asher Ross
Asher Ross

"it gor refuted!, my feel- ahem, mysticism told me so!"
sure it did

Aiden Diaz
Aiden Diaz

I asked for not "Not-Capitalism" and you basically gave me just that. Pre-Capitalist societies already had this.
Nope, wrong. "production for use" is both specific and positive. Additionally abolishing the value form is insanely specific.
Again an apophantic and entirely formal definition. […] You have not shown how you logically deduced or extrapolated this from just the material premises within the existing system.
I did, you're just retarded to understand. If you want a comprehensive overview of what Marx thought then read Marx. Regardless, the reason you keep asking me to define shit is so you don't actually have to make any arguments of your own. What are your criticisms of communism as a mode of production? You haven't given any so far.
Prove it.
List them.
No. I don't see what this has to do with this argument. You haven't made any claims. You're just mindlessly saying that there's no substance to Marx's ideas without substantiating it. How about you share some bad predictions if you have any examples to give? I really can't argue with you if you don't make any claims, user.
Relativity exhibits high degree of "homology" with Newtonian mechanics except in the limit v/c, where the consequences can be dramatic.
So basically you're using the word "homology" to mean "similarity". How about you stop using terms you don't understand the meaning of?
what's more important outside of instrument calibration, abstract measurements, and exact computations, in both examples is dramatically divergent in their "essential" (or "immaterial") implications TO human beings
You fucking retard, what matters is where the theories differ in their ability to predict the phenomena in the material world. Philosophy and essence have nothing to do with the value of a theory, moron. This is the epitome of feels>reals.

Cameron Sanchez
Cameron Sanchez

Hegel's logic was faulty in many areas, and the whole of his project is tainted with an idealist mysticism that needed to be thoroughly gotten rid of before his work was of any use to anyone. Hegel is a fossil, and the straight up reading of him is the worst one.

Isaiah Jones
Isaiah Jones

Haven't studied the history of Linguistic Philosophy, brainlet?

Kayden Brooks
Kayden Brooks

I've never read Derrida.

Are you a retard? Derrida was a post-Structuralist. He wasn't part of the Linguistic Philosophical tradition that was developed via Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein.

Bentley Thomas
Bentley Thomas

autist who failed formal logic in school goes full po-mo and rejects formal logic theory

basically you are a fucking joke, let me guess, the jews are the ones to blame for this???

you are autistic, fix your autism and come back

Chase Gray
Chase Gray

formal logic
in school
Fucking hell lads break out the Latin we've got ourselves a classically educated anarchist in our midst.

Caleb Cooper
Caleb Cooper

The Italian edition of The Unique and His Property has an appendix concerning reactions to and influence of Max Stirner's work. There is a chapter within it that involves Evola:

Rather, it took a genuine associate of the Herrenklub of Berlin, a ferocious ghibelline like Julius Evola (never registered to the [Italian] fascist party, which he despised for its “feminine” flaccidity), to come to the true conclusion, for only one was possible: Stirner is a Jew. Thus, without any foundation (but whatever could factual evidence matter in such a grandiose design?) we find again Stirner, as “father of integral anarchism”, included by Evola in the list of instigators whom brought forth “the destructive endeavour” of Judaism “in the properly cultural field, protected by the taboos of Science, Art, Thought.” They are, in the order they're invoked: Freud, Einstein, Lombroso, Stirner, Debussy (whom it is conceded to be a "half-Jew"), Schönberg, Stravinsky, Tzara, Reinach, Nordau, Lévy-Bruhl, Bergson, Ludwig, Wassermann, Döblin (introduction to The Jewish International, The “Protocols” of the “Learned Elders” of Zion, Rome, 1937, pages xix-xx; this is the slightly changed and updated version – and the name of Stirner is part of the update – of another list of the great co-conspirers, which Evola proposed a few months earlier: Marx, Heine, Börne, Freud, Nordau, Lombroso, Reinach, Durkheim, Einstein, Zamenhof, Offenbach, Sullivan – evidently he must have viewed The Mikado as a document of Jewish infiltration - Schönberg, Stravinsky, Wassermann, Döblin, in Julius Evola, Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem, Rome, 1936, pages 38-39).

Sebastian Miller
Sebastian Miller

I also know how to do basic math equations, my mommy is proud!

Ryan Fisher
Ryan Fisher

Brainlet thinks he can apply formal logic to language.

LMAO

Go on, brainlet. Provide your case.

Noah Adams
Noah Adams

Brainlet thinks he can apply formal logic to language.
Oh dear, this will be fun to watch.

Grayson Ramirez
Grayson Ramirez

prove something people already did several times

literally all you need to do is stop watching the latest BLACKED.com video and google Wittgenstein's works

seriously, adding 1+1 isn't difficult at all

Gabriel Jones
Gabriel Jones

literally all you need to do is stop watching the latest BLACKED.com video and google Wittgenstein's works

Brainlet only read Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and skipped Philosophical Investigations where Wittgenstein rejected this autistic worldview.

