/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15241753]

Why hasn't anyone refuted dialectical materialism yet? Reactionaries have had over 100 years.

[Anonymous No.15241774]

>>15241753
Popper already refuted it

[Anonymous No.15241776]

cant refute science.

[Anonymous No.15241790]

>>15241753
It's so sad knowing Marxism has been completely destroyed because of liberal IDPOL and humanism

[Anonymous No.15241802]

It just assumes that everything is done for money.

[Anonymous No.15241827]

>>15241774
All Popper did was sperg out.
>>15241802
Read Hegel.

[Anonymous No.15241853]

>>15241827
I dont feel like readong hegel. At best ill read about hegel.

[Anonymous No.15241874]

>>15241853
Tell us what you think money is?

[Anonymous No.15241930]

>>15241753
Imagine if your ideology transformed from "workers should get a larger proportion" to "if you dont cut your dick off you deserve a bullet to the back of the head" and "a marxist/feminist analysis of Infinity War". The modern state of Marxism is enough to refute Marxism. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.15241952]

>>15241753
it's wrong because it's materialistic.

[Anonymous No.15241958]

>>15241874
Power units.

[Anonymous No.15241962]

>>15241753
Materialism has been falsified.

[Anonymous No.15241968]

>>15241827
>All Popper did was sperg out.
No, he showed that it was not actually falsifiable and could explain any situation in both the positive and the negative, meaning it was not actually a valid or sound ideology - i.e. it is pseudoscience and pseudophilosophical trash.

[Anonymous No.15241974]

>>15241930
Illiterate.
>>15241968
Empiricism is not falsifiable. Bravo.

[Anonymous No.15241991]

>>15241974
>calls another illiterate
>posts a schizo graph
It shits, it fucks.

[Anonymous No.15241993]

>>15241790
Marx's critique of capitalism is brilliant. But I could never join the left. The diversity cult is evil and wants to destroy me and my history.

[Anonymous No.15242018]

>>15241974
very low IQ

[Anonymous No.15242029]

>>15241993
Marxism doesn't negate racialism I guess, materialism upholds the sciences, race/biology/genes are obviously scientific

[Anonymous No.15242046]

>>15241991
Yawn
>>15242018
Popper was a brainlet anglo and gave birth to modern "economic theory" which itself is a pseudoscience. How ironic.

[Anonymous No.15242091]

>>15242046
>Yawn
The markers of a tranny are the most easily identifiable in the world

[Anonymous No.15242106]

>>15241753

>over 100 years
Dialectical materialism is a term coined by althusser in the 40's in his interpretation of Marx, which he "read" in french. Later he admitted to have never actually read Marx (we must take into account that he was the most influential marxist of that decade and published and edited popular books on marxist thought.
you would know if a) you were a marxist, b)you have read Marx or some marxist thinkers at least.
Marx never used the term Dialectical Materialism nor defined it.

Shitposters are getting younger everyday. Hopefully at least now you can be a more informed pseud than you were before today.

[Anonymous No.15242123]

>>15241991
>schiso graph
It’s just a pictorial representation of hegel’s science of logic
>>15241968
What about dialectic materialism isn’t falsifiable?

[Anonymous No.15242127]

>>15242106
You skimmed Wikipedia, congrats. Adults are talking. Shoo shoo.

[Anonymous No.15242129]

>>15241753
If you cannot eat, you die.
Meaty Ape puppet needs to live.
Avoiding death will always be the highest priority.
The base is not production, but survival, production being one of the means.

[Anonymous No.15242158]

>>15242127
younger but not smarter i see

[Anonymous No.15242168]

>>15242129
>If you cannot eat, you die
Right, and that is the fundamental coercive force that drives production.

[Anonymous No.15242202]

>>15242168
Ah, but if something is driving it, that implies it is not the base.
Consider the tiger? How does getting killed and eaten by a wild cat fit into that?
It is a coercive force that drives you to not die by tiger.

