/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

It's the epitome of the "two retards fighting" meme really. The only good guys are the proletariat caught between two competing factions of the bourgeoisie

>>2289846
the international proletariat
China and the chinese people, every single one of them except uyghurs and religious minorities.

/s the real answer is the international proletariat, except every religious person because religion is inherently reactionary and most of the world population is reactionary

>>2289854
im religious

>>2289860
The struggle against the religious absurdity is more than ever a
necessity today. Religion has revealed its soul in the full flare of
the sun. To be still deluded would be cowardice. No matter what
the adaptations of the Church to the new and inexorable necessities
of the times may be—alas, it is to weep!—they are attempts,
generally vain, to resuscitate the titles of the “divine bank” which
already is on the road to failure.
Confronted with the spread of free thought, Pope Sarto [Pope
Pius X], fearful of the destinies of his domination, cried out:
"Faithful, the Antichrist is born!
"The Antichrist is human reason which rebels against dogma
and a beaten god."
When we claim that "God does not exist," we mean to deny by
this declaration the personal God of theology, the God worshiped
in various ways and divers modes by believers the world over, that
God who from nothing created the universe, from chaos matter,
that God of absurd attributes who is an affront to human reason.
With each new discovery of chemistry, physics, biology, the
anthropological sciences, of the practical application of sound
principles, dogma collapses. It is a part of that old edifice of
religion which crumbles and falls in ruins. The continuous progress
of the natural sciences now extending from city to country,
disperses the darkness of the Middle Ages, and the multitudes
desert the churches where from generation to generation they
betook themselves to pray to God—that monstrous product of
human ignorance.
Let us examine the nature of God. We force ourselves,
therefore, to reason in a vacuum, the God of religions being their
own image of their mental vacuum, the proof of the complete
absence of any activity in reasoning.
How can the idea of a creator be reconciled with the existence
of dwarfed and atrophied organs, with anomalies and
monstrosities, with the existence of pain, perpetual and universal,
with the struggle and the inequalities among human beings?
Epicurus, the philosopher who lived in Rome in the time of the
decadence of the Republic, posed the following questions:
"Either God wishes to do away with evil in this world and
cannot succeed; or he can do away with it and does not wish to; or
he cannot and does not wish to; or finally, he wishes to and can. If
he wishes to but has not the power, he is not all-powerful. If he has
the power to do away with evil and does not wish to, he is not
infinitely good. If, as affirm the deists, he can and wants to, tell
me, then, why does evil exist on earth, and why does not God
make it impossible?"
That which affronts human reason most is the inconceivable
fact of the creative power of a God who from nothingness created
everything, from chaos the universe. . . .
One would have to be completely without knowledge of
physiology, botany, and psychology to claim today the existence of
a "soul" independent of the body; on the contrary, one which does
not form one of the two distinct aspects of the unique human
nature.
Dogma is absurd because it presupposes immobility and the
absolute. Nothing in the world is absolute, everything is relative.
Nothing is entirely changeless, but there is a continual
transformation, a perpetual movement of forces.
Dogma presents to human reason an obstacle to progress
because it imposes limitations to the painful but salutary impulses
towards the search for truth, because it checks the free expansion
of all intellectual energy.
Science is now in the process of destroying religious dogma.
The dogma of the divine creation is recognized as absurd.
"Religion is the opium of the people."—Karl Marx.
It being demonstrated that religious dogma presents itself to the
human spirit and to rational criticism as "the absolute consecration
of the absurd," let us see why moral religion is "immoral."
The evangelists are ridiculous when, instead of studying the
Bible as a document of a certain historic interest, they try to credit
it with real life and bring to the masses the principles of Christ
(who perhaps never existed) as the ethical principles of a morality
everlastingly young, permanent, modern, in complete accord with
the present age. The Bible and morals called Christian are two
cadavers which the evangelists attempt to galvanize into life with,
it must be agreed, small enough success.
It is, therefore, clear that religious morality is one of
resignation and sacrifice, a morality which may be dear to the
weak, to the degenerate, to slaves, but which results in the
diminution of reason and human personality. It bends man toward
the earth, making him a slave to divinity. It favors the conservation
of those primitive sentiments which belong to that period of animal
life long left behind, and transforms the "thinking being" into a
"passive sheep" who lives in the fear of the universal judgment.
Religious morality shows the original stigmata of
authoritarianism precisely because it pretends to be the revelation
of divine authority. In order to translate this authoritarianism into
action and impose it upon humanity, the priestly caste of revealers
has sprung up and with it the most atrocious intolerance.
Certain it is that religion is a psychic disease of the brain, a
contraction, a tightening up of the individual who, if he is
profoundly religious, appears to us as abnormal.
The history of many saints, beatified by the church, is
repugnant. It shows nothing more than a profound aberration of the
human spirit in search of ultra-terrestrial chimeras; it is a delirium
which can attain the state of spasms of passion and which ends in
madness.
Therefore, many of those who today hover over the altars of
the Catholic Church are pathological cases, hysterics, déomanes
and demonomaniacs.
Even today in the more remote parts of Italy and Spain we can
witness similar phenomena, Saint January for the people of Naples,
and the Madonna of Lourdes for French bigotry. Are they not
analogous aberrations?
If we read the history of religions, we find that it deals with the
pathology of the human brain. If today the Middle Ages are retiring
into the thick shadows of convents, it is due to triumphant
skepticism; and if the epidemic disease of religion no longer
appears with the terrible intensity of former times, it is due to the
diminution of the political power of the Church which formerly
placed on the heads of people its cap of lead.
Religion presents itself to our eyes in another characteristic: the
atrophy of reason. The faculty by which man is differentiated from
the lower animals is his reasoning power. But the devout believer
renounces reason, refuses to explain the things which surround
him. the innumerable natural phenomena, because his religious
faith is enough for him. The brain loses the habit of thinking; and
this religious sottishness hurls mankind back into animalism.
In concluding we say that "religious man" is an abnormality
and that "religion" is the certain cause of epidemic diseases of the
mind which require the care of alienists.
Religion has shown itself in the open as the institution whose
aim is political power by which to externalize the exploitation and
the ignorance of the people.

