Maoist intellectuals don't exi-
Other urls found in this thread:
Maoists intellectuals are about as real as that screencap.
Isn't modern Maoisms is basically ?
Modern Maoism is Juche + idpol
Yeah, but Juche is against USA and maintains state capitalism, meanwhile China is all for USA and is capitalist/western colony.
By western colony, I mean western companies pay Chinese party that they would allow said companies to employ every cheap Chinese labor.
This is a good criticism TBH.
Sure, people like Althusser and Badiou don't exist right? Maoism has probably spawned the most interesting intellectual thought in the West, you plebs, but you ignore that because one fat Canadian autist on YouTube
Althusser was a hack whose writings are easily debunkable by modern psychology.
Badiou is just an atheist Christfag.
You are entitled to your opinion but that makes your statement that Maoist intellectuals don't exist not more right. Even Foucault was influenced by conversations he had with Maoists. Recommend pdf related.
actually it's not. the pic aint real.
I meant the ways they're always going on about Mao's dialectics being "more advanced" than Marx's or Hegel's. WTF is that really supposed to mean?
just as you ignore the entire left-communist tradition
nice fake screenshot
Fuck you for making me actually visit his site to see if it was real.
This has been explained god knows how many times here. Are you more than a stupid absolute empiricist who thinks that all that is real is what exists in front of you immediately right now? Then you're an idealist since what you know or believe about the world is beyond what experience discloses in its immediate existence. Do you believe in such things as potentials/possibility? You're an idealist. Do you believe in such a thing as matter? You're an idealist because no one has ever seen or experienced such a thing as matter as such. Do you believe in essential characters of things? You're an idealist because you literally believe in the reality of abstraction of things from the whole of the universe.
Most retarded argument I've ever seen, even worse than Yui's. Do you even know what materialism is?
t. A. W.
Yep, but clearly you don't.
Do you believe there are 'things' separate from each other to any degree? Then you're an idealist.
This isn't based on a blanket 'everything is ideas' like your 'everything is material'. This is based on a structure of abstraction in a literal sense. All things that exist have to have some level of abstraction from the whole, a way to put itself apart as what it is. The more logically and ontologically concrete things are, the *more* abstract they are since they can determine themselves to a higher degree against the whole.
Materialism is not "everything is material." Stop talking about things you don't understand.
What's wrong with empiricism?
The man is a literal fucking meme at this point
I'm aware of Bordiga, Pannekoek and Dauve. Out of the leftcommunist tradition I enjoy Michael Heinrichs reading guide for Kapital. I've also read Capitalist Realism which is influenced by leftcommunism.
I just disagree with the their assertion of actually-existing socialism, I think they are very undialectical, anti-empirical and straight-up utopian when it comes to formulating their alternative. Which would be fine on itself if they weren't claiming to be the high priests of Marx.
If anyone wants to know how something this blatantly trollish could be mistaken for the real thing, just take a look at Roo's other blog posts:
Friendly reminder that Mao never read Das Kapital and thus never really understood Marx's argumentation
Firendly reminder that Mao misunderstood socialism as a third world liberation ideology and not as the historic civilizational stage that comes after capitalism
Friendly reminder that Maoism is a complete perversion of what Marx was trying to argue
Friendly reminder that this is the reason why we have all these "National Liberation==Communism" Tankies like Unruhe nowadays
TBH I'd blame Stalin for this more than Mao. Muh emir of Afghanistan and all that.
All of those points are wrong. Congratulations.
Honestly, I think it's quite amusing how Leftcoms are eternally triggered by Maoists. Maoists are pretty ultraleft in their stances (for example, most Maoists would deny that actually-existing socialism is socialism, and that neither Rojava, Cuba or the DPRK are socialist), except they give it a more anti-eurocentric touch, updating dialectics from vulgar dialectical materialism to a more evolved return of historical materialism - yet their theory actually incities unprecedented revolutionary potential, while leftcommunism degenerated into a pseudo-philosophical circlejerk amongst anglo-saxon bloggers. You are a brainlet if you think that Maoist rejection of dialectial materialism regarding the productive forces as the main requisition for socialism is somehow equivalent with anti-marxist agrarian socialism. Now, if you would be a die-hard Stalinist/Hoxhaist, I'd accept such a stance but since Leftcoms are anti-Stalinist as well, it just reveals incongruity within their line of thinking, fueled by jealousy for the sparking energy that Maoism gave to the international communist movement.