[Anonymous No.15242332]

>>15241993
>Marx's critique of capitalism is brilliant.
Marx's critique of capitalism is flawless because it's simply an explanation of how capitalism functions. "Capitalism" as a concept didn't even have a clear form before Kapital. You could just as easily use Kapital as a guide on how best to make money in a capitalistic system. The idea of communism, and the idea of a worker's revolution were never really on the same level, they're far too idealized and depended pretty strongly on fundamentally contradictory ideas. That communism cannot exist with a state, and that any society advanced enough to not need a state to function also does not need communism. In the presence of a state the workers are still exploited, without a state there's no way to manage production, guarantee property, etc.
A "post-capitalist" state is just a fantasy to handwave this problem, Marx never explains how it would function, how it would be implemented, and how it would be continued. And clearly, in every case that communism has been tried this is the outcome.

[Anonymous No.15242351]

>>15241790
oh yikes lmao

[Anonymous No.15242420]

>“ It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. ”

Pseuds here need to hear this

[Anonymous No.15242471]

>>15242332

You’re strawmanning Marxism by caricaturing it as anarchism. The only thing Marx/Engels/Lenin hated more than capitalist in their writing were anarchists.

Marx supposed the state would “wither away” under communism but the truth is it cannot due to the threat of imperialism by capitalist powers. If you are still hung up on this I suggest you actually spend time Marx and Lenin’s writings they are both worth your time

[Anonymous No.15242495]

>>15242332
And also read Engels’ On Authority okay time for bed

[Anonymous No.15242531]

>>15242471
>You’re strawmanning Marxism by caricaturing it as anarchism.
My point was obviously that anarchism could not function either.
>and that any society advanced enough to not need a state to function also does not need communism.
Clearly this means that a state is required, since we're assuming that we do in fact need communism. The solution, as presented by Marx, is either that the state would wither away, or change in form to a "post-capitalist" state.
>Marx never explains how it would function, how it would be implemented, and how it would be continued. And clearly, in every case that communism has been tried this is the outcome.
Again, the issue is that a form of state is clearly required, and that any form of state that we know of takes power from the workers, and leads the workers to be opressed. Again, this is what has happened everywhere communism has been tried.

I've read Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, and The German Ideology through multiple times, but I guess I'll read Lenin and Engels as well if I get bored. If you can explain how either

1. A state can exist that allows the workers to maintain control, how that state would function, and how that state would be implemented.

Or

2. How a society can exist without a state, and if such a society is assumed to exist, why it would need communism

I'll consider communism again. Otherwise, I have more interesting things to do.

[Anonymous No.15242539]

So this is just Aristotle vs Plato again?

[Anonymous No.15242546]

It's unfalsifiable

It's bullshit but I believe it

[Anonymous No.15242673]

>>15242531
I don’t care if your a communist but you certainly can’t call yourself one without reading Lenin (I guess you could say you were socialist but that word has lost all meaning at this point).

But you’re repeating anarchists who say well “even under communism you would be coerced”. Of course you would! bridges and roads would need to be built, fields sown, material conditions developed etc etc. Engels has a small essay explaining this (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm).).

[Anonymous No.15242685]

>>15242123
>It’s just a pictorial representation of hegel’s science of logic
that’s what he said

[Anonymous No.15243568]

>>15241790
Marxist humanism is beyond based. Read Lukács and Dunayevskaya.

[Anonymous No.15243579]

>>15241774
Popper refuted himself

[Anonymous No.15243595]

>>15241753
Uh hasnt Deleuze already refuted this shit?

[Anonymous No.15243618]

>>15241753
Im not sure how Dialectical Materialism refutes Reactionary social policies, actually they go hand in hand

[Anonymous No.15243621]

>>15241753
Materialism is nonsensical in the first place, so addressing any of Marx's specific ideas is pointless.

[Anonymous No.15243634]

>>15242106
But Lenin used the term though?

[Anonymous No.15244342]

materialism was retroactively refuted by Guenon and Maritain

[Anonymous No.15244354]

>>15241753
Historical materialism and dialectical materialism are contradictory.

[Anonymous No.15244436]

>> https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

Lol

[Anonymous No.15244503]

>>15242531
except marx said the emancipation of the working class would be the abolition of the proletariat as well as the bourgoisie, you big dummy. workerism is soviet revisonism.

[Anonymous No.15244527]

>>15241774
Low IQ physiognomy.