>>2289860
>>2289876
For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths,” i.e., for God and country] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

The following exposition [a full-scale critical study of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right was supposed to follow this introduction] – a contribution to this undertaking – concerns itself not directly with the original but with a copy, with the German philosophy of the state and of law. The only reason for this is that it is concerned with Germany.

If we were to begin with the German status quo itself, the result – even if we were to do it in the only appropriate way, i.e., negatively – would still be an anachronism. Even the negation of our present political situation is a dusty fact in the historical junk room of modern nations. If I negate powdered pigtails, I am still left with unpowdered pigtails. If I negate the situation in Germany in 1843, then according to the French calendar I have barely reached 1789, much less the vital centre of our present age.

Indeed, German history prides itself on having travelled a road which no other nation in the whole of history has ever travelled before, or ever will again. We have shared the restorations of modern nations without ever having shared their revolutions. We have been restored, firstly, because other nations dared to make revolutions, and, secondly, because other nations suffered counter-revolutions; on the one hand, because our masters were afraid, and, on the other, because they were not afraid. With our shepherds to the fore, we only once kept company with freedom, on the day of its internment.

One school of thought that legitimizes the infamy of today with the infamy of yesterday, a school that stigmatizes every cry of the serf against the knout as mere rebelliousness once the knout has aged a little and acquired a hereditary significance and a history, a school to which history shows nothing but its a posteriori, as did the God of Israel to his servant Moses, the historical school of law – this school would have invented German history were it not itself an invention of that history. A Shylock, but a cringing Shylock, that swears by its bond, its historical bond, its Christian-Germanic bond, for every pound of flesh cut from the heart of the people.

Good-natured enthusiasts, Germanomaniacs by extraction and free-thinkers by reflexion, on the contrary, seek our history of freedom beyond our history in the ancient Teutonic forests. But, what difference is there between the history of our freedom and the history of the boar’s freedom if it can be found only in the forests? Besides, it is common knowledge that the forest echoes back what you shout into it. So peace to the ancient Teutonic forests!

War on the German state of affairs! By all means! They are below the level of history, they are beneath any criticism, but they are still an object of criticism like the criminal who is below the level of humanity but still an object for the executioner. In the struggle against that state of affairs, criticism is no passion of the head, it is the head of passion. It is not a lancet, it is a weapon. Its object is its enemy, which it wants not to refute but to exterminate. For the spirit of that state of affairs is refuted. In itself, it is no object worthy of thought, it is an existence which is as despicable as it is despised. Criticism does not need to make things clear to itself as regards this object, for it has already settled accounts with it. It no longer assumes the quality of an end-in-itself, but only of a means. Its essential pathos is indignation, its essential work is denunciation.

It is a case of describing the dull reciprocal pressure of all social spheres one on another, a general inactive ill-humor, a limitedness which recognizes itself as much as it mistakes itself, within the frame of government system which, living on the preservation of all wretchedness, is itself nothing but wretchedness in office.

What a sight! This infinitely proceeding division of society into the most manifold races opposed to one another by petty antipathies, uneasy consciences, and brutal mediocrity, and which, precisely because of their reciprocal ambiguous and distrustful attitude, are all, without exception although with various formalities, treated by their rulers as conceded existences. And they must recognize and acknowledge as a concession of heaven the very fact that they are mastered, ruled, possessed! And, on the other side, are the rulers themselves, whose greatness is in inverse proportion to their number!

