/lit/ - Literature

>>15782787
Both are shit desu, both Heidegger is more based

>>15782787
Wittgenstein, he literally gives you tools to deal with language

>>15782787
Nazi vs Communist
Neither

It's not clear to me what makes Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations so greatly estimated. If someone could help a brainlet out, I would appreciate.

>>15783045
bro the anglos with posh accents said that book was one of the greatest achievements in philosophy.
so it must be true bro.

>>15783101
Kill yourself subhuman

>>15782787
You should kys pseud

>>15782961
based midwit fence sitter

read both
lazy bones

>>15782787
I love both, and from the maddeningly brief record we have, they respected each other's work as well. I refuse to choose. Read both, but probably read the Tractatus first. Then, read Being and Time, and you'll probably be surprised at how many parallels you find, albeit in very different language. You're in for a life-changing ride.

>>15782787
Given that they're 2 of the 5 most important philosophers of all time, you should obviously read both because there's not that much good shit to read. Once you're done with them, you'll either have to read 2nd rate philosophy like Nietzche or Derrida or Descartes or stop reading philosophy altogether.

>>15783245
But there is no political framework in their philosophy
Why do you think so highly of these two? Also who are other three important philosophers?

>>15783245
This is true. Though I have much love for Nietzsche still.

>>15782921
no he doesn't. His autistic approach he refuted himself and answerd only in questions.
He never gave any tools except pretentious books for undergrad students to quote to make themselves feel good for still being midwits and a general cope for literally any problem they might have to deal with during their degree because its all theoretical problems of language in academia for these faggots.

>>15782787
Personally i think Heidegger has the edge on wittgenstein, but as far as reading order goes i would *definitely* read tractatus before b+t.

>>15783483
>as far as reading order goes i would *definitely* read tractatus before b+t.
Why? They were contemporaries

>>15783245
Can you name the other 3? And possibly give an order for reading them? And also, do you have any suggestion as to whether Locke/Spinoza/Hume need to be read? Cuz I can't seem to get interested in them

heidegger is a failed minstrel/bufoon, wittgenstein was a titan of philosophy.

>>15783503
Basically i think the tract is a good starting point for philosophy generally because it frees you from certain mistaken everyday assumptions about language which allow you to approach texts unhindered by said assumptions. This is especially true for approaching someone like Heidegger who writes in a very esoteric way to suit his purposes.

>>15783519
Not him but ther other 3 are most likely Plato Aristotle, and Kant. You don't need to read the ones you've mentioned even if /lit/ thinks you need to have read Hume before reading Kant's CoPR

Wittgenstein singlehandedly BTFO'd modern philosophy

>>15783045
Same reason that Bob Dylan was popular despite being a shit singer, desu

>>15783572
Because both of them singlehandedly changed popular music and philosophy respectively

Heidegger is a snake

>>15782787
You don't read Tractatus front to back, you read it in bits and go back to it now and again as a reference

It wasn't meant to be read like a novel

If you don't understand that, then you want to read it so that you can say that you've read it and not because you truly want to understand Wittgenstein's work

But that's pretty normal on this board so I can't exactly shit on you for it

>>15783733
He wrote it in perfect continuity, each point following from the previous. It can be summed up in the headings of the 6 main chapters, with sub-sections following in turn. It is absolutely meant to be read front to back, at least at first. What you're saying is ridiculous.

>>15783612
What did Wittgenstein change?
Nothing

>>15783733
>pseuds reading philosophy
Kys

>>15783550
Thanks for the reply. I had set my reading schedule in the order of Plato, Aristotle, then Descartes, based on Slavoj's opinion of the 3 greatest philosophers. After them I was going to read Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, because hopefully the first three would prepare me enough to better understand them two. And then, finally, I would read Kant, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein. Would you say this is a decent list? These are the only philosophers who really interest me

>>15783620
He was clearly a human

>>15783858
Good list, first three are absolutely the best way to start. Only thing is I would read Kant before Nietzsche ad Schopenhauer because the latter two refer/react to him a great deal (as does most philosophy after Kant in one way or another). If you're turned of by Critique of Pure Reason's length/turgidity (which is fair enough), you can read the Prolegomona to All Future Metaphysics, which pretty much makes the essential points of the first Critique expressed in 90 pgs (similarly, if you're interested in his moral philosophy, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals is way more concise than the rather over-egged (in my opinion) Critique of Practical reason).

