Hello, Holla Forums

Mussolini didnt think tho

Where are we, 1940's America?

Start making an argument any time.

Interesting how you didn't respond to anyone in this thread with anything other than "hurr durr no I'm right"

Your old way of thinking about workers and middle class is meaningless in the west. The middle class today are the professional class (doctors, bankers, lawyers). Everyone else is pleb tier. In fact most of the things left/pol/ considers fascist today have been supported by the native working class overwhelmingly (pegida, UKIP, Trump). Maybe it is yourself who has lost touch with them or changed. Leftists know they've lost appeal to native working class all across the west. This is why you pander to minorities.

Nope, still not hearing an argument

no ty you can keep them; we're already over-encumbered with useless idiots in the form of post-modernists, anarkiddies and left-liberals, although you're free to kill them for us.

There's no point. You'll just start nit-picking definition, drag the subject over to theory then claim victory cause nobody outside of this torture chamber gives two fucks about outside of here.

so that's no for making an argument then lol

t. someone who thinks marx wasn't a materialist

Fascists are dumber than they look.

...

We don't reject materialism. It is the very core of any reasonable effort whatsoever to make socialism scientific rather than utopian. SJW and postmodern poison is precisely the rejection of materialism and any attempt to scientifically diagnose the problem of social liberation.

If you depend on selling your labor in any capacity for survival, security, comfort, and access to culture and entertainment, you are part of the proletariat.
If you do not need to work by virtue of the capital you hold, which generates enough wealth to satisfy these needs without any input of your own labor, you are part of the bourgeoisie.
Obviously there are more flavors of proletarian in modern society than "le meme industrial worker." One must apply these definitions correctly and technically, rather than along aesthetic lines as you do, to understand Marxist theory.
Agreed. They have a clear material incentive to do so. There is a natural identity of interest along the lines of nationality (immigration is a benefit to the immigrant and detriment to the native working class in the form of depressed wages, bargaining power, greater competition and more monopsynistic labor markets. This tends towards an equilibrium, where immigration and emigration should be roughly equal once things have been shitted up sufficiently that material conditions for workers in both countries are equal) but this shared interest is one that emerges as a result of capitalism as a global system whereby capital has the incentive to scour the globe for the cheapest labor, offshoring and admitting immigrants to achieve this.
Trump proposes to treat the symptoms of capitalism and not their causes. Fascism has a natural historical role employed as a failsafe alongside and after the standard pressure valve given by the welfare state. It is a last-ditch attempt by the bourgeoisie to offer a major sacrifice to appease mass discontent while keeping themselves functionally in power.

Materialism is kinda THE thing that is inherent part of Marxism. Which is why Christian "Communists" are so butthurt about DiaMat and always run back to Hegelian torture chamber to calm themselves.

You. You don't have a say here. You wouldn't know what Materialism is even if it bites you in the ass. Well, unless its Historical Materialism, but even that I wouldn't hold my breath for.

O-kay. Word filter.

I think I'll petition to add Cultural Marxism to the list.

Anything I say will be dragged towards (((theory))).

So who is this middle class that supports fascism then?

Petit-bourgeoisie?

The ones who own enough not to get exploited (i.e. own their own means of production), but not enough to go full-capitalist and start massively exploiting others.

They want status quo above all else (which is why they support the most conservative movements they can), but they can provide only feeble resistance to the march of progress (capitalism in this case).

Good goy

You've been having a hissy fit all over the board because some Hegelian said that Dialectical Materialism isn't as ground-breaking as Marx thought it was?

Chill your autism fam. I said I accepted it as a valid method.

Except for a vocal minority (heh) this board categorically rejects the identity politics of the bourgeois pseudo-left. They form a device of class rule. Demonizing the white male and casting him as the oppressor comes at the direct expense of correctly diagnosing the crisis of capitalism. It is expressly designed to obfuscate the true problem of class rule.

I'm not

Master race in action, folks.

I doubt the master race can even read tbh.

After all they are all aliens from Atlantis.

I believe I asked some of our Hegelians (ChristCom, AW, Yui, and some others) what does exactly Marx's Materialism stand for and never got a proper answer.

But that was it. I wasn't the only one who was talking to them.