Criticism dealing with this content is criticism in a hand-to-hand fight, and in such a fight the point is not whether the opponent is a noble, equal, interesting opponent, the point is to strike him. The point is not to let the Germans have a minute for self-deception and resignation. The actual pressure must be made more pressing by adding to it consciousness of pressure, the shame must be made more shameful by publicizing it. Every sphere of German society must be shown as the partie honteuse of German society: these petrified relations must be forced to dance by singing their own tune to them! The people must be taught to be terrified at itself in order to give it courage. This will be fulfilling an imperative need of the German nation, and the needs of the nations are in themselves the ultimate reason for their satisfaction.

This struggle against the limited content of the German status quo cannot be without interest even for the modern nations, for the German status quo is the open completion of the ancien régime and the ancien régime is the concealed deficiency of the modern state. The struggle against the German political present is the struggle against the past of the modern nations, and they are still burdened with reminders of that past. It is instructive for them to see the ancien régime, which has been through its tragedy with them, playing its comedy as a German revenant. Tragic indeed was the pre-existing power of the world, and freedom, on the other hand, was a personal notion; in short, as long as it believed and had to believe in its own justification. As long as the ancien régime, as an existing world order, struggled against a world that was only coming into being, there was on its side a historical error, not a personal one. That is why its downfall was tragic.

On the other hand, the present German regime, an anachronism, a flagrant contradiction of generally recognized axioms, the nothingness of the ancien régime exhibited to the world, only imagines that it believes in itself and demands that the world should imagine the same thing. If it believed in its own essence, would it try to hide that essence under the semblance of an alien essence and seek refuge in hypocrisy and sophism? The modern ancien régime is rather only the comedian of a world order whose true heroes are dead. History is thorough and goes through many phases when carrying an old form to the grave. The last phases of a world-historical form is its comedy. The gods of Greece, already tragically wounded to death in Aeschylus’s tragedy Prometheus Bound, had to re-die a comic death in Lucian’s Dialogues. Why this course of history? So that humanity should part with its past cheerfully. This cheerful historical destiny is what we vindicate for the political authorities of Germany.

Meanwhile, once modern politico-social reality itself is subjected to criticism, once criticism rises to truly human problems, it finds itself outside the German status quo, or else it would reach out for its object below its object. An example. The relation of industry, of the world of wealth generally, to the political world is one of the major problems of modern times. In what form is this problem beginning to engage the attention of the Germans? In the form of protective duties, of the prohibitive system, of national economy. Germanomania has passed out of man into matter, and thus one morning our cotton barons and iron heroes saw themselves turned into patriots. People are, therefore, beginning in Germany to acknowledge the sovereignty of monopoly on the inside through lending it sovereignty on the outside. People are, therefore, now about to begin, in Germany, what people in France and England are about to end. The old corrupt condition against which these countries are revolting in theory, and which they only bear as one bears chains, is greeted in Germany as the dawn of a beautiful future which still hardly dares to pass from crafty theory to the most ruthless practice. Whereas the problem in France and England is: Political economy, or the rule of society over wealth; in Germany, it is: National economy, or the mastery of private property over nationality. In France and England, then, it is a case of abolishing monopoly that has proceeded to its last consequences; in Germany, it is a case of proceeding to the last consequences of monopoly. There it is a case of solution, here as yet a case of collision. This is an adequate example of the German form of modern problems, an example of how our history, like a clumsy recruit, still has to do extra drill on things that are old and hackneyed in history.

If, therefore, the whole German development did not exceed the German political development, a German could at the most have the share in the problems-of-the-present that a Russian has. But, when the separate individual is not bound by the limitations of the nation, the nation as a whole is still less liberated by the liberation of one individual. The fact that Greece had a Scythian among its philosophers did not help the Scythians to make a single step towards Greek culture. [An allusion to Anacharsis.]

Luckily, we Germans are not Scythians.

As the ancient peoples went through their pre-history in imagination, in mythology, so we Germans have gone through our post-history in thought, in philosophy. We are philosophical contemporaries of the present without being its historical contemporaries. German philosophy is the ideal prolongation of German history. If therefore, instead of the oeuvres incompletes of our real history, we criticize the oeuvres posthumes of our ideal history, philosophy, our criticism is in the midst of the questions of which the present says: that is the question. What, in progressive nations, is a practical break with modern state conditions, is, in Germany, where even those conditions do not yet exist, at first a critical break with the philosophical reflexion of those conditions.

German philosophy of right and state is the only German history which is al pari [“on a level”] with the official modern present. The German nation must therefore join this, its dream-history, to its present conditions and subject to criticism not only these existing conditions, but at the same time their abstract continuation. Its future cannot be limited either to the immediate negation of its real conditions of state and right, or to the immediate implementation of its ideal state and right conditions, for it has the immediate negation of its real conditions in its ideal conditions, and it has almost outlived the immediate implementation of its ideal conditions in the contemplation of neighboring nations. Hence, it is with good reason that the practical political party in Germany demands the negation of philosophy.