>>15783858
Why would you read Schopenhauer and Nietzche before Kant? Read Kant before reading anyone else that followed Kant then you can read anyone

Start with Tractatus because it's shorter

>>15784092
Why not "Philosophical Investigations"?

>>15784124
Because it was written later

>>15782787
Neither.

Btw Heidegger and Jung refuted Wittgenstein.

>>15783909
Thank you very much, I really appreciate all this info. I'm currently halfway through Plato's Complete Works, and having this info allows me to not waste any more time thinking about which philosopher to read or if I'm missing something. I plan on reading the complete works of Socrates and Descartes, then the main works of the others.

>>15783930
I don't know why I was grouping Kant and Heidegger automatically together, but yes, my mistake. I'll make sure to read Kant before them.

>>15784133
But it says on the preface:

"Four years ago, however, I had occasion to reread my first book (the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) and to explain its ideas. Then it suddenly seemed to me that I should publish those old ideas and the new ones together: that the latter could be seen in the right light only by contrast with and against the background of my older way of thinking."

>>15783178
Oh yeah, what changed in your life?

>>15784154
No one cares what the author thinks about his books

>>15784155
Reading the complete works of Aristotle is a very big undertaking. I'd read some in parallel. Some Plato, some Aristostle, some Descartes, then you can move on to Kant while still comimng back to Plato/Aristotle, but you know best what works for you

>>15784160
Well, I am in academic philosophy, so I may be slightly more vulnerable to life-changing effects from philosophy, but what I can say is that if you're serious about thinking, you'll find yourself referring back to Wittgenstein almost against your will for years after grasping the Tractatus. You'll be reading something entirely unrelated, and you'll think of how neatly he both defended morality absolutely and did away with 99% of arguments for it. You'll want understanding more than ever but be skeptical about getting it. These are slightly prosaic examples, but the point is, you'll never be able to fully do away with Wittgenstein. Late Wittgenstein also changed the way I approach discussions/arguments about God.

>>15784238
Who are your favorite philosophers?

>>15784260
Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, and Heidegger are my big ones. I like others, but 70% of my time usually revolves around one of these three.

>>15783546
Isn't the Tract really hard to read though?

>>15784348
I'm checking out his Philosophical Investigations and it seems ok. Kant is definitely harder than him. He writes like Déscartés, I think.

>>15784295
Ignore historic greatness, who are some of your favourite thinkers, try to think of some people not quite as big as Heidegger or Witt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0UswnFUL8E

>>15784478
Do you want him to list midwits or what? The historic greatness is there cause they earned it

>>15784348
in it's own way (in another way its extremely clear), but once you get near the end it all starts falling into place.

>no one mentions hegel
What happened to you /lit/?

For me, it's Heidegger

One is a nazi and one is a jew. Jews won so they're more based

>>15783045
In Tractatus he thought he "solved" philosophy. Later on he was his own best critic in disassembling some core arguments in it which were in Philosophical Investigations. The only person who could properly go head to head with Wittgenstein at the time was the man himself it seems.

>>15784871
>The only person who could properly go head to head with Wittgenstein at the time was the man himself it seems.
Cringe

>>15784791
Heidegger wasn't a hardcore Nazi and even disavowed his allegiance to the NSDAP in the mid 30s in addition to defining Germans as the master race in terms of linguistic-cultural basis, rather than a racial one. Probably did it for to gain a leg up in academia rather than actually believing. There's also the fact that he was fucking Jewesses on the side and was friends with Husserl for a while before the NSDAP came to power (and then bashed him in a backhanded way for political gain).

>>15785061
He was still anti-semitic for religious reasons

> In a letter to Hannah Arendt, in which he comments on the rumors about his anti-Semitism, it reads: "As to the rest, in matters related to the university I am as much an anti-Semite as I was ten years ago in Marburg. This anti-Semitism even found the support of Jacobstahl and Friedländer. This has nothing to do with personal relationships (for example, Husserl, Misch, Cassirer and others)."

>>15785156
based

>>15783278
Political theory is the worst form of philosophy

>>15785061
>Probably did it for to gain a leg up in academia rather than actually believing.

I like Heidegger and I am a Nazi myself for roughly the same reasons he was, but you aren't fully correct. First, he was almost certainly a dick on a personal level. Just look at his falling out with Jaspers, entirely his fault and perpetuated by him while Jaspers was begging him to level with him as an old friend. He didn't help Husserl and Husserl felt betrayed by him also.

