[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!


 

As I understand, Sartre is in opposition to Marx when it comes to how he views the individual. For him, the individual is condemned to be free, which contradicts the marxist historicism and dialectical movement.
However, he tries to come back to Marx through his book "critique of the dialectic".
Anybody QRD ? I'm interested in learning more about him. I've only read "Is existentialism a humanism ?" and mainly viewed it as midwit philosophy that reduces everything to human agency. Am I missing something ?

History shows that Western Marxists, including Sartre, could not refute the core ideology of Marxism because the Soviet Union appeared to prove it correct. Instead, they focused their attacks on the mistakes of individual leaders. This distinction caused the split between Western and Eastern Marxism. To understand the origins of this humanism, you must look back to Lukács in the 1920s.

heidegger destroyed sartre in his letter on humanism, those are my thoughts on existentialism

>>2658171
wasn't this dude like a nazi

>>2658171
What did he say ?

>>2658170
>could not refute the core ideology of Marxism because the Soviet Union appeared to prove it correct
What are you talking about here ? That economics determine everything ?



>>2658170
Existentialist anti-humanism is a thing. And the USSR was a theocratic eschatological authoritarian project proven "wrong" in 1991.
>>2658159
>midwit philosophy that reduces everything to human agency.
As opposed to what? Some divine Other? Fatalistic eschatology?

One of the central flaws of "Marxism-Leninism" (and "Soviet Communism" by extension) is the denial of agency or choice. Including the assumption that Workers will naturally turn into revolutionary communists upon familiarizing themselves with the gospel of ML, instead of recognizing they might reject it regardless.

Proles are naturally drawn to communism. It's simply an innate interest they supposedly have, except when they don't at which point supposed materialists fall back on notions of "false consciousness".
But why is it false consciousness to not care about this revolutionary eschatology (especially if they already share a different faith), or desire to be "rich" instead? What drives this class consciousness? Why is the desire of the patriarchal racist misogynist worker to have an obedient subservient wife and only live in a community surrounded by "his" people (regardless if they're 'bourgeois') "false", but not that of the revolutionary communist who believes in the Revolution (as eschaton) and is willing to kill his fellow "reactionary" workers for the sake of this?

Both are choices. Choice here is not meant in the deterministic vs indeterministic sense, but in that we 'own' our choices. They may be socially informed and the product of upbringing and culture generally. And we may be aware of this or not to various extends. But you can't abdicate moral authority over your own actions by pretending someone - be it The People, God, Nature, Revolution - is forcing you to. Whether it is a pogrom or a revolution. Unless you're a theist (like MLs).

There's many other issues with ML and Marxism generally. (Among them not understanding the difference between ethics, teleology and science) But this is one of the most glaring.

sartre was a communist who supported the soviet union

>>2658229
>can't abdicate moral authority over your own actions by pretending someone - be it The People, God, Nature, Revolution - is forcing you to. Whether it is a pogrom or a revolution. Unless you're a theist (like MLs).
thank you for proving once again anti ML people are just complete dumbfucks

>>2658250
Amazing arguments.
Anyway consider this: Is it possible to be a communist without knowing anything about Marx or Lenin and having never read their books?
And two, is it possible to have read and understood Marx, Lenin and other "Marxists" as a prole and reject ML and communism regardless?

>>2658254
thats not the retarded part of your post, calling them theist and the USSR "theocratic" is the retarded part

>>2658264
Calling it the People or the Proletariat whilst denying (individual) workers have any choice in the matter doesn't make it less theistic, and calling it the (world) Revolution instead of judgement day doesn't make it any less eschatological.
ML and "Soviet communism" has been structured like a religion from the beginning. It has its clergy and gospel, it's deity and apocalypse, its saints and heresies, its sins and martyrs.

Note how people will drone on about scientific marxism, the primacy of the class struggle and conflict as driver of history, but when it comes to 1991 it's the supposed product of evil outsiders (or corrupted insiders) and proves nothing.

