Believing in historical materialism

Is there anything more philosophically illiterate than marxism?

Other urls found in this thread:


The CIA invented cultural-deleuzianism to undermine the marxist values of the west.

Marx never spoke of historical materialism, and his conception of history was everything but dualistic.

He conceived history of having one active part (material/class interest) with the rest being passive. How does this differ from dualism?

t. stalin

What the fuck is "the rest" even supposed to mean? What's more there than materiality?

In any case, yours is a gross oversimplification of the actual movements of the base/superstructure.

Everything material/class interest interacts with, which is innumerable.
Which is besides the point since the same fault can be found in the more sophisticated base/superstructure theory created to negate its own exceptions.

What the actual fuck? Even the most vulgar dialectical materialist would call bullshit on that. Read pdf related. It's everything you need to know about Marxist dialectics. Then come back.

This is a completely superfluous ontological doubling. In other words: you can't separate "class" from "the rest" – class doesn't exist outside from the rest of the world, it's not something that "acts upon" something from the "outside." You try to force a very silly understanding of materialism onto Marx. I bet Deleuze really did say something about this topic but you are too much of a brainlet to restate his argument, hence your genius thread.
These have the same substance. Marx didn't say, for instance, that the superstructure (state, religion, etc.) existed in the sphere of platonic ideas and the base in material realm.
What do you mean?

hegelian idelism and absctractism

"Everything else" plays, at best, second fiddle to materiality.

If, in my culture, we eat one head of cabbage every day, but a blight comes and cabbage won't grow anymore, we better change our culture pretty fast.

If in my language there is no word for "potato", but its the only staple crop that can grow, I better invent a word for it fast.

So on and so forth.

histmat != diamat

As much as I detest Anal Water, he did a good job on Deleuze:

But that's exactly what marxist do every time they say akshually, nationalism/sjw's/pol/idpol/whatever is the bourgoise/capitalism. Neither is this is a misreading of marx, marx himself flat-out stated that those who disagreed were merely doing so as a tactical act in service of their class interests.
But he did build his theory around the notion of there being one active participant with the rest being passive. That this active participant is not placed in another realm entirely changes nothing.
A classic example being marx's notion of the asiatic mode of production.

People need food, food is stuff, stuff is material, marxism is right!

The absolute state of Capitalists apologists.

brainlet status: confirmed

You got it famrade. I would point out that you also need to include the conditions and systems by which food is produced and distributed, but yeah, you got it.

Beyond a weak attempt at sarcasm, do you have even a single example of counterexample or even an argument?

>determination in the last instance by the (economic) mode of production; the relative autonomy of the superstructures and their specific effectivity

Deleuze, like most PoMos, went reactionary later in life.

It's really no secret as to why the far-right festers right as postmodernism festers. PoMo leaves a vacuum of intellect; it makes you skeptical of the existing world but it never tells you how the world actually is or gives you any hints to decipher it. That's why you have a paralyzed left which is too afraid to act on the basis they assume their actions will ultimately lead to evil ("we can't take to the streets because we're TOO WHITE!", etc.).

I rest my case:

I would expect a Deleuzian to post better than this. Guess they really are counterrevolutionary faggots.

I would have given an argument if your response indicated that you at least understood what I called philosophically illiterate, which is not that marxism places importance on material things, but that it renders one of those things active and all the others passive.

What does Althusser mean here with its bases?

And that's why y'all need jesus.

Christianity is what gave us idpol and a tremendously moralistic and passive "politic". "Just BELIEVE in Yeshu and your inherently sinful nature immediately changes!" Garbage.

But not believing in christianity doesn't tell you how you should actually live or how the world came into being.

Deleuze is seriously flawed on many fronts, yet he raises worthy criticisms, unique philo-models at other moments. That OP is an utter fag is not D.'s fault.

Thanks for not having read the whole text. It's always nice to "argue" against a brainlet who takes up positions against passages without understanding the whole context…

Anyway. By "bases" two things are meant: the determination in the last instance of the economy, and the current conjuncture. Let me extrapolate. The first means: culture develops relatively autonomously yet always in relation to the base, which is the economic mode of production. If you disagree with this, I'm eager to laugh at your counter model… The second means that at every moment we are in a brutally complex and interconnected historical moment (conjuncture) that has its possible openings, closings, and so on. While the former asserts the relative autonomy of culture (religion, state, law, mores, etc.) the second establishes the very limitations to it: material reality, which takes class relations between humans.

Read Althusser, you utter faggot, for fucks sake!