LMAO

Better luck next time, brainlet

Jackson Bailey
Jackson Bailey

There's also this

Cameron Ward
Cameron Ward

that quote is the most galaxy brain thing i've ever read

Gavin Thompson
Gavin Thompson

Implying his earlier beliefs have nothing to do with his later ones
Implying you've read either

Asher Harris
Asher Harris

autists believes that a book that Wittgenstein didn't even considered worth of publishing is relevant at all
autist somehow believes that you cannot refute a proposition using formal logic
autist even believes he can call an early victory and go home free

get a fucking grip of reality you autist, seriously, how do you even deal with yourself??? are you even able to look at yourself at the mirror??? do you somehow believe quoting books you've never read will help you win an internet argument??? you lost since the beginning by claiming to be a traditionalist despite engaging time and time again in po-mo garbage

you are autistic, this is the main issue here, unless you fail to address the issue and work your way around it you will forever be stuck within your resentment.

go ahead sweety feel free to show us the mystic nature of your autism, prove to us just how autistic you are, try to prove how formal logic cannot be used to refute an argument, feel free to prove how 'refutation' is a meme, just so I can laugh when you go back to your po-mo safespace

James Powell
James Powell

Implying his earlier beliefs have nothing to do with his later ones
Implying you've read either

Yes, I have, I'm the most informed person on Wittgenstein in this entire board.

Nice sperg out. I win, brainlet.

Oh and by the way, Wittgenstein had multiple books spread around in the 1930s which relate much to what he wrote in PI so your point is moot and retarded. I win again, brainlet. Better luck next time!

Eli Carter
Eli Carter

ARGH! pls pls let me have the victory
I love fiddling with autists

so your point is moot and retarded.
nope, i am not the autist who couldn't even pass formal logic and decided to go on a crusade against logic as a result, thats you

sperg more

Julian Roberts
Julian Roberts

sucking your own cock this hard
wow slow down buddy you might give yourself a hernia

Christopher Nelson
Christopher Nelson

Lmao, you're retarded

Zachary Barnes
Zachary Barnes

It's okay, bud. I can lend you a copy of PI if you'd like?

Easton Brown
Easton Brown

Nope, wrong. "production for use" is both specific and positive.
What does it entail though? It's an abolition of production for exchange, but it's NOT simply returning to unalienated labor and an automatic social division of labor, because labor had already become irreversibly socialized in a fundamentally new way through massive concentrations of the means of production in the factory system and revolutionization of agriculture leading to cities and so on. In combination with advanced productive forces and pre-determined generalized plan administered by a scientific proletarian state which then overcomes itself, it has massive consequences relating to the individual as determined by the nexus of social relations. Pre-capitalist societies had this, though value appears here and there it was never generalized which is important, and even in less developed proto-capitalist societies of the time such as India there was an admixture of socially directed production and value due to international trade.
Additionally abolishing the value form is insanely specific.
Value-form, or rather the commodity-form, which is the unity of incommensurables (use and value: exchangeability which is just crystallized AVERAGE abstract homogeneous social labor), is probably the most abstract determination of Capital as an organic whole. You haven't shown how to derive Communism as a telic finality simply by removing this or that deep feature, any more than you can directly derive prognostic regimes from Darwinian history.
I did, you're just retarded to understand. If you want a comprehensive overview of what Marx thought then read Marx. Regardless, the reason you keep asking me to define shit is so you don't actually have to make any arguments of your own. What are your criticisms of communism as a mode of production? You haven't given any so far.
My argument is that Marxist Communism as it actually exists, and not some abstract perfect essential idea of what Marx had in mind, namely, as in the observable behaviors of the Marxists, rests on faulty leaps of logic that they are chronically unable or unwilling to defend. It's an open challenge, if you can't or won't defend your own grasp of the literature in question, don't bother replying, or you've simply increased my confirmatory sample by 1.
So basically you're using the word "homology" to mean "similarity". How about you stop using terms you don't understand the meaning of?
Homology has precise meaning in category and homotypy type theory (aka HOMOLOGICAL algebra) which could be easily be applicable here, for example in the category of Circular Motion Planetary Models.
You fucking retard, what matters is where the theories differ in their ability to predict the phenomena in the material world. Philosophy and essence have nothing to do with the value of a theory, moron. This is the epitome of feels>reals.
So science is a completely detached, neutral, asocial, trans-historical machine that just innocently churns out predictions where the only factor that could possibly matter or be valuable to humans is their instrumental accuracy? Archetypal attitude of what Evola was talking about. You sound upset, while somewhat ironically repeating a meme that makes you seem like a puerile sociopath, certainly not the ideal traits I'd look for in an elder sage of futurological statecraft.

