No.1810024[Last 50 Posts]
So we know the right wing has their dogwhistles, i.e. "Christ is King" and "It's Okay to be White."
How about a Socialist dogwhistle? Something that will trigger rightoids, something that really hurts: reminding them that the soul does not exist, and that consciousness is an illusion. They HATE this, it threatens everything about right wing ideology much more than they are willing to admit. This is why they fought it fiercely in the 20th Century, making sure to appeal to the "godlessness" of communism. Ultimately I believe there is too much idealism around these days. You see it in things like psychedelic culture, wellness culture, tech culture (and their idiotic quest for "immortality") and surprise! they are all becoming very reactionary!
Trigger the idealists. "Matter is the fundamental substance in nature." It's the perfect combination of disarming and bewildering that gave "its okay to be white" and the AOK hand their power. "Matter is the fundamental substance in nature. Make it a meme. Marx would be proud. That's where it all began, after all. Before his ingenious theory of Dialectical Materialism, before Scientific Socialism, before the Communist Manifesto, there was Materialism.
No.1810026
You spend to much time online. Go outside. Also Marx's ontology was fucking shit. "Matter is the fundamental substance in nature" retarded pseudo-aristotelian nonsense.
No.1810028
This is contrived le secret club nonsense.
You know what actually trigger rightoids? Actual socialist symbols, talking about socialism, supporting socialists, red flags, singing socialist songs. This triggers the fuck out of them.
No.1810031
Maybe instead of triggering the rightoids you should actually promote your cause by entering into dialogue with ordinary people? You know something actually meaningful beyond keyboard activism and preaching to the converted.
No.1810055
>>1810024that dogwhistle is too mouthy.
No.1810057
Christ is King – it works because it is short and succinct.
Only 3 syllables.
No.1810072
>>1810024Materialism in the sense of physicalism is not leftist, its a nonsensical performative contradiction. Read Saul Kripke's book on Wittgenstein. Meaning in the sense of a term or sentence meaning something rather than something else is normative. If you don't believe in norms which are non-factual and therefore non-material, you don't believe in meaning either and therefore do not believe that you a mean anything by your own denial. Reality is not wholly material and a fundemental part of it, the entire domain of meaning, intentionality, etc, is irreducible and unrelated to factual material stuff.
No.1810080
>>1810024>How about a Socialist dogwhistle? Something that will trigger rightoids, something that really hurts: reminding them that the soul does not exist, and that consciousness is an illusion.Why would the communists (also known as revolutionary socialists) use dogwhistles? "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims." – is the point of a dogwhistle not to conceal your views, to present your affiliation as mere code, so that only those in the know can recognize you as being within an in-group? Nazis use this tactic because they are racist and widely despised. The things that Nazis advocate for are self-evidently disgusting, and are plain-to-see things to advocate against for material reasons. The only basis by which communists are opposed by oppressed people is because of false consciousness, because of "anti-communism," it is the case that the oppressed being submerged in the reality as presented by the myths and by fragments present a conversely fragmented reality, one where the oppressive situation that the oppressed find themselves in appears insurmountable and unchangeable, but in-fact the situation only appears that way because of how it has been so consistently presented by the bourgeois systems of propaganda, of schooling, etc. We have the capacity to change that. Us communists, while we must sometimes work underground, even engage in illegal activity, we do not conceal our views. It is better even for security because we need to have these conversations in order to better anticipate when we need to form and break alliances, and understand who we can ultimately depend upon.
No.1810092
Communists don't need dogwhistles.
No.1810095
>>1810024>Marx would be proud.After what wlyou wrote why would you care?
No.1810103
>>1810024>dogwhistles The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.
No.1810113
>>1810106Made by christo-fascists
No.1810115
>>1810113I'm glad you are able to concede that it is not a dogwhistle.
No.1810123
>>1810115I didn’t concede anything and I’m not OP
No.1810127
>>1810123Is "I will vote for Joe Biden" a dogwhistle of Biden voters?
No.1810130
>>1810127I don’t care.
What Christo-fascists think is or isn’t dog whistle holds no interest to me.
No.1810131
Grass therapy. Now.
No.1810136
>>1810130I'm not Christian for fascist or christo-fascist. I was simply saying to OP that "Christ Is King" isn't a dogwhistle. A dogwhistle would be something more subtle. Pic related is Republican strategist Lee Atwater in the USA explaining how to use dogwhistles. If you made this reply:
>>1810113 then you did concede my point because you only made an addendum to my statement without contradicting it. I said "Christ is king isn't a dogwhistle, it's an explicit theological statement" to which you
added (without disagreeing with the main thrust of my point) that this dogwhistle is made by Christofascists. I wasn't weighing in on what kind of people say "Christ is King" I was weighing in on the fact that it isn't a dog whistle because it isn't an attempt to be subtle. Do you need it explained to you again? I can help.
No.1810139
>>1810136Yeah, explain again how I concede to a point I never made. You are still confusing me with OP.
No.1810142
>>1810026Lmao how fucking retarded are you if you think this phrase is wrong in any way.
No.1810143
>>1810139You conceded to a point I made by adding to it without explicitly disagreeing. You also keep accusing me of being a Christofascist for some reason. You lack reading comprehension or are trolling. Read the conversation from the beginning. I never said whether you are OP or not.
No.1810145
>>1810143That’s not how a concession works.
No.1810146
>>1810143>>1810145Yeah, you’re just using me as a placeholder for or OP.
No.1810148
>>1810145OK.
>>1810146I spoke to OP originally, but you replied to me, and ever since I have been talking to you instead of OP. Who I was talking to shifted as soon as you inserted yourself into the conversation. I have a very simple question for you. Feel free to dodge it.
Is "Christ is King" a dog whistle or an explicit statement?
No.1810149
>>1810144Sorry but magical ghosts and souls dont exist.
No.1810150
>>1810147that's an acronym for a four word statement
No.1810151
If you die to cancer the cancer dies too
No.1810152
>>1810148stop confusing me for OP you jewish nigger christofascist
No.1810153
>>1810148> Is "Christ is King" a dog whistle or an explicit statement?Idc, I’m not OP.
No.1810155
>>1810149If they did then materialism would apply to them with no issues. Insisting that souls somehow refute materialism is non-sense and indicative of a severe misunderstanding of what materialism is.
No.1810156
>>1810153then why did you insert yourself into the conversation
No.1810157
>>1810150King of what people?
No.1810160
>>1810157Not me, I didn’t vote for him
No.1810162
>>1810161>anon 1 respond to OP>anon 2 responds to anon 1 because they don't care and they aren't OP>anon 1 repeats their point>anon 2 says they don't care and they aren't OP and refuses to specify whether they agree with anon 1's point or notautism, both of you
No.1810167
>>1810162Yes, but my autism is more correct
No.1810168
>>1810167are you anon 1 or anon 2
No.1810169
>>1810164Sure, but sometimes you gotta have flashy visuals to accopany baby's first material analysis. Can't trust people to just read things.
No.1810172
>>1810169>Can't trust people to just read things.you hate the proletariat and think they can't read. you are bourgeois and will be exterminated by a highly literate and athletic proletariat
No.1810173
>>1810172Can't trust people
on /leftypol/ or core web social media to just read things.*
No.1810177
>How about a Socialist dogwhistle?
Ironically enough, I managed to dogwhistle a fellow Commie at work by claiming I'm Argentinian "Because my grandfather Heinrich just sort of showed up there sometime in 1945 before getting a job at IBM."
No.1810183
>watch this 30 min video proving magical ghosts exist
No.
No.1810185
>>1810183Materialism isn't about existence and non-existence. Existence isn't a concept is materialism.
No.1810187
>>1810185You are not some kind of authority on definitions.
No.1810189
>>1810187It's either the video explaining historical materialism to kids using anime as an example, or actually reading theory.
No.1810204
>>1810189I don't care how much anime weeb experts you call in, magick is fake shit.
No.1810209
>>1810204You're still moving the goalpost to existence / non-existence rather than defending your position that magick would refute materialism if it existed,
which it wouldn't, because you are too invested in existentialism to think materialistically.
No.1810210
>>1810209I'm not that anon.
It's fake shit.
