Leftypol unpopular opinion

...

What do you mean exactly by post-leftism?

How did Heidegger btfo Marx?

Oh, well it's not really an ideology, but I meant certain post-left influences like Nechaev, Novatore, and (hopefully to be more appreciated by them in the future) Cioran.

Look up on youtube "Heidegger on Marx"

most of Holla Forums agrees (except anarkids)
It has many negative effects for the 3rd world countries where it comes from too. It serves only the bourgeoisie.

It is. That was how economists and historians defined it before politicians and memers started using it.
what do you mean? Reformism in general? We do but it's pretty hard to get regular people to accept that Bourgeois Democracy is a sham.
wew.

Maybe on one or two issues depending on the locality but on a whole I would say this is generally as impossible as it seems. You're basically working with a whole different set of definitions and world views and while a lot of the longer term goals are paradoxically the same what happens in the short run can make all the difference in the world right now.

I disagree in the sense that I don't think technology is the biggest barrier and that if were at a point where post-scarcity is already a factor due to technological advances than communism would be redundant. The whole point of wanting economic justice by ideological means is precisely because we cant have it by any other means currently. This is why I think automation is little bit to overly fetishized on this board by the time that might be a reality a whole different set of concerns might seem more paramount than workers control over the means of production.

The same can be said about "trans humanism" it isn't so much an ideology or even a belief system so much as it is a fetishized hope that the future will cure our ills.

>Social democracy is leftist.
Agreed. I think this board is a bit off base with these things. They deserve criticism but they also should be more valued in some ways here.

It shouldn't take Heidegger to realize "fate" by any other name is a bad idea.

No

...

...

I think you might be on the wrong Holla Forums

Communism as defined by Marx is not an unreasonable concept by any means, but the left has a serious problem with thinking it is clairvoyant, that it can do no wrong because no matter what happens, a better society is completely inevitable.

Marx's critique of capitalism is a historical intellectual achievement that has become even more relevant with time, but his prediction of what exactly would happen in the future is based largely in the material conditions of his own time. This isn't to say he was biased as much as he simply did not have magical powers that let him predict the future. In a way, he underestimated capitalism's power to control society for its own benefit.

Technology is a major factor in this, because peer pressure and social norms now take much less of a part in shaping the thoughts and beliefs of the working class–everything people know about the world is carefully fed to them through mass media, and the human mind is drawn to electronics like moths to a flame.

Idiot.

confirmed for being shit at History.
no one here argued we should, ever. We're all amoralist Stirnerfags and dialectician Marxists.
Pavlov was /ourguy/ even if he didn't like it. Communists were the first to propose a materialist origin of life for fucks sake. I don't see your point or how it fits the thread.

No, you're on the wrong site or an elaborate bait.

t. Zizek

...

That isn't just Zizek though that is basically what most marxists past the 30's have thought.

Yeah but I remember Zizek saying such a similar thing in one of his lectures it's like he was paraphrasing.

Of course it's fucking correct, at least when the scientific method can be applied without inherent political bias, status quo and all.

What we have a problem with is the notion that this literature supports capitalism. It's a non sequitur.

>idpol isn't bad, as long as identity and class are both assessed

...

No, he's actually push for "race realism". He's a Holla Forumsack.

socialism isn't a political system moron

socialism/communism by definition will make people more than workers wtf are you talking about, oh wait you are clearly illiterate

immigration is bad wow you really went against the grain with this one holy shit, nobody has ever held that opinion before

Posting my unpopular opinions in picture because the admins can't into PHP or something I guess.

There's a group of wild baboons whos males were killed by consuming diseased meat
They have a non-violent and non hierarchical "society" now

Doesn't the last point kind of make the rest of your musings redundant?

Have you looked into post-Left anarchism at all?

Please don't.

Well, if his objection is that their theory is in the 19th century then some recent innovations would be interesting, wouldn't they?

I don't necessarily think that the post-Left are geniuses, but they're taking anarchism in interesting directions, at least.

I agree with this.

Nothing I'm seeing on youtube supports your notion of Heidegger "btfo" Marx. He's critiquing one particular Marx statement, and I would go as far to say what Heidegger is critiquing is a strawman. He's acting like the statement was against philosophizing, instead of comment on how academics nitpick each other over minor theoretical differences instead of trying to improve the lives of who they care about with their philosophy. Regarding Marx being a shitty economist, I know you hold no original opions regarding this. I remember when I pressed you last time, you shifted the conversation to why the Marxian school is shitty instead of explaining why Marx himself is shit. Why don't you substantiate your claims. It seems you run off giddy whenever someone ask you.

