/leftypol_archive/ - leftypol archive

>>582543
>A new economic system (especially with automation)
1) Marx had no idea about these things because they didn't exist in his time.
2) Automation is over-rated and a human factor is often needed
3) Work isn't bad, wageslavery is
>didn’t want to predict too much about beyond saying that abolition of it is possible.
And that's the reason I cannot be fully behind this approach to socialism - if MARX held unsurity to his prediction, then it is logical that one shouldn't believe it unquestioningly.
>red capitalism
<Capitalism is when you have family
Yeaah you clearly didn't read Marx carefully given that he literally states that socialism will retain parts of social structure present under capitalist superstructure because
A) Some things aren't intrinsically capitalist just because they exist under capitalism
B) You cannot feasibly expect to abolish capitalist structures all at once, that goes against dialectical materialism.

>>582545
Automation is just machinery but in 21st century. Marx was right that productivity will and can grow in levels not seen before. I am not saying automation will render all work obsolete, but increase productivity that justifies reduction of hours and resources.

> And that's the reason I cannot be fully behind this approach to socialism
But no one is saying what the new family model will be, only that the current one will end.

> he literally states that socialism will retain parts of social structure present under capitalist superstructure
And the current family structure isn’t one of them retard.

>>582542
>scroll the thread, it's right there. I;m not spoonfeeding you
Not an answer.
>I don't require documents to tell me who my family is. But a government cannot be expected to know who you or your family is without legal documentations and said institutions defining familial relations, any claim otherwise is pure utopian fantasy.
And? We're discussing communism, for what reason would the family require any kind of established institution defining familial relations?
>>582544
>Telling them that their entire way of life is wrong and that their priorities and values are wholly meaningless is only going to set them against you, not change their thinking, this is basic psychological cause and effect. I have talked down literal neo-nazis into becoming genuine socialists, not by saying everything you believe is bad but that that they aren't seeing the full picture and so their understandings are wrong because they lack information that I then provide. You have to appeal to people to reconsider their positions on things, not tell them to. TL;DR: Talk TO people not AT them.
No, and I say this as one of those who intially came from being previously immersed in the far-right. Not once did my views change because someone on the left tried to opportunistically "appeal" to my sensibilities, as if to try and warp their socialism to try to fit into the confines of my already held views like some kind of used car salesmen. Every socialist who did so reeked of the same dishonesty, shallowness, and spinelessness which I had grown to despise the far-right over. You aren't being forward with me, you're just being condescending the worst possible way, that pitiable way that implicilty assumes another to be lesser and incapable.
>And you wonder why so many proles have reactionary mindsets? Kek.
Because every day they live in world where such things are sold to them in order to "appeal" to them, rather then attempting to actually permit them to change their way of thinking. Your way is the way of a person who thinks of the workers as lesser, as those who need to be talked to like children and bribed into socialism. At no point is there a shred of respect in the sense that you know what is true, and wish to inform them because they are deserving of it.
>But people and the need for LABOUR and PRODUCTION does not disappear. They are still proletarians, they are still a group but since there is no hierarchy of classes they aren't a class anymore either.
No you idiot, have you even read Marx? They are not proletarian, as a proletarian is something which only exists in the context of the larger existence of the mechanisms of capitalism and the bourgeoisie. To be a proletarian is to be a class.
>That anon is being ambiguous as fuck IMO. Such big phrases and yet the problem is theory needs precise examples to act upon to make sure it gets put into practice.
Again, he never stared what you said.
>Yes it does, because in practise you don not get the proletariat to fight a revolution appealing to some nebulous ideas of "abolishing the proletariat as a class - the idea goes over the heads of the average layman, especially those living in a reactionary capitalist system and so often not class conscious. ML ideology underestand this and so it seeks to appeal to people using things they understand and keep them while abolishing superfluous things that people don't feel heavily attached to.
Again, you don't view the workers as a people actually capable of understanding the necessity of the revolution itself, rather you condescendingly look down on them as pitiable creatures that can truely be no better, who need to be bribed and cajoled into socialism to be of any "use". No, they cannot actually be expected to better themselves or have any knowledge of thing, rather they must be flattered like a child. You're the one in this thread who needs to read actual Marxist Leninist theory, because Lenin explicitly rejected this view of the workers.
>Bud, you're expecting too much.
I don't think I am at all. I'm expecting what I would actually expect of those I hold to have the capacity for improvement.
>Yes, but to do this in the first place you have to be accepted by the masses as an ideology to be a part of.
That isn't done by just playing to their perceived sensibilities and warping your actual views as if they are incapable and pitiable.

>>582545
automation is overrated you say?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing)


Existing "lights-out factories"
FANUC, a Japanese robotics company, has been operating as a lights-out factory since 2001.[6] Robots are building other robots at a rate of about 50 per 24-hour shift and can run unsupervised for as long as 30 days at a time. "Not only is it lights-out," says Fanuc vice president Gary Zywiol, "we turn off the air conditioning and heat too."[7]

In the Netherlands, Philips uses lights-out manufacturing to produce electric razors, with 128 robots made by Adept Technology. There are only nine human quality assurance workers who oversee the end of the manufacturing process.[8]

In the manufacturing of integrated circuits using 300 mm wafers, the entire manufacturing process is completely automated, with workers only making sure that the process runs without problems and repairing any faulty machinery.

