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

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

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

This is why the milkman should be required reading.

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

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

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

The two sentences are clearly related, but even if they weren't the idea that material things don't have profound effects on our lives is laughable at best. What is essence if not the qualities we observe in the world reflected in our minds?

lmao

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

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

Take the black pill fam

Read Marx before making claims like this, faggot. Or even just read Wikipedia, fuck. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*awkward silence*

Anarcho transhumanist are dumb but this is an even worse critique.

...

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

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

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

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

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

Good thing that's not what I claimed then, huh? My only claim was that Marx doesn't think that "real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution", dumbfuck. lrn2read.

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

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

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

Jesus Christ, read Marx. Like, any Marx at all. Here's some Kropotkin for good measure.

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

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

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

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

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

What a pure example of Modernity.

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

in any case it's one thing to credit historical material analysis of capitalism, it's quite another to therefore, decide it operates by the iron laws divinated by Marx, and yet another fantastical leap to therefore be a Communist. typical marxist disingenuity will always conflate these just because daddy was and they believe themselves to be top I Q.

No Hegel no Marx, that simple, Marx himself says it, he just arbitrarily decides what is "mysticism" (everything he doesn't like)

Commodity fetishism related to Political Economists and their inability to use proper science to see past the mere phenomena. Proper science meaning Hegel.

convincing outreach

nice babby tier logic. Marx absolutely argued capitalism, and all historical developments of production, contains within it the seeds of its own undermining and overcoming.

A particular "system" does at any one time. Capitalism for Marx for instance began to seriously socialize labor for the first time beyond simple cooperation (like with the pyramids), through mass economy of scale and detail work manufacture, and created a massive expansion of the productive forces, with it science of mechanism and so forth.

Correct
Wrong.
Fucking wrong.

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

These aren't traditions.

wow, totally convinced me evola was not a capital cuck

Marx's analysis of capitalism has a great deal of predictive and explanatory power. I'm a communist because I think Marx made a lot of good points. I'm not dogmatic, and if you actually made any good arguments I'd probably be swayed by them.
You're projecting, faggot.

Sure they are. Why aren't they traditions?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The word "capitalism" doesn't mean anything.

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

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

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

Eh, but it's not lol

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

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

...

Not homeomorphic to the other model*
autocorrect, wew.

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

culture tbh fam

t. Weber

found the autist

jesus, Holla Forumsyps are this autistic top kek

Evola recognised this on many occasions.

Of course, this guy thinks Atlantis is real. Striving to be a mythological super man from a fiction novel written way back when is ridiculous.

Communism wouldn't fix everything but it's a step in the right direction.
Maybe if you're a rightist.

This. Don't bother trying to measure yourself with something outside yourself.

Miss me with that primmie shit.

Quality post. Traditionalism changes era to era, the modern reactionary is just very selective; "go back to 1950s values", why? What about the traditional values that came before then? Why not go back to pirate-era traditional values: Sailing the high seas, getting drunk on a boat, and getting into swordfights? At least it's cooler.

Got u covered fam

Honor killings are a part of tradition. It's not even exclusive to muslims.

[Deterritorializes internally]

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

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

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

le semantics

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

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

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

brainlets, ladies and gentlemen

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

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

I asked for not "Not-Capitalism" and you basically gave me just that. Pre-Capitalist societies already had this.
Again an apophantic and entirely formal definition. That sounds good, but then so did liberalism. Does it not have ANY positive content to you people? You have not shown how you logically deduced or extrapolated this from just the material premises within the existing system. Is all you've done really just removed a few cog wheels and said, "yep, still looks good"? There's surely much more to it than that.
Prove it. Show WHY it is possible, i.e. elucidate the precise relationship between "productive capacity" (how have you operationalized this?) and systematic, generalized econo-political "implementations".
List them. Are you really saying Marxists have made no bad predictions given the theory? Because I've got news for you.
I meant in a general sense, I can make it more precise if you like but I didn't think there was much need to. For another physical example: Relativity exhibits high degree of "homology" with Newtonian mechanics except in the limit v/c, where the consequences can be dramatic. But what's more important outside of instrument calibration, abstract measurements, and exact computations, in both examples is dramatically divergent in their "essential" (or "immaterial") implications TO human beings, considering the philosophical consequences of both.