No.1810212
>>1810210Then to both of you, your inability to apply materialism to fiction is proof that you have failed to grasp materialism, but instead vulgar physicalism, which is irreconcilable with materialism.
No.1810213
>>1810212Why would I apply materialism to fiction?
shit aint real uygha lel
No.1810216
>>1810024Why would you need dogwhistles when you are not censored? There are no consequences to openly holding or stating your views
No.1810222
>>1810213Materialism is a scientific school of thought, simulating hypotheticals can help show flaws in one's reasoning so one can correct those flaws.
You are being anti-intellectual, which is protoreactionary.
No.1810223
>>1810222Hypotheticals based in trash are still trash.
Magical thinking is pretty reactionary.
No.1810226
>>1810216"censorship" of rightoids: 1 hour twitter suspension, self-applied tape over mouth, and a netflix original standup / documentary
censorship of the left: bullets, prison, permabans, wifi-throttling
>>1810223And yet it succeded in proving you're a vulgar physicalist. Unless you can prove that something non-existent can be materially relevant, then you conceed that existence is a non-concept in materialism, thus something being non-existent is irrelevant to a material analysis of that thing.
No.1810229
>>1810226You're frustrated I don't accept the premise of your hypothetical and running in circles like a chicken with its head cutoff. None of that ever happened.
No.1810236
>>1810229No, I am telling you that you're
reacting to the hypothetical because you can't let go of non-materialist concepts like existence. It is not my concern if you "accept" a hypothetical. You are incapable of processing hypotheticals at all, because your first thought when asked "what would be the ramifications of [hypothetical condition]" is to terminate with "it doesn't exist" regardless if you can prove that, meaning you create an infinite list of disbeliefs rather than a theory/praxis based worldview.
Existence is a spook, and it is the core spook of anti-intellectualism, which is itself core to reactionism.
No.1810237
>>1810226>censorship of the left: bullets, prison, permabans, wifi-throttlingNone of this is happening to you. Unless you happen to live in Indonesia 70 years ago.
No.1810239
>>1810220You literally aren't. Has anyone ever been banned from any social media, lost their bank account, barred from payment pocessors, or thrown in jail for their promoting communism or socialism in Europe or the US the last 30 years?
No.1810240
>>1810236I'm telling you that you're clinging to fiction to back up your hypothetical. If magic has no demonstrable impact outside of the "hypothetical" why should anyone bother to engage? If your concern isn't that I accept your hypothetical then you should have no problem setting up a new one that's capable of doing this, but you can't because you know that it's impossible. Which is why you're still running around like chicken with its head cut-off, creating what-if scenarios if I responded with "it doesn't exist", despite already telling you that I'm not that anon.
It's like you're writing fiction for a conversation we never had.
No.1810241
>>1810236 (cont)
Like, if you make a program to calculate something, you have to define it in terms of certain things being true. Even when you say something is false, what you're really saying is "if (thing
false) true, then."
>>1810239Yes.
>In Europe or the USYes, not like that is even relevant.
No.1810242
>>1810241 (me)
fuck, forgot the markdown parser
No.1810245
>>1810241>Yes.No, you aren't. None of this has happened to anyone for promoting socialism or communism. You would have examples if this were the case.
>like that is even relevant.Yes it is. If you get executed in China for espousing the wrong kind of communist views, this really does not have any bearing on anything
No.1810248
>>1810240To prove that you cannot have a materially relevant concept not be susceptible to materialism. It's like the pure math of materialism, it proves it to be conceptually correct. No one care if you, specifically, are willing to "accept" the hypothetical, your assertion that magick would disprove materialism is proven false by the hypothetical.
You asserted the hypothetical, then bailed when the hypothetical was simulated and proved your assertion false. No.1810252
>>1810244>lolCare to give an example?
No.1810254
Matter matters
No.1810256
>>1810248>your assertion that magick would disprove materialism is proven false by the hypotheticalAgain, who tf are you talking to?
My "assertion" was that magik was "fake shit" which is why I don't see why any amount of weeb anime you watch is going to change my mind on that. I'm not going to apply materialism to "fake shit" the same way I would to human history when there is no precedent. You're still spinning your wheels.
No.1810260
>>1810257That's not an example. Show an example of somrone banned from any social media, having lost their bank account, barred from payment pocessors, or thrown in jail for promoting communism or socialism in Europe or the US the last 30 years?
No.1810267
>>1810256>Again, who tf are you talking to.Oh right, you're NTA. I was talking to the first anon I was arguing with. Kinda don't know why you're involved, you jumped in at a part that doesn't really make sense without the context of being an argument with that anon.
No.1810292
>>1810260Every communist in Ukraine
No.1810306
>>1810305I'm always confusing the bold and spoiler markdown on this website
No.1810308
>>1810260German chapter of Samidoun/PFLP 2 months ago.
No.1810320
>>1810263>Pablo HaselArrested for inciting violence and riots, the fact that anarchists held concert before they looted some stores, burnded people cars, and assaulted people, does not change tgat participated in the riots.
>>1810262It says in the court document and the article you linked that they were arrested for taking money from the FSB to get Russian agents elected. They were arrested due to Trump derangement symptom back-firing, not because of advocating communism or socialism.
No.1810322
>>1810308>German chapter of Samidoun/PFLP 2 months ago.Did you retards not know anti-semitism is illegal Europe? It's banned under hate speech laws you advocated and voted for, and anti-zionism is anti-semitism.
No.1810324
>>1810322So their activities suddenly became illegal 2 months ago?
No.1810328
>>1810324Yes, because the zionist lobby demanded it.
>>1810326This is literally part of the expanding definition of anti-semitism in the last 8 years.
No.1810335
>>1810328perhaps the legal definition but not the true definition
No.1810339
>>1810237the coup in Indonesia happened only 60 years ago, and the left never recovered in Indonesia as a result. The USA couped, embargoed, sanctioned, waged war against, or otherwise made life miserable for most socialist countries 71 years, starting with Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. The most recent coup attempts either failed (Venezuela) or backfired quickly (Bolivia) so luckily that US hegemony is coming to an end. As for inside the imperial core US/Europe, communism isn't explicitly censored, but implicitly. Do you think you can get a large platform in a bourgeois milieu promoting the overthrow of the bourgeoisie? It's less that you get the pinochet treatment and more that you get the silent treatment. And if violence does happen to you, it is covert or made to seem random. In 1979 (45 years ago) the Ku Klux Klan openly shot Communist labor organizers in the streets of Greensboro North Carolina, and the cops deliberately abandoned the scene to go get lunch just before it happened, despite knowing that would be the result. That's how it works. The labor movement in the imperial core has been dead for decades and they're waiting for it to get strong again before they get desperate enough to, I don't know, give Chris Smalls the Fred Hampton treatment.
No.1810346
>>1810335It's the same style of reasoning and dynamic definition as with any other subject of hate crime policies. It is as true as any racism or phobia charge.
No.1810359
>>1810353>most sane hegelianInside this humorous fake story there is a kernel of truth. Incorporating the latest science into your philosophy is retarded because chances are high that models will get revised. I'm sure our era will have som popsci quantum physics inspired writer that later generations will be stuck with no matter where physics actually goes.
No.1810369
>>1810024Communists don't need dogwhistles. Their purpose is signalling obviously abhorrent beliefs while leaving the tiniest amount of plausible deniability. It doesn't work if you don't need to hide from normal people and the ones in charge actually care about shutting you down.
Also, the one you brought up is unwieldy. "Christ is king" is three short words. You have 7. Real wages, consistent materialism - that's more like it.
No.1810378
>>1810374Conservatives are Christo-fascist and Stonetoss is Fat Eunuch fascist.
No.1810380
>>1810305Honestly think you have a point now that all the right people seemed pissed off by the idea.
No.1810413
>>1810374>Christ is King is a way for conservatives to signal that they don't support Israel. This is obviously the correct thing to do, so not really a dogwhistleNot at all. It's just a way for them to berate American Jews.
Not that I have a problem with that; Two retards fighting, never interrupt your enemy when thry make an mistake, etc, etc. Having said that though we should be honest about what they mean.
No.1810472
>>1810152No U are the fascist and your white girlfriend likes the dogwhistle.
No.1810491
>>1810413Christ is King is just Protestant talk. There's nothing fascist about it. Don't like it? Want your own dog whistle?