>>582548
tho this still requires a human factor but given enough time well things will change

>>582546
> am not saying automation will render all work obsolete, but increase productivity that justifies reduction of hours and resources.
that's obvious enough
>o one is saying what the new family model will be, only that the current one will end
THAT'S THE PROBLEM, you're telling people that "yeah get rid of this but replacing it? ah that'll come up after, there is no replacement to that planned. People qill take the dark qolf they know to the dark wolf they know not, is a proverb I've red from holocaust victims speaking of those that refused to escape a camp because the risk of death was higher from fleeing than in staying. People need to have some sort of guarantee that the life they are throwing away is worth something better, that's why so many revolutions happen after people are pushed to the brink of having noting to lose, something capitalism recognized and took steps to avoid repeating.
>the current family structure
Which one? The one in Russia, in the USA in India? You keep saying these things like every family is the exact same shit, as if people are not individuals that have individual family dynamics and family units. And frankly Marx's own attitude about family (especially his own) is so clinical and cold that it scarcely surprises me that he didn't take that into account, especially given the conditions of family in 1890s capitalism and today differ greatly, hell, family units have changed repeatedly and rapidly in the past 70 years alone, so imprecise claims of abolishment is just grand statements that have no substance.

The proletariat needs something to grasp in a revolution and ideological platitudes about "abolishing x and y" don't resonate among people. That's the reason liberals get so much support, they're dead wrong on almost everything, but they appeal to identity and so emotional attachments of the people and so rally them around bourg ideas, because people hope to improve shit for themselves this way (or at least feel better).

>>582547
>not an answer
blow it out your ass then lazy
>for what reason would the family require any kind of established institution defining familial relations?
<communism has no government or organization
This is the reason I say you are an idealist utopian

>>582548
>AI is gooooood
<junkepedia
<muh robots!!!!
Did NOBODY learn from Tesla's garbage attempt?

Machine learning is very useful for certain tasks, like design optimization. On a technical level this is solving problems by a brute force computational method. Obviously that's not going to work for every problem, but can work for SOME problems. Eliminating a human factor entirely is dumb as fuck. Nobody is saying "robot bad" but this kind of fantasy is the kind of shit that is driving humanity into an unironic cyberpunk dystopia, not your idealist concept of communism.

>>582550
>blow it out your ass then lazy
Again, not an answer.
>communism has no government or organization
Communism has no state, I never said it lacked organization. You still didn't give a reason for an established institution being necessary.
>This is the reason I say you are an idealist utopian
Read Marx already you faggot, nothing I stated was idealist or utopian, and I don't think you understand what these mean in the context of discussing communism.

