Philosophical and historical recommendations to improve your dialectics

elaborate

Only actual advice in this thread so far. Read this kids, it will change your life!

During his breakdown he wrote a memoir where he said he felt like a fraud for not reading nearly as much as he should have. He wasn't making shit up.

בואי לישראל חיה, אני יעשה לך מצווה.

He didn't so much "make shit up" as much as he tried tweaking Marxism in order to make a defense of Mao and Mao Zedong Thought, insisting that the Hegelian elements of Marx's method be removed and replaced by Spinoza and also Bachelard (Althusser's teacher); Mao's monism has a lot of overlap with Spinoza.

Here, we read one of Althusser's essays where we mentioned this very thing.
youtu.be/UHjeCLHaKLc?t=1h17m23s

I don't want to live in a police state, but thank you anyway.

Reminder:
Do not post in Chaya threads
Do not respond to Chaya

...

mein gott

Hegel is tainted by romanticism and is of secondary interest beyond dialectics, which can be intuitively grasped through Marx and Spinoza already while Kant provides the important refutation of metaphysics, spooks and all the idealism you'll ever need, which is just faith in dialectics anyway.

Literally any book written by a specific ethno-religious tribe of Semitic origins during the 1800s and early 1900s dealing with achieving equality and justice for all through utopian economic ideology enforced by a central authority.

Also try looking for books that focus heavily on agricultural and early-industrial economies. These are still very relevant even though the information age is about to peak and capitalism was ditched in favor of hegemonic corporatism over 70 years ago.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I want to marry Khaya

You can't grasp Marx's methodology unless you have some understanding of Hegel.

You either don't know what romanticism is, or you're ignorant of Hegel completely. Hegel despised the romantics and attacked people for thinking feels over reals, and he also attacked abstraction.

Know that Chaya is NOT a meterialist, and take the posts with a grain of salt for your mental health.

Spinoza is not a dialectical philosopher. There are really good grounds for thinking that the acosmist interpretation of Spinoza the German Idealist had (excluding Kant) is wrong and that Substance is maximally determined and not indeterminable. It leads to Deleuze if anything.

And you wonder why people think communists are just a larping cult.

Spinoza is the ultimate philosopher of identity, Deleuze can only claim part of him as a precursor to him.

But being a philosopher of identity is not the same as being a dialectician. Doesn't substance being immanent make its way into Deleuze as well?

Here, let me rephrase for you, dickhead. Chaya is a NOTORIOUS shit poster who repeatedly and consistently makes shitty takes on materialism, and is now citing books about materialism. It is fishy,and you can take your cult nonsense and shove it up your ass, prove materialism wrong and I'll consider idealism. Instead you have to immediately appeal to some ignorance on behalf of Marxists, because you do not have any arguments.

Shut the fuck up, AW.

Spinoza indeed was no dialectician.

Were they linking those books (which all are by reputable theorists) to prove that materialism is inferior to idealism? Seemed like just sharing books.

You know, Anal Water, we're all aware you respond to yourself as much if not more than Chaya does.

My point was that someone that doesn't understand materialism probably doesn't recommend good books about materialism, and that thusly should be taken with a grain of salt, as my original post said.
God I hate name fags so much.

I think Marx does some decent dialectics in his Grundrisse early chapter on production and consumption.

There also exists a "Lesser Logic" by Hegel which seems way better than slogging through Science of Logic.