I deserve to be poor tbh. I fucked up all of my opportunities and made terrible life choices...

And by the way don't misunderstand me, I'm not coming at you with a

angle. We need work, we need to go through a necessary period of training and every society needs some mechanism to make sure the most able or dedicated will get some reward for their effort. But this is an economic necessity, not something to be elevated to a principle and measure of self-worth.

If you've fucked up, I don't think this necessarily means you need to struggle to pay for basic necessities and a place to live. If you're sad about fucking up, I think society should have free, open institutions through which you can seek re-training at any point of your life. If you've fucked up but you still have some good ideas on your head, I think we need a system that can maybe help you with getting it started through a compromised public initiative. And I don't think you should ever compete with someone who was, at age five, thrown into a muh privileged training process because his parents succeeded and yours didn't.

These are all feasible, because they're the result of conscious political arrangements, just like our current way of living, where we're supposed to out-do each other in our hability to allow others to exploit us, is the result of a political arrangement. And this is all there is, politics. And left-wing politics is about wanting to change that, and to remove whatever barriers there might be to our agency over it, instead of shifting the blame from institutional, structural and political design to individual merit, as if these occured in a blank page.

Nope, my point is that the system is actually a collaborative system that has not been built by corporations but by thousands of years of human history and thousands of wars and revolutions around the globe. There's nothing, implicit or explicit in it that prevents people who actually learns how it works, to make it work for them.

Playing the game is losing it, people who live well have gone meta on it in some kind of another, everyone who is middle-class or up has gone meta, and isn't working under the rules but under an understanding of why and how the rules change over time. Without that understanding, every time the system fixes some bug, you lose your position in it.

You don't need to do either, you need to understand the machines because that way they stop being black-boxes. Protesting doesn't work because by protestig you simply fill in a role in the system, the system expects protestors, it thrives on them to get better and better.

People who find themselves at the bottom simply lack education, they either have anachronistic understanding of things due to constricting themselves to one subset of literature, or have an operating understanding on the current paradigm.

listen to this, its about sth that happened in the 1500s after the Lutherans and the printing press revolution, you will recognize a few things about Anabaptists, it will open up your mind a lot:

dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-48-prophets-of-doom/

Collaboration implies consent, so it can be called anything but that. Any system where many work and a few profit, where many achieve and a few inherent, will need some degree of coercion to maintain itself.

And even to get to the shitty state we're in today, a lot of this coercion had to be fought:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes

If it was simply about collaboration, not one of this would have been necessary.

And then again, if we're here as the result of a gradual process of perfecting a developing a system, what's wrong with us, leftists, wanting to change it even further? If you acknowledge the historical construction of it, you need to acknowledge that it has no inherent value other than how well it serves our purposes. The idea that these developments have ended with your generation, the "end of history" mentality, is a bias.

As a side note, the history of the development of capitalism is hardly linear. In fact, historians of some societies, including western society, often put more than a millennium between different commercial stages.

Of course there is. How would people inherit status if there wasn't? How would class stratifications be maintained otherwise? All owning classes need strategies of self-preservation and self-reproduction, and that by design with limiting access to "proper" training.

If you think we could all simply compete equally, then go ahead and start a movement to abolish private education, nepotism, and anything else that comes with a muh privileged upbringing. See how far you'll get.

None of this makes sense.

If it gets better, why is the input of dissent a negative thing?

People are accultured to attend the expectatives of the class they're born into and to not exceed (or stay beneath) it. Which is another argument for class stratification.

I don't really feel like listening to a podcast right now but if you want to write what Carlin says we can discuss it.

Lol, two things: One: human beings are born all the time, im willing to bet you are way younger than the last time your country changed system, but when it did, it did consensually. Two: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Collaboration implies that its open to changes from everyone who understands how to change it.

Yes, thats what consent is, but this is what im trying to make you understand: the guy who sat down to discuss and reglament those things weren't the protestors, they were people who understand the meta-workings of the system enough to claim with legal basis that the system contradicts itself and needs to be fixed. Every single change arises from that, not from "lets make new rules" but from "these rules contradict these others, lets work on them. See all this people i railed up in support of me" (Those people are the leverage, aka, a veiled threat of violence).