More like Das Grundrisse, beeeeeeeeatch.

It's a word has a different meaning depending on who you talk to. There's no formal definition for it because there is no system that calls itself capitalist. It's either used pejoratively or in a reclaiming kind of way like the n-word.

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

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

'Refutation' is a meme.

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

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

no one was accusing you of no longer being an autist

miss me with that authoritarianism for real

evola commented on Stirner? that sounds like a beautiful trainwreck

how post-modernist of you, faggot cuck

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

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

sure it did

Nope, wrong. "production for use" is both specific and positive. Additionally abolishing the value form is insanely specific.
I did, you're just retarded to understand. If you want a comprehensive overview of what Marx thought then read Marx. Regardless, the reason you keep asking me to define shit is so you don't actually have to make any arguments of your own. What are your criticisms of communism as a mode of production? You haven't given any so far.
No. I don't see what this has to do with this argument. You haven't made any claims. You're just mindlessly saying that there's no substance to Marx's ideas without substantiating it. How about you share some bad predictions if you have any examples to give? I really can't argue with you if you don't make any claims, user.
So basically you're using the word "homology" to mean "similarity". How about you stop using terms you don't understand the meaning of?
You fucking retard, what matters is where the theories differ in their ability to predict the phenomena in the material world. Philosophy and essence have nothing to do with the value of a theory, moron. This is the epitome of feels>reals.

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

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

...

I've never read Derrida.

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

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

you are autistic, fix your autism and come back

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

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

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

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

Brainlet thinks he can apply formal logic to language.

LMAO

Go on, brainlet. Provide your case.

Oh dear, this will be fun to watch.

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

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

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

LMAO

Better luck next time, brainlet

There's also this

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

...

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

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

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

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

Nice sperg out. I win, brainlet.

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

I love fiddling with autists

nope, i am not the autist who couldn't even pass formal logic and decided to go on a crusade against logic as a result, thats you

sperg more

wow slow down buddy you might give yourself a hernia

Lmao, you're retarded

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

What does it entail though? It's an abolition of production for exchange, but it's NOT simply returning to unalienated labor and an automatic social division of labor, because labor had already become irreversibly socialized in a fundamentally new way through massive concentrations of the means of production in the factory system and revolutionization of agriculture leading to cities and so on. In combination with advanced productive forces and pre-determined generalized plan administered by a scientific proletarian state which then overcomes itself, it has massive consequences relating to the individual as determined by the nexus of social relations. Pre-capitalist societies had this, though value appears here and there it was never generalized which is important, and even in less developed proto-capitalist societies of the time such as India there was an admixture of socially directed production and value due to international trade.
Value-form, or rather the commodity-form, which is the unity of incommensurables (use and value: exchangeability which is just crystallized AVERAGE abstract homogeneous social labor), is probably the most abstract determination of Capital as an organic whole. You haven't shown how to derive Communism as a telic finality simply by removing this or that deep feature, any more than you can directly derive prognostic regimes from Darwinian history.
My argument is that Marxist Communism as it actually exists, and not some abstract perfect essential idea of what Marx had in mind, namely, as in the observable behaviors of the Marxists, rests on faulty leaps of logic that they are chronically unable or unwilling to defend. It's an open challenge, if you can't or won't defend your own grasp of the literature in question, don't bother replying, or you've simply increased my confirmatory sample by 1.
Homology has precise meaning in category and homotypy type theory (aka HOMOLOGICAL algebra) which could be easily be applicable here, for example in the category of Circular Motion Planetary Models.
So science is a completely detached, neutral, asocial, trans-historical machine that just innocently churns out predictions where the only factor that could possibly matter or be valuable to humans is their instrumental accuracy? Archetypal attitude of what Evola was talking about. You sound upset, while somewhat ironically repeating a meme that makes you seem like a puerile sociopath, certainly not the ideal traits I'd look for in an elder sage of futurological statecraft.