"Christ is the GREAT HELMSMAN"
No.1810511
>>1810491Veil of plausible deniability.
Whitoids love that game.
Figures it’s also a WASP slogan.
No.1810517
>>1810491>Christ is the great helmsmanThat sounds stupid by comparison.
No.1810537
>>1810339Don’t even bother.
Give him an example and he will just say, “well akshually they were arrested for being x, not for leftism” like a fucking dork because he knows legal maneuvering has always been the backdrop when leftist activists are harassed. Fred Hampton was arrested for ice cream.
No.1810558
>>1810237bro I have had my house swatted over online bullshit, and I live in amerika. doesn't mean we should use dogwbistles, but the notion that your beliefs should you choose to express them don't have consequences.
No.1810564
>>1810558>bro I have had my house swatted over online bullshit, and I live in amerika. America is literally the only country on the planet where swatting is a thing. Secondly, spergs abusing the law for trolling doesn't mean anything. Are counter strike streamers an oppressed political movement?
No.1810574
>>1810537Yes, Fred Hampton was arrested for drug charges. He also did a ton of other illegal shit, which is why they arrested him on drug charges. This the same as those examples earlier, commie committs a violent crime and gets arrested. You are delusional for thinking you face any kind of repression.
No.1810582
>>1810574It was literally for ice cream, dumb ass.
You’re a complete and total cuck to the law
No.1810602
>>1810574This the type of dude in ancient times would volunteer his wife via prima nocta because he loves the law so much.
No.1810612
>>1810574Wow did not know that this guy existed, he seams based!
1) Black panther
2) Marxist-leninist
3) Uses drugs like a chad, because he don't care to the porkie police
4) Gets arrested for giving ice cream to children
No.1810615
"Was Hampton really arrested over ice cream?
In "Judas and the Black Messiah," Hampton is imprisoned after he's accused of assaulting a Good Humor man and stealing $70 worth of ice cream.
King says this really happened. In 1968, Nelson Suitt testified in court that he was selling ice cream by a playground when a group of older teens demanded free ice cream.
Moments later, Suitt said, Hampton got out of a car, jumped into the ice cream truck and held him down while his crew unloaded ice cream from the vehicle. The Black Panther Party leader denied Suitt's accusations and claimed he was denied a fair trial. Regardless, Hampton spent some time in prison."
No.1810618
>>1810582>>1810602>>1810612Why the fuck would I support a thief because he had dumb ideas?
(USER WAS BANNED FOR BEING A RETARD) No.1810619
>>1810618I don’t expect you to.
I expect you to let me fuck your wife via prima noctis.
No.1810622
>>1810618damm, i never thought an fellow comrade anarchist would be so pro-law and pro-cop/CIA. I am hypocritical, but this is another level of contradiction
No.1810623
>>1810622same trolling brainlet who said "anti-zionism is anti-semitism" earlier
no big surprise
No.1810625
lmao
No.1810626
>>1810622He puts on the anarchosynd flag to troll.
No idea why but he's been at it a long time
No.1810631
>>1810558If it comes to the point of getting swatted, why shouldn’t words akin to a dog whistles be used in spaces where that potentially can happen?
This is where I can kind of see the utility of what OP is talking about. It’s not very well thought-out but I understand the sentiment.
No.1810700
>>1810024FOUND STUFF ON REDDIT THERE IS REDDIT HATERS OUTSIDE MY HOUSE, SEND HELP Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker.
- Karl Marx. (1848). Public Speech Delivered by Karl Marx before the Democratic Association of Brussels
The capitalists often boast that their constitutions guarantee the rights of the individual, democratic liberties and the interests of all citizens. But in reality, only the bourgeoisie enjoy the rights recorded in these constitutions. The working people do not really enjoy democratic freedoms; they are exploited all their life and have to bear heavy burdens in the service of the exploiting class.
- Ho Chi Minh. (1959). Report on the Draft Amended Constitution
NICE TRY, FBI!
“We shouldn’t have fought in Vietnam”
“well it all comes down to class” “well social democracy always tends to decay into fascism”
“Cuba actually has the most progressive family code in this hemisphere”
“China has one of the world’s best train systems”
“We were the bad guys in Korea”
“Yk there’s a certain German sociologist that had a lot of answers… he had a British friend.”
“Women in East Germany reported having better sex”
Stuff I like to say to fuck with conservatives:
“Under no pretext should arms be surrendered and any attempt to disarm the working class should be frustrated”
“I can’t handle all these people who just want government handouts, if you borrow a ton of money for a personal project, and you can’t handle that responsibility, that’s your problem. Ugh I hate Elon musk.”
“Well Jesus was a brown socialist from palestine”
“I can’t handle these woke companies. We need to take down these tech giants who attack free speech. I think these costal elites need to be made to pay. The money needs to go back to the real Americans who actually do the work. Not someone who sits on his ass and collects a check”
Those are some examples. Ones that i can must in my mind is "SOLIDARITY FOREVER", "The state is the monopoly of violence", "Our mutual value is for us the value of our mutual objects. Hence for us man himself is mutually of no value."
, "Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.", "“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.", “The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”, “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.”. Etc, etc, etc.
If you want some powerful communist/left quotes, just google it lmao :)
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/7084.Karl_Marxhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/quotes/index.htmhttps://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/comments/160hhmy/any_good_dogwhistles_to_let_others_know_im_a/ No.1810710
>>1810374this interaction is completely backwards, flip them and you have a real conversation I had with my father in law
No.1810711
>>1810028>>1810029Different tools can be used in different situations. It's useful to have both.
To many audiences, it's effective rhetoric to not be seen as the aggressor. To say something completely reasonable and have someone lose their shit and scream about how you should die - the naive liberal idealism of logical debate ruling primes people to see this as validating of the 'victim' argument. And no, when liberalism is the status quo ideology of the worker class, when it is 'normal' in the development process of billions of teenagers, it can't be categorically dismissed as 'why even try to convert white moderates?' like 0th Thought seems to have said.
No.1810720
>>1810700>“Well Jesus was a brown socialist from palestine”How to dogwhistle that you're both a revisionist and a liberal reformist against materialism. Worst kinds of parasites with no shits given about contradictions in theology. Stockholm syndrome. The inability to let go of Christendom 's religious hegemony and instead trying to change it in a way you would like it to sound. Zero difference from the liberal reformed churches. Historical revisionists with fucked up ways of processing information. Rainbow dogmatism. The contradictions eventually will lead to a collapse. The Sandinistas likely won't exist forever.
No.1810722
>>1810720>using common definitions of words: badPragmatism is sometimes more important in the short term than being correct. It's important to understand this.
No.1810927
>>1810722>Pragmatism is sometimes more important in the short term than being correct. It's important to understand this.Yes they can be good cannon fodder.
No.1811064
>>1810722>pragmatism is when shitty analysis and buzzwordsnot marxism
No.1811689
>>1810024>Consciousness is an illusionYes, for you, NPCs don't have consciousness which is why they're confused when actual humans talk about it.
No.1811725
>>1810024>Matter is the fundamental substance in nature.>Fundamental substancethis is why leftist memes are pure and utter shit. yes, your gay little slogan is short, congrats, but no person knows what the fuck these words substantively mean when put together in that way unless you write them an essay.
No.1811763
>>1811725OTOH, it took me a while to understand tf Christ is King is supposed to mean.
No.1811764
Christ is even king of what? Do right wings don't know what a king is? Are all those weirdos a bunch of larping monarchist 4channers?
No.1811771
>>1811725>/pol/tard makes longwinded OP misconstruing hisorical materialism for physicalism>not even explicitly asking for it to be a meme, but a dogwhistle, which is fundamentally different.>ZOMG leftist memes too long / conceptually denseRightoid memes offload that conceptual density into assumption density, which is growing ineffective since kids can't possibly make that many assumptions, especially since they don't watch corpo movies anymore.
Real leftist dogwhistles would just be agitprop. It's gonna be another worker peeling off that sticker, not porky.
No.1811772
>>1811764See? This guy doesn`t get it yet either.
No.1811782
>>1810024nobody cares about matter
No.1811783
>>1810031Socialist propaganda is a joke and any attempt to fix this clear fact is met with unending hostility.
Remember the Hague comrades, remember the Hague.
