Bad mouse productions history of anarchism video

...

That's because you're a filthy Leninist.
jk
Go tell Rebel to make more shit. The atmosphere seems to be getting better and he's good at it. I know he's frustrated with rhetoric and all the ungrounded human nonsense, but tell him to see it as a sacrifice or something.

well idk he says he dosnt enjoy making videos anymore so what can you do. I have tried to convince him to keep doing it but honestly not as hard as I could of.

Maybe I will shout at him again next time I see him.

Show me how could you'd be as a leader and inspire him.

Needs more riotporn and someone who actually opens their mouth when they speak.

And he needs to slow down.

Ehh, it was fun though. I think that was the point.

Also PKK != Rojava, and Rebel is not a Marxist.

Yes he is

No.

I guess it's enjoyable for anarchists who already know their history, otherwise it's just confusing.

haha, what part is confusing?

rebel has said that he was closest to libertarian marxism

Rebel says retarded shit all the time.

The point is that it wouldn't be inaccurate to describe him as a Marxist.

I have spoken to him about this multiple times before.

While he would prefer to be a special snowflake about things, if you push him on it he admits he's a marxist.

But it is. Just because he claims to be one does not make him one. He knows absolutely nothing of Marxism and couldn't do Marxist analysis even if his life depended on it. He's not even a materialist!

Would you consider him to be your friend? How close are you dudes?

Rebel, except when he's shitposting, really isn't that bad. He adds more than the average user

bunkerfags: because every thing needs to be a circlejerk dickstroking contest

Nice tripfag-bias.

Well, fine. I wouldn't be able to know how the average user posts, but I'm just saying that he really isn't that bad. Yui actually adds shit especially on philosophy

This is why we need political comissars: to hit people with Das Kapital until they stop saying dumb things.

Rebel has also said that Materialism is just a flavor of Idealism.

How can people take this shitposter seriously? Close to libertarian marxism, mein gott.

And this is why comissars carry guns.

> tfw I realize that Holla Forums can trigger me harder than Holla Forums

After agreeing with an AnCom poster this week, I am agreeing with Moustache Man too

Can we unite the Left under the banner "Fuck Rebel"?

profs

Sorry for newfag question, but who's Rebel?

nobody important

Someone who browses leftypol and makes youtube videos: youtube.com/channel/UC_ype-eZhPCvAI4DDiilZjA

yfw your views are closer to Holla Forums's than Holla Forums's

why the fuck do we even endorse rebel at this point? He is a highschool philosopher, could we even say he is a socialist? He is just an idealist.

A. W. offered a pretty salient point about this which went ignored because Holla Forums wants to remain naïve realists and appeal to Randist """""objectivity"""""

'Materialism is an idealism, lads. Why? As Hegel points out in his lectures on the history of philosophy ALL philosophical positions are >de facto idealist< by putting forth concepts purporting to penetrate into the truth of the world and making it intelligible. If you can say "matter is " you've overstepped the realm of the empirical, which is nothing but appearances without thought determinations. To say there is a concept of the material, the physical, etc. is to already fall right back into what everyone who hates Plato claims to be climbing away from, you're right back to the forms of reality.
Marx tries to be to Hegel as Aristotle was to Plato: they bring the universal forms back into unity with matter. Problem is that Hegel basically already did that and Marx didn't really do much except flesh out one of those specific concepts, particularly the concept of the economy of capital as such.'

Materialism is not idealism. And idealism is not materialism. Knowledge, reason, or even "thinking about things" isn't "idealism".

>"As Hegel points out in his lectures on the history of philosophy ALL philosophical positions are >de facto idealist< by putting forth concepts purporting to penetrate into the truth of the world and making it intelligible."

It's not salient. Even through a quick read of The German Ideology you will see how Marx's position has nothing in common with Hegel. And Hegel's followers, too.

I disagree with rebel on a lot of things but he's a good youtuber and undoubtedly a leftist.

Because like Rebel he redefined materialism.

...

>If you can say "matter is " you've overstepped the realm of the empirical

When you say "there is a pen on this table" you make an educated guess that there is objective reality you are talking about, seeing as past assumptions of an external objective self-consistent reality have worked out alright. This is literally how babies learn objects exist when they can't see them, gradually resolving patterns through repeated experiences.

You can't just say that "there is a pen on this table", user!

That's literally a flavour of materialism

how can he be a leftist in any political sense? How would he enact socialism, with his objections to materialism?

Philosophy and theory is irrelevant if it cannot be put to practice, this goes for Marx as well.

If you don't put your knowledge to practice, and worse if you can't put your knowledge to practice, your theory is irrelevant.

Guessing is idealism, though.

You're agreeing with Hegel to say" to generalize means to think" but then you don't even go the full step and still want to say you have direct access to the absolute without forms. God is only God insofar as he knows himself and so on.

Falsifiability is a philosophical concept.

As to the rest, A. W. already responded too:
'You are indeed a grade A retard. Reality and existence are two different terms in philosophy for specific purposes, illusions of things exist, yet they are not real.
Your point about science, and the physical, is actually an >ideal< realization that never can be derived from experience. The reality of matter, the intelligibility, is actually not something gained from sense experience. Science has come basically nowhere after Plato, you ignore that Plato himself thought matter was eternal alongside the forms, it is real, but in virtue of the knowledge of its form.

Empirical science deals with what exists and makes claims about reality. In order to make claims about reality you must see into the necessary nature of what you speak of. Matter as mere matter without form is not empirical, fields as mere fields are not empirical, forces, etc. These are all ideas, literally the very forms Plato talked about in another name. Science today is ridiculously idealist in the worst way.'

Well he's a socialist in the sense that he wants the workers to own the means of production.