He was not a careerist either. He joined the Nazis because he saw it as a great national awakening that needed shaping to prevent it from becoming what it became. He became disillusioned with the party fairly quickly because it was a corrupt totalitarian regime and squandered the energies he felt it represented. But he still supported its basic purpose in a qualified way even then.

>>15785503
Nice projection retard. Post quotes from the man or get the fuck out

>>15783278
Political philosophy is a meme if you don't consider ethics and the epistemological/ontological underpinnings of said ethics tbqh. It basically preaches little more than a popularity contest without some sort of grounding in something real meaningful.

>>15785156
>>15785503
Interesting. Are there any sources on the biography of Heidegger? I want to read it and see how it influenced his philosophy.

>>15785855
The Black Notebooks are the best primary sources, since you can watch his dismay unfold pretty much in real time. Heidegger and Jasper's correspondence is published.. More like non-correspondence from Heidegger since a lot of the letters are Jaspers saying "fren why are you doing this? we used to listen to records together, remember?" and getting no reply, or drafting multiple versions of the same letter over a couple years so you can watch him get sadder in real time. It's hard for me to see how Jaspers could deserve Heidegger's pretentious aloofness in his 1940s reply after a decade of silence. The best secondary source is Heidegger's Roots by Bambach and also Disclosure and Gestalt by Radloff if you can find it.

Start with Roots and you will probably see where to go from there. My advice, ignore the whole 1980s-90s "Heidegger debate" about whether he was a Nazi or not, between Ott and Farias and so forth. Completely ignore Wolin, unless you already have your own view and are only reading Wolin for extra grist for your mill. He sucks for actual views.

>>15784871
>so smart the only person who can debate you is yourself

Early Heidegger and Late Wittgenstein are commensurable, there's even a book about this, "Groundless Grounds" by Lee Braver

>>15782921
Gives you the tools to post meaningless shit like this

>>15784542
Look retard, no ones going to say Carlyle is on par with Heidegger but he's still one of my favourites.

>>15782787
Egghider for sure.

>>15783045
he's a jew

>>15782787
It's the eternal battle between the Aryan and the jew.

>>15787229
Takes one to know one

>>15787237
>Heidegger
>Aryan
Chuse one (1)

>>15783245
>they're 2 of the 5 most important philosophers
Who are the other three in your opinion?

>>15787164
Ok but you're retarded

>>15787838
How? Put it into dotpoints now.

>>15782787
I think it's pretty obviously Heidegger.

>"God lets the oppositional will of the ground operate in order that might be which love unifies and subordinates itself to for the glorification of the Absolute. The will of love stands about the will of the ground and this predominance, this eternal decidedness, the love for itself as the essence of being in general, this decidedness is the innermost core of absolute freedom."
>"Philosophy will not be able to effect an immediate transformation of the present condition of the world. This is not only true of philosophy, but of all merely human thought and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The sole possibility that is left for us is to prepare a sort of readiness, through thinking and poeticizing, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god in the time of foundering [Untergang] for in the face of the god who is absent, we founder. Only a God Can Save Us."
>"For us contemporaries the greatness of what is to be thought is too great. Perhaps we might bring ourselves to build a narrow and not far reaching footpath as a passageway."
>“There is a thinking more rigorous than the conceptual”
>“...the most extreme sharpness and depth of thought belongs to genuine and great mysticism”
~Martin Heidegger

>Wisdom is one thing: to know the will that steers all things through all.
>This world-order, the same of all, no god nor man did create, but it ever was and is and will be: everlasting fire, kindling in measures and being quenched in measures.
>The invisible structure is greater than the visible.
~Heraclitus

>"And for these reasons, and out of such elements which are in number four, the body of the world was created, and it was harmonised by proportion, and therefore has the spirit of friendship; and having been reconciled to itself, it was indissoluble by the hand of any other than the framer."
>Wherefore also we must acknowledge that there is one kind of being which is always the same, uncreated and indestructible, never receiving anything into itself from without, nor itself going out to any other, but invisible and imperceptible by any sense, and of which the contemplation is granted to intelligence only.
~Plato

>“The Tao is beyond is and is not. How do I know this? I look inside myself and see.”
~Lao Tzu

>>15782787
They're both good but Heidegger is better

>>15787122
So Heidegger said what a lot of Wittgenstein said before Wittgenstein?