The mentality you have that only leftists want to change things, is a bias in itself, modernists comes in all colours, what you would call "regressives" are in fact a brand of modernism you don't like. Modernism itself has an industrial bias. And, before you add, the idea that leftism as progressive and forward-thinking, is false, as communist ideas have been around since waaay before Jesus. All modernists ideologies are rehashes of esoteric pre-christian traditions.

Also, its not an end of history, is the fact that "history" as a linear progression never existed.

By a meta-understanding of the way the system (and its subsystem) evolve through time.

By a meta-understanding of the way the system evolves through time. How does the big families make money? By betting against national economies. They understand the meta-rules that lead to a society's (and a corporation's) economical flunking.

This is simply false, education has become more and more open as time went by, in this moment in time, in the apix of "Capitalist dominance", the very institutions that you claim want to keep people down offer entire college education for free through the interwebs.

Nepotism is already being combated all around the world. And instead of abolishing private education, which is a negative goal, what is being worked on is in puting public education on the same level.

It really does, the system changes itself all the time yet the same ancient-as-fuck ideas keep surfacing but supporting themselves in more temporal notions. It almost looks as if there is a limited scope of possible ideologies and they just get rehashed when they are needed to push for whatever is needed at the moment. In fact if you go back enough you can see that most of them find their earlier representation in ancient Gods.

The system is nothing else than the transactional configuration of society guided by the contextual needs of the human soul.

Because the input of dissent itself doesn't achieve shit by itself, look at Spring Revolution if you want a modern proof of it.

Ah and you are the ones changing this by promoting the identitarian idea of class struggle? Don't make me laugh, both liberals and marxists are made for each other, both of you like burning things and shitting over traditions that you never took a chance to understand.

He talks about the Lutherans and the printing press revolution, specifically the anabaptists which were a 1500s version of Communists (same goals) only that supported itself in biblican notions rather than in material ones.

to further on the Collaborative thing, think in Open Source. You can't say "your shit is all retarded, build another one, ill make the logo" and expect the system to change.

You need to not only know how to write code but know about software engineering (meta understanding) so that you can collaborate with it in a way that its up to the standards expected by those who benefit by the system.

shit choice of words, by this i mean the users, not the capitalist over-class that makes software difficult

Well, first it is immensely shortsighted to see structural changes only in terms of positive legal transformations. A person born in a western countries after WW2 has already lived to see the rise and fall of post-war social-democratic keynesianism and the ascent of neoliberalism, both with drastic implications in his lifestyle, both usually under the same constitution. The legal frameworks through which political and economic activity are conducted don't mean the latter remain static and immutable.

First, I'd like you to explain how. Through which mechanisms? Executed by who? Sanctioned by what? Can people vote on them?

Second, I'd like you to explain exactly what is knowledge of how the system functions and how it can be changed, and if this knowledge is not in any way de facto restricted to only certain segments of society.

I don't think something that had to be achieved through violence and coercion can be called consensual. This means there are winners and losers, and that people may neglect their own demands to this arrangement due to the ever-present threat of violence, marginalization or exclusion. Capitalist society contains a lot of that.

And I know protest is not an end in itself, but organization requires mobilization, and mobilization can lead people to organize. Many little outbursts of violence and disorder tend to happen before some leader or movement give them cohesion and strategy.

I never once claimed that only leftists want to rethink the way we do things, only that all leftists do. And by what you said alone, that our current system is the culmination of a rational process of diverging forces converging into one, I don't see what leeway you have to claim to be able to want to change things without hurting your own argument.

That communist ideas are old is something communists have written about. By god, what do you think "primitive communism" is? Have you ever read what Marx and Engels had to say about religious communists? Ever read Max Beer's book on class struggle in antiquity? Ideas of communism in one way or another have always been present in human imagination, because that's where we come from. Marxism gives them historicity and a material basis, that's all.

And what exactly are those, and how do they protect their inherited muh privilege?

Lmao this is like saying that just because everyone can read and go to the library we're all equally educated.

Education is obviously more than the crude information, there's also a social dimension. Or, to put it simply, what goes in your curriculum is not what you know, but where you learned it. This is one of the things that determine economic success, and family money open the doors to it. If you think that a person born and educated in the public system and subpars schools has the same opportunities as a person born and educated in the private system, you have to stop meta-understanding society and just see a few basic statistics.

