Why can't we have a world where people with differing ideologies can just agree to live separately and not fuck with eachother? Why does everyone feel the need to "save", "liberate" or "civilize" other nations?
I'm not even picking on anyone in particular here, although there are obviously certain nations that are better than others in this regard (the difference between the US and China comes to mind), but overall it seems like every ideology's implicit end goal is to cover the whole earth. Why is that? I would say it's a result of material conditions blah blah blah, but it seems to go back to the dawn of civilization itself, which confuses me.
>>2261275Why is that a bad thing?
>>2261278I'm not a liberal. Can you please explain what you mean?
>>2261399Wdym?
>>2261426Okay, tell me why not. Why are you people so extraordinarily unhelpful and unwilling to actually have a good-faith discussion?
>>2261269You are a shame on that flag, if not an outright apparent smear for those that use it. "To mind my own business", "to not civilize others", to neglect capital itself and the expansion, the very element of society that all are part of in favor of a pacifist plead in the eyes of what? A bourgeoisie democracy. The very beast that alienates. An ideology founded on the declassed striving towards material analysis, which should consecutively be towards class analysis and an expanding attitude against reaction as to not let segments of the social order BRING THE REST DOWN. An ideology for the development of all as a whole in the right hands, discarded to a plea to "do my own thing" in "peace". There can be no peace with the bourgeoisie. All that matters is part of us and we're affected by it. To let cancers grow is to allow transhumanism to be crippled and destroyed at its own expense, to be usurped by the exploitation of the capitalist mode of production and be used for growth and farther repression in an unsustainable decomposing structure. There is no being left alone as long as class society exists. And there is no being left alone as long as humanity exists. To dismiss material analysis is against transhumanism and its declassed variant. The transhumanism of the movement of the declassed and that which works in favor of the proletariat stands firmly on the premise that social freedom is inherently linked to material freedom. You are a swindler false flagging your way into conversation who wants to taint the conception in front of others, there are many like you and none of you will be able to do it as long as the real movement exists we will criticize you. This tolerance of not "imposing civilization" - a vaguely worded apologia for neo-luddites to thrive, when we cannot co-exist in contradictions. Use any flag you want, your text shows you are detached from this one and its name. And even if it is to become stripped of its meaning the adherents of transcending human limits will adopt a new one because they are creative minds. We can create thousands of flags, symbols and words to label ourselves and build upon it. There is nothing a fraud can do to us. William Gillis could not appropriate it for himself, it lives its own life outside the merchants, utopians and aesthetic - interlinked with scientific socialism forever.
the nature of memes, like genes, is to expand and grow. even in separate locations, ideas can be transmitted and take hold. religious passion comes from this irreducible faith in ideas, which leads to wars, which impose their rule. we also have a genetic imperative to reproduce, and so different forms of sexual power naturally arise, typically in the patriarchal form, with wars and conquests often being a slaughtering or enslaving of men, and the sexual captivity of women. these points demonstrate the instinct of bodies to expand, which necessitate an expansion of territory. no creature willfully recedes, so how do you maintain fixed territories? you cant - you can only attack or defend what exists. all is against all. the idea of peace is purely temporary.
>>2262143what is your point?
>>2262147im not an anarchist; i was just pointing out your logical contradictions.
>>2262191Previous marxist states failed because they did not properly fight the capitalists that were arising in their own country, not because of the communist state itself. After the capitalists have been defeated there won't be a reason or economic basis for the state to exist, it won't be able to keep control of things because nobody would have a reason to even listen to it anymore and only an apolitical bureaucracy will remain. This is the idea of the state withering away.
But it is true that this is a idealized view of things. This is why Maoism is such an important contribution, since it identifies that class society might try to re-establish itself at any time. This is why we have a cultural revolution. If the state does not wither away the Red Guards will go in and shoot all the politicians, withering the state away by force.
>>2262211>only an apolitical bureaucracy will remain. This is the idea of the state withering away. so the state will still exist, then.
>This is why we have a cultural revolutionwhere everyone is criticised except mao himself. if the red guard killed mao and put in a new leader, i would be inclined to take them seriously.
>>2262222Why would they have killed Mao? He only did anything wrong until like the last couple years of his life, if he lived longer and kept making opportunist decisions he would have been removed.
The bureucracy isn't a state. This is just like transportation and logistics stuff that needs to exist. There will be contradictions but they won't be violent.
Look I highly suggest you just go and read State and Revolution, it's not a particularly long or difficult read and itsone of the most important socialist texts.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm >>2262232>Why would they have killed Mao?if your goal is to renew society, your prime target ought to be its oldest members.
>The bureucracy isn't a state. This is just like transportation and logistics stuff that needs to exist.you never mention legislation here, why? where are the courthouses? where are the police and military?
>>2262246What do you mean target its oldest members? Why? You target people based on class and class affiliation alone.
There would not be a police or military in communism. That is the point of what I'm trying to say. If a police force and judiciary did exist, it would be completely diffirent from what we know today, because the police is a tool of class oppression like everything else.
>>2262251>What do you mean target its oldest members? the cultural revolution was lead by the youth to dismantle reactionary upstarts in china. yet, if unconditional progress is the call, then why do its oldest members preserve themselves? its because mao was largely purging competition from within the party itself to protect his interests. progress then, is not unconditional, but conditioned by existing power.
>There would not be a police or military in communismwhy not?
>the police is a tool of class oppression like everything else.the state also mediates civil society to preserve order. its "law *and* order" for that purpose.
Unique IPs: 14