Post cute Heidegger's.

>>15787237
it is the eternal battle between
> strive for meaning, lucidity, rigor of thought, heroism
and
> buffoonery, vagueness, babble, low IQ, pathological over-emotivity of decadent civilizations

>>15787938
>> buffoonery, vagueness, babble, low IQ, pathological over-emotivity of decadent civilizations
Yeah lmao why did Wittgenstein unnecessarily complicate his work.

>>15787938
Wittgenstein is easier to read than Heidegger

>>15787947
the tractatus is limpid like the morning air on a norwegian fjord.

>>15787955
lmao did you think that by "rigor of thought" i meant heidneger?

>>15787973
Yes, given that the post you replied to listed Aryan as the first one

>>15782787
why choose one? you fucking moron

>>15787982
it's not a rule.
well, i thought it was pretty obvious who was who. how can one even for a second think that the first description could be meant for heidegger?

>>15787966
surely you're exaggerating.

Even Heidegger did not write that badly either. His concepts require a lot of work to grasp correctly. But once you get them, it's a breeze.

>>15782787
The Tractatus is dogshit. Read the Philosophical Investigations if you're going to read Wittgenstein.

Late Wittgenstein > Late Heidegger > Early Heidegger >>>>>>>>>>>>> Early Wittgenstein

>>15788105
there is no "late" wittgenstein, you brainlet.
earlier in his life he dealt with the question of truth, later he dealt with the question of meaning. he says it outright many times, it's just you mystical retards who can't grasp the difference between
> truth
> meaning

>>15782787
these two fags are completely irrelevant for 21st century with the emergence of ai, bio metrics, gene editing, designer babies, artificial consciousness, brain mapping, pandemics, climate change, energy crisis, mental health crisis, robotics, nuclear annihilation etc.
human civilization isn't going to survive for much longer. the pessimist canon won. so grill some beef and enjoy the end of the world my nigga.

>>15788248
thanks for your input reddit

>>15788187
Cope harder with the fact that you wasted your time reading an autistic piece of trash that the author himself subsequently realised was utterly tedious and pointless.

>>15788260
You're the one aggressively coping with not being smart enough to get it. I'm sorry anon

>>15788255
oh no no no no
what happened my faggot? the suppressed death anxiety and fear of annihilation suddenly exploded on your face? follow degger's advice now run to the woods and find a cope or two

>>15788291
cringe

>>15783733
You are so wrong about this.
Like, so wrong.

>>15784637
OP is only just starting out- Hegel sort of needs to be read once one is *very* comfortable in reading philosophy.

>>15784462
>I'm checking out his Philosophical Investigations

PI is much easier to read in general and can be read without any prerequisites.

>>15788291
you're trying too hard mate desu

>>15787398
Aryan doesn't mean "blonde haired blue eyed Nordic"

How many fucking Wittgenstein threads do we need on this board?

>>15788248
Hans Jonas explicitly adresses these questions, and he's an heideggerian.

>>15784871
Dude philosophers do this all the time, it's just most of them don't get attention for it. Kant himself went against his past metaphysical beliefs during the critical phase we know him best for. A lot of philosophers change their minds over time like Sartre and Foucault. Among analytics there's Hilary Putnam, famous for criticizing his past views later on. He went from scientific realism to 'internal realism' to something else afterward. Wittgenstein is not alluring for those reasons. He's alluring because he acted in an uncharitable way to his audience in both of his famous books. He had a 'whoever gets me gets me, too bad for the rest of you.' Some people swoon over that kind of attitude. I don't mean to suggest it's a vice, I don't have a problem with Wittgenstein as far as content goes (and content matters more than style), but the swooning is major cringe and comes from pseuds who do put style over substance.

>>15791164
>there's kant, who, literal who, the who, the list goes on

>>15783045
>he’s a Jew

Hitler said he wasn’t

Also, he’s ‘great’ because at the time philosophy departments began to be chaired by scientists, notably Vienna where Ernst Mach, Boltzmann, and morty Schlick would chair the philosophy, done because a few Wealthy Jewish families, primarily The wealthy Gompertz family were interested in replacing the German idealists and Catholics with a new science based world view.

These scientists understood Einstein and relativity but didn’t understand Hegel or Kant and sought to undermine them and rebuild philosophy rather than use their advancements and build upon it.