As a matter of fact no it isn't

And this phrase perfectly encapsulates your lack of understanding of how economic classes function. If you elevate the utility of a commodity of open public access to X, isn't it logical that you wouldn't pay for it if its utility to you wasn't above X? And if everyone had an equal education in public schools, wouldn't the bourgeois, to ensure "opportunities" (i.e. class reproduction), come together with other bourgeois to pay for a better service that could put him ahead of the rest?

For someone who thinks he knows how the system "really" functions, some pretty obvious things about it seem to completely pass you by.

A good science fiction writer can sit down and come up with all sorts of society predicated on all sorts of ethical and moral values, so it's only to be expected that philosophers and writers have already done so. But a society is more than its guiding ideologies: it's also its means of production and distribution, its material basis and its productive forces.

Could you conceive a commerce, capitalist society in 1000 A.D.? I'm sure you can, in fact, you can look at a merchant and a banker, a proletariat in the city and an artisan and wonder how the world would be like if most people took part in this sort of economic activity and relation of production. But society is bigger than that. What's your vision of a bourgeois society without primitive capitalist accumulation? Without the legal framework for economic trade? Without the cities to provide you with wage labourers? Without a joint-stock company? Without the colonies to provide you with goods for trade? Without a state to provide the same laws of trade and banter all over a significant chunk of land, therefore giving you a market for your goods without having to be taxed by every village you walk through?

The relationship between ideas and existing material basis is what Socialists study today. Since we're living in an era of unprecendented technological advancement that wasn't there before the 19th century, how new or old some of our ideas are is immaterial. What's important is their relationship with the material world.

But wasn't the machine meant to absorb the protest and gets better with it? Then how can a protest by itself mean shit? You contradict yourself at every phrase.

What's this "identitarian" nonsense about? A class it not an identity, is not an abstraction, it's not like a nationality or a race or a gender. It's about your place in the relationship of production. It's as far from abstract speculation as possible.

And traditions are worthless. You've said it yourself, the system evolves and we reach agreements, why isn't the withering away of traditions to be understood as part of this?

And what point do you think you're making?

Someone needs to read his The Peasant War in Germany. You're preaching to the choir.

A case could be made that Historical Materialism provides you with a better understanding of this than anything you've said so far.

"Having established science as cognition of the objective recurrences of nature, man has tried stubbornly and persistently to exclude himself from science, reserving for himself special muh privileges in the shape of alleged intercourse with supersensory forces (religion), or with timeless moral precepts (idealism). Marx deprived man of these odious muh privileges definitely and forever, looking upon him as a natural link in the evolutionary process of material nature; upon human society as the organisation of production and distribution; upon capitalism as a stage in the development of human society.

It was not Marx’s aim to discover the “eternal laws” of economy. He denied the existence of such laws. The history of the development of human society is the history of the succession of various systems of economy, each operating in accordance with its own laws. The transition from one systems to another was always determined by the growth of the productive forces, i.e., of technique and the organisation of labour. Up to a certain point, social changes are quantitative in character and do not alter the foundations of society, i.e., the prevalent forms of property. But a point is reached when the matured productive forces can no longer contain themselves within the old forms of property; then follows a radical change in the social order, accompanied by shocks. The primitive commune was either superseded or supplemented by slavery; slavery was succeeded by serfdom with its feudal superstructure; the commercial development of cities brought Europe in the sixteenth century to the capitalist order, which thereupon passed through several stages. In his Capital, Marx does not study economy in general, but capitalist economy, which has its own specific laws. Only in passing does he refer to the other economic systems to elucidate the characteristics of capitalism.