>>582547
>ou're just being condescending the worst possible way, that pitiable way that implicilty assumes another to be lesser and incapable.
Yeah no, showing compassion and appealing to a persons common sense and intelligence is the exact opposite of that, and your experiences are called not APPEALING to a person but PANDERING to them.
>our way is the way of a person who thinks of the workers as lesse
You're projecting your own subconscious attitude about workers. I am a prole, I'm from a prole family, I live below the poverty line, so don't tell me that I'm being condescending about the class of people I know and live around. As I stated before, the proletariat in capitalist countries is not class conscious and rejects communism if they're just said to "accept it" because that's telling them to surrender their agency because someone else told them to, why the fuck would they listen? Capitalism doesn't do that, because the experience of Union Strikes, the rise of the USSR and the vehement fight against openly repressive fascism indicated that forcing an ideology without support of the proles is impossible. Why do you think Lenin called for participation in bourg elections? Because he recognized that the true purpose of this qould be to get their message out to the people, promising Land, Peace and Bread, not some generic waffling about some grandiose dialectical progression that people barely care about.
>such things are sold to them in order to "appeal" to them
No, it's spammed to them and TOLD to them that it is good, see They Live for an intertextual allegory of this. Obviously to make sure it organically gets continued by the people it has to appeal to something, such as greed, or laziness or any other vice that capitalism thrives on. And to double down, there is no method of ethically consuming under capitalism, so people are forced to make do.
>talaked to like children
Ah yes, because the average Joe understands the intricacies of Base-Superstructure, or Capitalism's exploitation of worker through profit. There is a reason that EVERY SINGLE POLITICAL MOVEMENT TO EXIST has SLOGANS, because people easily identify with that and often do not know to look deeper. So yes, talking to nonclass conscious people is like talking to a child - you have to walk them through things and make them palatable to an uninitiated mind.
This reminds me of my Chemistry professor in College, she expected us all to have a certain level of understanding on the subject because that's the point of Highschool, and over 50% of the class consistently failed her "Beginner" level class because she refused to change her teaching methods and account for people coming in to a BEGINNER CLASS utterly ignorant of anything because high schools didn't have any standardization and quality control on the material they taught. The connection? People that are NOT class conscious are like those 50% that failed that class, preaching philosophy that they were taught to hate in a knee-jerk reaction is not going to get through to them, because they see a incomprehensible enemy in it.
>Did you read Marx
<not proletariat
Proletarian is another termin for worker, if they are still doing work, then they are proles.
>he never stared what you said.
Literally states abolition of family, yet provides no explanation as to the structure after. You're being intentionally obtuse.
>you don't view the workers as a people actually capable of understanding
No YOU don't view them as PEOPLE at all, you view them the way a programmer views a computer, something you can just upload a program into. People understand the necessity of a REVOLUTION because revolutions have NEVER been initiated by someone preaching some ambiguous shit, that'd be RELIGION, and even religion starts off by appealing to people. I believe people can be better, but to believe that they can be better I must also understand that they need to be made AWARE of the true problems in socio-economic terms AND WHAT THAT MEANS FOR THEM PERSONALLY, because most people aren't going to risk everything on a revolution unless they already have something threatening their most important things or if they have nothing to lose anymore. This is seen in every historical revolution.
>flattered like a child
The fuck are you talking about, stop using big words that you don't understand.
>Lenin explicitly rejected this view of the workers
Lenin is the one that marched under a banner of "Land, Peace, Bread" Lenin's efforts in the USSR included introducing literacy and educating people because, guess what, they ALL were ignorant as fuck and thus followed the Bolsheviks because of a hope for betterment from the horrific conditions of the Czardom, not because Lenin spouted "Marx said capitalism gets abolished on page X of book Y". That kind of discussion came AFTER the revolution, qhen people had fought for their freedom and needed to be more in depth in their understanding of communism so that the Soviet plans could proceed collectivization and the like.
>'m expecting what I would actually expect of those I hold to have the capacity for improvement.
No, you're expecting people to be at a level they are not at and refuse to stoop down and uplift these people from their ignorance. They won't spontaneously become communists because you talk over their head about things.
>"ust playing to their perceived sensibilities and warping your actual views as if they are incapable and pitiable." he repeated like a broken record
I'm ick and tired of your hogwash, you are exactly the kind of condescending idealist ideologue that plagues leftism today.

>>582322
We are not for "nuclear families". "family structures" have been changing on its own for a while now around the world.

>>582552
>Waaaaaaaah SPOOONFEEEED MEEEEEE!!!!!
You can repeat "not an answer" til the cows come home, I'm not doing your work for you.
>Communism has no state, I never said it lacked organization
I keep hearing this rubbish yet people never fucking expand on how the fuck that is supposed to function. And How is that organization going to be organized, by whom? And inb4 "the people" The people are not some amorphous being, they are individuals, organization results in a state, deal with it.
>y is it necesary
You're just being bad faith at this point. Do you understand the scope of what organization implies? A system of organization is not a person, if you are not registered in that system you do not exist to that system legally speaking. This doesn't matter on an individual level, but that isn't the question here, is it.
>Read Marx
NO U ULTRA FAGLORD, and read LENIN while you're at it.
>nothing I stated was idealist or utopia
Lenin and Marx both point out idealism and utopianism as negatives/problems and your nebulous statements are exactly that kind of ideological tripe. You keep repeating things that you heard/read but do not comprehend the meaning or lack of meaning in those things, and so you essentially end up saying "it'll work out" like a lib.

>>582550
I am not going around telling people that I am abolishing the family unit to get rid of capitalism, I just won’t lie or pretend that with socialism comes the elimination of the present family unit.

> Which one? The one in Russia, in the USA in India?
The nuclear family in the West.

I am not here to offer the proletariat temporary fixes and measures to make their lives easier. I am here to offer the proletariat a permanent solution to their problems with the temporary measures as a way to get them to listen to me. Fixating too much on things that exist will only lead to reforms or revolutions to redder capitalism. The proletariat has to imagine a better world to build socialism, and they can’t or won’t do it with full stomachs alone.

>>582556
>m, I just won’t lie or pretend that with socialism comes the elimination of the present family uni
nobody is saying lie you imbecile
>I am not here to offer the proletariat temporary fixes and measures to make their lives easier.
You cannot make change in an instant, it is a gradual process and the people have a right to their own decisions.

