>>8501Let me be clear of your term.
>The conclusion of the slave-master dialect; >aka the system will grant consiousness to the workers because capitalism design of inifinte growth on a finite planet with people, and designed to have infinite competition despite clearly studied wealth competition occuring, both of which leads to the system undergoing to more and more frequent crisis, leading to the system to make the workers bail it out (aka a wealth transference), while also deepening its level of exploitation, will in a result lead to the workers realizing that the system can't work and they must choose being murdered by the system, or change society and possible be murdered earlier; >the analysis based on a scientific (testable) approach, based on the physical world (materialism), and categorizing the analysis based off the thinking of processes (dialects);>the analysis comonly misinturpreted as a science like how math is a science. Your counter, (correct me if I'm wrong), is:
>the universal application of the master-slave dialectic to everything as if it’s some law of history<even though it was never used as some law but rather a framework in analyzing the worldand
>or that it has to always occur in its entirety and can never be interruptedalternatively
>Resistance to the growing consiousness can't occur, or the world can't be destroyed before <even though the interruptions, which are in wanting to reverse the stage of capitalism to a more competitive moment of its existence, even if successful, will just lead the system to develop and go back to a stage in which massive crisis will occur again <and the attack against workers developing class consiousness won't work since with the further deepening of crisis and exploitation, the worker will know that the one progressive system has now over stayed its welcome. <Then the world going into extinction, something that can't be done since those who want to continue capitalism the most, the bougeosis, the same class that has nothing to escape the planet, want the world to continue so they can keep said ownership. I don't understand your point, or your aggression.
There can't be an infinte capitalism; fascism is nothing but a temporary solution for the bougeosis; global warming, a non-human ending issues, that
absolutely should be fought against and if possible ended before its massive destuction occurs; and the owning class can't escape to another planet and continue capitalism there.
It's like taking the doomer thinking of the frog in the pot experiment to its extreme – an experiment that was made with a frog without a brain, and when retested found that the (full brain) frog always jumped out when the water was too hot.
Processes change and go into different stages; the workers will crack – just as a road will crack and break after years of trucks driving over it despite suface analysis giving you the idea that they will last forever.
>>8521Other than the gaia argument, why?
I don't know much about the book, I genuinely don't know.
>>8522>>8531Let me be clear: I'm only a computer scientist (software engineer to be more specific).
But this analysis of the world seems to be still debated about, as seen here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_philosophy#Range_of_viewsUnless there is a strong reasoning behind this theory being correct – something I can't say on either, nor know if there is one – then I don't agree with the argument that: a communist revolution occuring because of developed class consiousness, will not actually happen.
Nor do I see handwaving and cherrypicking with these responses:
>>8543>>8546>>8552>>8554 Last one though can easily be someone using their flag.
Maybe if you're going to debate people in the thread you use that tag+name trick,
(I don't remember what it's called, or how to do it).