Carter Morales
Carter Morales

the poor post-modernist, still unable to continue the original line of thought (due to the fact that he has autism) has to engage once again in petty insults as a result

sad tbh, low energy, weaker than Jeb

if you were actually knowledgeable in Wittgenstein work you would have been able to "ahem" refute why linguistic logic is flawed,but you can't because either

a) you are autistic, and recognize doing so would prove me right
b) you are ignorant, and don't actually know what you are talking about

Hunter Russell
Hunter Russell

When do you want me to send you that copy of Philosophical Investigations? PO Box?

Colton Morales
Colton Morales

I am going to give you one more chance to come up with a comeback, don't disappoint me, that was absolutely terrible

Ayden Myers
Ayden Myers

It's an abolition of production for exchange, but it's NOT simply returning to unalienated labor and an automatic social division of labor
Yes it is. The socialization of labor doesn't necessarily entail alienation or a socially divided labor force.
In combination with advanced productive forces and pre-determined generalized plan administered by a scientific proletarian state which then overcomes itself
This is a gross simplification. A Marxist society cannot form simply from advanced technology and state power. A large part of the reason why communist revolutions have failed is because they failed to have an economic revolution to go along with their social revolution. A communist revolution without it's own sound economic theory and that apes capitalist economies will almost certainly fail.
Value-form […] is probably the most abstract determination of Capital as an organic whole.
I know what these terms mean, so if you're going to define them could you at least do it in the context of an argument? Thx.
You haven't shown how to derive Communism as a telic finality
I don't think that communism is a telic finality, and furthermore the claim that Marx does is dubious at best.
My argument is that Marxist Communism […] rests on faulty leaps of logic
Well it'd be nice if you provided evidence to back this claim up then, huh? "Explain why you're not wrong!" isn't an argument, you simpering retard.
Homology has precise meaning in category and homotypy type theory
If you're going use category theory to try to make claims about sociological and philosophical topics then I'd appreciate if you'd explicitly define that argument in categorical terms. Otherwise it's just jargon-laden bullshit.
So science is a completely detached, neutral, asocial, trans-historical machine
Nope, never made that claim, user. My claim was that the value of a theory is based on it's ability to predict phenomena. Understanding the world directly determines your ability to enact change in the world. You clearly are more interested in ideals than understanding, so I can see how Evola's mystical bullshit is appealing to you tbh.

Christian Hughes
Christian Hughes

Whoops is a reply to

John Gonzalez
John Gonzalez

Yes it is. The socialization of labor doesn't necessarily entail alienation or a socially divided labor force.
You have completely misunderstood Marx then, firstly you should read Marx's responses to Proudhon and Bakunin, w/r/t their alleged wish to RETURN to idyllic unalienated labor, which to Marx was like attempting to return to the innocent state of a child, which is impossible and rather simply makes you childish, whereas each adult contains within them the "spirit" of childhood that can be recovered in a new way in due accordance with being an adult. Overcoming alienation through Communism is completely different to such a return, as this analogy was to illustrate (in Capital III iirc).
This is a gross simplification. A Marxist society cannot form simply from advanced technology and state power.
Simplicity is what I'm accusing you of. This was not even what my description boiled down to either. I was offering details to show that even when half the work is laid out for you, you will still perenially refuse to elaborate and retreat into negative determinations, distractions like critiquing other Marxists, namely the ones who actually DID something in actuality with it, rather than ruminated over the mere idea of it in hindsight.
A large part of the reason why communist revolutions have failed is because they failed to have an economic revolution to go along with their social revolution. A communist revolution without it's own sound economic theory and that apes capitalist economies will almost certainly fail.
But this is in direct contradiction to the historical materialist attitude. You are an user on an image board with opinions. History is made by human action, to claim you are a more sound theorist than Lenin et al is not only false by the evidence (as I have shown above with your elementary misunderstanding), it's contradictory. My claim is that functioning Communism does not actually logically supervene on the analysis of Capitalism given by Marx whatever its own merits (and I clearly saw enough worthwhile in it to study it myself), rather it's an amorphous phantasm that relies on extra metaphysical commitments that are rarely even acknowledged let alone defended by Marxists, perhaps because it would put lie to their self-evaluation as factual scienticians hermetically shielded from the intoxicating Idea.
I know what these terms mean, so if you're going to define them could you at least do it in the context of an argument? Thx.
Do you really though? It's basically a way for me to demonstrate my grasp of the literature, which gets around your boilerplate rhetorical strategy of ascribing ignorance or stupidity of all opponents, and so we're at least working with similar structural outline of Marx's Capitalism as is. My argument is clear enough, you can't and won't take this organic unity and derive Communism from it in any way shape or form, and take it on faith. If you claim Marx or Engels surely must have, at least, at some point, then you can point to where exactly they accomplished this in the text. Logic and science shouldn't be this coy cat and mouse game where are expected to follow a series of riddles each more diabolically cryptic than the last to figure it out. I can directly back up anything in Darwinism clearly enough for example. In all these years someone must have formulated it into a clear statement? Kapital isn't THAT complex, parts are just dated badly (who gives a shit about the exact details of the Factory Act and what Dick Price was rambling about in a 1850's issue of the Economist) and suffers issues from Marx's repetitious (lack of economy kek) writing and Engels' piss poor editing. It can be stripped back to a much more rigid dialectical development like Science of Logic (his prototype schema) with relative ease.