The self-sufficient economy of the primitive peasant family has no need of a “political economy,” for it is dominated on the one hand by the forces of nature and on the other by the forces of tradition. The self-contained natural economy of the Greeks or the Romans, founded on slave labour, was ruled by the will of the slave-owner, whose “plan” in turn was directly determined by the laws of nature and routine. The same might also be said about the mediaeval estate with its peasant serfs. In all these instances economic relations were clear and transparent in their primitive crudity. But the case of contemporary society is altogether different. It destroyed the old self-contained connections and the inherited modes of labour. The new economic relations have linked cities and villages, provinces and nations. Division of labour has encompassed the planet, having shattered tradition and routine, these bonds have not composed themselves to some definite plan, but rather apart from human consciousness and foresight, and it would seem as if behind the very backs of men. The interdependence of men, groups, classes, nations, which follows from division of labour, is not directed or managed by anyone. People work for each other without knowing each other, without inquiring about one another’s needs, in the hope, and even with the assurance, that their relations will somehow regulate themselves. And by and large they do, or rather were wont to.

It is utterly impossible to seek the causes for the recurrences of capitalist society in the subjective consciousness – in the intentions or plans – of its members. The objective recurrences of capitalism were formulated before science began to think about them seriously. To this day the preponderant majority of men know nothing about the laws that govern capitalist economy. The whole strength of Marx’s method was in his approach to economic phenomena, not from the subjective point of view of certain persons, but from the objective point of view of society as a whole, just as an experimental natural scientist approaches a beehive or an anthill.

For economic science the decisive significance is what and how people do, not what they themselves think about their actions. At the base of society is not religion and morality, but nature and labour. Marx’s method is materialistic, because it proceeds from existence to consciousness, not the other way around. Marx’s method is dialectic, because it regards both nature and society as they evolve, and evolution itself as the constant struggle of conflicting forces."

Why do you stop your analysis on the 90s? What about social-democratic states? What about post 2000s politics? What about the states in the past that have lived under other systems? What about the new latinoamerican left? What about the theater politics of Putin's Russia?

There always is, the only difference is losers don't have to die.

All societies do, physical violence is the most explicit and crude way of dissent. All dissent is sublimated murder urges.

Exactly, protest organization always ends in people well versed in the metaunderstanding of the system taking power. Its never the protesters, the protesters don't understand it. If they would then they wouldn't be taking the role of protesters in the first place. What is happening when you are a protestor is that your brain is being filled with nightmarish ideas for smarter people to use your body as a shield/weapon for a cause.

This is a lie, when leftists get in power (Venezuela is a current example, Cuba an older) they stop caring about rethinking the way things are done and care about substaining the system that holds them in their current positions of power, they actually hunt down people who want to rethink the way things are done. They are just modernists.

Pls explain, don't understand what you mean by this.

Marxism rehashes it. All the other ideas come from the past too.

How can you support the idea of leftism as historical progress while understanding that communism is an old meme?

By staying ahead of the curve. In fact history is full of instances when the ruling class got surpased by those who understand the system better than they did, who lived beneath them. Communism and the French Revolution are two (of many) examples of it.

This just speaks about how leftism never understood anarchism to be honest with you.

Those are all examples of playing inside of the system, not of understanding the meta. Most rich families that go that way end up decaying over time;

All of the rich families started with a person who raised above its circumstances by understanding some form of meta relationship. Before you go to royal families, research who educated their sons. It wasn't the family, it was always pleb-born monk intellectual who taught them the meta.

Yes it is. Even Trump won on a platform built on that idea.

This phrase perfectly encapsulates your total lack of awareness of current political trends in the world.

They don't, because the "bourgeois" are divided in two, in one hand you got the people who raised from the bottom, who actually funnel money into elevating their kids, and if they have enough money, to elevate the kids of the community they came from.
On the other hand you have the "son-of-rich", who just dilapidates money and only subsists if they born-poor parents assigns a fund-manager (also born-poor) to manage their money so it reaches the grandsons.

Pretty fucking industrialist for a so professed people of the workers.

Which is why you are fucking failing worldwide.

It isn't, you are exploiting a 1800s dogma when we are in the 2000s. The 1900s was the era of cinematography, the material relationships paled beneath the symbolic relationships. Thats why marketing and PR rose till reaching the unbearable state of public missinformation we live in today. Thats why esoterism rised. 1900s were about how to trick the mind. You just need to look at Apple to realize its true, look at pop-music to realize its true. Is not about value anymore, is has been about *perception* of value for a LOOOOOOONG time now.

It did exactly that, the protesters got BTFO, the people who benefited from the protestors got in office.