.. a-a-and I don't know who you are or what are you referring to.

Also: hugbох, torture chamber, hugbоx

You are inquiring them for an answer…

Are you the Stalinist poster that said that taxation are equivalent to ownership?

If yes, I don't think anyone has to answer anything to you. Honestly.

You know who I am :^)

"What does Marx's materialism stand for" is a stupid question namely because it doesn't into English. How can an ideology on metaphysics stand for something?

What I think you mean is what is the difference between Marx's materialism and dialectical idealism, which I already answered by telling you Dialectical Materialism assumes that spirit comes from matter, whereas dialectical idealism suggests matter comes from spirit.

But to call it a materialist system is gay and fundamentally misunderstands the points of Hegelian dialectics not to be confused, as you keep doing, with dialectical idealism which bridges the rational and the real.

Hence "the rational is the real and the real is the rational".

this tbh.

Just quit your 3 day hissy fit because someone isn't a raging materialist Marx worshipper mkay?

Not a more direct threat, rather a direct consequence of capitalism

I have a dialectical movement every morning after my coffee tbh

Try some more dialogic, it does wonders for your lats and general health

What is best for gains, Rebel? specially in the butt region

The idea is not to interpret, but to change. Practical application, yes.

Ideology is not limited to method and theory. It also has an intent. Scientific Socialism (as opposed to Utopian Socialism), if we take Marxism in general.

But, yeah. I got carried away a bit there.

But that is not correct. It's a butchered phrase without context. It doesn't even try to explain the specific consequences of this.

squats of course!
Feels good to be an ex-/fit/izen

But this doesn't fit with recent polling. Those you describe (essentially the same people as I mentioned above) vote for the neo-liberal status-quo where those below them know this neo-liberal BS hurts them and so vote against it.

Not equivalent, but is part of.

You can't pretend that untaxed property and the property that is taxed are equally yours.

In the latter case your right to own is ''conditional'. If you stop paying kickbacks to state (basically, rent), you'll face fines and if you fail to comply, you will no longer own this property. It will be confiscated.

How hard could it be to grasp this concept?

But that is correct, wasn't it you who posted that image about the trees explaining the difference?

It has very simple context.
Dialectical materialism = Spirit, that is, ideas within society, ideologies etc, comes from the material relations within the society.

It's a fine method for Marxian analysis, but in the end matter is still mediated by spirit, simply using the Cartesian method shows this.

And don't worry about it, just relax on the attitude a bit

What doesn't?

I wasn't the one you were talking to. I simply put explanation for middle class and it's ties to fascism. Also, what makes you think neo-liberals aren't fascist?

...

Ostarine gave me my dream steelworker body tbh
Ready for the revolution OR the beach.

No. You're wrong, because see: even if Ford is taxed by my country, I am not a co-owned of it. I do not get a share of the profits, nor a share of the surplus-value exploited.

...

Nope. Don't remember any trees. I repeat: there is more than one person not happy with Hegelians. I went in, asked a few question and left.

What got me triggered last time was some AnCap's attempt to marry Socialism and Capitalism under the guidance of Orthodox Church.

The idea that superstructure (culture, ideas) comes from basis (economical relations) is historical materialism. That's a very different thing.

And you lost me.

Lets get Althusser in this, then.

"It is possible to say that the floors of the superstructure are not determinant in the last instance, but that they are determined by the effectivity of the base; that if they are determinant in their own (as yet undefined) ways, this is true only insofar as they are determined by the base.

Their index of effectivity (or determination), as determined by the determination in the last instance of the base, is thought by the Marxist tradition in two ways: (1) there is a ‘relative autonomy’ of the superstructure with respect to the base; (2) there is a ‘reciprocal action’ of the superstructure on the base.

We can therefore say that the great theoretical advantage of the Marxist topography, i.e. of the spatial metaphor of the edifice (base and superstructure) is simultaneously that it reveals that questions of determination (or of index of effectivity) are crucial; that it reveals that it is the base which in the last instance determines the whole edifice; and that, as a consequence, it obliges us to pose the theoretical problem of the types of ‘derivatory’ effectivity peculiar to the superstructure, i.e. it obliges us to think what the Marxist tradition calls conjointly the relative autonomy of the superstructure and the reciprocal action of the superstructure on the base.