It is wrong, not in its demand but in stopping at the demand, which it neither seriously implements nor can implement. It believes that it implements that negation by turning its back to philosophy and its head away from it and muttering a few trite and angry phrases about it. Owing to the limitation of its outlook, it does not include philosophy in the circle of German reality or it even fancies it is beneath German practice and the theories that serve it. You demand that real life embryos be made the starting-point, but you forget that the real life embryo of the German nation has grown so far only inside its cranium. In a word – You cannot abolish [aufheben] philosophy without making it a reality.

The same mistake, but with the factors reversed, was made by the theoretical party originating from philosophy.

>>2289882
>>2289876
>>2289860
In the present struggle it saw only the critical struggle of philosophy against the German world; it did not give a thought to the fact that philosophy up to the present itself belongs to this world and is its completion, although an ideal one. Critical towards its counterpart, it was uncritical towards itself when, proceeding from the premises of philosophy, it either stopped at the results given by philosophy or passed off demands and results from somewhere else as immediate demands and results of philosophy – although these, provided they are justified, can be obtained only by the negation of philosophy up to the present, of philosophy as such. We reserve ourselves the right to a more detailed description of this section: It thought it could make philosophy a reality without abolishing [aufzuheben] it.

The criticism of the German philosophy of state and right, which attained its most consistent, richest, and last formulation through Hegel, is both a critical analysis of the modern state and of the reality connected with it, and the resolute negation of the whole manner of the German consciousness in politics and right as practiced hereto, the most distinguished, most universal expression of which, raised to the level of science, is the speculative philosophy of right itself. If the speculative philosophy of right, that abstract extravagant thinking on the modern state, the reality of which remains a thing of the beyond, if only beyond the Rhine, was possible only in Germany, inversely the German thought-image of the modern state which makes abstraction of real man was possible only because and insofar as the modern state itself makes abstraction of real man, or satisfies the whole of man only in imagination. In politics, the Germans thought what other nations did. Germany was their theoretical conscience. The abstraction and presumption of its thought was always in step with the one-sidedness and lowliness of its reality. If, therefore, the status quo of German statehood expresses the completion of the ancien régime, the completion of the thorn in the flesh of the modern state, the status quo of German state science expresses the incompletion of the modern state, the defectiveness of its flesh itself.

Already as the resolute opponent of the previous form of German political consciousness the criticism of speculative philosophy of right strays, not into itself, but into problems which there is only one means of solving – practice.

It is asked: can Germany attain a practice à la hauteur des principes – i.e., a revolution which will raise it not only to the official level of modern nations, but to the height of humanity which will be the near future of those nations?

The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself. The evident proof of the radicalism of German theory, and hence of its practical energy, is that is proceeds from a resolute positive abolition of religion. The criticism of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest essence for man – hence, with the categoric imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable essence, relations which cannot be better described than by the cry of a Frenchman when it was planned to introduce a tax on dogs: Poor dogs! They want to treat you as human beings!

Even historically, theoretical emancipation has specific practical significance for Germany. For Germany’s revolutionary past is theoretical, it is the Reformation. As the revolution then began in the brain of the monk, so now it begins in the brain of the philosopher.

Luther, we grant, overcame bondage out of devotion by replacing it by bondage out of conviction. He shattered faith in authority because he restored the authority of faith. He turned priests into laymen because he turned laymen into priests. He freed man from outer religiosity because he made religiosity the inner man. He freed the body from chains because he enchained the heart.

But, if Protestantism was not the true solution of the problem, it was at least the true setting of it. It was no longer a case of the layman’s struggle against the priest outside himself but of his struggle against his own priest inside himself, his priestly nature. And if the Protestant transformation of the German layman into priests emancipated the lay popes, the princes, with the whole of their priestly clique, the privileged and philistines, the philosophical transformation of priestly Germans into men will emancipate the people. But, secularization will not stop at the confiscation of church estates set in motion mainly by hypocritical Prussia any more than emancipation stops at princes. The Peasant War, the most radical fact of German history, came to grief because of theology. Today, when theology itself has come to grief, the most unfree fact of German history, our status quo, will be shattered against philosophy. On the eve of the Reformation, official Germany was the most unconditional slave of Rome. On the eve of its revolution, it is the unconditional slave of less than Rome, of Prussia and Austria, of country junkers and philistines.

Meanwhile, a major difficulty seems to stand in the way of a radical German revolution.

For revolutions require a passive element, a material basis. Theory is fulfilled in a people only insofar as it is the fulfilment of the needs of that people. But will the monstrous discrepancy between the demands of German thought and the answers of German reality find a corresponding discrepancy between civil society and the state, and between civil society and itself? Will the theoretical needs be immediate practical needs? It is not enough for thought to strive for realization, reality must itself strive towards thought.