sad tbh, low energy, weaker than Jeb

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

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

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

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

Yes it is. The socialization of labor doesn't necessarily entail alienation or a socially divided labor force.
This is a gross simplification. A Marxist society cannot form simply from advanced technology and state power. A large part of the reason why communist revolutions have failed is because they failed to have an economic revolution to go along with their social revolution. A communist revolution without it's own sound economic theory and that apes capitalist economies will almost certainly fail.
I know what these terms mean, so if you're going to define them could you at least do it in the context of an argument? Thx.
I don't think that communism is a telic finality, and furthermore the claim that Marx does is dubious at best.
Well it'd be nice if you provided evidence to back this claim up then, huh? "Explain why you're not wrong!" isn't an argument, you simpering retard.
If you're going use category theory to try to make claims about sociological and philosophical topics then I'd appreciate if you'd explicitly define that argument in categorical terms. Otherwise it's just jargon-laden bullshit.
Nope, never made that claim, user. My claim was that the value of a theory is based on it's ability to predict phenomena. Understanding the world directly determines your ability to enact change in the world. You clearly are more interested in ideals than understanding, so I can see how Evola's mystical bullshit is appealing to you tbh.

Whoops
is a reply to

You have completely misunderstood Marx then, firstly you should read Marx's responses to Proudhon and Bakunin, w/r/t their alleged wish to RETURN to idyllic unalienated labor, which to Marx was like attempting to return to the innocent state of a child, which is impossible and rather simply makes you childish, whereas each adult contains within them the "spirit" of childhood that can be recovered in a new way in due accordance with being an adult. Overcoming alienation through Communism is completely different to such a return, as this analogy was to illustrate (in Capital III iirc).
Simplicity is what I'm accusing you of. This was not even what my description boiled down to either. I was offering details to show that even when half the work is laid out for you, you will still perenially refuse to elaborate and retreat into negative determinations, distractions like critiquing other Marxists, namely the ones who actually DID something in actuality with it, rather than ruminated over the mere idea of it in hindsight.
But this is in direct contradiction to the historical materialist attitude. You are an user on an image board with opinions. History is made by human action, to claim you are a more sound theorist than Lenin et al is not only false by the evidence (as I have shown above with your elementary misunderstanding), it's contradictory. My claim is that functioning Communism does not actually logically supervene on the analysis of Capitalism given by Marx whatever its own merits (and I clearly saw enough worthwhile in it to study it myself), rather it's an amorphous phantasm that relies on extra metaphysical commitments that are rarely even acknowledged let alone defended by Marxists, perhaps because it would put lie to their self-evaluation as factual scienticians hermetically shielded from the intoxicating Idea.
Do you really though? It's basically a way for me to demonstrate my grasp of the literature, which gets around your boilerplate rhetorical strategy of ascribing ignorance or stupidity of all opponents, and so we're at least working with similar structural outline of Marx's Capitalism as is. My argument is clear enough, you can't and won't take this organic unity and derive Communism from it in any way shape or form, and take it on faith. If you claim Marx or Engels surely must have, at least, at some point, then you can point to where exactly they accomplished this in the text. Logic and science shouldn't be this coy cat and mouse game where are expected to follow a series of riddles each more diabolically cryptic than the last to figure it out. I can directly back up anything in Darwinism clearly enough for example. In all these years someone must have formulated it into a clear statement? Kapital isn't THAT complex, parts are just dated badly (who gives a shit about the exact details of the Factory Act and what Dick Price was rambling about in a 1850's issue of the Economist) and suffers issues from Marx's repetitious (lack of economy kek) writing and Engels' piss poor editing. It can be stripped back to a much more rigid dialectical development like Science of Logic (his prototype schema) with relative ease.

Yet no one could be bothered? Shit I thought this was all about putting in the WORK.

Yet you refuse to say what is uniquely predictive about it. Again, I actually like much of the theory, and agree that it does have some predictive power even, which doesn't mean I take it as complete, singular, authoritative. My claim is that Marx's own interpretative framework is not motivated by the constraints he and the great mass of his followers place on reasoning. And once again I claim whatever logical unity the theory has in its ability to describe the Capitalist system in a very formal and general way, certain extrapolations have no actual logical relationship to that unity: such as just about everything under the rubrik "Communism", or the most damning predictive failure: impending world revolution in the most proletarianized and productively developed nations first, by no less than an iron law of human motion present in Capitalist social relations and production themselves.
Did I claim otherwise? The world is populated by a multitude of different people, foremost, who cannot be autistically reduced to a system of predictions.
All you can do is repeat this empty slogan about ideals. Yet it is I who actually made the effort to understand the materialist argument, to a demonstrably greater degree than yourself, the apparatchik.