Kayden Collins
Kayden Collins

Yet no one could be bothered? Shit I thought this was all about putting in the WORK.
I don't think that communism is a telic finality, and furthermore the claim that Marx does is dubious at best.
<The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable…. Of all the classes that stand face-to-face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes perish and disappear in the face of Modern Industry, the proletariat is its special and essential product…. The lower middle-classes, the small manufacturers, the shopkeepers, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle-class… they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei", London, 1848, pp. 9, 11
<Intrinsically, it is not a question of the higher or lower degree of development of the social antagonisms that result from the natural laws of capitalist production. It is a question of these laws themselves, of these tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results. The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.
t. K Marx. Preface to the 1st German ed. of Capital I
Well it'd be nice if you provided evidence to back this claim up then, huh? "Explain why you're not wrong!" isn't an argument, you simpering retard.
Which is why it's an inductive claim about Marxists themselves, no matter how many you talk to. I've tried to follow the logic myself as faithfully as possible, you can always weasel out of it by saying it's there and I'm a brainlet and however other synonyms of that you've felt the need to deploy, but I don't believe such logic actually exists, and I can't prove a negative. It's up to the reader to follow the same exercise, and I suspect they will reach the same conclusions. All you need to do to prevent this is educate myself and other members of the working class, rather than acting like an esoteric with hidden mysteries only you are privy to and saying nothing really besides. FWIW, the predictive power of my hypothesis that Marxists will never come out with it (theoretically because they can't), so far has been 100%.
If you're going use category theory to try to make claims about sociological and philosophical topics then I'd appreciate if you'd explicitly define that argument in categorical terms. Otherwise it's just jargon-laden bullshit.
Oh rubbish, you're just reduced to nitpicking exercises because you have nothing else. Homology has a very simple and obvious and extremely general logical (even meta- or pre- logical) meaning: structural invariance (for a class, type, category, domain, set of sets, universe, up to "isomorphism", etc.). It's one of the most primordial, general terms conceivable, and in this context it should have been clear what I meant, given you now claim to be aware of this sense.

Aaron Stewart
Aaron Stewart

Nope, never made that claim, user. My claim was that the value of a theory is based on it's ability to predict phenomena.
Yet you refuse to say what is uniquely predictive about it. Again, I actually like much of the theory, and agree that it does have some predictive power even, which doesn't mean I take it as complete, singular, authoritative. My claim is that Marx's own interpretative framework is not motivated by the constraints he and the great mass of his followers place on reasoning. And once again I claim whatever logical unity the theory has in its ability to describe the Capitalist system in a very formal and general way, certain extrapolations have no actual logical relationship to that unity: such as just about everything under the rubrik "Communism", or the most damning predictive failure: impending world revolution in the most proletarianized and productively developed nations first, by no less than an iron law of human motion present in Capitalist social relations and production themselves.
Understanding the world directly determines your ability to enact change in the world.
Did I claim otherwise? The world is populated by a multitude of different people, foremost, who cannot be autistically reduced to a system of predictions.
You clearly are more interested in ideals than understanding, so I can see how Evola's mystical bullshit is appealing to you tbh.
All you can do is repeat this empty slogan about ideals. Yet it is I who actually made the effort to understand the materialist argument, to a demonstrably greater degree than yourself, the apparatchik.

Juan Hall
Juan Hall

The entire economic field is based on spooks LMAO.

Congratulations, you and Marx are in complete agreement.

Anthony Bell
Anthony Bell

you're treating this shit as if it's ideal, listen to your prophet Marx do the same
Heeeeeereeee we go.
Only as the property of me do the spirits, the truths, get to rest; and they then for the first time really are, when they have been deprived of their sorry existence and made a property of mine, when it is no longer said “the truth develops itself, rules, asserts itself; history (also a concept) wins the victory,” etc. The truth never has won a victory, but was always my means to the victory, like the sword (“the sword of truth”). The truth is dead, a letter, a word, a material that I can use up. All truth by itself is dead, a corpse; it is alive only in the same way as my lungs are alive — to wit, in the measure of my own vitality. Truths are material, like vegetables and weeds; as to whether vegetable or weed, the decision lies in me.
The science of Marxian theory can be built upon and made into something which is worth using to a greater extent, even if it is a spook. In approximating the world we do not try to derive laws to which we believe the world sticks to, we only make those assumptions in our models wherever formal logic is concerned (though of course you could pull off a Lichtenstein here and scream that there is a way to use formal logic to recognise change). Only a vulgar 'communist' takes the theory as given. Stirner wins again out of fucking nowhere.

