Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement...

Been reading Marx's 1844 manuscripts and this paragraph captivated me, maybe I'm misreading it, but isn't he in a way saying this infamous "feels vs. reals" internet debate can be solved with communism?

Remember that Stalin tried to solve the same debate by posing that "as man lives, so he thinks", therefore "reals > feels" but then take this quote from Marx from the same section in the manuscripts:


So the solution isn't as simple as Stalin puts it, both feels and reals are in dialectic relation to one another.

Other urls found in this thread:

clyp.it/0gaik5wq
tiny.cc/phevey
youtube.com/watch?v=OQFBHbschU8
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Dear diary, today OP wasn't a worthless faggot.

Isn't "feels" just another way of saying "superstructure" and "reals" another way of saying "base?" The subjective interpretation and the objective material relations?

Bump.

Yes they are in unity, there is unity in disunity, doesn't dialectics teach things turn into the opposite? So it is that ideology (feels) becomes praxis (reals) and at the same time reals become feels, there's mutual penetration of opposites.

Think where do feels come from? If they were merely determined by the relations of production, they wouldn't be in contradiction with the reals, they would develop in parallel, therefore consciousness can still develop independently from the material conditions, but if we reject idealism the basis for feels must be found in the physical world, are feels then our species-essense revolting against existing conditions? But then how are feels able to change said conditions? Revolution then has less to do with "emancipating the productive forces" and more with making said forces to serve human nature.

But consider the implications of this, now is not the worker who has the potential to revolutionize society, or not entirely anyway, now this role is up to that section of society whose "feels" are more strongly in contradiction with the current mode of production, this then starts to sound more like idealism.

Not even once

Sounds like a bunch of hippie bullshit to me tbh

...

Good post lad, you deserve this.

You think that's bad? Listen to this.

clyp.it/0gaik5wq

Where does Stalin say that? Can you give us a source?

In my opinion that applies in the materialist sense.

The overall pattern of electrical impulses and the patterns and timings of chemical ejections in the brain are in dialectical relationships with the actual cells, tissues and glands.

But on different time scales of course. You can clearly remember your own thoughts if you tell it yourself in a way that you can remember. So the collective electrical impulses act on the matter as it gets transferred from the short term memory which are (most likely) the collective electric activity of neurons and into long term memory which is most likely based on chemicals.

Also the feelings that you feel, like stress can also have its impact on the brain, often negative.

So it goes without saying that what is inside skull, as both the cells, neurons and their patterns are in unity with patterns of electrical impulses and releases of chemicals(hormones, neurotransmitters, neuromodulators(GABA, glutamate), and others).

They both influence each other.

tl;dr: When thinking dialectically, do not forget about the time in which everything happens.

Also materialistic dialectic is a guideline for the scientific inquiry itself, because it is the most general philosophical principle. If your conclusions are at odds with the dialectical principles, odds are that you made a mistake.


The ideology(feels) is information. In your mind it is the pattern of collective electric impulses.

In the society, the ideology is collective pattern of the words that people exchange with each other and are exposed to through media. And probably the images as well.

Information is bound to the material. More specifically to the matter or energy. Voice to sound waves, images to the inks, papers, dyes, fluorescent screens, luminiscent devices, even coherent laser waves that are bent on the delicate structures of a hologram, forming a holograph.

But to illustrate how must the information be defined, using the (computer) bits is good enough.

A letter from a prisoner of war to his wife, which went through censorship contains one bit of information.
Which is that the POW is alive. Despite the letter containing a page of written words. Which carry their information as well. Carl Sagan in his series also talks about information and bits, you can find the clip on youtube.


The book is a good introduction to cybernetics. It might be lengthy at times, but presents the basic points and principles of cybernetics. You can only read the chapter on information.

Lad, learn some real dialectics.

tiny.cc/phevey

read parmenides

link not related as it's A.W.'s blog

Bump for answers

sounds like you don't have two neurons to rub together tbh

OP here, It's from Stalin's "Dialectical and Historical Materialism." I butchered the quote because of the translation I used, in the English edition from marxists.org the quote goes: "whatever is man's manner of life such is his manner of thought."

I asked because I'm rather interested in Stalinism, as Zizek says there needs to be a left wing critique of Stalinism for the left to move forward.

I never knew there were multiple english translations of "Dialectical and Historical Materialism". Can you tell me what translation you originally quoted from in the OP?

Also did Stalin actually quote from the 1844 manuscripts? I thought he didn't know they existed.

Here is a Zizek in return for your help

youtube.com/watch?v=OQFBHbschU8

I originally read it in Spanish, in the Spanish translation the phrase has an almost poetic cadence "SegĂșn vive el hombre asĂ­ piensa" which is why the phrase stuck to me, I simply took this phrase and translated into English.

Sorry, I should have specified this in my previous post.


Dialectical and Historical Materialism was published in 1938, according to Wikipedia the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts were first released in 1927, so, afaik Stalin isn't quoting from the manuscripts, but isn't clear if he knew they existed.


I fail to understand, Zizek isn't merely saying we need a Trotskyist or ancom critique, right? We have plenty of those.

Rather, Zizek is asking what was specific to Stalinist totalitarianism compared to Fascist or Liberal variants, he offers a partial answer in another video when he says, to paraphrase "In Stalinism if you were a political prisoner you were supposed to sign a congratulations card to the leader which was unthinkable in Nazi Germany" Surely you know the video I'm talking about.

My personal departure with Stalinism, and what I think is one of its particularities, is over the line of "the emancipation of the productive forces", this line took its more refined form with Deng Xiaoping, and is now clear the productive forces don't need emancipation, if you want to see what emancipated productive forces look like, go to Shenzen, as far as productivity goes Shenzen, or any other Special Economic Zone for that matter, surely is progress compared to the capitalism we currently have, Shenzen surely is the future, but is it a more humane system? I maintain it is not, so the line of the "emancipation of the productive forces" is inadequate to explain how the qualitative change from capitalism to socialism will occur.

What are the circumstances in Shenzen that make it so special?

Except there doesn't seem to be any other left wing left. Should we have re-imagining of Stalinism by Stalinists? That is certainly possible, but it requires actually moving forward to prove veracity of this revisionism critique.

I.e. Zizek's statement doesn't seem to be useful for anything, but hindsight in future.

Why wouldn't he know? Wiki says they were released in 1927 in Soviet Union.

This bit (and the rest) looks kinda weird to me. Would you mind elaborating further?

I'm no big specialist on China, but it's pretty clear to me that Stalin and Deng were using very different approaches.