>>2658285
I used to think the same thing then I realized that line of thought is just formalistic autism

>>2658229
OK he's cooking

>>2658299
The motivations behind it don't make it less religious either. ML aims to fill the void left by the moral and theoretical bankruptcy of pre-existing organized religion (chiefly Christianity in the "western" world), whilst realizing its promise of paradise - on Earth. (Communism as the transcendant eschaton that will end all conflict and suffering)
The fanaticism (and disillusionment when predictions fail), the diatribes against the latest heresies and obsession with adherence to scripture, the veneration of martyrdom, the insistence that Communism will come about if only people "believe" and spread the gospel. It's all very religious.

There's never going to be a revolution that will absolve us of having to make choices or will rule out the possibility of disagreement. We aren't going to be able to transcend our own moral culpability and responsibility for our actions. And we're not going to be able to rule out the formation of new classes and class relations because these precede both the commodity form and capital.

>>2658229
Avenge Communism. We cannot achieve it so we will destroy the very world that denies it!

>>2658331
Not if we make a giant super cult! The whole world is filled with cults, anti-religious included why not fight for a better cult

>>2658331
the formal (structural) similarities dont justify calling the USSR theocratic and ML "theist", you are abusing language
>moral culpability and responsibility for our actions
no thanks im not a christian

>>2658391
As explained it goes beyond shallow structural similarities. Denying Communism as something that must be pursued as a choice regardless of whether one is a prole or familiar with Marxism, or pretending one is acting on behalf of the "Proletariat" is theistic and fatalistic. Communism is about what Communists want, not workers.
>Christian
Accepting moral responsibility is the opposite of theism ("God demands it"). Appeals to (human) nature, tradition, the people, are all forms of theism and abdication of moral authority.

Sartre was a literal cμck and his entire "philosophy" (I use the word loosely here) rests on reaffirming the existence of free will; a poorly defined, illogical, irrational, proovably false concept tainted with religious mysticism. Existentialism isn't a real philosophical movement, it is just a loosely correlated set of 20th century franco-germanic writings that groups together widely incoherent and incompatible thoughts, then they forcibly tried to ascertain their lineage as coming from Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky because they couldn't admit they were just writing knock-off footnotes on Nietzsche's work on genealogy.

>>2658439
>rests on reaffirming the existence of free will
Pseud hours. It has very little to do with indeterminism.

>>2658455
I wasted literal hours of my life being forced to read the retarded bullshit that Sartre wrote. "Free will" is literally the core concept he builds his entire "philosophy" upon. It is there, in his books. You know those things that you open and they have pages and words inside of them? Maybe you have heard of them at some point, try reading one of them sometime.

>>2658470
The will is irrational. But it or freedom do not require indeterminism. Which would preclude our ability to be responsible for our choices at all.
We're condemned to be free, and to decide. Regardless of what informs those decisions. And then accept responsibility for the outcomes.

The theist by invoking some Other as having decided for them, denies both responsibility for choice and the outcome. (I.e. the religious fanatic who commits the latest atrocity in the name of their God)
I know this nuance appears esoteric to some. But it makes the difference between whether there can be ethics or freedom at all, or not. (And yes both ML and Marxism generally also make ethical claims and invoke freedom)

>>2658159
sartre was an artist and a philosopher, who gives a fuck about his "thoughts" on marx or communism lmao

>>2658507
His own books include a well articulated explanation of why free will doesn't exist; he calls it 'facticity'. The universe is a causal system, a human is a part of the causal chain, and each prior determines the next state of being. One doesn't chose the circumstances of their birth. Free will is a meaningless, nebulous concept; an artifact of folk psychology that abstracts away the underlying physical causality of action and "choice".

The mechanism that Sartre uses to try and deny the nonexistance of free will is cartesian dualism. And it is painfully, painfully stupid and infuriating reading him try to rationalize that.