Wittgenstein went unnoticed until Schlick was given a copy of Tractatus that was bought from a street Vendor of all places. Imagine a high concept philosophy piece selling at B&N these days. let alone on a the street.

anyway Wittgenstein, poorly summarized, says words aren’t real and you can’t use them reliably or you get words without meaning talking about meaningless things.

Aka metaphysics. Aka drop anything that isn’t verifiable by your eyeballs into the trash. Aka Kant and his successors. You don’t even have to understand Kant and you get to skip him entirely when tackling philosophy.

Wittgenstein was the foundation upon which a new philosophy could be built and you could skip anything rational without wasting time.

But the problem is you have to try to understand Wittgenstein instead of Kant.

>>15791164
Style is substance and aesthetics are Truth

>>15782961
Wittgensteins disciples were communists Jews mostly, an Austrofascist Protestant was his St Peter and he himself was a monarchist supporter of the the empire, and possibly a passive tolerator of Hitler.

>>15792112
Fuck off with your reddit spacing you spastic retard

>>15787410
Kierkegaard Kant Plato

>>15788248
I know this is a troll but yikes and cringe and Reddit YCR

>>15792143
Sorry not sorry, also I don’t go to Reddit, clearly evidenced by the fact my post contains far more detail on one subject than a redditor is capable of understanding or caring about.

>>15792171
>trying to trick newfriends into reading kierkegaard

martin was a cuck
witty knew hitler
answer is obvious here

>>15793136
the absolute state of aryans

>>15791164
How did Foucault’s views change

>>15783178
Listen to this anon and leave this thread immediately.

>>15793136
LMAO
i didn't know it
ahahahaha
> muh being-in-the-world
> muh autentic life
> muh self help passing for philosophy
meanwhile his wife's vagina gets DESTROYED by the village's baker, carpenter and priest
and he has to pay for the children
what a fucking retard

>>15782914
THIS i was gonna post an original post but then i read this BOTH ARE SHIT I AGREE.

Whichever one is more incomprehensible. My money is on Heidegger, although the race is close. Make sure to read it in the original German too

>>15793136
>nazis are cuckolds
Imagine my shock

Heidegger set the scene for the greatest philosophies of the 20th century. Wittgenstein is someone you mention at parties to show you know who 'ended philosophy'

>>15792112
Interesting summary!

>>15795144
>> muh being-in-the-world
>> muh autentic life
>> muh self help passing for philosophy
These are absolute grounded concepts from the bottom up so to be indestructible in the world of ideas, as real. You cannot refute these just as you CANNOT REFUTE ME BANGING YOUR MUM HAHAHA!

Jk, you're a small guy to consider personal difficulty invalidating of philosophy.

>>15792112
>anyway Wittgenstein, poorly summarized, says words aren’t real and you can’t use them reliably or you get words without meaning talking about meaningless things.
>Aka metaphysics.
This is stupid.

>>15782961
Say what you want about Nazis. At least they have a real world example of exactly the kind of society they want.

>>15782787
One of them is actually a philosopher who continued to do philosophy in the last days. The other is a failed mathematician playing language games who can’t into set theory

>>15795624
And it failed

>>15795624
Relying on loans until they have to go to war just to pay them off?

>>15795602
> muh refuting
how do i "refute" self-help (i.e. heidegger's babber) , moron?
logic and reason are immune to ad personam. not self help.

>>15795628
>USSR totalitarian dystopia state can afford to throw millions of men at you
>entire anglo commercial, shipping, and naval empire declares war on you
>brings dumbass "better red and dead" france along to drag on your time/resources
>entire american economy dedicated to supplying the above (also enters war when germany is exhausted)
>entire international banking system conspires to aid all of the above against you
>saddled with retard italy fucking up timing of barbarossa and bogging you down in balkans AND north africa
>still almost win

Now imagine what they could have done if they hadn't been dog-piled. That's volksgemeinschaft for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oFyI5vlkec

>>15795624
Ironic because USSR lasted way longer than naziland. And Communist parties are in power in many countries.

>>15795653
The only countries where they are successful, like Vietnam, are fiercely national-socialist and the very opposite of internationalist. Vietnamese would rather be ruled by a monarch than see one chink commie step foot in there again.

