Critique of Mao's On Contradiction
Other urls found in this thread:
Marx said he put dialectics back on its feet after Hegel turned it upside down.
This is the conclusion I came to recently. I'm a philosophy brainlet but I've been trying to understand dialectics and Hegel lately (mostly through your articles and videos, AW) and I think Marxists obsess way too much over this shit. Seems like many discussions on very simple, practical questions turn into unnecessarily convoluted philosophic wankery over "dialectics" (or the Marxist misunderstanding of what "dialectics" mean).
If you understand that much, you're way ahead of the game of the vast majority of Marxists. Freeing yourself of ideological spooks is necessary. When you understand that for the most part 'dialectics' as used by most are bullshit, you can see how empty and banal their theories usually are.
Could you explain briefly why/when Hegel's method is useful and necessary, and what it should/shouldn't be applied to?
JASON UNRUHE ON SUICIDE WATCH.
NOT A DRILL.
I have evidence AW is actually the infamous gorilla poster. By analyzing his writing style and personality it can be clearly seen that AW and the gorilla poster have the same way of talking. In some cases the gorilla poster will act smug much like AW does. When the mods finally banned the gorilla poster after he posted to much about wether a service was a commodity AW also stoped posting for a couple days. just think about it for a minute. Let it sink in.
They're both pretentious and clueless about Marxism, so maybe you're onto something here tbh
Why are people this much obsessed with philosophical wankery?
gorillaposting is a 4chan /sci/ meme that dates back to 2014
Because philosophy is the basis of praxis.
I know but you remeber maybe 2 months ago we got hit with a flurry of gorilla posts until the mods finally banned the gorilla poster for posting 2 threads asking if a service is a commodity? I'm talking about that gorilla poster.
wo w, that,, reelly made me th ink . . .
really does right?
So you're saying that Marxists shouldn't care about dialectics because there's some people who happen to get it wrong? Wow, A.W. what great advice! Love too disavow an entire method of philosophical inquiry because there's some bad takes made about it. You have a very big brain.
Dialectics is an organic self-generating system method. It's for nothing but this pure logical ontological form of things.
You're not making Capital volume 5, so you have nothing dialectical to be doing. Don't hold yourself too highly, user, it's not good for the brainlet.
I saw your Twitter conversation with Adriana, and wanted to know if you have seen the critique I made of Jason Unruhe where I speak (albeit briefly) about Mao's dialectics. Yes, the video is over-the-top. Yes, much of what I say is grossly oversimplified (of course, I was writing a response video, not a dissertation).
I mentioned the balancing of opposites in Taoism, how Mao's dialectics lack and sublation, and later on in the video (around the 29-minute mark) mention Hegelian Marxism vs. Althusserian Marxism (Mao and Spinoza, whose philosophy has some overlap with Taoism, were large influences).
Hey there, I'll watch this as soon as I can, thanks.
Monist internal-relationism, I mention it in the article. It was just an educated guess with just one essay to go off from, but I've also noticed Maoists tend to like Althusserian structuralism for likely this metaphysical reason as mentioned in the first thread.
You've got a good grasp it seems. Keep it up.
If Roo doesn't respond within 48 hours, you know he has no idea what he's talking about in regards to theory.
Tweet my blog at him and ask him to respond. If people do this in mass he actually may just out of popular pressure. He's an alpha male stereotype, he can't back down from the challenge of numbers since his value is the number of his followers.
Your insistence that dialectics is difficult is pretty good evidence that you're actually a brainlet. The fact that you claim that people turn to dialectics to tell them how to do things shows that you don't understand why 90% of people study theory. They do it to try to understand the world, you pretentious git. Not everyone is as self-important as you are.
Take Mao's way for yourself: learn the empirical how and why, forget the metaphysical why. Marxists don't have it, and nobody that doesn't take a path like Hegel's can have it without falling to dogmatic ground by beginning with assumptions.
Face it: you don't care about the world, because the world would require an absolute science, a theory which is the practice of the object, and the absolute object is the self-determining and articulating subject. Don't care about metaphysics? Then you don't care about knowledge.
I found your consideration of third worldism as anti-western-technologism, of a primitivist turn, interesting. I'm not sure if your position is this, but I definitely do not agree with it for philosophical reasons. I may make a response to the last 10 minutes, I think it was very interesting.
Lmao, way to miss the entire point of my post. People don't generally study theory to learn how to act, they learn it to try to understand the world. The fact that you care so deeply about other people being wrong shows how deep insecure and pretentious you are.
Also you seem to hold Hegel in the same regard as the mystic holds their prophet. Hegelian philosophy hardly has a monopoly on metaphysical thought.
You miss my point: dogmatism is worthless, no matter what brand.
The reason I like Hegel is that there is no preset path or definition, the whole thing is a generative structure from within which builds up by digging down. The ground is not the empty beginning, but the concrete end, building up to the infinite is merely the process of digging into the ground of it.
Read the skeptics and find out why you shouldn't be smug about your dogmatism.
Yes, my view is Third Worldism will, when put into practice, be primitivist and center around prioritization of "Third World truth" over "First World Truth", basically a kind of Heidegger-Derrick Jensen hybrid. It's not a popular view, and it will definitely get lots of scorn.
Thanks. I will admit, my understanding of dialectics is very basic, very elementary school textbook (to say the least). I watched both your videos back-to-back and they confirmed suspicious I've had for a while. Mao's dialectics, from what I can tell, are never supposed to "resolve" in a Hegelian sense but continue (consider Mao's theoretical justification for siding with the national bourgeoisie, with the genuine proletarian revolution set back for a later time). Marx saw the proletariat as the revolutionary class because their labour was the basis for society; Maoists, on the other hand, seek to usher in revolution from the "outside", bombarding the reproducing system from the outskirts, rather than looking towards internal mechanisms to fight the system form the inside-out. Again, this is way oversimplified so I apologize.
I finally watched the entire video, and I'm definitely curious. Assuming from your videos, you are a Jewish mystic communist?
You brought something up in this pose which I had not considered: Mao's irreverence for 'internal contradictions', i.e. 'true dialetics'. That's very interesting, and I think it has significant implications as you note. It seems Mao does not care what contradiction is to be used so long as it can be used to bring the beast down so to speak. This definitely goes with his strong pragmatism, but I had not thought of Asian mysticism like the Tao coming into it, but again I do find it tempting to take that as an explanation of his pragmatism, seeing as how the Tao and Buddhist philosophy is much about 'go with the flow' which is perfectly suited for pragmatic radical shifting as necessary. Whether Mao was particularly consciously aiming to 'deconstruct' western influence with his tactics seems too speculative for me, however, since I think 'the way' would lend itself just as much to deconstruction from within >if that was the most practical way
Watch as Roo responds to this well-researched piece with a two-minute long video and/or two-paragraph blog post. "AW is a pretentious childish idiot who refuses to understand Mao", "AW is eurocentric for not understanding the Asian mind", "Mao won therefore his dialectics are superior to stupid Hegelian dialectics."
the gorilla poster did NOTHING wrong
Another essay against Roo -
Roo would score lower than Forest Gump on an Autism Level test.