No.1811811
>>1811783Socialist propaganda is a joke because you shouldn't be propagandizing the proletariat.
No.1811829
>>1811782When the matter is food, they tend to care
No.1812553
>>1811811you absolutely should. propaganda doesnt mean lies
but yeah using dogwhistles is retarded, its used by nazi racist fucks because they cant say their shit out loud to normal people and are ashamed of it so they sneak it into some rhetoric about something else, while communists join many good popular causes and proudly announce their desire to free the working class, making communism more popular in the process
No.1815737
>>1810168(coward never answered)
No.1815785
What a shit dogwhistle. As someone else mentioned it's too mouthy (which devalues it as a slogan or quick indication of viewpoint a la Christ is King) but you also can't just easily find a reason to say it in response to politically prevalent news/events/etc. (like you can with 'it's okay to be white' everytime racism is a topic or someone critiques 'whiteness'). Not to mention this kind of materialism fails to account for phenomenal experience ('it's an illusion' and 'it's caused by neurons firing' is not a compelling account of why you see green when you look at leaves).
No.1815790
>>1812553If I publicly state I'm a communist I risk losing my job and I'll be antagonized by reactionaries (most people think communism = evil or dumb).
No.1815876
>>1815790>If I publicly state I'm a communist I risk losing my jobCome on man. This is Communism 101. Remember the closing words of the manifesto:
<The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.Working Men of All Countries, Unite!
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch04.htm No.1815897
>>1815876Don't wanting to be annoying, communists should absolutely be proud of their views, they have nothing to be ashemed of, but "the communist manifesto" is mid. Capital is much better.
You would not tell the SS that you are a communist, they would kill you, so you should not tell Burger empire that you are a communist, since they will kill you.
No.1815903
>>1810026You need to go back
No.1816098
>>1815897fuck you I will not be a lib
No.1816101
One question to befuddle leftists:
What is matter?
No.1816104
>>1816101'Matter' in Marxism doesn't refer to anything else besides reality existing objectively. Simple as.
No.1816105
>>1816104Kind of indefinite innit?
No.1816109
>>1816101> playing semantics with a theory of historical causation that isn’t supposed to address fundamental ontology to begin withWHAT IS LIFE, BIOLOGISTS!!!?!!!?!! CHECKMATE
No.1816205
>>1816101an excitation in a quantum field
No.1816852
>>1810155Of course. They still don't exist materially, though.
No.1816855
>>1816852Hpw do you know?
No.1816856
>>1816855>prove a negativeWhy don't
you show me the fucking physical evidence, dipshit?
No.1816857
>>1816856Your statement implied you had proof of yhe negative.
No.1816859
>>1816857Because I feel confident dismissing the existence of some unknown, undetectable particles that supposedly inhabit physical bodies.
Materialism means reality precedes consciousness. Some dipshit uses "physicalism" as if it means something different, or is wrong, and you can't tell if he's baiting or is a genuine retard.
No.1816864
>>1816859>reality precedes consciousnessReality includes conscoiusness and a lot of other things that aren't matter such as time and space.
No.1816871
>>1816864Time and space are properties of matter, you idiot.
No.1816873
>>1816872I accept your concession, and your lack of education.
No.1816875
>>1816873Like read a fucking book dude. This is mainstream physics. Time and especially space are not considered properties of matter.
No.1816878
>>1810700> "The state is the monopoly of violence"Those are usually ancaps
No.1816895
>>1816894>>1816894>said especially space> he doesn't mentionSo now it is simply we don't know when a moment ago you sounded very sure about consciousness, time, and space, being properties of matter.
No.1816904
>>1816895>dude, the epistemology, tho, bro!Pass. Feel free to continue engaging in "god of the gaps", which is the same idealist bullshit that religious people do, while pretending you're a historical materialist (you're not).
Those gaps must be really tiny for you to try to mystify mathematical models, and seek uncertainty in others, who are complete nobodies, rather than argue your own position.
No.1816907
>>1816904So I take it you have no links about anyone claiming space is a property of matter.
No.1816908
>>1816905Well I have never heard of gamma rays incinerating a train so that must mean gamma rays aren't real. This is a very logical argument.
No.1816914
>>1816908If there's a lot of gamma rays in an area, and someone walks though, they get radiation poisoning. Also I'm skimming the wikipedia, but they're probably used in manufacturing somehow.
That aside, reality isn't a concept in materialism. You aren't going to be too concerned if you're in a simulation / brain-in-a-jar or if god exists or shit like that when making logistical decisions. You can contemplate it, and it may be useful. The discovery of black holes and the math involved in that have made huge break though for logistics.
If a black hole came to our solar system, that would adversely effect the fish population, so making sure that doesn't happen is a concern for the logistics chain.
No.1816922
>>1816878Mls are also against the state. Read "state and revolution" from Vladmir Lenin. Marx and engels also critizice the state
No.1817040
>>1816104>>1816205Tautology
>>1816109A biologist should have a certain concept of what life is, yes. The same way a "materialist" should know what "matter" is.
For the record, i just use the concept derived from einstein, that matter is energy, and energy is the self-related substance of matter. Matter is both particular and universal within its own constitution. When you split an atom you get explosions because matter is not a "thing" or a set of "things", but is held by the communion of its bonds.
So matter is energy, and energy self-expresses itself in "physical" form. But here, there isnt a contrast with idea, since idea is just a form of energy that is equally self-related.
But this is why "materialism" as such is an antiquated metaphysics, since it attempts to create disjunction between the subject and the object, when science cant do this in itself, and german idealism already squares the circle.
>>1816875All Time is set against the speed of light, and all particles except photons have mass and so are entered into time by this dispensation of energy. All time is simply the passage of an object through space - so all matter is spatio-temporal in orientation, even if matter doesnt "produce" space-time, but space-time here is also just a net of relations, not an "object" in itself (which is also why space can be "infinite").
No.1817171
>>1817040I’ve yet to see someone ask a biologist “what is life” then conclude that life doesn’t exist because they don’t define it due to that person already standing on firm ground due to thousands of years of human history proving life. Opinion discarded.
No.1817571
>>1817171?
are you accusing me of not believing in matter because you dont know basic physics?
My question about matter is rhetorical because matter transposed as a substance apart from experience is just old enlightenment thinking.
Materialism as a metaphysics has been overturned, which is why its funny today when marxist larpers pretend they are victorian gentlemen appealing to science, when marx himself was clearly a monist coming out of german idealism (his "inversion" of hegel comes from his analysis that history is moved by the masses and not elites - a theory still in contention).
"Dialectical Materialism" isnt even a term codefied by marx and engels, but still becomes the doctrine of a quasi-heraclitean concept, and formalised as the state ideology of the USSR, where it again just appeals to tautologies that have no political license.
Thats why i think mao is the most "dialectically-materialist" thinker, since he is a thinker of change itself, not of tethering nature to the political - but here he becomes a materialist in the most virulent way too, by positing it as a substance apart from man, or as something which "shapes" man without integral self-relation.
"Materialism" today is only peddled by the same liberals you supposedly hate, since liberalism didnt graduate from its epistemic origins in empiricism (and rationalism), so is always seeking deliverance in the "objective" world (and so justifying its economics in a greater dharmic reality of justice tied to property and titles).
No.1817579
>>1817040>All Time is set against the speed of light, The whole time light relation is one of the most incomprehensible aspects of modern physics to me. I don't know any real physics and doing the maths abd whatever but I have read a bit and I have never seen an explanation of why light and time should be tied together. As I rememver the standard explanation, a photon doesn't experience time at all, I guess even tho a photon is on one place at one time or another, since at the speed of light time stops, no time for photons. Never got what that bullshit was supposed to mean.
>and all particles except photons have mass and so are entered into time by this dispensation of energy. All time is simply the passage of an object through space - so all matter is spatio-temporal in orientation, Yeh everything is ever increasing entropy ecept when it isn't. Another concept that sounds kind of retarded to me but I am smoll brain.
>even if matter doesnt "produce" space-time, but space-time here is also just a net of relations, not an "object" in itself (which is also why space can be "infinite").Now you are just inventing your own undefined terms that doesn't explain anything.