Camden Phillips
Camden Phillips

That's a huge post and it's almost entirely fluff. I'm not gonna be responding to all that shit. I'll just cherrypick the parts I feel are actually worthwhile.
Idyllic unalienated labor […] is impossible and rather simply makes you childish
Stop misrepresenting me you fucking simp. Marx criticized Bakunin and Proudhon for their belief in a "natural" unalienated state that man would simply return to once capitalism was overcome. The belief that it's in our nature to cooperate and not exploit others is indeed childish, but that's not a belief that I subscribe to.
this is in direct contradiction to the historical materialist attitude. […]
Good thing Historical Materialism is Leninist docterine and not Marxist docterine then, huh?
Communism does not actually logically supervene on the analysis of Capitalism given by Marx (and I clearly saw enough worthwhile in it to study it myself)
Either substantiate this claim or shut the fuck up. What you've read or not read is irrelevant, dipshit.
your boilerplate rhetorical strategy of ascribing ignorance or stupidity of all opponents
Either give an example of me doing this or shut the fuck up. Stop fucking whining about Marxists and start making actual criticisms.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei", London, 1848, pp. 9, 11
The Manifesto probably isn't the best place to look if you want theoretical writing, and there's the question of Engel's influence. Regardless that quotation doesn't say that communism is inevitable, but rather that the collapse of capitalism is inevitable followed by another excerpt from earlier in the manifesto (very sneaky, user!) that says that the proletariat is a revolutionary class. Clearly the proletariat's revolutionary potential was much lower than Marx claimed it was, but that excerpt didn't actually support your point that Marx claimed communism was a "telic finality". I'm loving that you're making actual claims that I can rebut now! This is refreshing as hell.
t. K Marx. Preface to the 1st German ed. of Capital I
The same is the case with this quote. Marx isn't making claims about the inevitablility of communism, he's making claims about social antagonisms under capitalism.
you can always weasel out of it by saying it's there and I'm a brainlet and however other synonyms of that you've felt the need to deploy
I only used insults when I've felt you were being dishonest. Obviously insults aren't arguments and I didn't intend them as such.
the predictive power of my hypothesis that Marxists will never come out with it (theoretically because they can't), so far has been 100%.
A self-fulfilling prophesy it seems ;^)
But on a more serious note, telling me to explain how Marxism is coherant is a pretty large task. You're essentially asking me to describe Marx's political project in detail, which is a monumentally huge task. If you'd voice specific objections and/or places you think Marxism is incoherant at I'd be happy to respond to them.
Again, I actually like much of the theory, and agree that it does have some predictive power even
So you're just being a pedant then. Nice. I love to argue with someone in bad faith :^)
which doesn't mean I take it as complete, singular, authoritative.
Correct. It literally isn't complete. Marx died before he could complete his project. How the fuck do you not know this? You're not saying anything groundbreaking at all here.
Marx's own interpretative framework is not motivated by the constraints he and the great mass of his followers place on reasoning
Wrong. Marx explicitly develops his conception of value in the Grundrisse/Urtext along with other works. Just because they're not the most read parts of Marx doesn't mean they don't exist.
the most damning predictive failure: impending world revolution in the most proletarianized and productively developed nations first
Right. Marx's political program was based on the workers as a revolutionary subject, and the labor movement didn't pan out. That's not a flaw in Marx's theories, that's a flaw in Marx's politics.
The world is populated by a multitude of different people, foremost, who cannot be autistically reduced to a system of predictions.
People aren't as unpredictable as you claim, especially when considered in the context of normative social relations and social structures.
All you can do is repeat this empty slogan about ideals.
It wasn't a slogan, it was an observation about the idealist tendency to value understanding less than their ideals.

Ryan Cox
Ryan Cox

And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence — then we are not even close to what is essential
t. spooked as fuck affluent aristocrat who never had to work a day in his life

Hunter Harris
Hunter Harris

certain extrapolations have no actual logical relationship to that unity: such as just about everything under the rubrik "Communism"
How about you list specific incoherencies you see in communism and we'll discuss them?

Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson

Marx absolutely argued capitalism, and all historical developments of production, contains within it the seeds of its own undermining and overcoming.
That's not subversion. That's being inherently unstable. A thing doesn't subvert itself, because the property of subversion would be a property of the thing, meaning it is acting as itself rather than being changed. This shit is not that complicated.

Carter Gutierrez
Carter Gutierrez

What is his stance on the femoid question?