Marx literally never conceived of Diamat as fate, he looked at it as a logic to examine history. I'll try and find the correspondence between Marx and Engels where Marx explicitly states that diamat is not deterministic, because if it was it would be contradict itself.

Anywhere, here's for some popular opinions: Rebel is objectively the worst poster on the board.

Yes there is, even in a more and more automatized way of production, work is essential for humanity to progress.
What do you define as market? If you talk about an invisible market that's being controlled by algorithms - essentially central planning - then yes. Worker councils should still exist tho, as way to replace bourgeois democracy
Sure there will always be assholes but it's important to not have a system that institutionalizes exploitation the way capitalism does. When you have a more cooperative society, sociopathic behavior will be an obstacle in your career, while nowadays, it's been rewarded.
In current society yes. In a revolution, no.
That's essentially defeatism. There have been models of Socialism in the past that have worked, and they failed because of revisionism. The only reason people refuse to name them are because of decades of cold war propaganda.
Only insofar as it highly interacts and merges with your specific enviromental nurture
Yet humans build all these civilisations and made it to the moon, so I believe that under proper organisation, humans can be trusted with a little more than that. You sound like an EU technocracy apologist

I am the only one here with correct opinions. Literally. In fact, they're not opinions. You have opinions. I have facts.

I know he didn't explicitly see things that way but the way he was interpreted and who he himself was interpreting Hegel and given the romanticism of early Marxism its not a stretch to think most people see dialectical materialism as "destiny" to some extent. He thought stages would come about by material conditions but he also thought these conditions were all but an inevitability. I think most people can and have acknowledge since almost immediately after he penned this to paper that this was probably an oversight on his part. A bit too much of a generalization given the material means of the time.

Says the person who's ever read him

...

Some of you are so fucking stupid it hurts

Mein Neger
I'm kind of moot on the fifth one and disagree with the sixth one though

I didn't get any of it TBH

He didn't think the stages were inevitable. Here he says diamat is NOT

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/11/russia.htm

I don't really understand the rest of the post. I don't really care how "Marxist" interpreted him, as he famously said he was not a Marxist. Saying that the mode of production and the classes involved in that is no more of a stretch than saying history is firmly rooted in geography (which is fairly uncontroversial). It's a hell lot more sophisticated than "muh great men". I had a history teacher in high school who wasn't into Marxian economics, but thought Diamat was brilliant. You shouldn't and weren't intended to interpret it rigidly, I don't think you should punish Marx for the actions of Marxist.

"Post-leftism" is just a codeword for corporate technocracy with socialist rethoric.

No, that's liberal democracy and/or socialism.

Post-leftism is the natural progression past a historical mistake.

It's cuter when you actually try actually garble out what you mistake for ideas.

This is the third time you've said "it's cuter when," in response to me, and you tell me my argumentation is stale.

I have an idea faggot, the filter button is right there. I'm tired of your bitching.

But you're the best poster here. Besides, it's cute when you're mad.

Filter me you're condescending. You don't deserve the posts I make.

...

Condescending is a pretty long word. It means "patronizing" by the way. Let me know if you need me to explain anything else ITT.

Alright, I'll filter you now, you can go back to making the case for gulaging yourself relatively unimpeded.

Follow your emotion :v

really makes you think

Is that Holla Forums? If not, would you kindly kill yourself?

Just study it out, buddy!

kys

what is the meaning of those numbers?
insert a caption pls

i can't debate therefore i must say "kys xdd"

i agree with that.

...

...

Isn't the assumption that immigration is a byproduct of capitalism? People usually emigrate to escape shitty wages and working conditions in order to make a better life for themselves. Without this exploitation, immigration would be drastically reduced.

It was no doubt an improvement on what preceded him. What immediately precede him though was Hegel and what Hegel thought was that the stages were divinely infused with the spirit of god. Marx extracted god out of the equation but history was still infused with destiny. Also you need to stop worrying about what philosophers and economists say about themselves they often make a lot of claims contrary to what their actual arguments entail. Again he didn't present it as rigid but he laid his argument out as if it should be interpreted in such a fashion.

Pragmatists don't like that their philosophy might lead to hedonism but what they don't like might not be the result of where their arguments lead. People worry too much about intention and not about the actual consequence of belief.