>>15795637
>thinking the greatest thinker of the 20th century is self-help

>>15795660
>Vietnam
>National Socialist
Lmaoooo

>>15795644
I guess they should have accounted for human nature

Ο Χαiδεβέργιος

>>15795617
Haha ok anon, let’s hear YOU summarize it better, and keep in mind, I havnt read Wittgenstein. I’m using fucking Schlicks words and he actually met with him regularly

>>15782787
Witty

>>15782961
Holy shit how can witty be even more based

>>15796490
I haven't read a summary of Wittgenstein.

>>15797512
>Holy shit how can witty be even more based
No he even wasn't. Because he was a Stalin apologist

>But at the very time when Fania Pascal made this assessment of him, she was teaching him Russian so that he and his friend might migrate to Soviet Union to which he was sympathetically drawn for all the fellow travelling-reasons. He declared numerous times in the 1930 to disciples and friends in private. 'I am a communist at heart'; he always evinced considerable understanding for what Stalin 'had to do' even after his visit to Russia in 1935 at the Heights of the purges; and he continued to entertain plans to settle there at least until the Anschluss in 1938. Keynes, puts it mildly when he states, 'he is not a member of the Communist Party,but has strong sympathies with the way of life which he believes the new regime in Russia stands for.' His communist friends of 'Red Cambridge', with whom he extensively associated, considered him a supporter if not an outright Stalinist.

>>15797547
Then why call my summary stupid? Or you saying you disagree with Wittgenstein

>>15782961
Heidegger realized that the nazis were liars and stopped supporting them
He was only a nazi in so far as everyone who buys nazi propaganda but not nazism itself is a nazi

>>15797951
Bull, if it wasn’t a crime to be a Nazi he would have no problem admitting he wanted to use it for germanys betterment

>>15797706
>Or you saying you disagree with Wittgenstein
How should I know I haven't read Wittgenstein.

>>15798138
sugar, he become dissatisfied with the nazi party in the late 1930s
what are you on about

>>15795626
the last passages of On Certainty were written 2 days before he died of cancer. Wittgenstein was never a mathematician nor attempted to be one. And he was well aware of set theory and offered criticisms against it

>>15798197
Not him, but sure, that doesn't mean he disliked Hitler for example. From what we can read of his private notes and letters it's quite the opposite.

>>15797601
>stalin 'apologist'
Holy shit this man is perfect

>>15798197
So what I’m dissatisfied with DRUMPF but in general I’m voting for him and hate immigrants and atheists. Criticisizing the regime is healthy, especially since Heideggar only really criticized the night of long knives, which is pretty easy to do, and also really is a wake up call that you got to be a good boy or you’ll die.

The fact is that Nazism is a ideological based ideology in line with his views at a core level even if the semantics didn’t line up, while Marxism was its enemy is materialistic. It’s not like he was an Anglo-American analytic liberal bexuase Junkers made Hitler purge the party of its Struasserites. Just like I’m not pro immigrant since Trump turned out to be a useless bunker boy

>>15797601
he died 5 years before 1956, which is when Stalin became bad

>>15798299
>So what I’m dissatisfied with DRUMPF but in general I’m voting for him and hate immigrants and atheists.
that's a big yikes dude
lmao

>>15798287
>>15798301
Wittgenstein was literally an orthodox Communist aka a fucking tankie
That's a yikes from me

>>15798321
>orthodox Communist
>a fucking tankie
Imagine shouting loud and clear how dumb you are
explain to me how an orthodox Communist, i.e. someone who strives for a stateless, classless and moneyless society, is a fucking Stalinist
go on

>>15798338
See >>15797601
He was a Stalin apologist

>>15798362
Yes, pre-1956 Stalin was based and not deranged
Also how is someone a tankie when the term tankie was invented by leftists to refer to people who defended the USSR using tanks in Hungary

>>15782787
wittgenstein was a fruit and a commie, so not him

>>15798362
Yes, pre-1956 Stalin was based and not deranged
Also how is Wittgenstein a tankie when the term tankie was invented by leftists to refer to people who defended the USSR using tanks in Hungary

>>15798372
>pre-1956 Stalin was based and not deranged
Lol fuck off he was a cringe authoritarian state capitalist from the start
Yes the term originated from that event but generally Tankie is slang term for MLs.