The greatest disadvantage of this representation of the structure of every society by the spatial metaphor of an edifice, is obviously the fact that it is metaphorical: i.e. it remains descriptive." […]

"If these few schematic theses allow me to illuminate certain aspects of the functioning of the Superstructure and its mode of intervention in the Infrastructure, they are obviously abstract and necessarily leave several important problems unanswered, which should be mentioned:

1. The problem of the total process of the realization of the reproduction of the relations of production.

As an element of this process, the ISAs contribute to this reproduction. But the point of view of their contribution alone is still an abstract one.

It is only within the processes of production and circulation that this reproduction is realized. It is realized by the mechanisms of those processes, in which the training of the workers is ‘completed’, their posts assigned them, etc. It is in the internal mechanisms of these processes that the effect of the different ideologies is felt (above all the effect of legal-ethical ideology).

But this point of view is still an abstract one. For in a class society the relations of production are relations of exploitation, and therefore relations between antagonistic classes. The reproduction of the relations of production, the ultimate aim of the ruling class, cannot therefore be a merely technical operation training and distributing individuals for the different posts in the ‘technical division’ of labour. In fact there is no ‘technical division’ of labour except in the ideology of the ruling class: every ‘technical’ division, every ‘technical’ organization of labour is the form and mask of a social (= class) division and organization of labour. The reproduction of the relations of production can therefore only be a class undertaking. It is realized through a class struggle which counterposes the ruling class and the exploited class.

The total process of the realization of the reproduction of the relations of production is therefore still abstract, insofar as it has not adopted the point of view of this class struggle. To adopt the point of view of reproduction is therefore in the last instance, to adopt the point of view of the class struggle." […]

Fool me once, Von Ribbentrop.

You are not co-owner in noticeable sense (you are getting too small of a share). Moreover, you (via state) are taxing quite a lot of businesses. Ford is simply disappears in them.

But Ford is noticing that someone is taxing him, I assure you. Because there is a difference between being taxed and not being taxed.

Where do the tax money come to? To social programs you get benefits from. Unless you are really uninvolved in social life (read: hermit), you do get to share the profits.

"2. The problem of the class nature of the ideologies existing in a social formation.

The ‘mechanism’ of ideology in general is one thing. We have seen that it can be reduced to a few principles expressed in a few words (as ‘poor’ as those which, according to Marx, define production in general, or in Freud, define the unconscious in general). If there is any truth in it, this mechanism must be abstract with respect to every real ideological formation.

I have suggested that the ideologies were realized in institutions, in their rituals and their practices, in the ISAs. We have seen that on this basis they contribute to that form of class struggle, vital for the ruling class, the reproduction of the relations of production. But the point of view itself however real, is still an abstract one.

In fact, the State and its Apparatuses only have meaning from the point of view of the class struggle, as an apparatus of class struggle ensuring class oppression and guaranteeing the conditions of exploitation and its reproduction. But there is no class struggle without antagonistic classes. Whoever says class struggle of the ruling class says resistance, revolt and class struggle of the ruled class.

That is why the ISAs are not the realization of ideology in general, nor even the conflict-free realization of the ideology of the ruling class. The ideology of the ruling class does not become the ruling ideology by the grace of God, nor even by virtue of the seizure of State power alone. It is by the installation of the ISAs in which this ideology is realized and realizes itself that it becomes the ruling ideology. But this installation is not achieved all by itself; on the contrary, it is the stake in a very bitter and continuous class struggle: first against the former ruling classes and their positions in the old and new ISAs, then against the exploited class.

But this point of view of the class struggle in the ISAs is still an abstract one. In fact, the class struggle in the ISAs is indeed an aspect of the class struggle, sometimes an important and symptomatic one: e.g. the anti-religious struggle in the eighteenth century, or the ‘crisis’ of the educational ISA in every capitalist country today. But the class struggles in the ISAs is only one aspect of a class struggle which goes beyond the ISAs. The ideology that a class in power makes the ruling ideology in its ISAs is indeed ‘realized’ in those ISAs, but it goes beyond them, for it comes from elsewhere. Similarly, the ideology that a ruled class manages to defend in and against such ISAs goes beyond them, for it comes from elsewhere.