Shit man, I'm not even a Maoist, but these blatant lies that are being posted here about Maoism is annoying af
Honestly if you blame Stalin for that you have to blame Lenin even more. Compared to Lenin, Stalin was way more flexible and anti-nationalist in terms of the question of national liberation.
Is that why modern Russian fascists love Stalin so much?
So Mao preferred Chinese mythology to German mythology, so what?
What are you getting at? I can know there's a world beyond my perception without being an idealist.
what did he mean by this?
Why would you even think that about a guy who passionately enticed people to destroy old idols
How on earth is Marx' dialectic "German Mythology" anyway?
Explain how Mao's dialectics are a "higher stage" of dialectics.
Russian fascists love anything that makes Russia look powerful. Stalin transformed Russia into an industrial and military super-power, so some nationalists think he's okay but most Russian fascists reject Stalin either completely or they reject what he stood for in action rather then words. It's a little bit like Nazbols buy into the bourgeois propaganda that Stalin persecuted the Jews but then turn it around and act like "Yes, but actually it was a good thing cause fuck Jews lol"
The people who are on the Russian left who are closest to the fascists ideologically are the Khruschevite revisionists who the Western Left has been apologizing for for decades and has never quit apologizing for them even after they quite openly raped the Russian working class during the wild 90s. Their in such wide disrepute in Russia that they can only even get a toehold in the working class movement by pretending to be Stalinists.
It's undialectial to think the law of value can cease to exist in an instant due to a global revolution despite history proves otherwise instead of recognizing the gradual dialectial transformation of the mode of production. It's undialectical to not recognize the material conditions socialist revolutions had to work with as the antithesis to the proletarian movement.
maoists and their sympathizers keep saying this without evidence.
"Updating" dialectics implies there are "laws" of dialectics, which there aren't.
Agree, thank you
wtf. There is no way that anybody is so stupid as to think that marxists reject metaphysics right?
This image is a fake
I never said that. Mao's dialectics are a contribution to the dialectical work of Hegel, Marx, Lenin and Stalin (although it does contradict most of the work of Stalin), recognizing the reciprocal relation of unity and struggle. I never said that Mao's dialectics are "more evolved". I don't think you can even objectively make such a statement about a method that, at large, isn't falsifiable on a social scale.
Context. I said he was updating dialectics as a return to the Marxian dialectics, not completely disregarding dialectical materialism but ending the percieved vulgarization of it, mainly the idea of purely materialist modernist development of productive forces as the main facilitator of socialism (something Deng has returned to in the most vulgar form possible where you basically have to reach Star Trek perk points in development to achieve socialism).
The reason why I'm not a Maoist (besides different aspects which I identify as ultraleft) is because I believe there is more philosophical value to dialectial materialism than it's popularized vulgar form, and that Stalin got it right the first time, read Georges Politzer:
Yet I still feel obligated to defend Mao here because of the stupid horseshit people say and the unbelieveable amount of "hot takes" leftcoms vomit out about Mao
Why would tankie defend maoism? Maoism is idiotism that was born after Maos death. Modern China is capitalist nation worse than tsarist Russia, that is neither aiding world communism, at least certainty not in East Europe, neither is maintains any communist policies inside, and I am saying this as Russian.
Roo would be that stupid.
Science can prove it exists though.
Mao was also highly, highly critical of Stalin for the things Stalin fanboys love him for.
What did I say? Believing things exist is idealismo because it has the de facto structure of abstraction. Idealism isn't stuff in your head.
How ignorant of post 1920 modern science are you? Scientists stopped caring about materialism almost a century ago, it's why the popular non-brainlet position is physicalism and not materialism.
You clearly don't even know what 'Marxian' dialectics even are, let alone how they function such that you can make the judgment about advancing back to Marx. This is the problem of philosophically illiterate morons making judgments of someone else's philosophy.
Marx was a trained philosopher. Not the best, but he fucking had an actual capacity for it unlike you and the people you read. Pre-Kantian trash dogmatism is all you peddle.
Rich coming from someone whose argument is "I don't get Mao's dialectics and since I've maneuvered myself into a corner I'm just gonna claim it's too vague". You havn't even read an introduction to Maoist dialectics but made bold claims about how it is all bollocks, so you are by far not in a position to accuse people of misunderstanding something.