The only reason modern people believe free will is a meaningful concept is because it does so much work within our religious mythology. "Free will" is exactly the nebulous concept that was invented to rationalize the idea that the abrahamic god is somehow both omnipotent and omniscient and yet not responsible for the actions of the beings he was fully responsible for creating. Sartre's "existentialism" is a ghost of the very abrahamic religious beliefs he supposedly rejects.

>>2658541
>The mechanism that Sartre uses to try and deny the nonexistance of free will is cartesian dualism. And it is painfully, painfully stupid and infuriating reading him try to rationalize that.
My good friend, can you elaborate on this? I don't want to read his books.

>>2658541
How do you (assuming you're the same anon) go from recognizing why Existentialism (as set out by Sartre) invalidates and rejects 'Free Will'' (as indeterminism) - which I agree with, whilst still asserting it is a ghost of Abrahamic religion?
The way I see it Existentialism is the product of rejecting theism and various religious narratives. And while I remember Sartre identifying with humanism, I feel if you extend many of the Existentialist ideas both by him and others, it also leads to a rejection of humanism, or at least invoking humanity itself as yet another "god". Which is about the only reason I can think of why some might see Sartre's existentialism as a ghost of abrahamic religion.

File: 1769021647311.jpg (70.57 KB, 1095x145, based lenin.jpg)

>>2658436
>Accepting moral responsibility is the opposite of theism
you can keep trying to theorywash your liberalism and christianity with phenomenology all you want, materialists will see through it

>>2658625
Don't see how that quote is relevant. Do you even understand what I'm on about, and why theism and assuming moral authority are opposites? And why it is relevant in regards to ML?
Not exactly dispelling stereotypes about being scholastic scripture obsessed clergy too btw

>>2658586
He explains it somewhere in the later half of Being and Nothingness. It's difficult for me to find the exact quote or section, so I'm gonna try and explain from memory (it's probably going to be a lot less articulate and well-explained, I admit).

Sartre defines facticity as the entire set of things that make you who you are and that you never had any say over. Your name, your nationality, your sex, your race, your parents, your genetics, your place of residence, the socioeconomic strata that you start life from, etc… The immense set of prior conditions that we start life from and that we have zero control over. Literally everything that makes you, well… you.

Basically, you already start out life with everything that's necessary to explain every action you're ever going to take during your life. It's all mechanistic, determined. There's nowhere for you to inject a magical property called "free will" to explain why you acted a certain way rather than another; if we were able to break everything down to it's true causal layer we would be talking about brain chemistry and how the particular way you developed while you were still inside your mother's uterus defines the types of behavior you have today.

It's very similar to the types of arguments someone like Robert Sapolsky or Sam Harris would make, but frankly Sartre made the argument even more eloquently and clearly than them.

You could basically sum it with that quote from Schopenhauer: "Man can do as he will, but he can't will as he will."

>>2658618
You misunderstand. Sartre FIRST presents an extremely convincing, rational, and irrefutable argument for why free will DOESN'T exist and THEN he constructs a cartesian counter-argument to try and affirm that it actually DOES exist based purely on a purely subjective, phenomenology-based assertion that could be basically summarized as "but I actually feel like I'm free".

>>2658229
>the denial of agency or choice
It doesn't. This is anti-marxism dogma that has spread around for a while now but that's not substantiated by any of Marx's writings.
What Marx did believe in was that one's consciousness was derived from his environment. However, this is because there needs to be a starting "consciousness" before being able to be self-aware of this self-consciousness. Similarly, if you want to learn another language, you must first be able to speak yours. This doesn't mean that the person can't be free or have autonomy, it simply means that this person will at some point construct his consciousness from what he has around him, aka, his environment/nature.

>False consciousness

False consciousness refers to proles thinking that capitalism is "natural", or conceiving of their state as something that was decided upon by god. It's "false" because it's quite literally constructed from "false" facts. Thinking that your boss has an innate right granted by God to make you obey is constructed from "false" facts, hence leading to a "false consciousness".

>why is racism/patriarchy etc false ?