Jackson Gray
Jackson Gray

EVOLA IS FASCOM

Kevin Fisher
Kevin Fisher

you haven't made an argument
I have, restated in several different ways.
Stop misrepresenting me you fucking simp.
kek, you didn't even understand the analogy which I took FROM Marx.
Good thing Historical Materialism is Leninist docterine and not Marxist docterine then, huh?
<This book defends what we call "historical materialism"
Engels, Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, 1880 (Marx died in 1883).
The Manifesto probably isn't the best place to look if you want theoretical writing
Was it disavowed? Specifically this passage?
and there's the question of Engel's influence.
What question? Did he and Marx ever disagree? Why would Marx let him coauthor if he was a corrupting influence on Marx's pure genius, was Marx himself blind to this? If ENGELS can't even get it right, how is anyone else supposed to?
Regardless that quotation doesn't say that communism is inevitable, but rather that the collapse of capitalism is inevitable
But Communism as a result is supposed to be derived solely from the analysis of Capitalism, which also gives meaning to the organic revolutionary activity they found in labor struggles and Communism as the "real movement". They are not here, and as far as I know, never said Capitalism might just "collapse" (why? how? into what?), but that it will be overturned by Communist revolution, which is said to be that which is latent in, springs from and overcomes the material contradictions in Capitalism.
followed by another excerpt from earlier in the manifesto (very sneaky, user!)
I copied it from Capital I, where it was a footnote.
that says that the proletariat is a revolutionary class. Clearly the proletariat's revolutionary potential was much lower than Marx claimed it was,
Which is a major predictive failure. And the relations of class distinction is vital to the theory.
but that excerpt didn't actually support your point that Marx claimed communism was a "telic finality".
Here I meant telic finality in the terms that Communism has at least two senses, first the movement of Capitalism against itself, and second, whatever can be said about what will come after. That's what historical materialism is, anything else is mere idealism, and the whole point of socialism as a science was to provide the basic toolkit to guide all of it.
The same is the case with this quote. Marx isn't making claims about the inevitablility of communism, he's making claims about social antagonisms under capitalism
No, it's about the laws underlying the social antagonisms, and it literally couldn't be more of a deterministic wording. The fact you don't and can't elaborate on what is meant tells all really. Below, the fact you're trying to separate Communism out now into somehow separate "politics" or "political program", without justifying it, proves my point. And suggesting the clue is buried in the more arcane volumes, or it would be there if only he had lived longer, while pretending you could do it because you actually do know, but it's just too large of a task without even giving any kind of synopsis or pointing to actually where in the text it is, while spending all this time poorly shitting out a vulgar presentation of 101 dogmata which you still manage to fuck up badly. All proves my point.

Lincoln Ortiz
Lincoln Ortiz

Don't know but surely he would have loved #TrapRight

Ethan Hall
Ethan Hall

Now what application to Russia can my critic make of this historical sketch? Only this: If Russia is tending to become a capitalist nation after the example of the Western European countries, and during the last years she has been taking a lot of trouble in this direction – she will not succeed without having first transformed a good part of her peasants into proletarians; and after that, once taken to the bosom of the capitalist regime, she will experience its pitiless laws like other profane peoples. That is all. But that is not enough for my critic. He feels himself obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale [general path] imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labour, the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. (He is both honouring and shaming me too much.) Let us take an example.

In several parts of Capital I allude to the fate which overtook the plebeians of ancient Rome. They were originally free peasants, each cultivating his own piece of land on his own account. In the course of Roman history they were expropriated. The same movement which divorced them from their means of production and subsistence involved the formation not only of big landed property but also of big money capital. And so one fine morning there were to be found on the one hand free men, stripped of everything except their labour power, and on the other, in order to exploit this labour, those who held all the acquired wealth in possession. What happened? The Roman proletarians became, not wage labourers but a mob of do-nothings more abject than the former “poor whites” in the southern country of the United States, and alongside of them there developed a mode of production which was not capitalist but dependent upon slavery. Thus events strikingly analogous but taking place in different historic surroundings led to totally different results. By studying each of these forms of evolution separately and then comparing them one can easily find the clue to this phenomenon, but one will never arrive there by the universal passport of a general historico-philosophical theory, the supreme virtue of which consists in being super-historical.

Letter from Marx to Editor of the Otecestvenniye Zapisky

Gavin Jenkins
Gavin Jenkins

Reminder Evola was so assblasted he couldn't refute Stirner's philosophy

Are you insulting Evola because he wasn’t able to refute Stirner’s meme tier philosophy? Or do you actually think Stirner is a great guy?

Ryan Nelson
Ryan Nelson

I have, restated in several different ways.
You restated the same claim over and over without actually providing anything to back it up.
kek, you didn't even understand the analogy which I took FROM Marx.
It wasn't relevant because you misrepresented what I said. My claim was that "The socialization of labor doesn't necessarily entail alienation or a socially divided labor force." which you didn't refute.
But Communism as a result is supposed to be derived solely from the analysis of Capitalism
What makes you think this? I don't have any idea where you're getting the idea that communism needs to be derived solely by looking at the capitalism.
I copied it from Capital I, where it was a footnote.
No you didn't? Maybe I have a different edition than you do, but even if I did you still combined two disparate parts of the text to make the claim that it says something it doesn't.
Which is a major predictive failure.
Not really. How is it? It's not like his theories are dependent on the worker's movement succeeding.
That's what historical materialism is, anything else is mere idealism, and the whole point of socialism as a science was to provide the basic toolkit to guide all of it.
lmao. You've been reading too much Lenin, user.
No, it's about the laws underlying the social antagonisms
Wrong. The laws make statements about tendencies of the capitalist system, it makes no statements about the purpose or inevitability of the outcome of these tendencies (i.e. the collapse of capitalism and implementation of socialism).