[Anonymous No.15244545]

>>15241968
you won't be able to refute this: >>15242123

[Anonymous No.15244549]

Read Walter Benjamin dude

[Anonymous No.15244558]

>>15242106
Althusser was retarded, but so was Marx.
https://socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/view/5334/2235

[Anonymous No.15244560]

>>15244436
>skimming this
> "The most telling refutation of this as of all other philosophical crotchets is practice, namely, experiment and industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of our conception of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions and making it serve our own purposes into the bargain, then there is an end to the Kantian ungraspable 'thing-in-itself.' The chemical substances produced in the bodies of plants and animals remained such 'things-in-themselves' until organic chemistry began to produce them one after another, whereupon the 'thing-in-itself' became a thing for us, as, for instance, alizarin, the coloring matter of the madder, which we no longer trouble to grow ill the madder roots in the field, but produce much more cheaply and simply from coal tar. For 300 years the Copernican solar system was a hypothesis with a hundred, a thousand or ten thousand chances to one in its favor, but still always a hypothesis. But when Leverrier, by means of the data provided by this system, not only deduced the necessity of the existence of an unknown planet, but also calculated the position in the heavens which this planet must necessarily occupy, and when Galle really found this planet, the Copernican system was proved."
I don't think he really understood the idea of "the thing in itself"...

[Anonymous No.15244567]

>>15241753
>materialism
Guenon refuted this anon

[Anonymous No.15244606]

>>15244354
Huh it's like they're some kind of thesis and antithesis

[Anonymous No.15244701]

>>15244606
In retrospect, that’s a very interesting and plausible interpretation that is worth discussing, but it’s not what Marx and Engels intended, and causes severe, potentially fatal problems for those who claim to uphold Marxist doctrines.

[Anonymous No.15244713]

>>15243579
I was going to say that

[Anonymous No.15245094]

>>15242673
>I don’t care if your a communist
I'm obviously not a communist
>But you’re repeating anarchists who say well “even under communism you would be coerced”.
Maybe I'm not being clear, again, my point is that this always leads to opression. You haven't adressed any of the points I've made, you're simply arguing in support of an idea I already said that I agreed with. A state is obviously required for a society to function. However, any state with enough authority to function will necessarily lead, once again, to opression of the workers.
>All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society.

This is simply a fantasy. If you disagree, answer the first question I posed. If you disagree that I can call it a fantasy, it's been the result every single time communism in any form has been attempted to be put into practice.

>>15244503
This is largely also a fantasy, even if they're abolished in form people will naturally view the one directing above the one being directed. We've already proved there must be "one directing" so unless you assume your society is made up of perfect beings, bereft of the chains of the flesh, then natural social structures will form again.

[Anonymous No.15245130]

>>15243579
No, he didn't. Cope

[Anonymous No.15246020]

>>15241753

Marx himself made no predictions on when this or that is "supposed to" appear despite claiming himself privy to such knowledge. A tacit concession that not even he believes it. A shitty hypothesis regardless. Eat shit.

[Anonymous No.15246146]

>>15244503
>Wah wah muh human nature
Absolutely Boring and and worthless. You went through all that just to circle back to Ben shapiro talking points. Great job, shitbrain. Read more, meditate more. Be in danger much more. You've got a ways to go and not a lot of time left

[Anonymous No.15246216]

>>15246146

[Anonymous No.15246233]

>>15241753
Any philosophy that focuses principally on the ideas of labour, means, materials, etc. is still trapped in the hegemonic discourse of "productivity" and is therefore simply not radical enough or distanced from capitalist ideology to offer any critique of it that is not already subordinated to its logic.

Dialectical materialism is ultimately nothing more than a petty-bourgeoise pipe dream of self-annihilation. If you want to profane the sacred, if you seek to make of man merely a thing (worker) in a world of things (social relations), then the only true realisation of this fact is death.

Further, the idea that the concrete elements of society are more important than their play as signs in the 21st century is absurd. That the birth (and subsequent death) of the spectacle has lead to the ontological primacy of the image above the object is enough to do away with "materialism" altogether, never mind that hideous word "dialectics".

[Anonymous No.15246251]

>>15245130
yes
his creation went against him

[Anonymous No.15246265]

>>15246233
>if you seek to make of man merely a thing (worker)
Goal of Marxism is the precise opposite. To make Worker into a Man.

