What went wrong?

LeftCom without praxis is liberalism. LeftCom with praxis is Leninism.

I have a feeling he'd be more liked if he did

Just Americans. I can't think of any other explanation.
How do you go from being an orthodox-marxist to a Hillbot?

see and

Retarded. LeftComs are revolutionaries. THey are not liberals. You're thinking of SocDems.

[citation needed]

Isn't he friends with Andrew Kliman, who is a giant Zionist?

I sleep
REAL SHIT

Kliman is shit TBH.

Humanism

You're right on the Hegel' canon of the development of history; however, to best understand it's development is that it functions, not as a description of the ideal body politic, which would entail service to each of the subsequent developmental stages of capitalism, but rather only as a framework for the development towards the non-symbolic subject. Attempting to sublimate Hegel into a subject of some material necessity will fall decidedly short. Remember that we are afforded a myriad of potential subjectivities in response to the objective conditions of life, to assume such a narrow ideological interpretation of Hegelianism would no doubt yield no recourse but indictment - the statement on the development of the philosophy of history is not a philosophical truth, nor a suture (in the canon of Badiou), but rather an intellectual intervention in what conditions are necessary to dissolve the bonds of capital, both physical and pathological.

Fuck off Anal Water.

Eat the whole potential existence of my ass, Anal Water isn't a Marxist, and I'm not a strict Hegelian.

Whatever you say AW. Your lack of a handle says nothing.

Didn't EasternMarxist go from ancap to gommie to neolib?

Anyway, leftytrash is that way.

Well, AW shilled anti-marxism - I only promoted marxist philosophers. He also never started arguing without his trip shit on and then pretended to be anonymous to support himself. Given your paranoia and his pseud shit, you're both equal parts retard and patsy

I see you're trying hard to hide with the little bit you learned from your Marcuse reading. Must suck to hate leftypol so much yet be this much addicted to us, eh A.W.? You even sprinkled some pseudo-Lacanian buzz words to throw people off your trail.

this is too good

I remember how Roo used to plagiarize Brendan as well, wayyy back when he made his own little series on economics (this was 2010). He verbatim repeated Brendan's videos and passed them off as his original work, similar to what he did with WSWS articles.

Platypus isn't a monolith.

I mean, it's no big difference. One is where you advocate for a large and existing movement, the other is when you are a leftcom and try to will it in your mind.

But isn't the bare minimum difference between Young Marx and Mature Marx the Hegelianism, and therefore Humanism and Liberalism, of the Young Marx? Supposedly what makes the Mature Marx "mature" is his eventual outgrowing of Hegelianism, the finally fully Materialist analysis offered in Das Capital and the Gotha Program.

Says the cultural essentialist tripfag

lmao no

Marx never attempts, however, to fully sublimate the ideological juncture of capitalism into his critique, but, as Althusser says, he has indeed laid the groundwork for the theoretical vivisection of capitalist ideology. You are absolutely right in the recognition of the epistemological break in Marx that denotes the departure from his earlier Humanism, but Marx never fully encapsulates a post-Hegelian transcendentalist (and any accusations that Marx was becoming of idealism is bullshit anyhow) nor what Lenin would later be accused of (vulgar materialism, an irksome accusation that disturbs the otherwise neat formulae for the relation of materialism to ideology in an analytic sense). Marx does make note of, what is quite impressive in a pre-Freudian sense, the relation of the 19th century proletariat to the dominant ideology as "They know not what they are doing and yet nonetheless they are doing it" which, though remaining partially accurate, does not account for the stranglehold of capitalist ideology now that all of the loathsome truths have appeared, such that the Lacanian development on the Marxian theory of ideology is precisely that we are not object to capitalist ideology, but that we are bastardized subject - so to say. This mainly serves only as a means of orienting ourselves in relation to an autonomous pathology - the symbolic order - which we are, so we say, sworn to abolish, per Engels. I resent this kind of accusation ofttimes visited upon me that this manner of "intellectualization" of the material is a veiled attempt to eclipse Marxian materialism. Hardly, I have always and will always recognize the Marxist assertion as the only means of dispensing of the capitalist inertia, I just don't get what the huge deal is on discussing the works or writings of some of these philosophers, who are some of the most ardent communists of historical record, noting of course, pace tankies, that a true revolutionary is suspicious of the result of their revolution - not in an ideological manner, as the result of an extra-systemic threat, but rather an existent dread that the power of the common weal might be used to supplant the new power with one subservient to the contours of the old power.

Forgive my speech or any errors, English is not my first language

These are good effort posts, and thank you for the reply. I don't see why you're being accused of being AW when you seem more like a hardline Althusserian.

The pleasure is mine, friend! I somewhat understand it, as AW seemed to appear whenever Hegel was mentioned, and I appeared to defend Hegel as the historical origin of Marxism, but the paranoia surrounding him seems excessive for one bothersome tripfag

Explain yourself.

Not to derail this thread too much, but I'm always happy to encounter a real, live theoryfag on this board. Althusser and Bataille are the next two thinkers I'm interested in reading and engaging with, do you have any recommendations on good entry points or how to approach their ideas?

