Discussing this with Liberal friend. Apparently we can't get full Communism if people keep getting offended by words, they will just create problems and cause social conflict becuase muh human nature. Tried to tell him that people will be focused on class struggle and petty victimisation will be left behind for a greater struggle. Said that they will just make them anyway after class antagonism are over.
H E L P.
Why are Lolberals so disabled?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtu.be
anyforums.com
twitter.com
Tell him that racism doesn't mean anything if there's no power to act on it.
So racism = prejudice + power?
No.
You can be racist and not have any power, racism is just a sort of ideology and attitude.
However, racism without power is inept. People simply having a nasty ideology can be ignored if they can't put that ideology into practice.
No.
Racism == racism
Racism & power == problem
Racism & !power == !problem
The problem is about small social antagonisms, he assumes that under a Socialist and Communist society they will just arise again because 'muh human nature'. he dosen't take into consideration Historial Materialism (says it's bullshit) and also thinks that learning about class and real issues won't destroy old pointless antagonisms. He's a mong.
What do you mean by small social antagonisms?
Like some guy just not liking you because of your race?
Tell him that you love niggers and they taste the best
He's right. The class struggle isn't real and believing in the apocalyptic ideology of historical materialism in which history will end in the communist rapture is just pure ideology.
To cover up the failure of the negation between marxism and what people actually are, capitalism becomes an incremental conspiracy, with people not acting as they are if they were good marxians always being a result of said conspiracy, instead of just admitting that the marxist view of human beings is just fucking wrong.
Tell him to read a fucking book, there's no way to argue with people like this who are spooked. They're only convinced by propaganda.
kek
I would have believed everything you said if only it were not for the capituliminati.. the mysticism of the failed negation.. spooky
Uh… what?
Wow, literally just muh human nature.
Just watch this fam, and try to get a grasp on the basics.
youtube.com
there is no illuminati you dumb ass, capitalists will follow capital interests and will use their resources to suppress any uprising that acts against their interests. I'm not gonna respond to any of your further bait.
The communist version of history is abrahamic, divided into stages with a pre-determined end (the rapture, the revolution). Stripping this god of his personality doesn't change the logic of the concept.
You do believe in human nature. Without human nature, there would be no alienation, everyone would fit perfectly into whatever system.
I was talking about the implicit logic underlying marxism, it's flaws and contradictions. Like you wouldn't see christianity as only the bible and what follows from it, but something something material conditions, marxism is no exception.
Why haven't they banned marxism in universities then?
And don't tell me it's repressive tolerance.
but it is bullshit
This only proves that you don't understand the logic. And comparing the avocation of revolution to belief in the fucking rapture is a fucking massive leap.
I don't believe typically sweeping and absurd claims made about "human nature" made by right-wingers that always invariably ends up mandating whatever the status quo of the time is.
That is the logic of Marxism, unless you're talking about historical materialism, in which case you've never explained your beef with historical materialism aside from that ridiculous piece of science fiction you wrote that gave away that you don't understand Marxist theory in the slightest.
Explain how this is the case instead of avoiding the critique.
You never addressed Marx's logic.
Stop dodging the critique and give an actual response. "you didn't get it" or "you never addressed it" without explaining why is not a satisfactory argument.
muh lived experience is theory
Both ideologies share the same conception of history: linear, ending with the ultimate triumph of the ideology, and then paradise.
It's not history as in "this king won that battle in 1418", it's the vision of history as pre-destination, with the only goals that we should strive towards being a faithfull adherence to this reassuring inevitability.
But you do believe in human nature, the marxist conception of human nature, you just like to spout it as a maymay when it is pointed that Marx was completely wrong about it. To negate the contradiction of the humanity, the others, that is supposed to be and the reality of what they are, you call in the capitalist conspiracy as a negation. This is what capitalism is in marxism, their own mechanism.
The logic of marxism, is not what marxists claim it to be. As a marxist, you acknowledge that ideology isn't an explicit of officially held doctrine. Marxism is no exception to this.
Then my answer is "that's not Marx's logic at all but a flimsy strawman attempting to create a sort of guilt-by-association comparison to religion"
Once again, strawman, it's not linear, but dialectical.
Societies form around their material conditions. As societies become more advanced, they require productive labor to produce a surplus to maintain society, and an ever greater surplus the more advanced the society. What you wind up with, invariably, is class society, where productive labor is governed by a ruling class (or ruling classes) who appropriate their labor and determine how its distributed.
From this, you have the basic inequality of any advanced society. When Marx refers to "history", he's talking more in a sense of social development. For him, societies develop based around the struggle between these contending classes, each new restructuring of society alleviating some antagonism of class society. It doesn't take a mystic to then conclude that if society develops based around resolving its class antagonisms, it will eventually reach a state in which there are no more class antagonisms. Since classes are, by their very nature, antagonistic towards each other, this means that this end-state society would have to be classless. It's hardly soothsaying.
What, pray tell, do you figure was the "Marxist conception of human nature"?
We don't believe in a capitalist conspiracy. What we generally talk about is the dialectical relation between the capitalist economic base of society and its various ideological institutions.
I don't know what you're getting at here.
The truism that people make things doesn't make society a mechanical structure as one-dimensional as the marxist vision of it. This also supposes that class is as marxists dictate it to be, this is an imposed definition, hence the need for "class consciousness". It's a self-fullfilling prophecy, that doesn't even fullfill itself.
Class essentialism and all the premises and conclusions build into that conception.
Which comes down to capitalism being the theory of everything, the central frame of reference. Capitalism, in this sense, is not a tangible economic system, but a negation masking itself as one.