>>582555
>Waaaaaaaah SPOOONFEEEED MEEEEEE!!!!!
>You can repeat "not an answer" til the cows come home, I'm not doing your work for you
<I don't have to back up my claim, it's just true ok? It's would be really easy for me to quote on this thread, but apparently not easy enough for me to actually do it.
Again, not an answer.
>I keep hearing this rubbish yet people never fucking expand on how the fuck that is supposed to function. And How is that organization going to be organized, by whom? And inb4 "the people" The people are not some amorphous being, they are individuals, organization results in a state, deal with
Organization isn't what a state is you faggot, a state id a very particular thing which is historically contingent. You keep going on and on about being an ML, yet it seems you haven't even read the basics of Engels.
>You're just being bad faith at this point.
No, I'm not. You can disagree with me, but nowhere have I argued in bad faith.
>Do you understand the scope of what organization implies? A system of organization is not a person, if you are not registered in that system you do not exist to that system legally speaking.
Again, what does it matter in a non-property based society that such a thing does exist legally?
>This doesn't matter on an individual level, but that isn't the question here, is it.
No, the question is why the concept of family requires legal institution, something which would only have any merit in property based relations.
>NO U ULTRA FAGLORD, and read LENIN while you're at it.
I have you faggot.
>Lenin and Marx both point out idealism and utopianism as negatives/problems and your nebulous statements are exactly that kind of ideological tripe.
No, it isn't. Again, I don't think you understand these terms as Marx and Lenin use them. Nothing I have stated is idealism or utopianism, unless you find Marx and Lenin to be idealist and utopian.
>You keep repeating things that you heard/read but do not comprehend the meaning or lack of meaning in those things, and so you essentially end up saying "it'll work out" like a lib.
In what way do I not comprehend the meaning in what I am saying you pretentious faggot? I am not saying "It'll work out", I'm stating the fucking reality of how the material base of society determines even the existence of the state itself and how the existence of the state is something which becomes superfluous in communism, itself dying out as what class relation which make it in any way necessary dissipate and it's institutions made redundant. As Engels puts it:
<Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, of an organisation of the particular class, which was pro tempore the exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour). The state was the official representative of society as a whole; the gathering of it together into a visible embodiment. But it was this only in so far as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for the time being, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, the feudal lords; in our own time, the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase "a free people's state", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency [117]; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand.

>>582558
>back up my claim
You are the one that made a claim about qhat I said and I told you to scroll up and read posts, you disengenous faggot
>Not an ansqer
it is an answer, look up the definition of answer and stop spewing your word-salad diatribes
>More idealism more bullshit, more nonsense
Yeah I'm done, I'm not going to qaste time arguing with an ideologue that literally just repeate the same dogmatic statements and ignores what is being said.

>>582558
Also
>Engels
<I'm not saying It'll work out, but I'm saying [it'll work out]
You have provided NOTHING CLOSE to framing a basic feasible concept or plan in regards to socialism and how it moves forward. Marx and Engels made long term predictions for the distant future and did not expect to be leading Revolutions or planning any concrete details, but those that take their ideas and seek to go by them, are REQUIRED to have such planning or reap the consequences, as did every single anarchist movement.
>basics of Engels
Like I said, repeating dogmatic statements does not mean you comprehend them, just as a Myna Bird does not comprehend that swearwords are curses but repeats them anyway because it likes the sound of them.
>nowhere have I argued in bad faith.
Then you're just Uranium-tier dense.
>merit in property based relations
<personal property doesn't exist
<Housing, water supplies, judicial decisions and healthcare don't require documentation to make sure that the right people get them.
You're like those people that conflate wage labor and work as th exact same thing.

>>582559
>You are the one that made a claim about qhat I said and I told you to scroll up and read posts, you disengenous faggot
I asked you where you faggot. The vast, vast majority seem to simply clarify what abolishment of the family means.
>it is an answer, look up the definition of answer and stop spewing your word-salad diatribes
It's not an answer, it's a dodge. You could easily have linked me to them if they were as commonly stated as you implied. In no way am I using word salad either you fag.
>Yeah I'm done, I'm not going to qaste time arguing with an ideologue that literally just repeate the same dogmatic statements and ignores what is being said.
Cna you make even a single argument you faggot without devolving into Twitter-esc handwaves that don't actually address any of what I have stated?
>>582560
>You have provided NOTHING CLOSE to framing a basic feasible concept or plan in regards to socialism and how it moves forward. Marx and Engels made long term predictions for the distant future and did not expect to be leading Revolutions or planning any concrete details, but those that take their ideas and seek to go by them, are REQUIRED to have such planning or reap the consequences, as did every single anarchist movement.
If you're implying I'm an anarchist, fuck right the hell off. I'm probably more of an ML then you are, to the point of going beyond even "traditional" Marxist-Leninism. I just don't fucking forget why communism itself entails. Leading revolution or planning concrete details weren't on their agenda, because this is entirely a contextual thing. But what was on their agenda was the theory all future ML's would eventually build their theory on, and one of the most crucial of these is their analysis of what the state actually is.
>Like I said, repeating dogmatic statements does not mean you comprehend them, just as a Myna Bird does not comprehend that swearwords are curses but repeats them anyway because it likes the sound of them.
This isn't an argument, this is a baseless assertion. Nowhere have you actually laid out how exactly I have failed to comprehend what I have stated or referred to, all you've basically attempted to say is "You just don't get it", and then refused to elaborate any further before handwaving the argument away in full.
>Then you're just Uranium-tier dense.
Literally show me where I have argued in bad faith. My head may be foggy and my eyes shot from huffing fumes from welding all day, but I'm pretty fucking sure I never once argued in bad faith.
>personal property doesn't exist
Never stated this. However, given things like inheritance won't have any place in communism itself and the property based relations won't have any kind of existence, what exactly is the use of your institutions?
>Housing, water supplies, judicial decisions and healthcare don't require documentation to make sure that the right people get them.
How does any of this relate to the concept of family requiring legal institution?
>You're like those people that conflate wage labor and work as th exact same thing.
No, I'm not, and that isn't even comparable. I may as well say you're like those people who think monogamous relationships and the institution of marriage are the same thing.