No i don't, you are just to ideologically charged and fail to see how narrative has been turned into a strategical asset to realize that the world you believe in is a complete lie.

Lol no sure, please explain to me where the firm deterministic walls between classes exist.

It really isn't, an extra dollar makes a difference, wages (except minimum) arent regularized, and they move through time based on offer&demand all the time. Between proletariat and burgeoise there are a thousand different sublevels, and between high-class and burgeoise there are a thousand other different sublevels.

Because its fucking false, we have seen the withering away of traditions happen a thousand times in history, its a tradition in itself. There is no progress, only rehashing.

Listen to it faggot.

Lol he just ' invented ' a different set of values.

He didn't, he changed the frame to history because he didn't understand economy.

Here is the issue, there are no static points in time, this is a modernist dogma that has failed to stand with the advent of the mid 1900s.

I agree, its explained by the unconscious forces of the Human in itself.

Again, mid 1900s proved these approaches to be utter bollocks, its not their fault doe, they didn't understand how tainted human perception and rationality actually was.

Also, its circular logic, you can't escape consciousness when making a consciouss judgement.

It actually isn't, the documents are public for everyone.

Its not class struggle that avoids people from reading it, its the mind-viruses that communication injects in them, both marxists and people who want the status-quo to remain fixed, conspire to restrain humans from seeking out understanding. Both are just modernists, they want the individual to be instrumental to their grand-machine view of human relationships.

What is?

"The rules about rules"

RESUMING:

Is there any reason I should? Do these disprove my point somehow? I'm just replying to your claim that a country's legal system is the only structural transformation it can through, while demonstrably it isn't. My intent was not to resume the history of the past 70 years.

I was speaking in broader terms than individual representatives and personalities, but what you're saying is wrong too.
Class struggle is transformed, merely. Nowadays you're not shot if you demand higher wages from a factory because that factory can simply leave to another place and make use of its cheap labour. To prove the point I made earlier, political arrangements change and, with them, so does your hability to make demands.

But the violence absolutely remains. So much of our political economy is dependent on a series of geopolitical arrangements that lead to blodshed every year.

Not all societies - class societies. It's an inherent trait of them. All hierarchy requires discipline to function, physical or psychological.

Protesters don't need metaunderstanding, they need to understand their situations and what their immediate goals are. Protesters agree with the cause you think they're being used to, and they find common ground with the people you think are manipulating them. They can be wrong or misguided, they can be futile or unnecessary, they can be obnoxious or annoying, sure. But to think this is an inherent anatomy of a public demonstration is silly.

Again you need dialectical materialism. Societies are not made in abstract, utopias not drawn in a vacuum. You deal with the current world, current productive forces, current patterns of exchange, current institutions of investment. If I were given power right now in my country, I would still need investment, I would still need to avoid capital flight, I would still need access to markets and I would still need to deal with the inadequacies of the country I'm in charge. No Communist or Socialist in the 20th century, apart from a few misguided, one week-rule anarchists, has ever gotten into power promising the impossible, only quantitative changes towards the right direction, as much as conceited ignorance say otherwise.

I'm saying that although I don't agree that the Left is the only group proposing qualitative changes in the system, the way you view the current system's inception, as the result of a process of mutual agreements and cooperations, I find it difficult to see what sort of change you'd make that doesn't prove the current system has its shortcomings that are historically relative and subject to change, which is what I said later and you disagreed.

Because although it's an old idea, modern innovations and advancements make us uniquely prepared to embrace it. And like you said, what idea is not an old meme?

Revolution is not a common state of affairs. In the decades and centuries that occur between them, the average rich person will die rich, his kid will be rich and so on. How do they achieve this if not by muh privileged training?

Not sure what you mean by this.

You're attributing to rich people an almost mystical element lmao.

After his kids inherited his business empire, sure.

Show me where in the world public education has got on par with private education in the past few decades, and show me enough examples to qualify it as a "trend".

And how is any of that even tangentially related with my point about rich people prefering to give its kids a distinguished upbringing?

That's literally what we've been saying since Marx. If this sounds new and alien to you, you haven't done any research on the political philosophy you're trying to dissect, and it shows.

And with that, so is every worker, including you based on the OP.

lol

Who? When? How?