Mhmm I sure wonder… Could it be that we have an abundance of literatture that has determined that these are pseudo-scientific theories based on erroneous theories ?
You're also mistaking something as being a desire (i.e. I want this), with something being justified (i.e. My wife should be submissive because it's in her nature). The notion of false consciousness refers to the second one.

>le revolutionary communist

It can be. If you think that by doing mass killing you will succeed in making a utopia, you are in effect developing a false consciousness (false information leading to false desires).

>we 'own' our choices

It's midwit time…
Yes, we own them, to the extent that we perform these consciously. This is already a strong rebutal to Sartre by Merleau-Ponty, because freedom is inherently situated and not complete.
Nonetheless, marxism doesn't deny this. Individuals shape their environment. This is exactly what I referred to in my OP. It's pure strawman bs. Read Marx before commenting next time.

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past"

>But this is one of the most glaring

>erm my strawman perfectly contradicts your own argument so I must be right !!!


To answer your original question, as opposed to well constructed phenomenology and theory of history and conflicts. I'm surprised Sartre was taken this seriously.

>>2658254
>Is it possible to be a communist without knowing anything about Marx or Lenin and having never read their books?
You can be communist without knowing about Marx. You can't be a marxist without knowing about Marx's theories.

>is it possible to have read and understood Marx, Lenin and other "Marxists" as a prole and reject ML and communism regardless

Yes. Marxism is a method to analyze past and present societies. It is not a deterministic science that believes that communism MUST happen. You can adhere to the marxist method and reject communism.

>>2658331
>believing in something to improve the world is religious
Lmfao topkek holy cope. Let me guess, you're going to argue that Marx inherently says that the end justifies the means ?

>[class] precedes both the commodity form and capital.

You can't have specialized "class" without surplus

>>2658436
>Denying Communism as something that must be pursued as a choice
Retarded and fake strawman. Just read the book, or ask ChatGPT even. Marx never says that there is a divine mission to establish communism.



overall, 4/10 bait

File: 1769022913526.png (913.23 KB, 899x1390, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2658159
>>2658159
I did give it a casual read look like peak garbage made up to confuse people in the 1800s. Schizo garbage. Also he looks like a deformed mutant monster.

>>2658507
>>2658541
>>2658671
For the record, on a material level, the universe is non-deterministic. We cannot say with absolute certainty how fundamental particles behave, only the upper and lower bounds of what they might do. Any philosophy that asserts determinism is fundamentally wrong.

>>2658675
I think you misunderstand my point about false consciousness. Yes maybe both the revolutionary fanatic and the patriarchal racist are (pretend) acting on false information, but why is one more false than the other? The main shared element here is that both are are acting in bad faith, if one is invoking god and nature, and the other is invoking the People, the Proletariat or the Revolution. Whether "science" or "the facts" claim to support one or the other is irrelevant. Neither in this case are "owning" their stances. Both are abdicating responsibility to some Other.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea that ones "consciousness" is derived from their environment, upbringing and so on. I'm disagreeing with the idea there is something as an innate class interest at all. There there is something like an "innate" "true" proletarian consciousness which innately aligns with communism.
Communism as a movement has had the offspring of capitalists and aristocrats join its ranks. It's also had to face workers who fought it on the side of the reaction.
So who is the subject of Communism? It's not proles; it's other Communists. Communists will communism, not workers. But putting it like this dispels the notion of class struggle defining history and culminating in the overcoming of capitalism by a revolutionary proletarian vanguard. This is not a position that can be reconciled with 'orthodox' Marxism-Leninism.

>Merleau-Ponty

I will have to check him out, I'm not familiar with his arguments. The quote you posted by Marx isn't necessarily in disagreement with what Sartre wrote either.
Note that original post was in regards to ML and the Soviet experiment, not Marx and Marxism in itself.

And ML goes beyond aiming to "improve the world a little". Otherwise it's adherents wouldn't spend so much time shitting on "socdems" now would they?
On the subject of class preceding the commodity form, capital and (yes) surplus I recommend reading The Dawn of Everything.

>read the book

Which?