Kayden Ward
Kayden Ward

How about you present a sketch of the positive conception of Communism first? I can't exactly show it's incoherent if it has no actual content. I'm aware it does have some, but it's hilarious how fixated all of you are on the rationality and moral necessity of an endgame you seemingly can't even begin to describe.

I didn't claim that either, what I said is there's no reason why what little content the notion does have, while also provably illicit to speculate on the rest, logically follows from the materialist analysis of Capitalism. If it doesn't follow, then it's the definition of idealism, in Marx's words: "speculation, arrived at wrongly".

Your retarded friend here embarrassed himself, and my claim stands: it can't be done and all you and every Marxist had is a series of fallacies, excuses and deflections.

How modest a backpedal on some of his more grandiose claims to be found even in Capital I, but saying that the theory is not universal, super-historical and general to all people in all circumstances, is all perfectly consistent with the materialist view. Namely, that his theory is a product of his historical circumstance, and that what will come after it (in Communism) will surely dwarf his meager contribution, and even here he still suggests Capitalism operates by LAWS that apply to ALL profane peoples.

So: either those laws contain the latent seed of "Communism" (besides the question of their deterministic inevitability, which is not obvious given the contradictory nature of the text), or they don't, and there's no relationship between the material analysis of Capitalism and any claim about Communism at all, which makes it an free floating ideological construction in contravention of materialism and only ever illicitly wrapped up with the "it's just an analysis of capitalism dude xd" style of argument.
You restated the same claim over and over without actually providing anything to back it up.
Well you haven't shown you can even understand the claim yet. How am I supposed to prove a negative? Which is why it's doubly a claim about Marxist behavior, the "tendency" if you will, you've done me a favor illustrating exactly what I mean, you just can't help yourselves.
It wasn't relevant because you misrepresented what I said. My claim was that "The socialization of labor doesn't necessarily entail alienation or a socially divided labor force." which you didn't refute
Your claim was an irrelevant outburst that doesn't even really seem to mean anything, let alone in the context, if you weren't too much of a lazy fraud to read your own scripture you'd know that.
No you didn't? Maybe I have a different edition than you do, but even if I did you still combined two disparate parts of the text to make the claim that it says something it doesn't.
It may have been added by the marxist.org guys. lmao at you taking the time to ctrl F to try refute a shitposter. Pathetic. Just fucking read it you clown.
Wrong
You claimed Lenin invented the term "historical materialism". How do you think you're in any position to claim anything. Read the actual quote again and try respond to that, or tell me why Marx was just making bullshit up.

Nathan Reyes
Nathan Reyes

Well you haven't shown you can even understand the claim yet.
Lmao, you accused Marxists of "ascribing ignorance or stupidity of all opponents" earlier, and you've been the only one doing that this whole time.
Your claim was an irrelevant outburst that doesn't even really seem to mean anything
So you accuse Marxists of ascribing ignorance to their opponents at the same time as you both ascribe ignorance to me and also feign ignorance about what I meant. Does the cognitive dissonance even register with you or are you doing this by accident? Lmao
lmao at you taking the time to ctrl F to try refute a shitposter. Pathetic. Just fucking read it you clown.
Nice deflection, faggot. I've already read it, I just don't have the text memorized, so ctrl-f'ing through my copy is useful to tell whether you're full of shit or not (which you were).
You claimed Lenin invented the term "historical materialism".
Lenin was a disciple of Engels, who coined the term "historical materialism". I want you to show me Marx using the term "historical materialism" to refer to the materialist conception of history. I don't think he does, but maybe you could find an obscure text I haven't read that proves me wrong.

Tbh I'd appreciate it if you'd substantiate your earlier claims with evidence, but you seem to be refusing to do so. You keep telling me how well you understand Marx, so it'd be trivial to school me, right? Why don't you do that?

Eli Jackson
Eli Jackson

How about you present a sketch of the positive conception of Communism first?
I knew you were full of shit. Stop posturing already and admit you're a fraud.
How modest a backpedal on some of his more grandiose claims to be found even in Capital I
Yeah, that's extremely likely. Marx was backpedaling repeatedly in Capital I and you're being the brain-genius you are saw through him doing that. Great job.