I already knew the history but you just flash up names and texts for half seconds, it's very hard to follow unless you are already familiar with it.

oh, so he wants them to own the means of production in some abstract notion, while denouncing the actual systems of ownership of the MoP or even the very revolutionary theory of acquiring the MoP?

Get the fuck out of here, idealism has no place in the left since Marx wrote his thesis. It was historically progressive for it's time, which was the 17th and 18th century, but that is where it should stay.

Guessing is literally the basis of empiricism.

Any criticism of it by Idealists on other grounds misunderstand what empiricism actually is.

...

Well, maybe not summary execution, but at least 10 years in Siberia. He actually did read something, but … … I have no words.

Either he doesn't understand Materialism/Idealism or he had read some retarded "reimagining" of DiaMat (and we have plenty of those).

> 'Materialism is an idealism, lads. Why? As Hegel points out in his lectures on the history of philosophy ALL philosophical positions are >de facto idealist< by putting forth concepts purporting to penetrate into the truth of the world and making it intelligible.
I'm not sure about that. Idealism is primarily an attitude, rather than a specific philosophical system.

> If you can say "matter is " you've overstepped the realm of the empirical, which is nothing but appearances without thought determinations. To say there is a concept of the material, the physical, etc. is to already fall right back into what everyone who hates Plato claims to be climbing away from, you're right back to the forms of reality.
No. No-no-no. Nope.

This implies that we can't handle context.

But we can make statements of formal logic without going full idealist because we have underlying assumption "this statement is true, given those conditions and interpreted this way".

If we say "sky is blue" we don't mean "it is eternal and immanent quality of the sky". We mean that the current sky (the one over our heads right now) looks blue to us. There is a specific context, even if it is unspoken.

I feel like you're trying to debate idealism vs materialism with me when it's rebel who you should be talking to. I'm just saying he wants the workers to own the means of production, therefore he is a socialist.

Sense experience is how we DEFINE reality. AW is a retard masturbating over semantics.

I am more baffled that a 'leninist' could support an idealist in any light.

He's just a LARPer, never read a single book by Lenin.

So your criticism of subjectivists are that they weren't subjective enough in the other fields

wait, xexizy is that you?
Have you even fucking finished state and revolution yet m8?
You do realize that calling yourself a leninist, without understanding any of the core tenants of marxism-leninism is no better than idpol? Actually, it is a brand of idpol widely practiced on Holla Forums, but not recognized on idpol.
You are literally just identifying as a leninist and doing nothing else, you are a disgrace.

Well, Zizek likes to point out that when Lenin saw the failure of the German Rev. and the Mongolian Rev, he isolated himself and read only Hegel for a long period of time.

Then he came back and became literally "Materialism 2: It's time for Praxis".

from my perspective lenin probably had some idealist leanings, despite his understanding of marxism. He probably analyzed this idealism trough a materialist perspective trough the readings of hegel.
That is my perspective on things, I have done this before, not with hegel though.

A conditional such as this is something that relies on a form and presents it to be verified. To say this is idealism is not to say you can't into context and the environments which one's sense experience is derived from, but rather to say you can't into text at all. Formal logical analysis can only go up to a point of what fundamentally is, that is what is within context of its study. For example, mechanics, which can plot the movement of two bodies under the influence of each other's gravity, but even in the case of three bodies does not allow analytical solution, let alone in the case of a large system. Formal logic cannot in principle comprehend the transition from one to the other. Dialectical logic provides the only system of concepts adequate to this task of comprehending the transition, the leap of faith.

No, my criticism is that they are not objective enough.

This post has made the most sense to me so far.

fight me faggot, have you even read a book by lenin?

What? Where is this coming from? I'm just trying to defend someone, what you're talking about in unrelated.

For the record though, I have read state and revolution, essays and I'm currently reading revolution at the gates. Even without reading any of thoes though, judging by the fact you just said I need to understand ML'ism to understand Leninism, I can probably say I know more theory than you.

kek

read the right of nations to self-determination by lenin, also read imperialism the highest stage of capitalism and lenin's chosen works.
Then you can say you are a political leninist.

There is no Lenin without Marx faggo, sorry if this name triggers you too much to identify as one.
You can either be a marxist-leninist or an illiterate if you claim you are a 'leninist'.

not the user you're replying to

Good choice. I even recommend "A Plea for Leninist Intolerance", by Zizkek too.

But they are. M-L is product of Papa Stalin, and Leninism is just a return to the original - without the middle-moustache-man involvement

ML'ism is about the non-democratic vanguards though. Leninism is very much about democracy.

Yeah, Lenin proved that when the gave all power to the soviets… wait.

Fuck off anarchkiddie.

...

Do we have a random word generator for this or is it natural talent?

Okay, now I'd like some proof on this.

Well, I thought it was just kinda common knowledge that ML'ism was basically Stalinism. If you're going by different definitions then fair enough.

As for Leninism being about democracy though…well just read State and Revolution.

No. Don't you see? Language is a multiplicity of things which logicians can never capture. Trying to advance a priori theses is a temptation which lures those philosophers. But the real task of philosophy is both to make us aware of the temptation and to show us how to overcome it.

Well, yeah. You could say Stalinism = ML.

But then you go and find some kind of different Leninism, that is not ML and directly opposes it. This part is the one that I can't agree with without some concrete evidence.

Granted, Lenin wrote a damn lot and you could find practically anything there, but still. That's a big claim.

No. I don't see what "Materialism=Idealism" has to do with any of this.

He's a true disciple of Hegel.

Nah. This post is almost readable. Hegel's an instant brainfreeze. Practically scigen of 19th century.

Besides, Hegel had only one true disciple and even he distorted his works.