Unlike the narrative about how rich people are meta-mystical-understanders, who deserve to rule because of their voodoo power, mine is unfortunately very susceptible to exploitation by others.

How about the wall between people who make their money by exchanging labour power with fixed wages, and people who earn their money by being in the possession of capital, e.g. proletarians and capitalists?

Inequalities of income and wealth within a class are not the same thing as inequalities of class. Two workers with two different wages and functions still have to go to the same people to fight for a raise.

Then why get angry when liberals and leftists "shit over traditions"? What value do they hold if they're subjected to change by these laws of history you're describing?

Marx did not write on ethics, and he tried to approach things as a scientist instead of a person bound to a code of morality of values, because these are historically constructed, while he wanted a method to understand their origins in our relations of production.

Find historical precedent for that instead of merely "communism".

What about economy did he get wrong?

Productive forces evolve, different political institutions are made to regulate them, different classes emerge. Hence the "points". See what I said earlier about the development of capitalism from 1000 A.D. These were two distinct points, just not predetermined.

Such as?

What taints it, and what way does it disrupts Marx's scheme?

Consciousness here are our dominant, collective set of ideas and values, not any cognitive ability.

Where and what are they?

Explain how we do it.

Read Bernays, read Alinsky, read this project.cyberpunk.ru/lib/cyberia/cyberia.pdf, read about public relationships, read about propaganda, read about Soviet Montage Theory, and finally read about meme magic

Constituion, laws, treaties, and published documents by governments, they are on the internet, on print, and if you have no internet and no money you can get them for free in every single national library of the world.

Which is itself a manifestation of our cognitive ability.

LSD(etc), Escher, UFOs, Eastern Esoterism, advances in the understanding of psychology, advances in the understanding of psychiatry and brain chemistry, advances in the understanding of neurosciences, Literary Critique, Post-Modernism, Foucault, Derrida, Post-Structuralism, experiments on brain glitches, experiments on the limits of cognition, and cybernetics

Modernism as a whole doesn't stand in its feet when the limits of perception are brought into question.

Well come on man this is an area deeply explored, use google i won't explain 100+ years of investigation on the accuracy of rationality and perception. You can read Robert Anthony Wilson if you want a quick rundown, he bases his whole works on it.

There are no points, its in complete flux, you are just asigning arbitrary points of reference to make sense of the constant shifting chaos that is reality when you study it in depth.

Irrational agents. Not the only one though, its not only his fault, its the fault of everyone who lived in that era.

Thats a set of values in itself, in fact is the set of values of his era. Values don't imply morality. Also read Kuhn.

I don't get angry, i just find it cringy. The value they hold is that they are the blueprints for all the possible outcomes of Human cognition. By basing your world-view on one you simply are reacting to ghosts.

They literally are, a CEO is a worker himself, he needs to fight for a raise with someone too. Are now CEOs proletariat?

Upper point, also you are assigning arbitrary walls that don't hold historically. Why getting mad with someone who owns an extra cow if this is so?

It isn't, you are purposedly minimizing reality into a single transaction to derive proletariat support for your authoritarian ruler of choice. Also knowledge is not voodo nor mystical, and plenty of poor people who were born in worse conditions that the low class of America have rised well beyond American "capitalists" just by having a deeper understanding of life than some retarded ideology 100 years old.

Arab Spring (Facebook Revolutions), go look for it. It happened less than 10 years ago.

Nice argument.

I am not, i do not judge the value of my existance in my wealth relationship with other people.

It doesn't, it just sounds like a big cognitive dissonance

They simply don't give a fuck about it becuase they are mental plebs. At the same time people in other "classes" are very aware about it and care very much.

Google.com => public education policies in the world
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_park_(Colombia)
Google.com => ".edu" + "free"

Still won on it.

Im not, im explaining to you the dynamics of social mobility based on who aqcuired the wealth, something you prefer to completely disregard cause you don't consider individuals as capable of making ends meet for themselves when they honestly try. Im showing an example of how rich people who don't honestly try simply drop to the ground of society.

You don't understand the self-reliance drive at all.