No.1817582
>>1817571>are you accusing me of not believing in matter because you dont know basic physics?No, I’m accusing you of making bad examples I can easily discard. The rest is retreating from the first point raised.
No.1817587
>>1817579Lol I thought again, wait "why should photons move at all?"
The top results are this typo filled comment lol. I think that's why I never got into physics. They want to tell 100s of pages about the most esoteric nonsense. Then you ask the most badic questions and it is so hard to research.
No.1817598
Another fun fact: the speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. I don't know how this effects the time a photon experiences. In a vacuum no time, in a medium a smoll amount of time or something?
No.1817606
>>1817571> "Materialism" today is only peddled by the same liberals you supposedly hateFind me the liberal that uses historical materialism.
No.1817624
>>1817579>As I rememver the standard explanation, a photon doesn't experience time at all, I guess even tho a photon is on one place at one time or another, since at the speed of light time stops, no time for photons. Never got what that bullshit was supposed to mean.All Time is motion, and all motion is determined by mass, since mass is energy, and energy is matter.
Photons have no mass so dont experience time, so all time is measured against the timelessness of light-speed.
Think of the speed of light as zero, and all mass as creating positive integers which give it time (relative to the speed of light - the more mass, the more energy, but the slower the time experienced. This is why large bodies move slower than smaller bodies (think of the states of matter like this in terms of density - gas moves sporadically, water moves slower, and solids dont move at all, relatively).
Think also about how hard it is to catch a fly, since we move in slow motion relative to them. Their shortness of life can also be seen as their private time operating faster than ours. Timelapses of the seasons can also give us reference to planetary time in this regard too.
>Now you are just inventing your own undefined terms that doesn't explain anything.Well, the fabric of space technically isnt made of anything, its just the net that all matter rests on. So it cant be seen as an object, but the no-thing that relates everything to everything else.
>Another fun fact: the speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. I don't know how this effects the time a photon experiences. In a vacuum no time, in a medium a smoll amount of time or somethingPhotons interacting with objects give them visibility, so the contact slows down time to inter-relate the temporal image of a thing. So when you turn on your lightbulb, photons are bouncing on the walls to self-relate the walls to themself. This happens when light enters into the gravity or energy field an object creates.
Photons in a vacuum by comparison are obviously invisible since they arent interacting with anything
No.1817629
>>1817582>No, I’m accusing you of making bad examples I can easily discard.What bad example? I just asked what matter was and you sperged out. You can still answer me if you like.
>>1817604Cope, theorylet
>>1817606Adam Smith's view of history is materialist in his meaning to parse out the laws of economics, and most liberals have proceeded as thus, except austrian thinkers who are rationalist as opposed to empiricist.
But im talking about the precept of a "materialist" discourse to begin with, which is bound up in metaphysics. "Materialism" isnt a method; youre just talking about science.
Thats why marx called himself a scientific socialist, not a dialectical materialist.
No.1817636
>>1817624Well all matter is an "excitation of quantum fields" anyways Frrom my reading of physics, they don't know shit and maybe it is imposdible to know shit. You can't determine what the outside of a building looks like from the inside and we as beings are permanently on the inside. There may be a lot of things that can never be experimentally proven from the inside and we will never know these things on the outside.
No.1817637
>>1817629> What bad example?Now you’re just playing dumb.
No.1817649
>>1817637A "materialist" should have an idea of what matter is, no?
>>1817633>>1817636But you see how you are already positing an inside and outside? This is my criticism, that materialism seeks to make a discursive separation between the subject and object, or otherwise enclose the subject within the objective (like de sade for example).
My feeling from german idealism is that the objective has its own subjective gaze in man which orders reality to an instrumental reason, and marx follows from this - that in some way the world is an unfinished thing that has to be made by man.
I would also say that art is part of this transhistorical consciousness; that nature is not enough. Even in plato's dialog "protagoras" ir says that man was an artist before he was a political animal, and this shows from cave paintings.
No.1817654
>>1817649I am positing an inside an outside in relation to our cognitive perspective. If we belive thst consciousness is just a result of the atoms in or body, then that is a natural limitation of our perspective.
If matter exists within space or fields or time ir whatever, it nakes sense we can never encapsulate those things within our skulls.
No.1817659
>>1817629> But im talking about the precept of a "materialist" discourse to begin withThat’s not an excuse to carte blanche equivocate between the two. You know what you’re doing. It doesn’t matter what liberals believe is or isn’t materialism. Marx did use a materialist conception of history that Engels, after Marx’s death, termed historical materialism.
< This conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real process of production, starting out from the material production of life itself, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this and created by this mode of production (i.e. civil society in its various stages), as the basis of all history; describing it in its action as the state, and to explain all the different theoretical products and forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. etc. arise from it, and trace their origins and growth from that basis. Thus the whole thing can, of course, be depicted in its totality (and therefore, too, the reciprocal action of these various sides on one another). No.1817664
>>1817659<dat orange text.>everone needs to fulfill their biological needsYeh
>that explains everythingWtf?
No.1817727
>>1817654>If matter exists within space or fields or time ir whatever, it nakes sense we can never encapsulate those things within our skullsI would disagree, since science is already refining nature down to formulas and mechanical reproductions. Clearly our human understanding reflects "reality" in some way. Appealing to a "deeper" reality is just ideological nonsense.
>>1817659>That’s not an excuse to carte blanche equivocate between the twoThey come out of the same intellectual milieu so bear relation to one another. The "godlessness" of materialism is expressedly political and this has momentum in marx's work (though, i would say that the anarchists, as the first communists, bear most likeness to the republican revolutions, where marx and engels' work is a critique of the left's internal contradictions - i.e. the catching wind of socialists of all kinds described in the manifesto, including "reactionary socialists" which have seemingly lost relevance to the left's study today). So marx's materialism isnt the same as the liberals', but it is still encoded in his fervour for science and atheism.
>Marx did use a materialist conception of history that Engels, after Marx’s death, termed historical materialism.Yes and its an inversion of hegel's idea of history, where marx sees motion made by the base of production as opposed to the superstructure. Of course i disagree and side more with hegel and orher idealists, but "materialism" here is still a strategic misnomer, like you identify, so why call it "materialism" to begin with if you arent being properly materialist?
But then you will say that you are a materialist, but not define what matter is, so its a strange circular relation of the "thing" you orient yourself around by never disclosing its properties.
I just take science's word for it, that matter is energy and so on. I'm not avoiding the topic. Why would self-professed materialists?
Again, "humans need food to live" isnt a novel insight, nor denied by anybody, and only makes sense within a concept of history as a whole. What real relevance does "historical materialism" have except a way to demystify relations of production in an atheistic contrivance?
i would otherwise argue that production has always been tied to religion, or ideology, because society is always a religious community - capitalism itself was spun out of the protestant work ethic. Again, marx's appraisal of bourgeois "self-interest" is his materialist ethos, which is what materialism is "in-itself"; godlessness as a sociality *and* corresponding mode of production No.1818075
>>1816854Just heard Higgs died.
No.1818166
>>1810024damn that sheen guy in the webm is so faggy dressed like that and the way he talks with his hands… why dont modern catholics dress and talk like that? also, since when did god say freedom of press is an inalienable right?
No.1818167
>>1818166>also, since when did god say freedom of press is an inalienable right?forget it anon, it's americanism
also I think everyone on TV was like that back then, every actor had theatrical training
No.1818170
>>1818167i really cannot believe americans to be so stupid that they believe god gave them "rights" just for them to be shat all over the majority of time anyway, they're not rights if they can so easily be taken away, and they're CETAINLY not god-given if the fucking omnipotent omniscient omnipresent creator of all that is or ever will be cannot even be bothered to defend them.
No.1818250
>>1818221>>1818232cool, catholics calling the pope heretical never gets old, is this group for real why would "good christians" care about property bruh
No.1820714
>>1817727They don't come out of the same intellectual milieu. The Liberals were of the opinion that those to the left of them held untenable positions. "Godlessness" itself isn't expressly a liberal concept anyway. The "Cult of the Supreme" being comes to mind.
>So marx's materialism isnt the same as the liberals'Should have stopped there. Even reactionaries make attempts at "science" and liberals aren't expressly atheistic.