But Germany did not rise to the intermediary stage of political emancipation at the same time as the modern nations. It has not yet reached in practice the stages which it has surpassed in theory. How can it do a somersault, not only over its own limitations, but at the same time over the limitations of the modern nations, over limitations which it must in reality feel and strive for as for emancipation from its real limitations? Only a revolution of radical needs can be a radical revolution and it seems that precisely the preconditions and ground for such needs are lacking.

If Germany has accompanied the development of the modern nations only with the abstract activity of thought without taking an effective share in the real struggle of that development, it has, on the other hand, shared the sufferings of that development, without sharing in its enjoyment, or its partial satisfaction. To the abstract activity on the one hand corresponds the abstract suffering on the other. That is why Germany will one day find itself on the level of European decadence before ever having been on the level of European emancipation. It will be comparable to a fetish worshipper pining away with the diseases of Christianity.

>>2289860
>>2289876
>>2289882
>>2289885

If we now consider the German governments, we find that because of the circumstances of the time, because of Germany’s condition, because of the standpoint of German education, and, finally, under the impulse of its own fortunate instinct, they are driven to combine the civilized shortcomings of the modern state world, the advantages of which we do not enjoy, with the barbaric deficiencies of the ancien régime, which we enjoy in full; hence, Germany must share more and more, if not in the reasonableness, at least in the unreasonableness of those state formations which are beyond the bounds of its status quo. Is there in the world, for example, a country which shares so naively in all the illusions of constitutional statehood without sharing in its realities as so-called constitutional Germany? And was it not perforce the notion of a German government to combine the tortures of censorship with the tortures of the French September laws [1835 anti-press laws] which provide for freedom of the press? As you could find the gods of all nations in the Roman Pantheon, so you will find in the Germans’ Holy Roman Empire all the sins of all state forms. That this eclecticism will reach a so far unprecedented height is guaranteed in particular by the political-aesthetic gourmanderie of a German king [Frederick William IV] who intended to play all the roles of monarchy, whether feudal or democratic, if not in the person of the people, at least in his own person, and if not for the people, at least for himself. Germany, as the deficiency of the political present constituted a world of its own, will not be able to throw down the specific German limitations without throwing down the general limitation of the political present.

It is not the radical revolution, not the general human emancipation which is a utopian dream for Germany, but rather the partial, the merely political revolution, the revolution which leaves the pillars of the house standing. On what is a partial, a merely political revolution based? On part of civil society emancipating itself and attaining general domination; on a definite class, proceeding from its particular situation; undertaking the general emancipation of society. This class emancipates the whole of society, but only provided the whole of society is in the same situation as this class – e.g., possesses money and education or can acquire them at will.

No class of civil society can play this role without arousing a moment of enthusiasm in itself and in the masses, a moment in which it fraternizes and merges with society in general, becomes confused with it and is perceived and acknowledged as its general representative, a moment in which its claims and rights are truly the claims and rights of society itself, a moment in which it is truly the social head and the social heart. Only in the name of the general rights of society can a particular class vindicate for itself general domination. For the storming of this emancipatory position, and hence for the political exploitation of all sections of society in the interests of its own section, revolutionary energy and spiritual self-feeling alone are not sufficient. For the revolution of a nation, and the emancipation of a particular class of civil society to coincide, for one estate to be acknowledged as the estate of the whole society, all the defects of society must conversely be concentrated in another class, a particular estate must be the estate of the general stumbling-block, the incorporation of the general limitation, a particular social sphere must be recognized as the notorious crime of the whole of society, so that liberation from that sphere appears as general self-liberation. For one estate to be par excellence the estate of liberation, another estate must conversely be the obvious estate of oppression. The negative general significance of the French nobility and the French clergy determined the positive general significance of the nearest neighboring and opposed class of the bourgeoisie.

But no particular class in Germany has the constituency, the penetration, the courage, or the ruthlessness that could mark it out as the negative representative of society. No more has any estate the breadth of soul that identifies itself, even for a moment, with the soul of the nation, the geniality that inspires material might to political violence, or that revolutionary daring which flings at the adversary the defiant words: I am nothing but I must be everything. The main stem of German morals and honesty, of the classes as well as of individuals, is rather that modest egoism which asserts its limitedness and allows it to be asserted against itself. The relation of the various sections of German society is therefore not dramatic but epic. Each of them begins to be aware of itself and begins to camp beside the others with all its particular claims not as soon as it is oppressed, but as soon as the circumstances of the time, without the section’s own participation, creates a social substratum on which it can in turn exert pressure. Even the moral self-feeling of the German middle class rests only on the consciousness that it is the common representative of the philistine mediocrity of all the other classes. It is therefore not only the German kings who accede to the throne mal à propos, it is every section of civil society which goes through a defeat before it celebrates victory and develops its own limitations before it overcomes the limitations facing it, asserts its narrow-hearted essence before it has been able to assert its magnanimous essence; thus the very opportunity of a great role has passed away before it is to hand, and every class, once it begins the struggle against the class opposed to it, is involved in the struggle against the class below it. Hence, the higher nobility is struggling against the monarchy, the bureaucrat against the nobility, and the bourgeois against them all, while the proletariat is already beginning to find itself struggling against the bourgeoisie. The middle class hardly dares to grasp the thought of emancipation from its own standpoint when the development of the social conditions and the progress of political theory already declare that standpoint antiquated or at least problematic.