>>582561
>I asked you where
And I said Scroll up faggot
> The vast, vast majority seem to simply clarify what abolishment of the family means.
<majority
<not all
Fucking shit I hav beeen on this thread since it began and you are by far the densest asshole, you are right on one thing, other anons actually DID try to clarify their understanding of family abolishment, instead of repeating themselves like broken records.
>a dodge
No, it' not an ARGUMENT you fucktard, an answer is a reply to something, and I have done that, idiot
>no way am I using word salad
… You are actually autistic aren't you? No wonder you're this inhumanly inane.
>without devolving into Twitter-esc handwaves
That's all your projection, you stated nothing of concrete substance, and repeating ideological vagaries is not an argument, there is nothing to argue against if you have no real argument to start from

>>582561
>going beyond even "traditional" Marxist-Leninism
Then you're not a ML but an Ultra, faggot, sounds consistent to your bullshit
>don't fucking forget why communism itself entails.
Kek ok, nice incoherence
>this is entirely a contextual thing
Literally the thing I said bout Marx, it does not excuse YOU or anyone else talking about putting things into practice you incompetent fuck.
>their analysis of what the state actually is.
It certainly isn't the boogieman-tier rubbish you present it as.
> a baseless assertion.
It is not an argument because there is nothing to argue, you just pam oblique claims that have no substance, so my assertion remains valid and based, seethe more.
>where I have argued in bad faith
I posted what, and you ignored it and everything else I stated and just keep repeating the statement about "necessity" and refuse to clarify the method of organization that inevitably produces a state regardless of how you roll it.
>isn't even comparable
<I may as well say you're like those people who think monogamous relationships and the institution of marriage are the same thing.
Do you not realize that, to all intents and purposes that is the thing you are claiming I say? You are LITERALLY projecting your straw man onto my arguments and ignoring them, that's the reason I've stopped engaging anything you said past telling you off for it, because arguments are wasted on you.
>Never stated this
But your own vagaries imply it
>things like inheritance won't have any place in communism
Inheritance of CAPITAL, not inheritance of personal property you dullard.
>hat exactly is the use of your institutions?
<hurr qho needs hospitals rite?
I already addressed this question, I'm tired of repeating myself - you're not listening.

Next time they say only the right and the capitalist system cares for the family, play them this sweet song of irony!

>>582557
>nobody is saying lie you imbecile
Then what? Omit the truth? Pussy.

>You cannot make change in an instant, it is a gradual process and the people have a right to their own decisions.
Without a North Star as guidance, every gradual process would just be like drifting in the sea. It is not up to them to decide with North is, but to decide whether to go there in the first place.

>>582563
>Then you're not a ML but an Ultra, faggot, sounds consistent to your bullshit
I don't think you know what an Ultra is then.
>Kek ok, nice incoherence
I obviously meant "what" anon, don't get held up in a typo from an autocorrect.
>Literally the thing I said bout Marx, it does not excuse YOU or anyone else talking about putting things into practice you incompetent fuck
Fuck off you faggot, the as actual scenario of revolution itself being contextual is not the same as just throwing actual Marxist theory out the window and adopting whatever position on Marxist theory you want on a whim.
>It certainly isn't the boogieman-tier rubbish you present it as
What the fuck did I present that was "boogieman-tier"?
>It is not an argument because there is nothing to argue, you just pam oblique claims that have no substance, so my assertion remains valid and based, seethe more.
This is literally a nothing statement. If you are going to explain that my claims have no substance, then fucking explain how, don't handwave like a pseud and say "uh, well, it has no substance, and, you know, I don't really have to argue against that then".
>I posted what, and you ignored it and everything else I stated and just keep repeating the statement about "necessity" and refuse to clarify the method of organization that inevitably produces a state regardless of how you roll it.
I literally posted Engels to clarify what I was talking about.
>Do you not realize that, to all intents and purposes that is the thing you are claiming I say? You are LITERALLY projecting your straw man onto my arguments and ignoring them, that's the reason I've stopped engaging anything you said past telling you off for it, because arguments are wasted on you.
What the actual fuck are you talking about you pseud? I stated something regarding institutions, and you made it about family itself.
>But your own vagaries imply it
Nowhere did I even imply it you fag. Nowhere have I been vague, and everything I have stated would be simple to understand if you had done even a cursory reading of Marx or Engels.
>Inheritance of CAPITAL, not inheritance of personal property you dullard.
None of which require legal institution retard, only capital and property with monetary value does. Otherwise it's just a gift given.
>I already addressed this question, I'm tired of repeating myself - you're not listening.
In regards to the family fag.