Besides the fact you can't make a singe post adressing actual content, you just insult people, makes you no better than the Roo
You know, lying doesn't help you here. My blog on this is there for all to see. My criticism is fairly straight: it's not dialectics, regardless of coherency or sense it does have.
There are no things, only relations.
Relations are between what is related. Look man, this is shit I learned and understood in my first philosophy class. You really need to think more.
The ideal is abstraction. Abstraction is separation from a whole. Unlike you and the rest of Marxists who just claim everything is materialism, this structure of abstraction obtains for all you like. No o.e said this is 'deep', I actually don't think it's of interest other than explaining how thought corresponds to any being and properly shows truth.
Abstraction is just that: abstraction. People can't avoid generating abstractions because otherwise you lose the ability to make sense of anything. Which is really true, there is no "sense" to be made of anything, it just is what it is. If you're going to argue that people can only understand the world through ideas, fine, but that's getting back to the original point that it's now meaningless for all practical purposes.
Did you miss that abstraction is a STRUCTURE itself. It's not just your ideas being abstract, no, the world itself is abstract and MUST abstract itself if it is to exist at all. An apple is a self-abstraction from nature, a self-enclosing of a being from an other designated by said being itself from said other.
I misunderstood your last post then. Alright.
Kudos to you for perfectly imitating Roo's writing style.
More like, a closeted Christian. Badiou claims he's removed G*d from The Event yet even his critics (Daniel Bensaid, say) have pointed out his Even ultimately relies on some kind of divine intervention.
There's a pretty big difference between a cryptic theism vs. someone who invokes religion solely as a moral code and nothing else. It's not enough to just follow commandments because "it's the right thing to do" or "it's about COMMUNITY"; you have to have faith as well.
Maoist intellectuals: Althusser, Boer, Badiou, Kristeva, Lusordo.
Halloween is coming up so that is just perfect, all those bones to impress American user
Mao wasn't against intellectuals; he WAS an intellectual. He was only against the intellectuals who propagated reactionary ideas.
yeah but rember Mao said power comes at the barrel of a gun, he was the first and only one to use that awesome and not at all obvious power
Speaking of Badiou and Xtianity: why does it seem as if all of these western Maoists are obsessed with Christian thought, especially since Maoism is the only major strand of Marxism which developed independent of a Christian (or Hegelian) context? Even Althusser, in his memoir emphasized his fundamentalist Catholic background.
I'd count Zizek in here as well but 1. he's not a Maoist and 2. even though he has some interesting thoughts he really doesn't know that much about religion/theology outside of western Christianity (like, everything he knows about Judaism he knows from a friend of Lévinas, not due to his own independent research on the subject).
Losurdo is a Dengist.
I know this isn't much of an answer and is mere speculation on my part, but it could be that Maoism, in the one hand can be read as very eschatological, even Messianic (perhaps no more so than vanilla Marxism, but still) and in the other made the peasant its revolutionary subject, when you combine these two things Maoism kinda resembles a medieval heretic movement (like say, the Hussites), whatever these Catholic thinkers saw in Maoism it must have tapped into this same Millenarian energy on some level.
I've noticed a bit of that too, yes. Still, as you've said, I don't see how Maoism is any more apocalyptic than any other school of Marxism (except EuroComms if anyone considers them Marxist). Even Permanent Revolution has an eschatological feel to it.
I doubt Catholics would much like Christian heresies though.
Then again, Communism has been condemned several times by the Church.
Yeah but only because it they allege that it fails to provide for man's spiritual needs. They are actually much harder on capitalism.
Rome advocates Distributism, which is just Proudhon + J.C.
Having read the entirety of his memoirs I can confirm OP nailed it.
Some orthographic mistakes here and there and it would have been perfect
Your definition of idealism is broad to the point of meaninglessness. Hegel's idealism is hardly representative of idealism as a whole. You're out of your depth, faggot.
You think these are any good?
To be fair it's a fake post and the video it's a response to is pretty devoid of arguments as well. I wish it were real tho it'd be fun to watch these two brainlets actually fight.
Found the Maotard.
I'm not a Maoist, I just think Antonio is a pretentious retard.
What's wrong with being a Hegelian?
