/lit/ - Literature

>>20743060
I don't know, dude... Can you be both a death-cult cultist and a cargo-cultist of the same death-cult?

>>20471034
>Can you explain your problem with Marx qua Marx?
Not him, but:

Marx’s Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right:
"In the formulation of a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates <...> a sphere, finally, which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of society <...> which, in a word, is the complete loss of man and hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of man. This dissolution of society as a particular estate is the proletariat."

And compare this with pic related. Marx's view is essentially the medieval view of removing all the differences to merge with God (actualizing the Absolute).
Except that Marx is not evoking God as a premise and mumbles instead 'just do it, motherfucker! It will be great! Communism, yeah!'

As such, it makes marxism a cargo cult of a death cult. It's like believing, that if you make people suffer from aphasia, they'll automatically switch to 'neuralink' thought transfer, instead of civilizational collapse.

>>20389852
>Lefties don’t appeal to ancient authority
Historically, dialectics (that spawned Marx) are a product of scholastic thought, attempting to actualize the Absolute via removing all the differences and thus achieving Unification with the One.
Pic related.

Also, on the value of equality, see: Morgan E.S. "Inventing the People. The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America" (1989)
Absolutist sovereigns claimed a mandate from Heaven. Popular Sovereignty was brought up against absolutism on the premise of people being more ancient than kings, therefore possessing that mandate and being able to distribute it to kings. But the source of that mandate was still a God.


Just because Marx's solely economical causes were replaced with intersectionality, does not undermine the core of that logic in the slightest.

>>19867513
>None of you have proven to know what dialectical materialism means
Dialectical materialism is when:
1. Some medieval scholastic heretics try to actualize the Absolute, i.e. to merge with the One, i.e. to bring forth the Apocalypse.
2. Some guy named Hegel reappropriates this line of thought and rewrites it in a very technical jargon, with intention not to understood by people who read him.
3. Some guy named Marx crudely puts this ideology upside down and says "Let's alleviate all differences guys, and it's gonna be... er... good, yeah! Communism, yeah!"

Or an actual quote:
"Where, then, is the positive possibility of a German emancipation?
Answer: In the formulation of a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates, a sphere which has a universal character by its universal suffering and claims no particular right because no particular wrong, but wrong generally, is perpetuated against it; which can invoke no historical, but only human, title; which does not stand in any one-sided antithesis to the consequences but in all-round antithesis to the premises of German statehood; a sphere, finally, which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society, which, in a word, is the complete loss of man and hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of man. This dissolution of society as a particular estate is the proletariat.
<...>
By heralding the dissolution of the hereto existing world order, the proletariat merely proclaims the secret of its own existence, for it is the factual dissolution of that world order."

tl;dr - because proletariat is viewed as completely dissoluted and devoid of any characteristics, it is somehow good. Sounds familiar?


Or to put it even more plainly. Dialectical materials is - when you make a cargo cult of a heretical death cult.

>>18616247
>the meaning of dialectics?
Initially, some fucking rhetoric >>18617517 device, used to prove whatever the fuck you want.

Later, adopted by Christian cargo cultists, believing it will help them (by "negating oppositions") to bring about the actualization of the Absolute's potential (i.e. the Apocalypse, i.e. when all oppositions are negated), perceiving it as something good.

Later, adopted by Marxist cargo cultists, still believing that the procedure of negating all oppositions (prole as "the complete loss of man", according to Marx) itself leads to something "good", which through some mental gymnastics was labeled as "communism" (instead of the End of the World).

So, a cargo cult of a cargo cult of some charlatan's tricks, basically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

>>18600156
Yes. Leftism - is Christian heresy in its essence. It originated from it (pic related)


And it still is such, in its ethical component
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/are-we-in-a-500-year-religious-revolution
The oppressed are good, because they are are victims of oppression.
Meaning, if you are not oppressed, then you are not good. Meaning, people seek the reasons to feel oppressed.
Hence, intersectionality.

>>18545757
>rather than turn Hegel on his head, mutilated the absolute.
Which is just a euphemism for "bringing forth the End of the World". Which makes marxism a cargo cult of a death cult.

>>18528500
>>comparing Marx to Christ
The origins of Marxism do lie in Christian theology.

Becoming one with the Absolute => removing all differences and inequalities as the end-goal => " a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates ... the complete loss of man and hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of man. This dissolution of society as a particular estate is the proletariat." => marxism suddenly realizing that economical factors do not explain everything => intersectionality