Congratulations, you and Marx are in complete agreement.

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

That's a huge post and it's almost entirely fluff. I'm not gonna be responding to all that shit. I'll just cherrypick the parts I feel are actually worthwhile.
Stop misrepresenting me you fucking simp. Marx criticized Bakunin and Proudhon for their belief in a "natural" unalienated state that man would simply return to once capitalism was overcome. The belief that it's in our nature to cooperate and not exploit others is indeed childish, but that's not a belief that I subscribe to.
Good thing Historical Materialism is Leninist docterine and not Marxist docterine then, huh?
Either substantiate this claim or shut the fuck up. What you've read or not read is irrelevant, dipshit.
Either give an example of me doing this or shut the fuck up. Stop fucking whining about Marxists and start making actual criticisms.
The Manifesto probably isn't the best place to look if you want theoretical writing, and there's the question of Engel's influence. Regardless that quotation doesn't say that communism is inevitable, but rather that the collapse of capitalism is inevitable followed by another excerpt from earlier in the manifesto (very sneaky, user!) that says that the proletariat is a revolutionary class. Clearly the proletariat's revolutionary potential was much lower than Marx claimed it was, but that excerpt didn't actually support your point that Marx claimed communism was a "telic finality". I'm loving that you're making actual claims that I can rebut now! This is refreshing as hell.
The same is the case with this quote. Marx isn't making claims about the inevitablility of communism, he's making claims about social antagonisms under capitalism.
I only used insults when I've felt you were being dishonest. Obviously insults aren't arguments and I didn't intend them as such.
A self-fulfilling prophesy it seems ;^)
But on a more serious note, telling me to explain how Marxism is coherant is a pretty large task. You're essentially asking me to describe Marx's political project in detail, which is a monumentally huge task. If you'd voice specific objections and/or places you think Marxism is incoherant at I'd be happy to respond to them.
So you're just being a pedant then. Nice. I love to argue with someone in bad faith :^)
Correct. It literally isn't complete. Marx died before he could complete his project. How the fuck do you not know this? You're not saying anything groundbreaking at all here.
Wrong. Marx explicitly develops his conception of value in the Grundrisse/Urtext along with other works. Just because they're not the most read parts of Marx doesn't mean they don't exist.
Right. Marx's political program was based on the workers as a revolutionary subject, and the labor movement didn't pan out. That's not a flaw in Marx's theories, that's a flaw in Marx's politics.
People aren't as unpredictable as you claim, especially when considered in the context of normative social relations and social structures.
It wasn't a slogan, it was an observation about the idealist tendency to value understanding less than their ideals.

t. spooked as fuck affluent aristocrat who never had to work a day in his life

How about you list specific incoherencies you see in communism and we'll discuss them?

That's not subversion. That's being inherently unstable. A thing doesn't subvert itself, because the property of subversion would be a property of the thing, meaning it is acting as itself rather than being changed. This shit is not that complicated.

What is his stance on the femoid question?

EVOLA IS FASCOM

I have, restated in several different ways.
kek, you didn't even understand the analogy which I took FROM Marx.

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

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

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

Letter from Marx to Editor of the Otecestvenniye Zapisky

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

You restated the same claim over and over without actually providing anything to back it up.
It wasn't relevant because you misrepresented what I said. My claim was that "The socialization of labor doesn't necessarily entail alienation or a socially divided labor force." which you didn't refute.
What makes you think this? I don't have any idea where you're getting the idea that communism needs to be derived solely by looking at the capitalism.
No you didn't? Maybe I have a different edition than you do, but even if I did you still combined two disparate parts of the text to make the claim that it says something it doesn't.
Not really. How is it? It's not like his theories are dependent on the worker's movement succeeding.
lmao. You've been reading too much Lenin, user.
Wrong. The laws make statements about tendencies of the capitalist system, it makes no statements about the purpose or inevitability of the outcome of these tendencies (i.e. the collapse of capitalism and implementation of socialism).