>>582565
>Omit the truth? Pussy.
How mature and nuanced, totally not an infantile take ignoring historical examples.
>Without a North Star as guidance, every gradual process would just be like drifting in the sea
Society is mad up of individuals, if you spurn individuals rights completely you are going to get little support from the people
>ot up to them to decide with North is, but to decide whether to go there in the first place
Vague as fuck, pointing them in some idealist "predicted" future is motivating very few people and any revolutionary or socialist worth their salt knows this as I posted several times.

>>582566
>more diatribe, more vague goal shifting and argument by authority, more ignoring the things I said, more laziness, more dogma
You remind me of Trotsky, spouting ideological bullshit and then firing off fallacies and various bullshit to cover his ass.

I have better chances telling a flat earther the planet is round than getting you to stop spitting out bullshit covered by fallacies ranging from the eternal straw man to argument by authority and loathsome slander alongside a nice dose of arrogant self-assuredness.

>>582322
……

Why refute it? Turn the tables how the right destroys families and romance.

>>582568
>You remind me of Trotsky, spouting ideological bullshit and then firing off fallacies and various bullshit to cover his ass.
What the fuck are your actually talking about anon. This whole time, you have not provided any kind of argument, and rather have just implied a whole bunch bullshit without showing it.
>I have better chances telling a flat earther the planet is round than getting you to stop spitting out bullshit covered by fallacies ranging from the eternal straw man to argument by authority and loathsome slander alongside a nice dose of arrogant self-assuredness.
I haven't done any of this, and you have done literally all of this. You started out stating an adherence to Marxist Leninism and referring to Lenin, you strwmanned my arguments as something themly we're not, and you have spent the last three posts slandering me with no actual basis to it while acting like an arrogant self-absorbed pseud to boot.

>>582569
>Lukacs
>Reich
<Frankfurt
Was whoever made this being purposefully retarded?

>>582572
*strawmanned
*they were

>>582573
Watch OP's video. It's that Kengor guy.

>>582572
>This whole time, you have not provided any kind of argument
I did, you ignored them so I stopped repeating myself
>just implied a whole bunch bullshit
LMAO this is pure schizophrenic projection. The most concrete thing you posted in the entire thread is not even your own argument but a section of Engels, that you clearly don't understand and are not engaging.
>I haven't done any of this
You have, and you're not even trying to take aa moment to think.
>you strwmanned my arguments
I did not, since I greentext highlighted your statements in my responses prior. You repeat the same tired points and lack any concrete elaboration that I asked for
>ou have spent the last three posts slandering me
<blablabla 'no u'
You are an amazing knave… Good job, I applaud you.

But we do seek to abolish the nuclear family. Why would we refute this.