It is only from the point of view of the classes, i.e. of the class struggle, that it is possible to explain the ideologies existing in a social formation. Not only is it from this starting-point that it is possible to explain the realization of the ruling ideology in the ISAs and of the forms of class struggle for which the ISAs are the seat and the stake. But it is also and above all from this starting-point that it is possible to understand the provenance of the ideologies which are realized in the ISAs and confront one another there. For if it is true that the ISAs represent the form in which the ideology of the ruling class must necessarily be realized, and the form in which the ideology of the ruled class must necessarily be measured and confronted, ideologies are not ‘born’ in the ISAs but from the social classes at grips in the class struggle: from their conditions of existence, their practices, their experience of the struggle, etc."

Did we confirm that he uses the same words with the same meaning, before we go full-retard?

No we did not.

Go away, google-thinker.

The State doesn't own the means of production of Ford, for example. Even if or if not they are taxing Ford.

Ownership is not the same as being "taxed". Read Marx.

It does not make me, or even the State, a owner of something.

Seriously, this is retarded.

Marx was still a Hegelian. He called himself a Hegelian, used Hegelian dialectics etc etc. So saying people aren't happy with Hegelians sounds to just be a scapegoat, especially when used in contrast to marxists.

right, and what do you think the difference is between historical materialism and dialectical materialism? Marx never used the term dialectical materialism I don't think. He seemed to know that to call Hegelian dialectics of any form "dialectical materialism" was a misnomer. Dialectical materialism came later, using historical materialism as a basis, and was largely popularized by Stalinists.

Which is why you should study Marx in a Hegelian context as well as an economic context. I can't explain 800 pages of complicated phenomenology to you, you know this and even if I could I wouldn't have the energy to try.

I mean, we already showed how you know nothing about economy at all in various threads… And of course you wouldn't even know about Althusser - he's probably a Trostkyte and a revisionist.

"On a number of occasions I have insisted on the revolutionary character of the Marxist conception of the ‘social whole’ insofar as it is distinct from the Hegelian ‘totality’. I said (and this thesis only repeats famous propositions of historical materialism) that Marx conceived the structure of every society as constituted by ‘levels’ or ‘instances’ articulated by a specific determination: the infrastructure, or economic base (the ‘unity’ of the productive forces and the relations of production) and the superstructure, which itself contains two ‘levels’ or ‘instances’: the politico-legal (law and the State) and ideology (the different ideologies, religious, ethical, legal, political, etc.).

Besides its theoretico-didactic interest (it reveals the difference between Marx and Hegel), this representation has the following crucial theoretical advantage: it makes it possible to inscribe in the theoretical apparatus of its essential concepts what I have called their respective indices of effectivity. What does this mean?

It is easy to see that this representation of the structure of every society as an edifice containing a base (infrastructure) on which are erected the two ‘floors’ of the superstructure, is a metaphor, to be quite precise, a spatial metaphor: the metaphor of a topography (topique)Like every metaphor, this metaphor suggests something, makes some thing visible. What? Precisely this: that the upper floors could not ‘stay up’ (in the air) alone, if they did not rest precisely on their base.

Thus the object of the metaphor of the edifice is to represent above all the ‘determination in the last instance’ by the economic base. The effect of this spatial metaphor is to endow the base with an index of effectivity known by the famous terms: the determination in the last instance of what happens in the upper ‘floors’ (of the superstructure) by what happens in the economic base."

(checked)

Recommend me books by Althusser pls

If you can't explain your own pov without relying on buzzwords and appeal to authority, it suggests you yourself have no clue what you're talking about. Besides, since when is every person expected to have a firm grasp of every field of study? You're the communists. It is for you to sell the idea.

Books:
"Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses"
"The Future Lasts Forever" (auto-biography, be prepared to get depressed)

And since you love Hegel (more than Kierkegaard, lets be honest here): "Lenin and Philosophy" (pdf related), specially the chapter Lenin before Hegel, you'll like it.

Kek, didn't Althusser formulate many of his theories and ideas as "left-wing critique" of Stalinism? It fits quite nicely.

Geez man. Look, you can tell yourself whatever reassuring stories you want, it wont change the fundamental materialist (Hegel on his head, it's a thing) basis of Marx that is clear as day to every one but you.