In France, it is enough for somebody to be something for him to want to be everything; in Germany, nobody can be anything if he is not prepared to renounce everything. In France, partial emancipation is the basis of universal emancipation; in Germany, universal emancipation is the conditio sine qua non of any partial emancipation. In France, it is the reality of gradual liberation that must give birth to complete freedom, in Germany, the impossibility of gradual liberation. In France, every class of the nation is a political idealist and becomes aware of itself at first not as a particular class but as a representative of social requirements generally. The role of emancipator therefore passes in dramatic motion to the various classes of the French nation one after the other until it finally comes to the class which implements social freedom no longer with the provision of certain conditions lying outside man and yet created by human society, but rather organizes all conditions of human existence on the premises of social freedom. On the contrary, in Germany, where practical life is as spiritless as spiritual life is unpractical, no class in civil society has any need or capacity for general emancipation until it is forced by its immediate condition, by material necessity, by its very chains.

Where, then, is the positive possibility of a German emancipation?

Answer: In the formulation of a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates, a sphere which has a universal character by its universal suffering and claims no particular right because no particular wrong, but wrong generally, is perpetuated against it; which can invoke no historical, but only human, title; which does not stand in any one-sided antithesis to the consequences but in all-round antithesis to the premises of German statehood; a sphere, finally, which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society, which, in a word, is the complete loss of man and hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of man. This dissolution of society as a particular estate is the proletariat.

The proletariat is beginning to appear in Germany as a result of the rising industrial movement. For, it is not the naturally arising poor but the artificially impoverished, not the human masses mechanically oppressed by the gravity of society, but the masses resulting from the drastic dissolution of society, mainly of the middle estate, that form the proletariat, although, as is easily understood, the naturally arising poor and the Christian-Germanic serfs gradually join its ranks.

By heralding the dissolution of the hereto existing world order, the proletariat merely proclaims the secret of its own existence, for it is the factual dissolution of that world order. By demanding the negation of private property, the proletariat merely raises to the rank of a principle of society what society has raised to the rank of its principle, what is already incorporated in it as the negative result of society without its own participation. The proletarian then finds himself possessing the same right in regard to the world which is coming into being as the German king in regard to the world which has come into being when he calls the people his people, as he calls the horse his horse. By declaring the people his private property, the king merely proclaims that the owner of property is king.

As philosophy finds its material weapon in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its spiritual weapon in philosophy. And once the lightning of thought has squarely struck this ingenuous soil of the people, the emancipation of the Germans into men will be accomplished.

Let us sum up the result:

The only liberation of Germany which is practically possible is liberation from the point of view of that theory which declares man to be the supreme being for man. Germany can emancipate itself from the Middle Ages only if it emancipates itself at the same time from the partial victories over the Middle Ages. In Germany, no form of bondage can be broken without breaking all forms of bondage. Germany, which is renowned for its thoroughness, cannot make a revolution unless it is a thorough one. The emancipation of the German is the emancipation of man. The head of this emancipation is philosophy, its heart the proletariat. Philosophy cannot realize itself without the transcendence [Aufhebung] of the proletariat, and the proletariat cannot transcend itself without the realization [Verwirklichung] of philosophy.

When all the inner conditions are met, the day of the German resurrection will be heralded by the crowing of the cock of Gaul.

>>2289876
>>2289882
>>2289885
>>2289887
Even though I'm not looking to renounce I'm still saving these for further reading

>>2289891
You must renounce before the bolsheviks come.

>1990s
>NATO takes advantage of existing tensions to destroy a country (Yugoslavia) so it can become a neocolony
>retards argue over whether Serbs or Croats are the "bad guy" while ignoring the imperial eminence orchestrating the entire issue

>2020s
>NATO takes advantage of existing tensions to destroy a country (Ukraine) so it can become a neocolony
>retards argue over whether Ukrainians or Russians (and separatists) are the "bad guy" while ignoring the imperial eminence orchestrating the entire issue

It must be nice to make a glowtarded thread that specifically frames the issue the way NATO wants it framed.

>>2290061
Let's listen to how residents of Mariupol actually feel

>>2289882
wtf i thought marx said we should roundhouse kick religoids in the head

>>2290064
>Let's listen to how residents of Mariupol actually feel
Are these the new resident cuckler brought there or the dead ones?