Losurdo is a braindead tankie, the Italian Grover Furr
I suggest you learn what arguments are, because two major arguments are made repeatedly: it isn't Hegelian/Marxist dialectics, and it isn't that mind blowing unless you literally are braindead. Plenty of evidence for both.
Easy to call names when you're too scared to give one and a history. Not an argument ;)
Everything. I'm not Hegelian, and I don't want anyone else to be any 'ian' or 'ism'.
What do you think about Bakunin's The Reaction in Germany?
Losurdo is one of those weirdos who thinks China is still socialist, I know.
It really just collaborates with the capitalist establishment.
That idiot thinks Russia is a third world country.
If this is the best you've got, you can declare intellectual bankruptcy.
He thinks Spain is a first world country too, despite being one of the poorest in Europe with an unemployment rate of 30%.
You made plenty of assertions, but not many valid arguments. The things you had to say weren't interesting and didn't actually engage with Mao enough to coherently critique him. There's about a million anti-Maoists critiques better than your trite video.
You can keep lying, but people can just listen and read what I said about it. I made not just valid arguments, they're even better—they're sound arguments, i.e. true. Mao isn't using dialectics. Mao isn't using a special way of thinking that differs from common understanding.
People can all tell ``you`` haven't made any arguments, just assertions, and false ones easy to show as false. I suggest you do yourself a favor: learn at least classical formal logic since clearly you need it, and leave dialectics for another time since right now they're 2advanced4u.
It's not even that, they think gommunism is satanic, read Plot Against the Church
Like it or not, Liberation Theology exists and is still going strong in Latin America despite objections from Rome.
Daily reminder Roo DID, in fact, make a video years ago defending Mao's dialectics against naysayers.
I'm aware of the difference between valid and sound arguments, pleb. I meant "valid" in the logical sense. Your assertions weren't based on any premises, so they aren't valid.
These are literally assertions, idiot. There's no line of reasoning here.
Ironic, you're just asserting that I'm wrong here without any arguments. Show them false if it's so easy then, brainlet :^)
Mao doesn't use Hegelian dialectics because they didn't apply to his time and place. He lived during a time where there were elements of both capitalism and feudalism in place, so Hegel's whole dialectical understanding of history (negation of the negation) wouldn't have made sense to him.
Hegelian dialectics don't apply anywhere. Ever. There will never be a 'dialectical' way of living, a 'dialectical' way of solving problems, a 'dialectical' way of doing things.
No one has ever used dialectics practically because no one ever can nor should. Understand this: dialectics aren't >for anything< other than a pure systematic knowledge.
Why do you believe DiaMat is a "nonsense philosophy" as you've repeatedly said in your videos?
It's nonsense insofar as it turns into stupid shit like Lysenkoism, a cult ideology (that's not dialectical, comrade), and becomes dogmatic. It's bad thinking, it's religion, and that's what it is everywhere I've seen it invoked. It's not 'scientific' anymore than christianity can be scientific.
I've said it every single time: if what is meant by diamat is what Mao talks about regarding taking into consideration context (and even Trotsky gets this), then it's true and fine, but it's wrong to call it dialectics since it has nothing to do with such. Contextualism and pragmatism are good for pure practice, good for relative theory, but not good for absolute theory nor practice. Ideally, 'dialectics' gets you the end you >should< aim at, not the way to get there from an irrational historical point.
All idealism is religion.
All materialism is idealism.
It's not it's just ancap style retardation where they reduce concepts to such an absurd degree that they become meaningless.
1) Matter as such is literally something that only exists as an abstracted concept and not natural reality, there is no unformed matter anyone has ever seen or experienced. So if you think 'matter' is real, you're positing an abstract immaterial entity as the truth of material entities. Saying 'no' does not deny this, it just speaks to your unwillingness to see that all you have is a concept that you may as well name anything you like.
2) If you could define matter as such, you would abstract matter as such, hence idealism by virtue of its structure and movement of abstraction.
3) If matter is rationally comprehensible, then it must have an ideal character. Idealism from Plato to Hegel never meant thoughts in your mind, but the structures of thought embodied in reality.
Define matter without arbitrarily universalizing it to uselessness or delimiting it without basis.
Alright, I see where you're coming from, but then doesn't knowledge itself become idealism since everything we know can arguably be reduced to an abstract concept?