I couldn't possibly compare the two, I love both so very much :^) I think Kierkegaard, though a great critic of his Hegelian contemporaries, sperged out when it came to actual Hegelianism, which I think is very sad considering he was about the only person who understood it at the time!

Tyvm comr8

I hate to be a dick like this but
not an argument. It's just not an argument. He didn't turn Hegel on his head

He reintroduced Marxism, in France at least, without rellying in any "Stalinist theory".

I wasn't even quoting against him at first then he posted

and showed himself as a retarded.

Wait, did you drop the flag? Are you some different user?

I'll be sure to let my Professor know.

Tell me about your professor. Why does he wear the mask?

Dude… just deal with it.

He has a lot of class consciousness for a hired educator.

I'm a different user

Use this book for the Study of "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses". It has supplements to the essay such as an introduction by Balibar

Really? What would happen if Ford stops paying taxes? Shit gets confiscated.

Don't you think that this concept sounds all-too-similar to rent? You can use thing as long as you keep paying for it. Once you stop paying for, it goes back to it's rightful owner.

Apparently, you assume that concept of ownership does not change with time, but it does.

Are you under impression that Marx wrote only one book?

How do you define ownership? Because deciding what happens to the thing and using benefits it provides sounds suspiciously close to ownership.

There is a reason why software companies stopped using word "product" and are currently calling software "service".

Are you this naive? What about tax heavens, tax evading and so on, that the Panama papers showed - where are the confiscations, the nationalizations of the companies implied in it?

Where was that said?

You're a shitposter, everytime some one points out a flaw in your argument you resort to say, EVERY SINGLE TIME, "How do you define X? What is x, in your own words?"

Engels did, IIRC. That's not the point, however. The point is that DiaMat exists and so does Materialism.

If you intend to refute it, you need to be able to define it. You were not able to. That is all there is to it.

You did it on Holla Forums, I take it.

Nice ad hominem. Also, it's Trotskyist.

I did it here, the only board I post. And so did numerous other anons.

But hey, if you are from Holla Forums, what can I do right? Just goes to show how much of a shitposter you are.

top kek

It's not surprising an Stalinist in this thread is arguing against Hegel when Stalin himself suppressed philosophical debate that was going on in the 20's such as the school of Deborin who following Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks had an certain appreciation of Hegel, later he was labelled an "Menshevik Idealist".

If Hegel is so bad for being an "Idealist" then why did Lenin argue for the study of Hegel?

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm

Lenin was a revisionist and probably a fascist aswell, like Trotsky.

Stalin revised- I mean- perfected his theorization, that's all.

Alright your'e a troll, a real Stalinist would not call Lenin an revisionist

That was supposed to be sarcasm, user. I'm not the stalin poster.

And land used to be untaxable and inalienable by the state. So what?

I already told you that your everyday concept of ownership is different from the one that existed before.

You said to go read Marx. Without being specific. That's a bit of faux pas for those in know (in the know that Marx wrote a lot).

Not every single time, mind you.

But it's what Materialism (the one nobody here apparently heard of) is about. You need to be very specific when you are talking about things. If you start expressing some weird ideas, I want to clarify that we actually are talking about the same things and applying the same methods.

You, on the other hand, operate under assumption that everyone everywhere shares your specific worldview, always uses words in the very same context and always applies them just the way you do. This is an autistic delusion.

One final word, the professor I'm referring to who used the exact metaphor you find so distasteful, actually spend some years going to the Korčula Summer School, and was not at all unsympathetic to Hegel.

He was a cool guy, although he I think he hated me and just about everyone else… He was sort of understandably jaded.

Where are the confiscations, since the Panama Papers were released?

I'd suggest the 3rd volume of Capital, since it's where Marx really starts to stir shit up.

Yeah, right. In this thread you did it towards me and Rebel - only in this thread.

>>But it's what Materialism (the one nobody here apparently heard of) is about. You need to be very specific when you are talking about things. If you start expressing some weird ideas, I want to clarify that we actually are talking about the same things and applying the same methods.
>>You, on the other hand, operate under assumption that everyone everywhere shares your specific worldview, always uses words in the very same context and always applies them just the way you do. This is an autistic delusion.