It actually is, revolution is perpetual. I will agree that in the last times it has become a global phenomena, but before that it was happening at any point of the world, ALWAYS. Now its everywhere and everytime, which is even better.

Every single moment in history is "uniquely prepared" to embrace absolutely everything, it just depends on how many people you can convince of it. The fact that is an old meme is supposed to break you our of the idea of history as a progress.

The system itself is based on change, you can't escape it.

I didn't argue it wasn't true leftism, i argued that when leftists get into power they are very eager to silence via bullets whoever wants to rethink stuff.

Here is our main difference, i believe every person needs it. I don't think people are instruments for bigger causes.

Explain why communist states handle dissent with violence though. If you gonna say communist states weren't examples of communism then see this: vimeo.com/groups/96331/videos/80799353
around the middle they show that hippie communes fell into authoritarian psychological hierarchies were the most dominant people became leaders by implicitely exerting psychological violence over dissenters. Violence and property was prohibited, but it still found an output.

NAH, COME THE FUCK ON, BERNIE SANDERS RAN FOR U.S PRESIDENCY , YOUR IDEAS ARE NOT DANGEROUS AT ALL, in fact i would argue a technology-based communist global society is exactly what engineer technocrats want, as they would be on top.

Yeah, it fucking breaks down your whole world-view, once you entertain the idea that ideas can be used as weapons, Modernism dies.

Forgot to say, property found an output by leaders getting more pussy than the "underclass".

>Read Bernays, read Alinsky, read this project.cyberpunk.ru/lib/cyberia/cyberia.pdf, read about public relationships, read about propaganda, read about Soviet Montage Theory, and finally read about meme magic
Stop outsourcing the task of giving your views any coherence to other people. Just explain your shit.

So your "meta-understanding", deep knowledge of how the system functions is the constitutions?

My god user this is really meta is beneath the fucking surface.

And exterior to us.

Explain how they do it, particularly the UFOs.

Yeah I'm not reading shit, just give your own thoughts on something.

Everything is in constant state of motion and transformation, but understanding when and how quantitative transformations lead to transformation in character, e.g. quantity changes into quality, is a crucial point in all sciences.

How does irrational agents even affect his theory of history?

Let's re-read the passage together:

"Having established science as cognition of the objective recurrences of nature, man has tried stubbornly and persistently to exclude himself from science, reserving for himself special muh privileges in the shape of alleged intercourse with supersensory forces (religion), or with timeless moral precepts (idealism). Marx deprived man of these odious muh privileges definitely and forever, looking upon him as a natural link in the evolutionary process of material nature; upon human society as the organisation of production and distribution; upon capitalism as a stage in the development of human society."

You then said he invented new Values, as in, all he did was come up with new timeless moral precepts. If by "values" you meant whatever else, than you're saying something of no relation to the quote.

Managerial positions where his only source of income is a wage still count as a worker, but that's no the case with CEOs almost anywhere.

How?

Don't be ridiculous.

Social mobility is as old as class society itself and has always lived side-by-side with the most outrageous and segregating forms of inherited muh privilege. This is hardly unique to capitalism and means nothing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protest_marches_on_Washington,_D.C.

What about those, what are their leader's current position of power? Let's see how well your thesis holds.

One wasn't necessary

That's like saying I'm not white because I don't value my experience in race relations. You are what you are.

Explain why and don't tell me to read anyone.

I still see no connection with my point. "They're mental plebs" means nothing when materially they're patricians, and this is what I'm talking about. This and how they self-preservate.

Why
Why? You haven't done your research before calling this a global trend?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_park_(Colombia)
So anyone with access to google and a library can do just as well in the job market as someone with a a Harvard degree? This is the caricature of your point I made a few arguments, but you're being literal about it.

Yes, you just keep saying that this wealth is based on "meta-understanding" of "documents", which you've spoken vaguely about it as being the constitution and some other stuff. I'm not convinced, and I'm curious to how come class stratification remains intact.

I'm more concerned with limiting the power of those in the top of the hierarchy over me, and limit the impact of market forces in every sphere of my life. Self-reliance without being free from exploitation is imaginary.

Revolution is an affair where a class overthrows the other, including in the example you've mentioned. It's not perpetual, only the development of productive forces that enable it is. And while this happens, class rule tends to remain alive and cohesive, with rich people's kids being rich themselves. Explain this and stop dodging the point.