>>2658706
I don't think we can state with certainty the universe and (certain parts of) particle physics are nondeterministic either. But as far as ethical claims go, asserting responsibility does require a degree of deterministic causal relations between actions and outcomes.

>>2658706
>For the record, on a material level, the universe is non-deterministic. We cannot say with absolute certainty how fundamental particles behave, only the upper and lower bounds of what they might do. Any philosophy that asserts determinism is fundamentally wrong.
You're probably referring to the heisenberg uncertainty principle. You're probably confused due to the different meanings of determinism in a philosophical and physical sense, but It doesn't actually imply what you believe it implies here. Quantum mechanics are still fully causal in nature and deterministic in the philosophical sense (everything necessarily evolves probabilitically and in accordance to the schrodinger equation); it doesn't create any magical room for 'free will'. There are several didactic videos that you can find online from people like Sean Carroll and Sabine Hossenfelder explaining how quantum mechanics doesn't rescue the concept of free will.

File: 1769027911364.pdf (993.04 KB, 197x255, 18th-Brumaire.pdf)

>>2658747
>why is one more false than the other?
Depends on the extent of which their consciousness is predicated upon. If one is built on more fake facts than the other than you have your answer.

> I'm disagreeing with the idea there is something as an innate class interest at all.

Class interest is merely the extension of personal interest. Marxists will say that this is reductive, which it is, but that's what it ultimatly is.

>there is something like an "innate" "true" proletarian consciousness which innately aligns with communism

No there's not. Communism is better for the proles because they aren't alienated. This doesn't mean that they don't prefer inaction rather than risk a revolution, or that they must believe that communism is better, but simply that communism is in the interests of proles going by the typical suffering that they go by.
Now, you can indeed say that a worker will prefer instability, relative poverty, immiseration, joblessness, and alienation. After all, these are personal preferences ultimatly… But realistically, the average worker doesn't. Furthermore I'd even argue that it is precisely because there's been many advances in social security that the proletariat has not revolted and has prefered political stability rather than revolution.
So, it's not that the proletariat must tend towards communism, which absolves any act done by communists, but rather that the proletariat has an interest in abolishing the class division, just like the bourgeoisie has an interest in maintaining capitalism.

>it's other Communists

Indeed. The people who shape history are the people who shape it.

>this dispels the notion of class struggle defining history and culminating in the overcoming of capitalism by a revolutionary proletarian vanguard.

History has indeed been that of class struggle. Capitalism, when it has been overturned, has also been the result of a vanguard party (most of the time). These statements are empirically correct.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong but I sense that you percieve marxism as : "history must progress and the means justify the end because history will vindicate the acts". If this is the case, Marx doesn't say that.
The vanguard party isn't vindicated by history for doing anything. It is their responsability if they commit x or y act, or if they fail the revolution. The idea of a vanguard party only serves to educate and make aware the proletariat of their condition, and to organize the revolution to succeed in abolishing capitalism. This isn't justified by an external force such as God or History, it is only a specific group acting for a group's interest. There is no ontologic difference between counter-revolutionaries and revolutionaries in the end.

>I'm not familiar with his arguments

He argued that freedom was situated, and not absolute. In other words, that that freedom is always situated within a world that both enables and constrains it, and that our actions are shaped by our social existence.

>Note that original post was in regards to ML and the Soviet experiment, not Marx and Marxism in itself

You overestimate the difference between both, unless you're specifically talking about Stalinism.

>Which?

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, for Marx's view of history
The German Ideology, on Feuerbach has some insights but I don't if it'll be worth reading just for that.

>>2658754
I didn't mean to suggest that indeterminism implied free will, because it doesn't, just that history is not on an exact, set, predetermined path where the same factors will always lead to the same outcome.

>>2658159
Sartre was a stalinist though

>>2658229
Mods permaban this person.

Stalinism is voluntarist. Sartre is a voluntarist too.