Matthew Watson
Matthew Watson

The user you're arguing against will spend hours upon hours refuting the strawmen that exist inside his own head while arguing in bad faith. I suggest you stop replying to escape his autism trap and I suggest him to seek professional help

Nolan Evans
Nolan Evans

you called me stupid i never did that
I called you retarded once, your posts are littered with "insults" amounting to the variations on this. I'm one user representing myself, it's perfectly valid to make observations on Marxists as a whole, who actually did have an influence on history, which isn't about you user, you're nothing and will never amount to anything. Besides, you'll smear all "idealists" as par for the course.
my "socialization of labor doesnt necessarily entail alienation" makes perfect sense
How?
Lenin was an Engelsian not a Marxist
You specifically said it was a Leninist doctrine, not a Marxist doctrine. Engels said "WE", you have given no argument as to why Engels was misrepresenting Marx's view, why he's untrustworthy, nor explained why this would even make any sense at all besides it being unflattering to whatever half baked distillation you've concocted in your mind.
Substantiate your claims
You've twisted it around, you're the one expostulating that Communism is scientific inference from a theory you subscribe to.
marx was backpedaling in capital I
I didn't say that. I said he backpedaled from Capital I, which is where I quoted the passage where he rrefers to iron laws of necessary inevitability in development which you interpret as non-deterministic by splicing in the word "tendency" yourself.
While I am an autist, I'm not arguing in bad faith, nor is my accurate characterization of Marxists inaccurate. Try having an argument instead.

Noah Butler
Noah Butler

wtf you implied i was stupid i never did once
Read your own posts. Besides smearing all "idealists" is par for the course. I'm referring to Marxists in general, the ones that actually mattered in history, you're nobody and nothing.
marxists.org are trying to mislead
clearly marks the other page it takes it from, and that additional part wasn't even relevant.
Lenin was "a disciple" of Engels
You claimed it was a Leninist doctrine, not a Marxist one, yet you can't say why Engels is untrustworthy, how this would even make sense, why he said "WE" in that quote if Marx didn't like the term and so on. Just because he didn't specifically use those words in that exact combination doesn't mean it's not a reasonably accurate and widely accepted label. The way you're arguing about your "science" is funny as hell, so Marxism means complete devotion to Marx's original text? How is this even consistent with Marx? Besides, I don't see you going over the German.
Tbh I'd appreciate it if you'd substantiate your earlier claims with evidence, but you seem to be refusing to do so. You keep telling me how well you understand Marx, so it'd be trivial to school me, right? Why don't you do that?
You have it backwards, you're the one who has claimed it is a predictive, explanatory science, it's your doctrine, I've merely asked you to defend it on its own grounds, while granting many of its premises. You contradicted yourself by suggesting "Communism" as in the proletarian movement was actually just a wrong "political program", and have failed to back up the vast bulk of your own ramblings, haven't shown why the negation of Value-form, the germ of the entire system, is actually a positive account, whereas I had the courtesy to actually provide textual references.
That's not even what I said. Try contain yourself.
While I am a severe autist, how am I wrong?

Andrew Foster
Andrew Foster

don't underestimate feels

Caleb Walker
Caleb Walker

(You)

Austin Nguyen
Austin Nguyen

lmao

Wyatt Wright
Wyatt Wright

Egoism is a dead end. All it amounts to is justifying doing whatever you want and calling every ideology (pretty much every other ideology) which gets in your way spooks.

Dominic White
Dominic White

spiritual virility

Brody Kelly
Brody Kelly

All it amounts to is justifying doing whatever you want
Isn't that the whole point of philosophy? To find justification for shit?
calling every ideology (pretty much every other ideology) which gets in your way spooks
It's not necessarily the ideologies that are spooks, but rather their fixed ideals.

Camden Allen
Camden Allen

He inspired Freda tho.

Joseph Clark
Joseph Clark

Evola isn't wrong. Marxism admits loudly that it is at its core a materialistic ideology to the point it uses a materialistic view of history to justify itself under Hegelian diatribe. It may be unpleasant for both capitalists and marxists to hear, but they really are in a sense two sides of the same coin. All they really different on is who owns the means of production and the means of production unfortunately works better under egoists like Stirner because of their greed, drive, competitiveness, and efficiency. This is why no matter how hard you try you never see the co-op/employee owned companies as more successful (although there are some very successful ones) than the most successful businesses, because greed is a great motivator creating a magnet for the best talent companies are constantly fighting over each other for using luring and scouting tactics and most importantly incentive. The motivator itself to marxism, no different to capitalism, is itself greed so no marxist should doubt this. But of course, the incentive to be someone who owns the means of production is very powerful in itself, which is why so many socialist revolutions have happened, the problem is that these individuals at the top always wanted it all for themselves. This is a problem none will fix. You have an inherently greedy materialistic ideology, anyone can logically see the outcome of that. Humanity is more than just the material. Why would anyone deny this?

Aiden Martinez
Aiden Martinez

0/10

Lincoln Evans
Lincoln Evans

0/10
mistaking egoism for enterprenurism
enterpreneurs are spooked as shit with the idea of Wealth

Jayden Powell
Jayden Powell

material conditions don't real, people just need to be more spiritual
Easy to say when you're an aristocrat who hasn't fucking worked a day in his life. Fucking capitalists contribute more to society than these parasites.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page