While marxists see other ideologies as psychological reactions, "opium of the people", they are incapable of applying this view introspectively.
This isn't some economic reductionist claim, which is what I suppose you're trying to get at, but rather a claim that the driver of society is its economy.
All definitions are imposed definitions. Marxism provides a useful definition of class, that is one's relation to the productive process. Most other class analysis that I've seen has obfuscated class into near meaninglessness.
The word is materialism, user.
No. It is as I told you before. Society develops around it's base economic mechanisms. Capitalism is the prevailing system of today. Feudalism and classical slave society also had their own ideological paradigms based around how their systems functioned.
"lol did you ever consider that you might be wrong, man?"
user, pls.
@875956
I've never seen someone write so much and say so little (literally nothing in your case). Wow lad.
Not even a (you) tbh
Materialism has been disproved by neuroscience.
...
The driver of society is language, if you could even speak of society being something that has a "driver".
It's a common flaw to assume that a term has more truth to it, because it can be more easily defined. Class has a different meaning, in different societies, with there often being confusion inside a society of whom belongs to what class. That's what class is. The marxist definition of class provides a map imposed over this territority, with it then being seen as the territority itself. It is never marxism that itself that is flawed, it always the reality that doesn't understand that marxism is correct about it.
Then explain to me why capitalist countries, have vastly different ideologies and cultures.
This also positions capitalism as a system in a set of systems, instead of description for things that have been around everywhere, for most of human history. Feudalism had trade and commerce, so did the roman empire. Those are some serious map-territority issues to which marxists can only respond that this is their definition of history, and they are therefor right.
More like "did you ever consider that your ideology is not intrinsically different from others, in the sense of it not being the only ideology that solely consists of what it explicity states?"
lrn2ideology
You serious?
What various cultures think class is is unimportant. The importance of class one's relation to the productive process isn't because it's "easy to define", but because it's useful as a tool to analyze society.
They don't, and they're getting less different all the time.
But the answer is that, once again, this isn't economic determinism, but the claim that economics is the dominant force within a dialectical relationship with the various ideological institutions of society. Things like ideology and culture can develop in a variety of different ways, and are influenced by other elements of the ideological superstructure as well as the economy. Once again, it isn't economic determinism.
Capitalism isn't "trade and commerce", but rather a system of private property and wage labor.
Yes, small instances of what could be called capitalist relations popped up here and there, but they weren't the dominant economic force until the 18th and 19th centuries.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here. That Marxism is like other ideologies in the sense that it consists of what it states? Is there a point?
Yes. Are you going to say that language isn't an important part of civilization?
I bet you're one of those people that think belief in God is an inherent brain function.
Yes. Read the frenchies.
When creating a world map, it is usefull to depict the worlds nations as colours. This does not mean that America is made up of pink paper.
This is the flaw that marxism makes.
That's the truism. Stuff happens, economy happens, stuff happens because of the economy. Marxism doesn't follow from this truism, nor is it what marxism claims. "All history has hitherto been the history of class struggle". Everything is shoehorned into this, everything is seen as capitalist/bourgoise. Unless this capitalism isn't economic, such logic is economic determinism.
The clear divide that would justify history as a set of systems isn't there. This definition of capitalism also wouldn't explain the use of the term capitalism to describe nearly every aspect of culture, which marxists do.
Take the phrase "religion is the opium of the people". It says that christianity is not the gospel, not a specific interpretation of the gospel, not the acceptance of jesus christ as lord and saviour. It is a phenomenon which logic is not it's theology.
Marxism is no different, it is not The Official Word Of Marx, but the ideology of those who are marxists.
You don't know what Marxism is.
Name them, I would like to look into who you are referring to.
Its a well known fact that economy by large is, its not something thing that marxist came up with. When the economy changes, the society does as well, fighting over feudal lords and divine right of kings is no longer a thing.
I do, you just don't recognise it anymore when it's put in a different perspective. This perspective of marxism isn't dictionary definitions about means of production or the proletariat, but the logic marxists apply, the actual ideology.
Lacan.
This can only result in a stale mate discussion about what "the driver of society" means. It's a metaphorical phrase, I'll leave it at that.
I'm a different poster btw, just to let you know.
So read Lacan and disregard Marx in order to understand what Marxism really is?
How do you determine what an -ism really is?
Important? Yes?
The prime driver of social development, above and beyond political economy? No.
Which Frenchies?
Are you suggesting that people don't really have different relations to the productive process?
Ah, I see you've only read the Communist Manif-
"In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations."
Couldn't even get past the first sentence, huh?
Yes it is economic, but economics doesn't exist in a bubble.
So ancient tribal economies never evolved into slave economies, and then into feudalism, and then into capitalism?
Because, once again, economics doesn't exist in a bubble. The modes of production and distribution that a society uses can have a profound effect on its structure, which in turn has a profound effect on it's cultural development.
Take the phrase "religion is the opium of the people". It says that christianity is not the gospel, not a specific interpretation of the gospel, not the acceptance of jesus christ as lord and saviour. It is a phenomenon which logic is not it's theology.
No.
He very clearly puts out that the logic of religion is its dogma, but that this dogma and the interpretation of this dogma is merely an inverted perception of the world, a reflection of real conditions.
Obviously…?
s-s-sauce on that first pic?
Totally not seconding this request for a source. I am definitely not reiterating this user's desire to know what video this came from, and for a link to said video, not all all.
Not him, but there can be no such thing as social development or even an economy if there is no language. It is the one of the prime factors of society, or rather, the core.
A core component of development definitely, but not the primary mover. Language does not comprise the underlying logic by which society develops itself.