File: 1769058242940.jpg (186.29 KB, 1080x1172, 1752824384656497.jpg)

>>2659190
Big mad because you can't disprove his thesis so just hope and prayers jannies do it for you and punish him for thinking different to you
Which isn't hard because you don't think. Is that because of your environment entirely and material conditions or do you choose to be a stupid cunt? Hmmmmm. This one requires the especially Sartre pipe tobacco.

>>2658229
thank you for stating the religious content of marxism-leninism (and the whole pseudo-religion of "marxism", but not communism)

>metaphysical babble and comparing marxism to religion
Absolute state.

>>2659279
"no, citing century+ old books, letters and pamphlets whenever you have a mild disagreement of opinion is nothing like religion! it's just mere ideological discussion! worshipping and defending dead men and states? nothing like that either!
marx condemned marxism for a good reason, we are communists on this website, but we are not marxists, marxist-leninists, and/or religious cultists


>>2658256
Oh, someone beat me to it

>>2659304
The modern taboo against sexual and romantic relationships between post-pubescent adolescents and adults is conventionally understood as a moral imperative for the protection of the vulnerable. This explanation, however, functions as a surface narrative that obscures a deeper, more powerful generative mechanism. The taboo is not a timeless moral universal but a historically specific technology of social and libidinal management, engineered to meet the demands of advanced industrial capitalism. It operates through two interconnected mechanisms: the imposition of surplus-repression to fuel economic productivity, and a system of differential governance that transforms the taboo into a tool of elite consolidation and control.

The foundational logic of the taboo is economic, as theorized by Herbert Marcuse's concept of surplus-repression. Any society requires a degree of basic instinctual repression to function. Advanced capitalism, however, requires a massive additional quantum of repression—surplus-repression—to create the disciplined, future-oriented subjects needed to perform alienated labor. The adolescent, a being of immense and newly awakened libidinal energy oriented toward immediate gratification (the Pleasure Principle), represents a primary challenge to this order. The taboo is the central apparatus for containing this energy. Its function is to systematically block the adolescent's instinctual drives for authentic, non-instrumental erotic connection. This dammed-up energy is then sublimated, rerouted into socially and economically productive channels: the competitive pursuit of academic grades, the ambition for career advancement, and the disciplined patterns of consumption. The taboo ensures that the adolescent's libido is not discharged in a personally fulfilling but economically useless relationship, but is instead converted into the psychic fuel for the Performance Principle—the relentless demand for productive output.

Building upon this foundation of mass libidinal discipline, the taboo operates as a dualistic system of social control, applied differently to the general populace and a ruling elite. For the masses, this is its exoteric function: the taboo is enforced as a sacred, absolute, and inviolable moral law. Publicly and legally, its violation is framed as the ultimate transgression, a monstrous act that dissolves social bonds. This intense moralization serves to police the population, ensuring the stable formation of the nuclear family as the primary unit of consumption and labor-power reproduction. It enforces the timeline of the Performance Principle, guaranteeing that pair-bonding and procreation occur only after the individual has been fully disciplined by the educational and economic apparatus.

Simultaneously, the taboo possesses an esoteric function that operates within elite circles. Here, its power derives not from its observance but from its calculated transgression. By making an act intensely prohibited and morally radioactive for the public, its secret violation becomes a powerful tool for internal elite management. This mechanism has two primary modes. First, shared participation in the transgression acts as a perverse initiation ritual, creating an unbreakable bond of mutual culpability. It functions as a system of trustless loyalty, enforced by the certainty of mutually assured destruction should any member defect. Second, the act of transgression, particularly when documented, generates the ultimate form of leverage, or *kompromat*. The threat of exposure becomes a perfect instrument for enforcing discipline, ensuring loyalty, and neutralizing political or economic rivals within the network.