Forgive me being so late, tired after work. For Althusser, I'd start with "On the Reproduction of Capitalism" before moving on to "Philosophy & The Spontaneous Philosophy of The Scientists", from there go on as you please, but 'For Marx' and 'Reading Capital' are both fantastic. For Bataille, I confess I'm not particularly well acquainted with his work except as a progenitor for some of the developments on the spontaneous encounter which Althusser wrote on, but he also wrote on 'base materialism' which is all antiphilosophical in its positing a unique and unassailable value beyond cognition BUT it did end up being an important part of the development of Lacan, in his sorties against established materialism.

I can't tell if that's better or worse than Rebel becoming a fascist tradwife (male)

i see nothing wrong with the notion of progress, as long as destruction of state and capital lies on the path

Year of Our Lord 2017 in a nutshell

He's a Zionist. That's all you need to know.

You say this like it's a bad thing, but in you kinda argue along this same line when you say
Is there some nuance that I'm missing, or are you just telling the user you're replying to about the extent of your knowledge of Bataille? It's not really clear tbh

So wait - what's the difference between Base Materialism and Aleatory Materialism?

Humanism is a mental disease

In the note on Engels, it was a comment on the Communist objective being the "abolishing of the present state of things" - which isn't a deterministic or essential value, rather, per Lacan, it is a remarkably pessimistic note on just the extent that must be done to fully uproot the autonomous pathologies of capitalist ideology. I really was testing the boundaries there of deductive connections, as outside of minor asides and essays on the Lacanian/Althusserian connection, I am very shaky in my relation to Bataille - I really must read more of him.

Simply with regards to their nomenclature, and my limited knowledge of the former, it would denote the difference between a pre-cognitive value, essential value (think Kantian limit of reason) to items, somewhat like the pantheistic materialism (monism) of Spinoza, while Aleatory Materialism is more closely related to the idea of material practice being ground in a void of meaning - that reality must appear to itself in such a manner as to create value and meaning, and this is a means of interpellation within the existent order. The void exists nonetheless, and this is the nascent point of the ontology of the set, as well as the Freudian connection (Zizek is quite fond of its inclusion), and these are what ground the idea that ideology must function within the negativities of the void, by suggesting itself through either positive assertion or power to be the only sublime order of the real, the closest human contact with our own truth, our own reality.

Not sure if this will help, but:
youtube.com/watch?v=YwCKRW1VJVE

It may just be my tendency, but I am deeply suspicious of this analysis, if only because the aim appears to be, rather than the ontology of the one (that of the dominant or existent order), the ontology of the multiple, which is that which sets the human discursive limit at that essential and elusive "true" self that must be attained through critique, the proper and ordered ego so to say. I disagree vehemently with this, and while I commend that tendency that critiques ideology, the idea that we reach for an essential, extra-cognitive solution leaves us with the solution that we can mediate our anxieties within the dominant system, so long as we are afforded our subjectivities (precisely the apex of postmodern capitalist ideology!). What is to be taken from this "contact with the void" is not some spurious conceptualization of the ideal, that utopian herring, but that we must establish a new universality, contingent not on the multiple (which we are aware is reliant on the order of the One), but rather on "the One is not" - or as Žižek would say, "There is no Big Other, we are alone".

Not him, but I've never liked her videos. She treats Bataille like a mystic, but not in a good way. The way she reads Bataille is almost the inverse of the way Bataille reads Nietzsche tbh

She does unironically believe in shamanism, so no surprise there

what's your tendency?

Oh, I mean tendency as in habit, I tend to be suspicious. But I am a milquetoast commie I suppose, of some sort

dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/althusserreview.pdf

Trump is hitler light but never seen this guys videos so ill leave no comment.

...

lmao HUMANISTS AND LEFTCOMS btfo, as if this day couldn't get any better

this

Thanks.

at least he didn't upload anything after he became shit

Kliman has done a lot of good work in clearing up misconceptions and adulterations of Marx, especially regarding Marx's economic critique. As for his alleged Zionism, this is the first I've heard of this, and it seems to me highly unlikely.

On the other hand, I was honestly quite surprised during the US elections how rabidly anti-Trump he (and by extension the whole MHI) became, although I'm pretty sure he never became a Hillary supporter. As for Cooney, his videos are generally quite good, although he too followed suit regarding the Trump paranoia. I haven't seen any of his recent activity, though, so I'm a bit out of the loop regarding his alleged Hillary support.

I've been wondering as well as to how come these Marxist-Humanists, unlike most other "leftcoms" (in a broad sense), fell for the anti-Trump frenzy. The only possible explanation seems to me to be . My understanding of Marxist-Humanism was that they tend to emphasize the humanist aspects of Marx, especially in his earlier writings. But how does this manifest itself as a distinguishing feature of those tendencies? Perhaps the Marxists-Humanists are drawn towards it because of some inner desire to combine their politics with an ethical system (for that is what humanism is) that places ultimate value on human life and decency, but the issue with having such a merger of ethics and politics is that one seems to end up viewing political issues in terms of good vs. evil, which can then cause one's political positions to become colored by one's perception of the "goodness" or "evilness" of a situation (such as Trump's election). Anyway, that's just sort of my speculation on the matter.