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

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

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

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

So: either those laws contain the latent seed of "Communism" (besides the question of their deterministic inevitability, which is not obvious given the contradictory nature of the text), or they don't, and there's no relationship between the material analysis of Capitalism and any claim about Communism at all, which makes it an free floating ideological construction in contravention of materialism and only ever illicitly wrapped up with the "it's just an analysis of capitalism dude xd" style of argument.

Well you haven't shown you can even understand the claim yet. How am I supposed to prove a negative? Which is why it's doubly a claim about Marxist behavior, the "tendency" if you will, you've done me a favor illustrating exactly what I mean, you just can't help yourselves.
Your claim was an irrelevant outburst that doesn't even really seem to mean anything, let alone in the context, if you weren't too much of a lazy fraud to read your own scripture you'd know that.
It may have been added by the marxist.org guys. lmao at you taking the time to ctrl F to try refute a shitposter. Pathetic. Just fucking read it you clown.
You claimed Lenin invented the term "historical materialism". How do you think you're in any position to claim anything. Read the actual quote again and try respond to that, or tell me why Marx was just making bullshit up.

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

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

I knew you were full of shit. Stop posturing already and admit you're a fraud.
Yeah, that's extremely likely. Marx was backpedaling repeatedly in Capital I and you're being the brain-genius you are saw through him doing that. Great job.

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

I called you retarded once, your posts are littered with "insults" amounting to the variations on this. I'm one user representing myself, it's perfectly valid to make observations on Marxists as a whole, who actually did have an influence on history, which isn't about you user, you're nothing and will never amount to anything. Besides, you'll smear all "idealists" as par for the course.
How?
You specifically said it was a Leninist doctrine, not a Marxist doctrine. Engels said "WE", you have given no argument as to why Engels was misrepresenting Marx's view, why he's untrustworthy, nor explained why this would even make any sense at all besides it being unflattering to whatever half baked distillation you've concocted in your mind.
You've twisted it around, you're the one expostulating that Communism is scientific inference from a theory you subscribe to.

I didn't say that. I said he backpedaled from Capital I, which is where I quoted the passage where he rrefers to iron laws of necessary inevitability in development which you interpret as non-deterministic by splicing in the word "tendency" yourself.

While I am an autist, I'm not arguing in bad faith, nor is my accurate characterization of Marxists inaccurate. Try having an argument instead.

Read your own posts. Besides smearing all "idealists" is par for the course. I'm referring to Marxists in general, the ones that actually mattered in history, you're nobody and nothing.
clearly marks the other page it takes it from, and that additional part wasn't even relevant.
You claimed it was a Leninist doctrine, not a Marxist one, yet you can't say why Engels is untrustworthy, how this would even make sense, why he said "WE" in that quote if Marx didn't like the term and so on. Just because he didn't specifically use those words in that exact combination doesn't mean it's not a reasonably accurate and widely accepted label. The way you're arguing about your "science" is funny as hell, so Marxism means complete devotion to Marx's original text? How is this even consistent with Marx? Besides, I don't see you going over the German.
You have it backwards, you're the one who has claimed it is a predictive, explanatory science, it's your doctrine, I've merely asked you to defend it on its own grounds, while granting many of its premises. You contradicted yourself by suggesting "Communism" as in the proletarian movement was actually just a wrong "political program", and have failed to back up the vast bulk of your own ramblings, haven't shown why the negation of Value-form, the germ of the entire system, is actually a positive account, whereas I had the courtesy to actually provide textual references.

That's not even what I said. Try contain yourself.

While I am a severe autist, how am I wrong?

don't underestimate feels

...

lmao

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

spiritual virility

Isn't that the whole point of philosophy? To find justification for shit?
It's not necessarily the ideologies that are spooks, but rather their fixed ideals.

He inspired Freda tho.

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

0/10

0/10
enterpreneurs are spooked as shit with the idea of Wealth

Easy to say when you're an aristocrat who hasn't fucking worked a day in his life. Fucking capitalists contribute more to society than these parasites.