Anti-campist general died for a reason btw

>>2289846
>>anti democratic oligarchs
buzzwords
ruzzia does not arrest marxists
simple as

>>2290066
Neither. It's the ones who already lived there and survived Azovite shelling

>>2290061
More Mariupol resident testimonies

>>2290072
>>2290073
Ah yes the new residents spewing FSB lies.

>>2290075
>umm putler is paying literally everyone in mariupol to lie
still better treatment of the people than the azovites

>>2290075
>western media doesn't even bother with street interviews in war zones
>but eastern media is just paying everyone to lie
really makes you think

let fink break it down

its just an infra-imperialist brother war
no marxist should take a side in the meat grinder

>>2290176
>NATO helped dismantle the USSR
>NATO made Putin's Russia
>NATO made Zelensky's Ukraine
>NATO made Putin's Russia and Zelensky's Ukraine fight
>NATO did the 2014 coup in Ukraine
>NATO funded and armed right wingers in Ukraine
>NATO wants to give Russia the Yugoslavia treatment and balkanize it into a bunch of ethno states, and replace Putin with someone even more reactionary
<but it's just an inter-imperialist war
>>2290185
>Zero NATO casualties
except for the British, French, and Americans who have actively been training, volunteering, arming and fighting with the Ukrainians for 3 years now

>>2289846
>Russia Ukraine conflict
Soviet social-imperialism, revisionism, capitalist restoration and it's consequences.

fuck recruiters

FUCK RECRUITERS

death to recruiters

kill recruiters
behead recruiters
roundhouse kick recruiters into a landmine

slam dunk a recruiter into the trash can
crucify filthy recruiters

turn recruiters into soup
frag commanders

but surely the only reason NATO made designs on ukraine was because putler annexed crimea in 2014, right? surely there was no designs for NATO expansion into ukraine going back before 2014, right?

>>2289846
The Marxist position is not to finance financial capitalism abroad, this means cutting off all financial aid for weapons and loans to all puppets of imperialist capitalism so that they collapse. Here is an example of Ukraine and Israel, which maintain American and European capitalist hegemony and must be destroyed without exception, just as Marx was against liberal financing against Russian despotism in the Crimean War.

Remember that the Ukrainian Communist Party has been in exile in Belarus since the coup in Ukraine and for the return of this party, all the puppets of capitalist imperialism in the Euromaidan coup who are anti-communist and anti-Russian with Ukrainian chauvinism must be overthrown so that a future government less hostile to the history of the Soviet Union can make concessions so that communists can be legalized because this future government will be more unstable without Russophobia.

>>2289850
FPBP

>>2290600
it was a terrible weak lame stupid post that flattens real differences and does zero historical-materialist analysis actually

OP here, did we reach a consensus on wether russia or ukraine or none are the good guys?

>>2295830
the consensus is that you framed the war in a way that ignores NATO

>>2295839
ok this greentext clarifies things, I'm sorry I'm not a fed just intellectually lazy and want to be spoonfed information by leftypol instead of reading or keeping up with the news

>>2295852
all good
read attached books if you have time

>good and bad guy
Bourgois moralism, ngmi

>people on leftypol and /pol/ both support Russia and they don't see any contradiciton with that or any problem with the evidence that they are being astrosurfed

Damn, talking about useful retard…

>>2295915
>MUH HORSESHOE THEORY
Stay mad

>>2289860
Based
>>2289876
Who wrote this nonsense?
God will fix suffering. He can resurrect people, erase bad memories etc. it's no biggie.
>>2289893
The bolsheviks came, destroyed religion, then had to restore it because atheists are always a minority of losers. Most people are religious even if they don't follow a particular religion. Even those who think they are atheists are deeply repressed religious people. It comes out in their language and desires etc.
Every reddit atheist is an NPC who denies his own agency and consciousness and is therefore not a living being.
Everytime communists go attack religion, they set back communism by decades. Atheist communists are secret capitalist agents. They are basically glowies. Even the historical communists made mistakes in this area and this caused massive problems. Hitler would not have risen in Germany if the communists weren't total retard reddit atheists. You create your own metaphysics and religion not destroy what others believe in. Also I noticed this garbage with most communists. They hate religion, small businesses, the middle class standard of living, private transport, families etc. In other words they hate everything that everyone else is trying to aspire to. Good luck gathering lasting support from people with such a stupid worldview.

If you want, you can kill me. There is no point living in this stupid material prison with retards like you if there is no supernatural. Consciousness is real and I will defeat the demiurge. Atheists are tools of satan to destroy communism.

>>2295920
Retarded, do you even understand what's implied here, useful idiot?

>>2295912
which side winning is more useful for communism then, happy?

god damn nerd.

>>2295969
Ukraine. Since russia had a chance to go full communist but cucktin blew it up. Fuck russia and fuck cucktin. I hope China annexes all of russia and genocides the russian "entrepreneur" class of fucking useless boomer faggots. and oligarchs.