>Yes and its an inversion of hegel's idea of historyThen it follows that it's distinct from Hegel and that it's not truly a "misnomer". As Marx puts it, it's not centered in an idealistic view that measures periods of history in accordance to certain ideas. The practical overthrow of social relations is given precedent over mental criticism as a driver of history. Here he explains:
<My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.
>I just take science's word for itThat's a more mechanical materialist outlook which is oddly more "atheistic" than the Marxist viewpoint. What constitutes matter within Marxism is typically more nuanced and is often tied to what is extended with some room given to things that defy categorization.
>"humans need food to live" isnt a novel insightGood thing that's not all he is saying. You can shrug at "demystifying the relations of production", but seeing as "mystification" keeps happening with the right it's been incredibly useful.
>Again, marx's appraisal of bourgeois "self-interest" is his materialist ethos, which is what materialism is "in-itself"; godlessness as a sociality *and* corresponding mode of production>self-interestThis seems like an issue you need to take up with Stirner rather than Marx. Marx is way more interested in class interest.
No.1820723
>>1820714>What constitutes matter within Marxism is typically more nuanced and is often tied to what is extended with some room given to things that defy categorization. Im still waiting for a marxist definition of matter
>Marx is way more interested in class interest.The whole point of the manifesto is to say that the capitalists have revealed that history is a process of working out selfish desires, but that theyre now just conserving that power for themselves.
This is also marx's criticism of capital's internal contradictions, that it limits its own ability to circulate commodities in production by hoarding wealth in the capitalist class. Marx likes liberalism, but doesnt feel that its liberal enough.
Ive never read a passage from marx that talks about "class interest" as something which doesnt procure a political universalism. The point of the proletariat to marx is in overcoming their condition, not in identifying with it.
No.1820732
>>1820723V. I. Lenin
MATERIALISM and EMPIRIO-CRITICISM
Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy
Chapter Three: The Theory of Knowledge of Dialectical Materialism and of Empirio-Criticism. III
1. What Is Matter? What Is Experience?
I did not readed this text, i will do it later, maybe it will help in explaining what is matter
>Im still waiting for a marxist definition of matterhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/three1.htm No.1820772
>hey guys here's a fun catchphrase idea I had214 replies later
>achkshually, as Lenin clearly says in Imperialism and Emperio-Criticism…lol, lmao, even. who says this site is dying?
Fascists need dogwhistles because they're inbred spastics who know their ideas are unpopular to sane people, so they dance around it with shit to conceal it but get off on triggering twitter users since that's half the reason why they joined the far right in the first place. (That, and they're childish losers who unironically think this le secret society movement shit is real). Most of them aren't any different from the libs who vote for the dems or the republicans, they just get off on backing a different team to own the libs/commies/[insert slur]. Most of them aren't going to do any meaningful activism to support whatever ideology they've picked from politics Kmart, and the ones that do aren't really going to be interested in dogwhistles.
Also:
>Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims- Marx, the communist manifesto (inb4 "the tradition of dead generations")
but if you think it's a good idea, go for it
>>1810028^^^ this. If you're only interested in dunking on the right, a hammer and sickle work just fine.
No.1820782
>>1820723>Im still waiting for a marxist definition of matter I just said, it's things that exhibit metaphysical extension with some room given to things that defy that categorization. You've still only appealed to a mechanical materialist perspective.
>le manifesto In the manifesto itself it says that bourgeoise interest springs from the mode of production. That's class interest.
Marx sees liberalism as tied to capitalism. It's not that it isn't "liberal enough", but that it's inherently premised upon faulty ground. Even with social liberalism, its appeal to natural "rights" is flawed within a Marxist framework. Marx has a kind of inverted "Sittlichkeit" that he follows conversely.
>The point of the proletariat to marx is in overcoming their condition, not in identifying with it.That's because it's not about identity. It's about the social relations of production as a force propelling interest, not "self-interest" by itself. That's more of a Stirnerism.
No.1820794
>>1820772>a hammer and sickle work just fine.Damn, sometimes the simplest solution goes over your head. Should have thought of that.
No.1820830
>>1820794no worries m8
one of the easiest and most obvious strats leftists seem to ignore is that it is extraordinarily easy to get people onto your side if you just be normal. Talk to people about their lives (your social skills and ability to do this will improve over time - if you're a socially stunted autist like me or just have social anxiety, think about it like an RPG - you talk to random people your character doesn't know all the time, right? But you do it because you have to fulfil an objective. Think about it like that.) If you don't act like a total retard and just talk to people like they're people, same as you (and DON'T proselytise), you'll find it easier to talk to normies about socialism, even easier to recruit them to the cause if you maintain a friendship/relationship with them over the course of weeks, months, or years. Even if it's just a normal convo, sneaking in this or that Marxist perspective gets pretty easy once you get the hang of it (and don't act like a total autist when you do it)
theory related
No.1820850
>>1820732Lenin just criticises the machists for being idealists, but also says they are secretly materialists. He never gives a full definition of what matter is except this:
>matter is that which, acting upon our sense-organs, produces sensation; matter is the objective reality given to us in sensation, and so forth.I feel like this is typically tautological and fallaciously dichotomous; as if idealists dont believe in external sensation.
Lenin also talks about 'externality' in regards to matter which is pure rhetoric. But Lenin gracefully references marx's transhistorcism by saying that there are basically 2 trends in philosophy; materialism or idealism, and you must pick one. Althusser also had this opinion, where he saw science as revolutionary and philosophy as always being sophistical and masking ruling power.
So Lenin here is just being an empiricist talking about sense-certainty and whatnot. So a marxist materialism here clearly takes off from the liberal tradition's own codefication of science as a liberating tool. And should we be surprised considering marx and engels' project was "scientific socialism"?
>>1820782> I just said, it's things that exhibit metaphysical extension with some room given to things that defy that categorization. Word Salad
>You've still only appealed to a mechanical materialist perspective.The newtonian universe is mechanical. The einsteinian universe is dialectical.
>It's not that it isn't "liberal enough", but that it's inherently premised upon faulty ground. In anti-duhring engels (wuth oversight from marx) describes how the french revolution was potentially an event organised by pure reason, but its potentials were held back by class interests. Communism is supposed to just be the french revolution 2.0 that rights the wrongs.
No.1820862
I didn't even know that "Christ is King" has become a dogwhistle. Christian nationalists ruin everything for everyone else. Same thing happened to groomer which used to be a word that had an actual meaning, before they destroyed it.
No.1821048
>>1820830Practical advice? In MY /leftypol/?!
No.1821223
>>1820850>Word SaladNah
>The newtonian universe is mechanical. The einsteinian universe is dialectical. Mechanical Materialism isn't inherently tied to Newtonianism.
>In anti-duhring engels (wuth oversight from marx) describes how the french revolution was potentially an event organised by pure reason, but its potentials were held back by class interests. The only mention of pure reason is here:
<For the bourgeois world, based upon the principles of these philosophers, is quite as irrational and unjust, and, therefore, finds its way to the dust-hole quite as readily as feudalism and all the earlier stages of society. If pure reason and justice have not, hitherto, ruled the world, this has been the case only because men have not rightly understood them. What was wanted was the individual man of genius, who has now arisen and who understands the truth. That he has now arisen, that the truth has now been clearly understood, is not an inevitable event, following of necessity in the chain of historical development, but a mere happy accident. He might just as well have been born 500 years earlier, and might then have spared humanity 500 years of error, strife, and sufferingIt's describing the English, French, and first German
socialists. But this is not the scientific socialist outlook that Marx himself ascribes to.
No.1821236
>>1820862It's funny, the right will accuse everyone of being degenerate while degenerating the meaning of certain words.
No.1821246
>>1821223>Mechanical Materialism isn't inherently tied to Newtonianism.Yes it is. Einstein calls his system "relativity" partly as a rhetoric against the *absolutist* newtonian concept, which was mechanical. Newtonian mechanics hasnt been disproven though, just sublated.
>It's describing the English, French, and first Germansocialists. But this is not the scientific socialist outlook that Marx himself ascribes to.
So what is scientific socialism's relation to reason then? I just try to be historical. When marx talks about "the terror", he's being ironic by saying that he will use the liberal's own tactics against them; i.e. the liberals didnt go far enough.