Wrong, just look at the example of capitalist development I made earlier. The 1000 AD scenario wouldn't be prepared for a capitalist, commerce-driven, bourgeois society. If you deny this, you're taking Idealism to its most absurd conclusions.

And historical progress is, again, the development of productive forces, not who thought of what first.

Yet when I argued for left-wing change you said it was inherently "cooperative" and the culmination of a process itself, instead of a chain in a link, which is how Marxists see it.

Those who don't move don't feel the chains. Organize as a leftist a bit, see if you make progress and you'll see capitalist bullets in your direction very soon.

You just said they were "shield/weapon", are those not instruments?

Any political order struggling to keep power handles dissent with violence. The Chinese Civil War was launched after the Nationalists betrayed the Communists and massacred thousands of them. The 1905 Revolution after the Tsar ordered protests shot and peasant agitators hanged. The violence used even by the worst of communists, like Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, is hardly without equivalent in the western liberal tradition.

So? Debs ran before many of those deaths I listed above happened. There were socialists in the Duma. Communists in Germany were campaigning when the elites had already given the Nazis all the support to violently murder them. No state will simply kill anyone who says "yeah I disagree", but try achieving shit and see if you don't encounter repression. This doesn't mean they will shoot a fucking US presidential candidate which is something that would obviously be of questionable tactical/strategic value for them.

My point was about, for the third time, structural transformation also being economic and political instead of purely constitutional. You're debunking a different argument in your head.

No i fucking won't, is not my fault you don't read. I won't waste my time explaining shit is available to everyone.

Oh, who would have guessed! The system code is in the law books!

No its isnt

Read on Jacques Vallees

Read the fucking books.

Social sciences are not sciences though.

You tell me.

Lets semiotically deconstruct it doe

implying science is not the cognition of the objective recurrences of nature
judgement
judgement
judgement
timeless claims
implying purity

No they fucking don't, they killed people for having an extra cow

Nice argument

Means everything

I guarantee everyone of those that was big and disruptive enough ended with some individual gaining power

Yes it was

You are saying im an poetic judgement of my situation. I am not.

IF YOU DON'T READ YOU DON'T GROW. BOOKS ARE WATER FOR THE BRAIN. Industrialists have widely different interests that the workers, they only care about the worker insofar their role as workers. The worker doesn't give a fuck about his role as worker, he is first Joseph, then Dad, then Honey, then Joe, waaaay after that they are Worker.

They don't preservate if they are mental plebs, they only preservate when non-mental-pleb-dad obliges them to have a fund-manager. If not they run down. Being a mental-pleb means you don't deserve your money, and you will fucking lose it.

FUCKING GOOGLE STUFF, I AM NOT HERE TO REWRITE STUFF THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR YOU!!!!

It doesn't, at any point in time you can see "the class", which is what marxism do,but if you analyze it temporally you can see the individual members have moved all around.

There is no rape, there is only submission.

Im not dodging the point, you keep not opening a fucking history book and keep refusing to admit structural revolutions, you think the only possible revolution is a communist revolution.

Yes it would, when you abstract the meanings of capitalism you can assign them to every single society in the last 5000 years.

Where is historical progress in Detroit.

Its collaborative, not cooperative, and it isn't the culmination, is the beggining, you still don't fucking get it.

No you wont, you will see the $$$$ from the system unless you are breaking shit or terrorising people, this is not the 70s. And yet in the 70s you were bombing stuff, so please don't being this >muh oppression bullshit.

Thats how they are used by people like you, not what they are

Ahh, but when is a political order not struggling to keep power?

Yes, the modernist ones do

Ah but they do.

Laws declare what is and isnt permited in economic and political terms.

God, I won't even waste my time with that. Every point I make goes basically unchallenged, you're not smart enough to play the sophistry game you're playing and you're basically just repeating "oh read [author you yourself probably haven't read]" on everything.

If your entire worldview requires so many cynical deliberate ignorance, suit yourself. Next time you're crying about how much you've failed, tell yourself you deserve it, but not others. Now go back to your UFO books.

You are simply uneducated, which is why you are a communist in the first place