Missed this post completely, got caught up with replying to the other posts.
>>582553
>Yeah no, showing compassion and appealing to a persons common sense and intelligence is the exact opposite of that, and your experiences are called not APPEALING to a person but PANDERING to them.
9/10, when a person rattles on about "appealing", they are talking about pandering. Simply showing compassion and attempting to reach a person through "common sense" has never worked in my view, and in the "best" possible scenario just leads to a complete warping of socialism into mere SocDem trite.
>You're projecting your own subconscious attitude about workers.
No, I am not.
>I am a prole, I'm from a prole family
Yeah, so is everyone else.
so don't tell me that I'm being condescending about the class of people I know and live around. >As I stated before, the proletariat in capitalist countries is not class conscious and rejects communism if they're just said to "accept it" because that's telling them to surrender their agency because someone else told them to, why the fuck would they listen?
I never said to state to them to "accept it" outright with no explanation, I'm saying that if any argument is to be made, its of the necessity of communism in the face of mutual ruin. That communism isn't something that must be strived for because its a nice alternative, but because it is the only alternative available to us outside of the loss of everything.
>Capitalism doesn't do that, because the experience of Union Strikes, the rise of the USSR and the vehement fight against openly repressive fascism indicated that forcing an ideology without support of the proles is impossible.
Its actually entirely possible to force an ideology without support of the proles (it quite literally happens all the time), but that's besides the point.
>Why do you think Lenin called for participation in bourg elections? Because he recognized that the true purpose of this qould be to get their message out to the people, promising Land, Peace and Bread, not some generic waffling about some grandiose dialectical progression that people barely care about.
Even then, he made it clear that socialism was not merely peace, land, and bread, and understood that merely making promises of such to draw in people is not what would actually propel the bolsheviks forward, as this was already similar to statements made by the Social Democrats of the time. Even when making such statements, Lenin was very clear in not warping Marxism itself to try and make it into something that merely appealed to public sentiment.
>No, it's spammed to them and TOLD to them that it is good, see They Live for an intertextual allegory of this.
Everyone fucking knows of They Live and Zizek's analysis of it, you don't need to state it as if I'm fucking new to this shit. And I'm talking of ideology itself, which absolutely crafted in the modern day to try and appeal rather then fundamentally change minds.
>Obviously to make sure it organically gets continued by the people it has to appeal to something, such as greed, or laziness or any other vice that capitalism thrives on. And to double down, there is no method of ethically consuming under capitalism, so people are forced to make do.
Again, not new to this.
>Ah yes, because the average Joe understands the intricacies of Base-Superstructure, or Capitalism's exploitation of worker through profit.
Never said they understand this immeditaly, but you should explain it to them.
>There is a reason that EVERY SINGLE POLITICAL MOVEMENT TO EXIST has SLOGANS, because people easily identify with that and often do not know to look deeper.
The issue is that we want people to look deeper, and in today's climate, we in fact require people look deeper into both the system and history itself. We aren't building off of a largely agrarian society of peasants in order to create some kind of patchwork movement that intends to develop a devastated Russia first before moving on to bigger aspirations, we are trying to construct a movement of people operating in a developed global capitalism that is totalizing in its scope. Simple statement offering simple solutions will not cut it here, you will just lose yourself in the morass of politcal noise that exists for all politcal dispute to remain in while the bourgeoisie continue on in their actions regardless.
>So yes, talking to nonclass conscious people is like talking to a child - you have to walk them through things and make them palatable to an uninitiated mind.
Literally anyone can say "Capitalism bad", the issue is that it is not in the slightest some marginal innocuous jump to then say "Communism good", because such a thing is not and will not be palatable to them. You can slowly walk your way step by step to the very edge of saying communism outright, but the actual gulf you must cross is one that cannot rely on appeal, and if you try to do so the person will just fall back to the allure of social democracy, as that at least retains the "appeal" without any of the baggage. Marxism has to be true for them, not just preferable.
>This reminds me of my Chemistry professor in College, she expected us all to have a certain level of understanding on the subject because that's the point of Highschool, and over 50% of the class consistently failed her "Beginner" level class because she refused to change her teaching methods and account for people coming in to a BEGINNER CLASS utterly ignorant of anything because high schools didn't have any standardization and quality control on the material they taught. The connection? People that are NOT class conscious are like those 50% that failed that class, preaching philosophy that they were taught to hate in a knee-jerk reaction is not going to get through to them, because they see a incomprehensible enemy in it.
Just appealing to them wont do anything either, as they will end up entering and then dropping out half way through when they realize there was more then they were led on to believe. People aren't as stupid as you think they are, they will notice when you start veering into attempts at sliding in actual communism and not just what they perceived as capitalist reform, which is what they were initially listening to you in the first place over. Also, went to trade school rather then college, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it pretty much impossible for 50% of a class to fail due to how things are graded?
>Proletarian is another termin for worker, if they are still doing work, then they are proles.
This is just dishonest, when Marx is referring to the proletariat, he is not referring to anyone who just goes around working. Work existed prior to the proletariat as a class, the proletariat is rather defined by Marx in terms of both their relation the mechanisms of the capitalist class system itself and their selling of labour power for a wage. If the conditions and social relations which constitute the proletariat end, the proletariat abolishes itself. Marx is very clear on this, this shouldn't even be contested. The whole reason the proletariat is historically unique for Marx is because it carries the potential to both abolish itself and the class society as a whole.
>Literally states abolition of family, yet provides no explanation as to the structure after. You're being intentionally obtuse.
Ok, this going to an important point for later, but do you understand what "Aufheben" means in the way Marx uses it?
>No YOU don't view them as PEOPLE at all, you view them the way a programmer views a computer, something you can just upload a program into.
No, I view them as someone who has to work everyday next to them as another worker, with the people you're going to have to get through. And believe me when I say "appeal" isn't going to cut it for the majority.
>People understand the necessity of a REVOLUTION because revolutions have NEVER been initiated by someone preaching some ambiguous shit, that'd be RELIGION, and even religion starts off by appealing to people.
Or providing what they see as a very real and approaching ultimatum.
>I believe people can be better, but to believe that they can be better I must also understand that they need to be made AWARE of the true problems in socio-economic terms AND WHAT THAT MEANS FOR THEM PERSONALLY, because most people aren't going to risk everything on a revolution unless they already have something threatening their most important things or if they have nothing to lose anymore. This is seen in every historical revolution.
Everyone has there own personal reason for anything, but Marxism isn't a box where you throw in what you already held values and desires, mix it all up, and get something out the other end that exists suited and tailored just for you. That's the trap the modern left and really politics as a whole has fallen into. Communism as of right now is a question of necessity and the continued existence of human society as a whole, and little will convince someone to actual communism at this point until they are made to actually understand its actual operations and the stakes that are on the line.
>The fuck are you talking about, stop using big words that you don't understand.
"Flattered" is not a "big word" you fag.
>Lenin is the one that marched under a banner of "Land, Peace, Bread" Lenin's efforts in the USSR included introducing literacy and educating people because, guess what, they ALL were ignorant as fuck and thus followed the Bolsheviks because of a hope for betterment from the horrific conditions of the Czardom, not because Lenin spouted "Marx said capitalism gets abolished on page X of book Y". That kind of discussion came AFTER the revolution, qhen people had fought for their freedom and needed to be more in depth in their understanding of communism so that the Soviet plans could proceed collectivization and the like.
Lenin was also the one who blatantly rejected tailism or any kind of warping of actual communist theory merely to suit the perceived wants of the populace. "Peace, Land, and Bread" was something that was poart and parcel to their theory to begin with, and even then the scenario was different to what we have now.
>No, you're expecting people to be at a level they are not at and refuse to stoop down and uplift these people from their ignorance. They won't spontaneously become communists because you talk over their head about things.
I'm fine with stooping. I'm not fine with treating people as incapable of handling the truth they need to hear. If you truly watched "They Live", then you know actually opening people up to unconformable truths, even people you care for, is often an ideologically "violent" affair.
>I'm ick and tired of your hogwash, you are exactly the kind of condescending idealist ideologue that plagues leftism today.
Not an idealist in the slightest.