>>15798415
That's because Marxism-Leninism was a meme invented by Stalin and basically means Stalinism
Lenin for example wasn't a Marxist-Leninist
Also idk what else you expect Stalin to have done. You cannot just get to communism without the rapid industrialization of capitalism
The whole point of Marxism is that in the era of capitalism, humankind has reached a point where scarcity is only artificially created so the move to communism is possible and ideal.
The rapid industrialization that happened because of Stalin, even though obviously awful and evil in practice, was still miles more humane than what was observed in Europe and America
I'm not going to defend any of his awful practices, especially the ones after 1956, but your hate for Stalin seems irrational given how mild his atrocities were compared to others'

>>15784871
>make an argument nobody understands
>prove your own argument wrong
... holy fuck this guy is a genius... nobody could go head to head with him but... himself!

They both resolve philosophy into mysticism by appeal to the Transcendent, either through by unassailable phenomenological experience or by circumscribing the limits of language

>>15798468
>Lenin for example wasn't a Marxist-Leninist
Marx for example wasn't a Marxist
Just fuck off with your state capitalist goons. Anarchism is the only authentic communism.

>>15798504
>Marx for example wasn't a Marxist
What I meant by "Lenin wasn't a Marxist-Leninist" btw is that MLism was invented after the death of Lenin. It was created by Stalin as "the way Lenin read Marx" because the people really liked Lenin even though both Marx and Lenin would have hated it. In reality it was just Stalinism but with the name of Lenin attached to it just so people fancy it more.
One could say Marx wasn't really a Marxist as well but for other reasons
>Anarchism is the only authentic communism.
That shows how horrid your understanding of anarchism and communism really is
Anarchism and "authoritarian"(or whatever you want to call it) communism are exactly the same in their goals but differ in the way they want to reach that goal
By that I'm a libertarian socialist like you btw, but I've grown past my "tankie"hating phase

>>15798549
Marx, Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky all hated anarchists. They even killed and betrayed anarchist on many occasions.
You're a ML apologist just take off your mask already.

>>15798606
>Marx, Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky all hated anarchists.
Lenin and Trotsky hated Stalin and vice versa
>They even killed and betrayed anarchist on many occasions.
Yes, also socdems murdered one of the greatest libertarian socialist thinkers and single-handedly lost the German revolution
Does that mean we should lie about them and call them the bane of the earth when they are far from the worst human beings ever?

>>15798790
She was a democratic socialist if not an authoritarian who had ties with Lenin. And Lenin was a state capitalist.
Anyway Stalin backstabbed Spainish anarchists and he wasn't based at all. So pretty much fuck Wittgenstein and fuck MLs. They're the enemies of anarchists.

>>15798901
>She was a democratic socialist if not an authoritarian
?????
No???
>Anyway Stalin backstabbed Spainish anarchists and he wasn't based at all.
yeah
>They're the enemies of anarchists.
Good luck with your anarchism then

>>15798913
You should check out Vaush's channel to see how horrible the MLs are. They are literally the moderate fascists.

>>15798956
Vaush is one of my favourite youtubers and I watch everyone one of his videos + I agree with almost all of his opinions
>They are literally the moderate fascists.
Yeah, the ones he has debated are really sad

>>15798968
Kek, it's funny how you call Stalin and Stalin apologists like Wittgenstein based but agree with me when I call MLs moderate fascists.

>>15799007
Stalin is a really bad person
Stalin is no as bad as other world leaders and saying he is is dumb
How is that so hard to understand
Yeah I'm sorry I called him "based", I don't really believe that
Also Keynesian Europe/USA would probably have been a better place to live than the USSR but I doubt that would hold true for our current neoliberal hellscape

>>15795660
Absolutely deluded. Vietnam is a China vassal state

>>15795660
>>15799063
both of you are very delulu lol

>>15798790
>lenin hated stalin
Nope kys

>>15795624
>the nation that sent tanks to quell a marxist protest is communist
But of course retarded redditors don't actually look anything up

>>15799224
The protesters wanted a free market lol

>>15799224
>not real communism
>calls others redditors
Yikes

>>15799063
What did Vietnam do about this again? https://vietnaminsider.vn/chinese-ships-attack-vietnamese-boat-in-the-disputed-waters/

>>15799287
Meant to quote >>15799067

>>15799287
>>15799294
how does this prove your point lol

>>15799331
Kill yourself lol

>>15799535
damn dude what an astute argument
I'll make sure to use it in my next debate!!! :))
Have a great day!

>>15795628
More like canceled by the rest of the world.