No.1821259
>>1810024The daniel dennett outlook towards consciousness (as being illusory) has nothing to do with materialism, you've confused marx's dialectics of nature for british empiricism, lol. Consciousness is inherently in no way anathema to marxism nor is it reactionary. Rightoids who adopt consciousness do so out of mysticism, due to their pathological idealism, yet this is only but one model upon which to conceptualize. Besides, one can defend consciousness as extant and irreducible to the body = all, death = permanent cessation conception even WITHIN a physicalist framework. Like, there are literally books and papers doing exactly that.
No.1821261
>>1821259This being said, you really should come up with other dogwhistles and develop a more thorough understanding of marxism and its many internal deviations. We can already accomplish this by coopting populist rhetoric in a class-driven direction.
No.1821275
>>1817649I have a few honest questions.
1.) If you're genuinely of this belief: "My feeling from german idealism is that the objective has its own subjective gaze in man which orders reality to an instrumental reason, and marx follows from this - that in some way the world is an unfinished thing that has to be made by man.
I would also say that art is part of this transhistorical consciousness; that nature is not enough." why are you a Nazi? Yes, I know of Heidegger's ontology of being and its relation to the volksch and the zeitgeist blah blah blah, but Nazism is still fundamentally eugenicist, which necessarily relates itself to the reducibility of naturalism.
2.) Have you read Giovanni Gentile? Actually read him, not just the Wiki summary.
No.1821290
>>1821275Oh, I also wanted to add that although Zizek is seen as a 'meme philosopher', if you seriously read his written works, he directly addresses the insufficiency of reality unto itself from a neo-hegelian perspective vis a vis marx. Are you familiar with his 'Less than Nothing' and, if so, do you have any criticisms regarding it?
No.1821293
>>1821275>why are you a Nazi? Yes, I know of Heidegger's ontology of being and its relation to the volksch and the zeitgeist blah blah blah, but Nazism is still fundamentally eugenicist, which necessarily relates itself to the reducibility of naturalism. Yes this is a great question.
I just call myself a fascist or nationalist or anticommunist socialist. Nazi is just the flag on this site, but i do hold my spooked right-wing respect for them. Im not an anti-nazi, but im also not german, so i have no place in the reich.
>gentileNo ive never read him, but ive seen people talk about him.
Im not really into "political philosophy" since it gets bogged down in "theory" which is inherently universalist, or "lawful" in its orientation. I much prefer metapolitics since it gets to the root of the dialectical dispute, which i see as a battle between the *qualitative* on the right and *quantitative* on the left (as per guenon's "reign of quantity").
Its not a perfect dichotomy, but the dialectic is always internally-contradictory anyway.
Many today dont believe in a left and right, but my orthodoxy is in seeing this meta-politics as an objective process in modernity (which is where both formally begin).
No.1821296
>>1821293Gentile is meta-political, to be fair. He has law oriented texts like the doctrine of fascism, but theory of mind as pure act, its untranslated sequel, and on education are all meta-political and metaphysical.
No.1821309
>>1821290With zizek books i read excerpts at a time
I have read bits of less than nothing and i like a part in his introduction, where (by *qualitative* distinction), he differentiates between "idiots" and "morons". An idiot is someone who takes codes literally, like someone responding to "how was your day?" seriously, while a moron is someone who takes the position of a complacent common sense. I myself am an idiot. I have an example, where once as a kid i missed my grandad's birthday, so my parents told me to write a card to send the next day - i included in the card an apology for missing his birthday (as an act of true belief in the social custom), and my parents scolded me for this. I always believed what i was told, like santa and the tooth fairy - but here's the hilarious contradiction. I was into science as a kid so i knew the speed of light and i was figuring out how fast santa would have to be to be able to move across the whole world and so on. So in my general intelligence i was being totally idiotic. Whereas i imagine a moron is someone like a cynic who says there is no santa, and the same type of guy to later compare God to the easter bunny.
I read another passage today where he was making a great point about this inefficiency of reality youre talking about, (or where "reality" is put in the place of ideology), where the "objective" person like carl sagan talks about the "pale blue dot" as a fact of a sort of lifeless gaze, the "grey" gaze of the Real, which might be analogous to the camera lense. Zizek's point is that in this "transcendence" is precisely the disregarding of the kantian *transcendental*, where a man imagines himself as inhabiting the "objective" but through the fantasy of the objective itself. So the objective here is a crudely human universe, since our judgements are clearly limited by our subjectivity.
But think of this in more ideological circumstances. In feudal times it was your ordained place to be at the bottom, or at the top. God or divinity here is the self-referential "objectivity" which we refer to. Today a bootstrap conservatives tells us "thats life" when we demand change, as of "life" here is something we can see *through* into the supposed impersonality of power. The greatest myth ofc is the "free market" which is self-regulating. I once heard a catholic say that the "invisible hand" is real and it is literally god. Here, "transcendence" is limited to the *transcendental*, or the objective is always subjective, and that would be the hegelian through-line.
But this is why i say that in the matrix analogy the blue pill is more true than the red pill. The red pill is the fantasy of ideology, while the blue pill gives us "the real world" for all intents and purposes. I reject Zizek's "third pill" here and stick with a brutal dualism. Cypher is the hero of the matrix.
i had an idea once for a rewriting of the matrix where it was humans who ORDERD the robots to build the matrix to create "the real world" for them after the ruins of a trashed earth. Neo finds this out in the last one and decides that the matrix is good, BUT still lets zion exist in its place of revolutionary fantasy No.1821312
>>1821296I have the PDF
I'm just going through the collected works of plato atm and will get to him eventually. But in my hegelian way ofc, you should fake it til you make it. To normies maybe i namedrop gentile here and there and give the "good enough" truth of gentile's perspective.
No.1821317
>>1821246>Yes it is.It's not. You can have Mechanical Materialist Einsteinist despite it being anti-Einstein. "I just take Science's word for it" is a mechanically materialist position due to it suffering from the same absolutizing of scientific laws. It's the attitude of scientism.
>So what is scientific socialism's relation to reason then?You should read this:
<It is of this absolute method that Hegel speaks in these terms:>>“Method is the absolute, unique, supreme, infinite force, which no object can resist; it is the tendency of reason to find itself again, to recognize itself in every object.” (Logic, Vol. III [p. 29])<All things being reduced to a logical category, and every movement, every act of production, to method, it follows naturally that every aggregate of products and production, of objects and of movement, can be reduced to a form of applied metaphysics. What Hegel has done for religion, law, etc., M. Proudhon seeks to do for political economy.<So what is this absolute method? The abstraction of movement. What is the abstraction of movement? Movement in abstract condition. What is movement in abstract condition? The purely logical formula of movement or the movement of pure reason. Wherein does the movement of pure reason consist? In posing itself, opposing itself, composing itself; in formulating itself as thesis, antithesis, synthesis; or, yet, in affirming itself, negating itself, and negating its negation.<How does reason manage to affirm itself, to pose itself in a definite category? That is the business of reason itself and of its apologists.<But once it has managed to pose itself as a thesis, this thesis, this thought, opposed to itself, splits up into two contradictory thoughts – the positive and the negative, the yes and no. The struggle between these two antagonistic elements comprised in the antithesis constitutes the dialectical movement. The yes becoming no, the no becoming yes, the yes becoming both yes and no, the no becoming both no and yes, the contraries balance, neutralize, paralyze each other. The fusion of these two contradictory thoughts constitutes a new thought, which is the synthesis of them. This thought splits up once again into two contradictory thoughts, which in turn fuse into a new synthesis. Of this travail is born a group of thoughts. This group of thoughts follows the same dialectic movement as the simple category, and has a contradictory group as antithesis. Of these two groups of thoughts is born a new group of thoughts, which is the antithesis of them.<Just as from the dialectic movement of the simple categories is born the group, so from the dialectic movement of the groups is born the series, and from the dialectic movement of the series is born the entire system.<Apply this method to the categories of political economy and you have the logic and metaphysics of political economy, or, in other words, you have the economic categories that everybody knows, translated into a little-known language which makes them look as if they had never blossomed forth in an intellect of pure reason; so much do these categories seem to engender one another, to be linked up and intertwined with one another by the very working of the dialectic movement. The reader must not get alarmed at these metaphysics with all their scaffolding of categories, groups, series, and systems. M. Proudhon, in spite of all the trouble he has taken to scale the heights of the system of contradictions, has never been able to raise himself above the first two rungs of simple thesis and antithesis; and even these he has mounted only twice, and on one of these two occasions he fell over backwards.<Up to now we have expounded only the dialectics of Hegel. We shall see later how M. Proudhon has succeeded in reducing it to the meanest proportions. Thus, for Hegel, all that has happened and is still happening is only just what is happening in his own mind. Thus the philosophy of history is nothing but the history of philosophy, of his own philosophy. There is no longer a “history according to the order in time,” there is only “the sequence of ideas in the understanding.” He thinks he is constructing the world by the movement of thought, whereas he is merely reconstructing systematically and classifying by the absolute method of thoughts which are in the minds of all.