Makes sense.

Not everyone is a stalinist who only has read Stalin's "works". You're the one who is blinded, not only by your own ideology, but by your own ignorance towards everything that isn't in line with Stalin.

This binary black-and-white thinking is most annoying. It is also called Idealism. What a coincidence?

Are you one of those "how can workers rebel against the capitalist, when it is the capitalist that created everything?"

Ri-ight.

Should I get a tripcode? In this thread alone I've got informed twice about some glorious arguments I apparently had.

Logic. Ever heard of it?

All of the 3rd volume?

Because you both were being retarded.

Except you still failed to present anything worthwhile. Well, except Althusser, who is hardly relevant to anything we discussed (and I don't read long-winded pastas without any explanations why I should do it; a man has to have some principles).

Not an argument.

You said that if Ford, for example, evaded taxes they would be confiscated. Companies were proven to be evading numerous taxes; yet no confiscation of any kind happened.

Where is the logic in your argument, I'm sorry?

Why not? Is that too much?

top kek

You were speaking about ideology, and superstructure. Totally relevant.

Rebel (who I don't always agree with) presented arguments which you never refuted.

Reading is for cucks, right? "A man has to have some principles", said the Stalinist. What a ironic shitpost.

Which fascism actually has refused capitalism?

Fascist governments usually had rampant cronyism and corruption. Usually the corporate elite banded together with the political elite.

Actually, the corporate elite often almost "bought" the fascists into power - happened for both the Nazis and the Italian fascists.

Well that's not annoying.

...

how dare you

your pandering is pathetic and sad, and if the authoritarians rise up before us anarchists, they will throw you in gulag too, you will clean the kulaks toilets with your fingernails

also your memes are weak, you look down on anarchists, yet your best memes are at least 100 years more primitive than even the simplest of anarchist memes

look at this meme

it is a picture of an anarchist john stamos eating spaghetti, run through several different mobile photo filters

there are 1000 levels of irony hidden in and around this image, and you probably can't even see the first one

you can't compete with this level of memetic competency, fascism is an ideology based on spooky baby emotions

you can never achieve the logical wherewithal to achieve such high levels of pseudoironic pseudocomedy

Totally evades anons argument; then shows himself as "morally" superior.

Aside from the NEP when did the Soviets allow for the private accumulation of capital and enforce private property rights? Do you know what capitalism is?

Yeah, I find it distasteful because it's a meme metaphor. Ask him exactly what it is that he thinks Marx turned on his head about Hegel.

Undoubtedly he'll either
1. not know
2. Talk about spirit and matter
3. Something else which is wrong

If you do ask him, get back to me pls

I'd also have pointed this out if someone had said communism was refusing capitalism. Yea, technically it was not "capitalism", but with how a few people ran the "state controlled" industry, the result was the same. A few people owning everything and deciding everything, just under a different label.

Both communism and fascism suck balls and don't actually address any of the problems of capitalism while fucking a lot more up on the side.

You're adorable, I would honestly love to see him tear you apart.

Then ask!

It's been years, I'm afraid.

Well, that's unfortunate. I wanted to be lectured on dialectics by a qt grumpy professor

Don't we all. Alas.

Did he become jaded because the Yugoslav nomenklatura repressed the Praxis school? Was he ever persecuted?

Whoops meant to quote

He mentioned dealing with attacks by the communist party.

But if I had to say - he was jaded more by 'how things all turned out' (total dominance of global capitalism)and the state of education in modern universities. (he was the process of getting kicked out of the political studies dept. and eventually had to form a sort of refugee department with some other politically incorrect profs)

Neither is Lenin's recommendation to read Hegel.

Much better. Only it's not "evaded": it's not crime if you don't get caught (where is this animu shitposter when you need him?). They will face fines and have to pay them. Confiscation will happen if they do not pay. That's legal procedure.

Or are you trying to say things do not get confiscated ever?

You do realize how you look, right?

I've said: throwing pastas is not going to work. If you want to make an argument, then make it. Not copy-paste something that might or might not be relevant.

Link?

I this why you are unable to quote Marx?

user never made an argument. He posted one thing, never proved it, and implied that it might mean something. If he is unwillingly to directly state what he wants to - I'm not going to pander to him.