Define "natural reality," please
Yes, it's a position called epistemological idealism. All you >can ever know< is that which has the structure of ideas. Hegel's position is stronger: it is absolute idealism because all that can BE is also in the structure of ideas, the structure and movement of abstraction. The very possibility of differences and definable boundaries in being, experience, and knowing is the structure of abstraction.
Natural reality doesn't mean anything special, just what nature actually exists as directly for us. No one has ever experienced energy, matter, or god as such, yet plenty of people think these are ultimately the truth of the world because of rational abstract considerations and nothing to do with actual material beings before them.
Stop redefining words to suit your agenda.
Stop defining words arbitrarily. You just quoted a definition that a phil 100 moron would give, and which an ignorant teacher would accept since they know fuck all about the debate.
I've given a structure, >abstraction< as the criterion of the concept of idealism. You either argue against the content, or you leave. Nobody worth their salt argues word names, but structures.
Nobody else uses idealism to mean "abstraction." See , it's exactly what you are doing.
Why am I not surprised this guy watches Roo?
Daily reminder Roo is a psychopath with a history of wishing death on other comrades (Mike Ely, Tim Sakada, and now Muke).
You're such a dumb faggot, using abstractions doesn't entail a belief that ideal qualities actually exist in the world.
regardless of what the pseud tankie here wants people to believe, Mao never had any dialectics, updated or not
How does one "update" dialectics? The entire concept sounds like sophistry.
Using ideas does not entail knowing anything such as 'a material world' independent of you and your ideas. Really, you're just a sad religious dogmatist. How do you think you can explain how thought can grasp being when they are absolutely different in essence? Are you the kind of moron who still believes in 'reflection' theory like Engels, Lenin, Hume, and all other dumb pseudo-rational-empiricists?
Unlike you, I believe that consciousness can be explained rationally and naturalistically so I don't need to posit that ideal qualities exist independently of our understanding of them. Empiricism is actually a qualitatively better way of understanding the world given that our knowledge of what we perceive isn't independent of the conceptual process that perception arises from. You're actually the one being dogmatic here, faggot.
Halleluja! May Hashem bless your brainlet soul.
Idealist positivism is a hell of a drug, folks.
You make yourself look more stupid by the post, user. Keep it up.
Except that's not what I said. Denying the existence of transcendent/absolute truth isn't relativism, faggot. Truth depends on the conceptual schemes you use to understand the world, so your claim that you have access to truth is dogmatic as fuck compared to someone who doesn't make that claim. My claim is that truth is arbitrary, not that all claims are valid/relative.
How much of a relativist moron are you? lol
Wew, you're clueless. Also, accusing me of being a relativist without explaining why my relativism is bad isn't an argument :^)
Nobody cares what you believe or intend. You're really not cut out for this, user. Let me do you a favor and save us both time by no longer responding.
You're dumb as rocks. You tried to categorize my beliefs, so clearly you do care about what I believe.
Regardless, you didn't actually respond to the content of my previous post, you just deflected. If you're going to accuse me of relativism at least stick with that faggot.
I am brazilian and my teacher in highschool was a maoist.
that's A.W in a nutshell, literally every leftwing theorist who wasn't Marx was such a brainlet that they should'ṽe never been allowed to get near a piece of paper and even Marx was a dummy blinded by his own materialist ideology who shouldn't be read literally but only through my personal ultra-Hegelian lenses.
Hegel and Zizek not Engels and Lenin OK.
I'm half-convinced he's actually some type of NRx Holla Forumsyp trying to convince us that Leftism is irrational, maybe he's deep undercover KantBot, who knows.
Mao was anti-Hegelian, but in this case he's not attempting to refute Hegel but Engels.
It would be like trying to critique Proudhon by critiquing Kropotkin.
Sadly it seems like his retardation is genuine. He's a bit above average intelligence, and he's just far enough along in his studies to hit that Dunning-Kruger sweet spot.
Absolute state of modern "philosophy". Never mind whatever it is you might have thought you meant by this, the big Q here is how have all these careerist "professional thinker" leeches gotten away with passing off such tedious exchanges of pseudo-Kantian découpé as the bleeding edge of temperate reason for the greater part of a century now?
I'm not a Kantian. The fact that you projected your hatred of "pseudo-Kantian découpé" (whatever the fuck that means) onto my (frankly vague) post says more about you than it does me.
Can we get the mods to change "AW" to "anal water?"