>he's being ironic by saying that he will use the liberal's own tactics against themHe wasn't being sardonic with the "terror" comment but terror predates and isn't unique to liberalism.
No.1821326
>>1821317>It's not. You can have Mechanical Materialist Einsteinist despite it being anti-Einstein. "I just take Science's word for it" is a mechanically materialist position due to it suffering from the same absolutizing of scientific laws. It's the attitude of scientism. Well i was clearly bring flippant about my trust in science. But a critique of science is only immanent to a scientific understanding itself. The most "true" concept of matter still must come from science.
<orange textYeah, so he wants to out-reason the rationalists. Thats my point. Engels' quote about "Reason" is a sarcastic and rhetorical response to the enlightenment.
>He wasn't being sardonic with the "terror" comment but terror predates and isn't unique to liberalism.Political terror refers directly to the revolutionary terror of the jacobins. Marx is clearly appropriating this aesthetic, the same way the anarchists and all communists did.
No.1825829
>>1820850>I feel like this is typically tautologicalI think what you have written on Hegel so far should put you in the position to know that dialectical phenomenology(material or ideal) is tautological but it makes less assumptions then any other worldview and constitutes a closed loop completed system.
Hegel makes exactly one assumption, that being exists, Lenin makes one assumption, that external reality exists. Everything else logically follows from that.
>>1817727> its an inversion of hegel's idea of historyIts actually not. All three of them are just being autists. Hegel read a lot of Christian mysticism but what he means by spirit is the natural world. Marx studied interpreters of Hegel that vulgarized this so he thought it was necessary to emphasize the material over the "ideal". Lenin was fighting the orthodox church so he went hard on atheism. All three of them repeatedly emphasize that dialectics means that both ideas and matter interpenetrate in flux they just differ on terminology and what is primary, which is actually irrelevant if you take what they are saying seriously because the Absolute contains both. Its only an inversion in the sense that subtraction is an inversion of addition but can equally be representative of a negative addition. The method is the same.
No.1826698
>>1825829>>1825829>I think what you have written on Hegel so far should put you in the position to know that dialectical phenomenology(material or ideal) is tautological but it makes less assumptions then any other worldview and constitutes a closed loop completed system. Yes, but "materialism" as a discourse brings direct antinomy to "idealism". Thats why i say materialism is an outdated idea, where someone like graham harman would agree, with his own "immaterialism", or someone like zizek (in his own kantianism) would implore that "materialism has nothing to do with matter".
If you want to know, a fundamental theory of matter begins in aristotle, who simply sees it as the vessel for "form", but all is held within "substance". When DiaMats talks about "matter", they mean "substance", but there is no "substantialism" as a doctrine, because, again, its tautological.
>Hegel makes exactly one assumption, that being exists, Lenin makes one assumption, that external reality exists. Everything else logically follows from that.I wouldnt be so simplistic. Things are very different in their worldviews, and so the hubris of minimalist metaphysics doesnt get you closer to consellation with a common Reason.
>Hegel read a lot of Christian mysticism but what he means by spirit is the natural world.Yes, and no. He didnt mean Nature as something for-itself (like muh black holes), but like Kant, saw Nature as normative to Reason.
>which is actually irrelevant if you take what they are saying seriously because the Absolute contains bothI think this is too dualistic, but i get your point. But it also matters in how you approach the world and how you derive your concepts.
>Its only an inversion in the sense that subtraction is an inversion of addition but can equally be representative of a negative addition. The method is the same.Inversion is subtraction the same way 3 - 6 = -3
Hegel puts agency in the elites, while marx puts agency in the workers. In truth, both are right and both are wrong in different ways.
>MethodWhat method exactly? Historical analysis?
Sure, but the concepts differ here again. Hegel's point would be that utopia is impossible, but there is still the necessary struggle for civilisation and society abstractly (through the internal contradiction of social identity itself), while marx's point is that science can liberate man from his hardships.
In terms of the absolute, hegel views it as Reason manifested in the world toward itself, while marx sees it as the self-movement of labour toward its liberation.
I think temporally there is difference here again, where hegel's conception is cyclical (as per the dialectic), and marx's is linear. Both believe in progress, but from different angles.
I embrace marx as a *critic* of hegel, but that means he also subsists within his critique as such, the same way lenin is a critic of the marxism of his own time. This relates to hegel being a critic of Kant too, and so on.
I am not a hegelian dogmatist so i appreciate it, but you must also understand that there is no fundamental recociliation, otherwise you'll be like the cooks still trying to reconcile plato and aristotle.
No.1830551
>>1830437Misato, why do you have to have the best taste in web but be an Anarchist?
No.1830656
>>1820830FORD method
Family/Friends
Occupation
Recreation
Dreams
Talk to people about those four things and avoid religion. When the time comes to talk about unionization/whatever they'll already think of you as down to Earth.
No.1830909
>>1830437>>1830551This is Madoka Kaname.
这个是小圆
No.1830931
>>1830896One of the mods here is posting under Anarcha-feminism, usually Misato posting.
No.1830936
>>1830931 Oh, I see, thank you.
哦，原来是这样的，谢谢你。
No.1830939
>>1810024Its obvious that very few people in here have real life org experiance cause there are leftist dogwistles:
People over profit
Fighting for a world without exploitation of humans by other humans
etc etc
No.1830942
>>1830939Hell there are even dogwistles for particular tendencies
People democracy
socialism of the 21sr century etc
No.1830953
>>1830936As an amateur in Mandarin, would you mind advising me on the functional difference between 我懂了 and 原来是这样的？
No.1830964
>>1830953 我懂了——I understand
“我”—— I
“懂”—— understand
“了”—— used after a verb or adjective to indicate that the action or change has been completed.
“原来是这样的”——
This sentence implies something omitted, it can be expanded as —— (这件事情) 原来是这样的
There might be some emphasis differences:
我懂了 emphasizes "I" understand
原来是这样的 emphasizes —— "this matter"原来是这样的
And please, please don't mimic my handwriting; my handwriting is the worst among people I know, myself included.
No.1830966
>>1830953 I'm not a specialized language teacher; I can only tell you the Chinese I understand in daily life.
我不是专门的语文老师，只能告诉你我生活理解的中文。
No.1830975
>>1830964 Ignoring the emphasized points, these two sentences are almost identical in meaning, and can be interchangeable in most cases, even connecting them together" into Chinese would be:“我懂了，原来是这样的”、“原来是这样的，我懂了”
忽略强调的重点，这两句话几乎差不多的意思，大部分情况下可以互用，甚至可以连起来”我懂了，原来是这样的“、”原来是这样的，我懂了“
No.1831002
>>1830975sure, but i assume theres a reason you used one rather than the other?
No.1831040
>>1831002 Nothing special, just everyday speech.
没有什么特殊原因，日常的口语罢了
No.1831084
>>1810028>You know what actually trigger rightoids? Actual socialist symbols, talking about socialism, supporting socialists, red flags, singing socialist songs.O Marx who art in Heaven, please save me from the aesthetic obsessed retards that utter your name
No.1831098
>>1817606Diderot, Helvétius, d'Holbach?
No.1831451
>>1831098Not from "today".
No.1831519
>>1831442wait i agree w this
No.1832629
>>1830953Literally, “I understand” vs “so, that’s the case” (literally: originally it was that way, with emphasis on originally).
No.1832655
>>1810024>Christ is KingFinish it with "of the Jews"
They freak out and start crazy wewuzzing wall of texts conspiracy theories how da joos are not real joos and actual joos are aryan and shiet
Unique IPs: 92