Here's a hint: Althusser is a better Spinozean Marxist than Deleuze!

I'm a practicing Jew. Our faith emphasizes belief *and* direct action, i.e. our actions are what enable the coming of Moshiach, not mere belief, not mere chance. Virtue for us isn't "looking innocent" but doing what HaShem wants us to do by any means necessary.

For someone whose reading skills are so abysmal that he doesn't understand the difference between a request for clarification and the taking of a position against a certain passage, you are quite haughty.
The same goes for gravity, geography, climate, genes and an innumerable amount of other things, much as I already said, unless you're agreeing with me, I don't see your point.

How many foreskins does make the moshiach?


I think you have the causality backwards. The left fails to do anything first, and points to lack of purity as the reason afterwards.

Idpol, like Xtianity, emphasizes passivity, innocence above action, putting all your faith in something outside of you to "redeem" you because you are so evil, etc. Badiou himself isn't much of a theologian and sometimes falls into idpol himself. Besides, "universalism" for this board has nothing to do with muh St. Paul, but is a catch-all for belittling any issue which isn't straightforwards economic (women's issues, race issues, and so on).

It's also funny since Paul actually said redemption comes from the Jews…

imagine being this deluzian brainlet who argues that in marx's materialism class and everything else are separate, mein gott how does one even conceive of such a pathetic ontology



Something I thought Deleuze gave credence to in A Thousand Plateaus, or was that more a Guatarian section? Quoting because I find this extremely fascinating, on Apparatuses of Capture

We shall call the first pole of capture imperial or despotic. It corresponds to Marx's Asiatic formation. Archaeology discovers it everywhere, often lost in oblivion, at the horizon of all systems or States—not only in Asia, but also in Africa, America, Greece, Rome. Immemorial Urstaat, dating as far back as Neolithic times, and perhaps farther still. Following the Marxist description: a State apparatus is erected upon the primitive agricultural communities, which already have lineal-territorial codes; but it overcodes them, submitting them to the power of a despotic emperor, the sole and transcendent public property owner, the master of the surplus or the stock, the organizer of large-scale works (surplus labor), the source of public functions
and bureaucracy. This is the paradigm of the bond, the knot. Such is the regime of signs of the State: overcoding, or the Signifier. It is a system of machinic enslavement: the first "megamachine" in the strict sense, to use Mumford's term. A prodigious success in a single stroke; other States will be mere runts measured against this model. The emperor-despot is not a king or a tyrant; these will come into existence only as a function of private property once it has arisen. In the imperial regime, everything is public: ownership of land is communal, each individual is an owner only insofar as he or she is a member of the community; the eminent property of the despot
is that of the supposed Unity of the communities; and the functionaries themselves have land only if it comes with their position (although the position may be hereditary). Money may exist, notably in the form of the tax that the functionaries owe the emperor, but it is not used for buying-selling, since land does not exist as an alienable commodity. This is the regime of the nexum, the bond: something is lent or even given without a transfer of ownership, without private appropriation, and the compensation for it does not come in the form of interest or profit for the donor but rather as a "rent" that accrues to him, accompanying the lending of something for another's use or the granting of revenue.
Marx, the historian, and Childe, the archaeologist, are in agreement on the following point: the archaic imperial State, which steps in to overcode agricultural communities, presupposes at least a certain level of development of these communities' productive forces since there must be a potential surplus capable of constituting a State stock, of supporting a specialized handicrafts class (metallurgy), and of progressively giving rise to public functions. That is why Marx links the archaic State to a certain "mode of production." However, the origin of these Neolithic States is still being pushed back in time. What is at issue when the existence of
near-Paleolithic empires is conjectured is not simply the quantity of time; the qualitative problem changes. Catal Hiiyiik, in Anatolia, makes possible a singularly reinforced imperial paradigm: it is a stock of
uncultivated seeds and relatively tame animals from different territories that performs, and makes it possible to perform, at first by chance, hybridizations and selections from which agriculture and small-scale animal raising arise. It is easy to see the significance of this change in the givens of the problem. It is no longer the stock that presupposes a potential surplus, but the other way around. It is no longer the State that presupposes advanced agricultural communities and developed forces of production. On the contrary, the State is established directly in a milieu of hunter-gatherers having no prior agriculture or metallurgy, and it is the State that creates agriculture, animal raising, and metallurgy; it does so first on its own soil, then imposes them upon the surrounding world. It is not the country that progressively creates the town but the town that creates the country. It is not the State that presupposes a mode of production; quite the opposite, it is the State that makes production a "mode."