These two functions—exoteric repression and esoteric transgression—are symbiotic. The efficacy of the taboo as a weapon of blackmail is directly proportional to the degree of horror it inspires in the general population. The more successfully the system of surplus-repression conditions the masses to view the act with absolute revulsion, the more catastrophic the threat of exposure becomes, and thus the more valuable the leverage held by those who control the incriminating information. This dynamic is stabilized by what Marcuse termed "repressive desublimation," whereby society is saturated with controlled, commodified sexual imagery that offers a superficial release of libidinal tension. This channels erotic energy into safe, consumerist pathways, while simultaneously reinforcing the moral panic against authentic, structurally disruptive violations of the core taboo.

In conclusion, the taboo is a far more complex and functional mechanism than a simple moral safeguard. It is a sophisticated technology of power that serves the dual purpose of disciplining the general populace for economic production while providing a private mechanism for elite cohesion and control. It engineers the psychic economy of the masses, sublimating desire into labor, while the transgression of its own laws serves as the currency of power and loyalty for a ruling stratum. Scandals involving figures like Jeffrey Epstein are therefore not aberrations or failures of the system; they are glimpses into the system's logical and intended esoteric function, where the raw, repressed libidinal energy of the controlled becomes the ultimate commodity for the controllers.

>>2659462
Mods please permaban this poster

>>2659304
its in context of how homosexuals were treated worse for the same sex crime committed by heterosexuals, u fucking illiterate bad faith retard


>>2658823
In both cases the "facts" are irrelevant because no one is taking responsibility for their actions and choices. Both positions are predicated on the fatalistic notion that some outside actor is "forcing" them to do this. But it's all them, the man who beats his wife or posts racial slurs, or the "revolutionary" killing someone are both doing it because they willed and decided to. God or The People are not obliging them to do either. It's all them.
After all; if this were the case, why can we nevertheless reject either and do the opposite instead?

I've argued this in discussions with "race war" proponents before; if the "race war" is inevitable, and we have to act in name of our "race", why is it possible to refuse to do so? Because there is no outside force compelling us.

The notion of an innate class interests is similar. If it is innate and an extension of personal interest, why can people reject it? There is no such thing as "class interest" and people cannot be reduced to classes. There is the interests of communists, who will communism. But not every worker does, and not every member of the (petite) bourgeois is opposed to it.

You argue it's because proles are alienated, but we're all alienated; even the bourgeoisie! From each other, from full pursuit of our own authenticity. Like (paraphrasing) Zizek put it, the archetypal capitalist is the one who dedicates their entire being to channeling and growing capital. But you cannot reduce people to only being capitalists or workers, and often the distinction is murky; ordinary workers also perpetuate the commodity form, they work to ensure goods remain (capitalist) commodities, they aid in organizing production and perpetuating capital. You can see this in various industries from retail to IT and others.
You can argue the distinction is about who "owns" capital, but if you assume a global perspective there is no singular owner of capital, not even the billionaire class as a whole. Capital is an emergent social force which acts through others. It does not have an "owner", regardless of who appears to benefit more from it than others.

>The idea of a vanguard party only serves to educate and make aware the proletariat of their condition

But this is just elitist arrogance. As if ordinary workers aren't aware they're being exploited or suffering.
You argue that it's simply a specific group acting for a group's interest, but if it is, why does the vanguard party claim leadership on behalf of the working class? By arguing they're acting on behalf of a particular group other than themselves (i.e. communists) they're already invoking an outside authority.
It's still structured like a proselytizing (eschatological) religion; there's the ignorant masses or those deliberately led astray by some evil who must be shepherded by a chosen (prophet) elect acting on behalf of some other (including "the masses"), who promise if only they accept the new scripture their suffering will end.

it follows from german idealism that freedom is something inherently human, which sounds nice, but it thus disregards nature as something entirely secondary to our nature, and so holds to the religious prejudice that matter is evil while the soul is good.

without a doubt the most retarded french philosopher and that's saying something
he was also an unironical zionist

File: 1770231893161.png (39.48 KB, 512x512, gle stirner.png)

I jumped from Absurdism to Egoism so i never really got into it even tho i tried to read Kierkegaard but i couldn't understand anything and i kinda gave up on reading philosophy since then.


Unique IPs: 29

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]