>>582576
>I did, you ignored them so I stopped repeating myself
If you are talking about the post I missed, then I have now responded to it.
>LMAO this is pure schizophrenic projection. The most concrete thing you posted in the entire thread is not even your own argument but a section of Engels, that you clearly don't understand and are not engaging.
Repeatedly stating "You just don't understand it" is not an argument unless you actually explain what exactly the person does not understand.
>You have, and you're not even trying to take aa moment to think.
Explain then how I've done any of this.
>I did not, since I greentext highlighted your statements in my responses prior. You repeat the same tired points and lack any concrete elaboration that I asked for
Greentexting them doesn't mean the responses didn't then strawman my arguments. And even before the post I just made, I provided sufficient elaboration.
>You are an amazing knave… Good job, I applaud you.
<knave
Oh fucking get over yourself.

>>582579
>>582578
>blablablabla
<goalpost shifting, fallacies, and hand waving
Like I said, I'm done trying to carry across a point to you, you're not even trying to listen, just being antagonistic out of subconscious spite and some denied idealism. Do whatever, it doesn't matter to me. I'm just going to point out that your claimed ideas have never been the basis, let alone the keystone to the path of Socialism and as I have seen repeatedly, only serves to make communists and communism look alien, arrogant and so unwelcome to most non-class conscious people. The things you say are tantamount to telling people "ur retarded read a book faggot" rather than breaking doqn the contents in a simple manner so that they aren't spooked off by superficially alarming claims. You can continue to ignore this but you will meet very little support by most people that aren't already left-leaning (i.e. the majority of the ignorant proletariat), that are ignorant because it benefits the upper class, not out of their free will.
>Zizek Quote
1) That's an anecdote
2) That still backs up my statements
3) The point of Zizek's quotes is in relation to socialist discourse among people already acknowledging their ignorance in that area. This does not mean that the proletariat and their experiences and opinions are irrelevant even if they are individual. Almost every person has differing experiences and knowledge that you can learn from and gain perspective and that is important for any socialist.
Moreover Lenin originated from a petty bourg family even if exiled, and yet his appeals to the people remained simplistic leaving the complexities of theory and discussion to literature for further clarification. These are basic parts Public Relations and Leadership successfully gaining support and understanding.

>>582322
It should be an easy claim to refute. Right wing policies are the most destructive forces in contemporary western society against the family. For an example of how to convince people of this look at this french canadian song that eloquently expresses the point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYRp8oP0yiw

>>582579
Lmao that worker is more of a Marxist than Hobsbwan.

>>582581
Yes.

>>582323
huh? first picrel is right before your excerpt. also have one of the theses on feuerbach as a bonus
>>582577
this

If reading Engels has taught me anything, is that the modern concept of family has been a byproduct of the different modes of production and labor relations throughout history. The reason nuclear family has been torn apart is because of capitalism (and the systems preceding it) demanding more and more labor from both parents, thus severing intrafamilial bonds. If anything, communism would allow family structures to be built in any desired manner, but not in a capitalist one, that one is to be destroyed.

>>582585
no, you got it wrong. there won't be any kind of family structure in communism

>>582586
Why won't there be? It seems to me that communist could allow for the existence of family structure similar to that of primitive communism/one of the stages of savagery.

>>582587
we're not recreating primitive communism
>there were a bunch of different forms of this kind of interpersonal exploitation throughout history, so under communism there'll be a whole bunch of them at once
what kind of logic is that

>>582585
The concept of the family as it exists is a contextual reflection of certain historical and economic conditions, but this is where you get it wrong: It is precisely because the context is beholden to such determinatives that the 'type' of the family cannot be understood as an ideological imposition or ideal towards which something should be mandated; it is, instead, an emergent, contingent, wholly organic process subject to its own change or preservation. There is no outsider standpoint from which one can abstract their judgment and impose an ideal.

>>582589
If i understood you right, then it would be like picrel but with family instead of prostitution?

>>582590
I forgot the image, of course.

Not Kengor's book, but equally infuriating.

the family is a cabal of child molesters with systematic backing from the institutions of state and private property (alien invaders in disguise)

>>582322
>How do we refute the right-wing claim that leftists seek to "abolish" the family and romance?
What's there to refute?