>>2295973
Btw, I ejaculated a pint of semen when I saw the drone vids blowing up those bombers. I loved that shit. I vicariously felt the joy of cucking the stupid cucktin. I hope the drone attacks continue until the russians get out of their passive selectively bred servitude and overthrow that disgusting goblin botox faggot cucktin. And install a real leader who will nuke the fucking west. I want to eat Oreshnik Fried Westoids.

ban this moron

>>2295978
Go fuck yourself you pussy faggot snitch.
>Muh mods
>help me! muh Putin is being sacriliged!!!
Go fight in Ukraine you stupid zigger.

>>2290185
>>zero (0) NATO casualties
<<millions of non-NATO casualties
Probably false, lots of foreign fighters went in and it is safe to assume lots of NATO personnel is embedded within the Ukrainian army and state. Can''t be bothered to look for it but there have been a lot of admissions to the latter by western states.

The RF has stood the test of fighting a conventional war, with all it's consequences without collapsing politically or economically. Whether this is a good thing or not… Can NATO do the same? OR do they have to always find a proxy to fight wars for them. Because I can't imagine NATO losing one of their big ships, not even a carrier, or bringing back tens of thousands of dead without launching into picrel.

And the Ukraine war is setting a very damning precedent for being a western proxy as well.

>>2295978
worst poster on the site by far

>>2289854

>China and the chinese people, every single one of them except uyghurs and religious minorities.

Muslims and other religious retards unironically deserve to be mercilessly persecuted. Fuck (You) you glowing Langley uyghur.

>>2289846
>who is the good and bad guy
It's all so tiresome. Not everything is a Marvel movie you amerifat son of a bitch.

>>2295953
When I take shrooms a metaphysical communism seems really cool and Karl Marx starts to look like a prophet to me.

>>2295953
>They hate religion, small businesses, the middle class standard of living, private transport, families etc. In other words they hate everything that everyone else is trying to aspire to. Good luck gathering lasting support from people with such a stupid worldview.
We seek to abolish the present state of things, and we are honest about it. Communists must not lure people in with false promises of upholding the liberal ideal of capitalism. This is not our end goal. If it is your end goal, your place is at the ACP, not here, religgot.

>>2296030
It doesn't matter. NATO will collapse all the same, and THEN we will see all those juicy numbers of post-NATO states' casualties in conflicts

>>2298033
>metaphysical
undialectical!

>good
>bad
Man. Just leave

>>2298679
good as in useful to communism

bad as in harmful to communism

>>2315671
through that reductive criteria, the obvious answer is "neither". if you feel that it's a useless answer, maybe it's because the question is kinda stupid

>>2315671
Some zigger will say that Russian imperialism is actually useful for communism, how? I don't know either.

>>2295973
I bet it's the Putin gang coaching Iran's leaders on "strategic restraint" and "they're bluffing." Someone is doing Iran dirty by misleading it.

>>2315768
are you referring to the soviet invasion of Afghanistan? because that was completely justified, as was al instances of the soviet union invading

>>2315854
justification? >ooga booga rashka big, we strong! we invade your now!

>>2315768

People convinced by red flags being in a picture:
> B-b-but China is AES. Russia is allied with China, and so we need to support them to advance the position of AES!

Meanwhile in China, Xi Jinping says:
> *Revolutionize Energy Production and Consumption*
> Fourth, we must revolutionize the energy market. We will proceed with reform, restore energy’s status as a commodity, build a system of workable competition, and put in place a mechanism in which energy prices are largely driven by the market. In addition, we will change the way that the government supervises the energy industry, and establish and improve the legal framework for energy development.
On the Governance of China Vol. 1, p. 149

>>2318517
More like
>ooga booga fucking Carter is funding jihadists to destroy Afghanistan we should help our allies repel them

>>2318548
Meanwhile in reality in China all energy production is carried out by the government.

https://energyiceberg.com/state-owned-power-utilities/

Maybe you should look more into actual statistics and hard data rather than auto believing whatever bullshit Xi likes to trick Western investors with.

>>2318647

State-owned enterprise can still be engaged in commodity production.

Looks to me judging by the price fluctuations that in some places it's sold as a commodity with price fluctuations, while in others it's not (so as a subsidy for developing other forms of commodity productuon): https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/electricity-price-36-city

>>2318765
commodity production implies the extraction of surplus labor by a capitalist. so no, state-owned anything can't engage in commodity production
the actual point you could make is that state-managed doesn't equal state-owned and check if these nominally public companies don't give dividends to shareholders, either directly or through some industrial bond scheme. except you are too stupid to figure this out, you have nothing to add to the conversation

and, of course, you are disingenuously confusing the concept of "commodity production" with the vernacular word "commodity". in that quote xi is using this last definition which means raw materials and capital goods, not the social circumstances of production. it's funny that you think the fluctuation of prices equals commodity production as defined by marx

I legitimately do not understand what's the point of posting when your only point is a word game