How hard could it be?

Hegel put Ultimate Truth in the centre of everything and said everything is just a distortion of it.
Marx said that there is no reason Ultimate Truth should exist in the first place; impossibility of Ultimate Truth is enough to explain why everything is but a distortion.

Nominally speaking, Soviets did not allow private property during NEP.

No nigga, there is no "ultimate" truth. There's only a universal truth, which is decided by historical analysis. Humans decide what is true. Hegel used Socrates for this as a demonstration, before Socrates societies viewed their truths as ultimate, Socrates showed they were all arbitrary.

*sigh*

Still doesn't exist.

Are you familiar with Theory of Relativity?

"Still doesn't exist"
This is what I mean. You don't know what universal means, but you seem to suggest you know enough about Hegel to even decide whether he was better or worse than Marx.

marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slsubjec.htm#SL163

I am familiar with it, given that I studied it.

No where did the owners of those companies stopped being owners of them. Nor were their companies "confiscated" by any State.

Look reading just The Manifesto is not enough, I'm sorry. If you want to understand Marx you will have to read more than that. He's not Stalin, you see.

Your arguments are retarded, and when people refute them you either go back to ask "whats your definition of X?" or just refuse to answer. Just like what the user said about Lenin defending Hegel: "its not an argumend :DDDDD".

My god, the level of self delusion you have is outstanding. "A man has to have some principles".

True. I was more or less trying to head him off at the pass.

This is Historicism. And it is not Hegelian. Truth is Absolute. Truth becomes determinate through the logic of dialectic. It's not decided; it is revealed.

In fact, the whole university had been recently eviscerated as a sort of example to the others by the neo-liberal provincial government of the time.

decent documentary about it if anyone is interested:

vimeo.com/65192208

Are you telling me "civil forfeiture" doesn't exist?

If you are unable to provide quote it really hard to spin it as my inability to find it.

We are hitting the bottom of the barrel, I see. Cao.

I've read Hegel long ago, and I've never read Hegel in English. Nor do I care enough to try.

Now wait a goddamn minute. You are the one dismissing Marx and saying you don't need DiaMat for Marxism and that you should go for Hegel instead.

Well, then it should be no problem understanding Marx's logic in his inversion of Hegel.

Well you are a stalinist, who admited to posting on Holla Forums. You are the bottom of the barrel :^)

You can't seem to define diamat yourself actually.
How are you hoping to define diamat, which is a thought process, in a non-abstract way?

Can you gibe citation.

I still need evidence of this

Of course materialism exists? It's wrong though.

However long ago you read Hegel you should know that he doesn't think ultimate truth exists.

You don't, you need HisMat. Which is what Marxism used.

I'm in no position to tell you what you *should* do. I'm telling you that Marxism and Hegelianism don't have to be opposed.

There is none. It's not inversion, and Hegel didn't say there was ultimate truth. In fact he said quite the opposite.

The overwhelming majority of working class people vote for centre left reformist parties, ie Labour in the UK or the Democrats in the USA. The racist nationalist working class voter is just a stereotype. Those supporting neo fascist parties are largely disaffected right wingers who were already nationalist and racialist in their outlook to begin with.

fuck you

Defining things in an abstract way is not a problem. The problem is making one abstract concept to be the only "correct".

The rest: [''DiaMat doesn't exist"] - too boring to address properly. Maybe I should make a thread, but I'll have to dig around for quotes (since I'll be accused of revisionist by butthurt Hegelians). Sounds suspiciously like work.

fuck do you even aldebaran

Mussolini was a fucking imbecile.
Italy sucked ass during WWll

I don't think many here reject materialism. You must be confused and think Marxism is against personal property when it's against privately owned businesses which are totally different things.

So question, why would a Fasicist be remotely interested in helping Communist/Socialists here on Holla Forums? If history is to go by anything the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was broken in a matter of 16 months when the Nazis invaded Eastern Poland Controlled by the Soviets.

Even if you in general do not hate us, the majority of other Fascists do hence Holla Forums shitposting here almost every chance they get. I am skeptical if you are trustworthy enough even remotely support a revolution that would end the Bourgeois control of the Workers.

I agree with you.

Fuck these LARPing faggots.