That's not how I've interpreted it. The only book where you could possibly interpret Marx that way is in the Manifesto, which was a populist pamphlet and Engels was worried that putting the class struggle at the forefront of the movement of history would make diamat into some meaningless, abstract dogma. I'm going to ask you to provide where Marx lays out diamat in such a way that it should be interpreted rigidly. Your entire argument is hinged on beating down a strawman of Marx set up by Marxist.

And I'm well aware that he took the divine out of dialectics, he called it "turning Hegel on his head". I'm starting to think you haven't read Marx.

I'm not trying to beat Marx down I agree with most of what he had to say. I just don't think "diamat" was a particularly great facet of his philosophy and whether or not he was attempting to turn Hegel on his head, the result was a philosophy that resembled a lot of what Hegel entailed and argued for. The fact that people compare the two and have historically seen Marx as a lens into Hegelian philosophy is understandable given that Marx was a student of said philosophy and referenced it so much. You know JL Austin claimed his work on language was not influenced by Wittgenstein. Even thought that claim is laughable to most people who know anything about the two philosophers, I guess we can attempt a non Wittgensteinian take on JL Austin for his own sake But I'm sure it would leave his work without much context or reason for being as he is almost completely reliant on a Wittgensteinian framework to make sense. You can attempt to divorce Marxian philosophy from Hegel, but the resulting stew of other influences wouldn't make much sense and hence people have read Hegel into Marx and vice versa.

People on this board are a little overly fixated by the constant need to affirm that they have read or someone else hasn't read every piece of theory they claim to read. I'll make this part of the argument easy for insecure people and say I haven't read a single text ever.

I'm not saying you need to divorce Marx from Hegel, seeing as Marx didn't think that. I'm saying I believe the logic of Hegel is applicable in its own right without appealing to the divine.

...

GDfuckingP in USD

for good reason
with no other changes to society, immigration is just a tool for porky to depress wages and increase government control

Uhhh??? I think you're think of capitalism

think you're thinking*

...

...

...

I have a soft spot for Jason Unruhe

I don't really like the word "comrade"

I hate the obsession with sex on the left

...

forgot my flag

Anakiddie here to say that mass immigration is a mistake.

HELLOOOOOOOOO REDDIT

That I can agree

...

Leninists, Maoists and Stalinists are fucking shit.

Not reddit, just saying what I think. I think many here still harbor grudges against Feminism and it's concepts from when everyone here was a 4channer or a Gamergater or circlejerked over people like Amazing Atheist.

While I feel the modern liberal idpol movement is toxic, I do agree in general with concepts such as patriarchy, heteronomativity etc and I do believe there needs to be a strong social movement, pushing for social change, as well as a strong class based movement, which both work together.

The reason is if you ignore one or the other, you will have reactionary nonsense spread from that vacuum. If we do not focus on gay rights, fighting against patriarchy etc, if we got into power, we would be forced due to political capital, to play to reactionary social values to push economic reform. This is the same with Idpol retards, they only care about identity issues, so then play to neoliberalism in the economic sphere to pretend their idpol views are not "radical" but they are just "progressive moderates"

You can see a bunker mentality from both sides as well.

People here fucking despise Idpol issues and think we should focus on economic.

Idpol retards fucking despise class issues and think we should just get more minorities into positions of power and be speech nazis.

Us Socialists should really take the moral high ground and accept that social change, along with class change need to work together. This would rob the Idpol fucktards of their arguments that socialism is just class reductionism.

Patriarchy is a dumb conspiracy, and hetronormativity is a spook.

Should I assume that because there are jews in power that we live under a zionist society? No.

Patriarchy is a stupid concept within the west. I would argue that it certainly exists within the middle east.

It's literal historical and social fact.

There is nothing "conspiracy" about the fact society still views Gay people as degenerates and femininity as weak and women as lessers while putting masculinity on a pedestal of power and muh privilege.

lel not surprised

Novatore is a Stirner inspired individualist anarchist, is that really post left?

Women have it far easier than men in the first world. It's life on easy mode.

Rebel, I like you.
I really do.
But how the hell would this even work?

I don't see it happening. If it did, we'd be stabbed in the back asap. You also potentially risk giving them power.

You're half right.
People would actually have to read him to not understand.

anfem poster is tsundere af and I want to cuddle her and tell her it's ok.

commit suicide you worthless incel

;_;