[Anonymous No.15246273]

>>15241974
where'd you get this graph from famalam

[Anonymous No.15246292]

>>15246233
>and is therefore simply not radical enough or distanced from capitalist ideology to offer any critique of it that is not already subordinated to its logic.
I'd agree with this, but is it a fundemental problem? It's seems like it's possible at least to form logical arguments within a pre-existing framework, and that those arguments could be valid. Even if not that, it seems like they it could at least be useful.

>Dialectical materialism is ultimately nothing more than a petty-bourgeoise pipe dream of self-annihilation.
Sure.

>That the birth (and subsequent death) of the spectacle has lead to the ontological primacy of the image above the object is enough to do away with "materialism" altogether, never mind that hideous word "dialectics".
The image as in platonic forms? Or simply as a subjective experience?

[Anonymous No.15246315]

>>15246265
>To make Worker into a Man.
Wrong. If labour is the realisation of self, in that the worker sees himself in the objects that he produces; if marxism's end goal is the obliteration of "alienation", then man will have found company and brotherhood in a world of objects, for he will have become an object himself, like Narcissus who becomes that which he reflects on.

[Anonymous No.15246341]

"Dialectical materialism" is the worst baggage Marxism ever had.

Anyone who knows the social and intellectual history of Marxism know that the popularity of dialectical materialism dovetailed with exactly two movements:
- late 19th century workers' movements in Germany, who were relatively well-educated and highly motivated voters at a time when the SDP was virtually a state within a state, so that their participation and ideological cohesion could be guaranteed to a much higher degree than nowadays, specifically at a time when metaphysical materialism was considered anti-establishment and associated with radical free-thinking (because the entire German bourgeois and conservative establishment was Protestant/metaphysically idealist)
- state socialist ideology in Russia, which had the isolation and the leisure to be idiosyncratic Marxo-Hegelians because they had a fucking totalitarian state and cult of personality at their disposal

The latter fell apart. The former only lasted into the earliest decades of the 20th century, when incidentally the SPD became institutionalized (and betrayed revolutionary communism.. twice - first in 1914, then again under Weimar), and more importantly, materialism became the default ideology of the new scientific-managerial bourgeoisie. Now it's no longer countercultural to be a gung-ho metaphysical materialist. 20th century counterculture is esotericism and orientalism, manifesting again and again in the same basic patterns.

All the best Marxists had to painfully contort themselves to remain "dialectical materialists." They had to hem and haw about the literalism of "scientific Marxism" (because the immediate question is: isn't that a contradiction in terms??), and become hyper-sophisticated meta-Hegelians like Adorno just to find ways to remain Marxist. This not only made Marxism inaccessible to the aforementioned less-and-less materialist, more-and-more domesticated working class, it did something much worse: it turned "critical theory" into a status symbol and plaything for the spoiled offspring of the managerial class.

Stop trying to recapture the glory days of the SPD by convincing meterosexual college students to read more Benjamin. The SPD had some of the most vulgar, least self-conscious Marxism you could possibly have and succeeded anyway because massive, formerly repressed historical forces were expressing themselves through the SPD. Socialism "almost happened" in spite of theory, not because of it. Now those forces have all been reintegrated into capitalism, the theory has been commodified and turned into social capital for the wealthy.

Have e-marxists not noticed that the DSA is a tranny commune, or that all their online havens become drama chatrooms for trannies?

[Anonymous No.15246363]

>>15246292
>is it a fundemental problem?
For marxism I believe it is, yes. There are other means of appropriating in an ironic way the materials of capitalism (such as the aristocratic critique of productivity) that I feel marxism (in its datedness and inadequacy when it comes to the contemporary world) is incapable of doing.

>The image as in platonic forms? Or simply as a subjective experience?
I mean "image" in the baudrillardean sense, the obscenity of that which is more objective and immediate than the objects themselves.

[Anonymous No.15246371]

>>15246273
says AW so it was probably made by that Hegel fag that used to post on here. google Hegel AW, you will probably find his blog or some shit

[Anonymous No.15246380]

>>15244701
How so? I'm quite interested in learning more

[Anonymous No.15246385]

>>15246371
Holy shit I remember that guy. He was a complete fucking retard. He hated anybody that told him his interpretations of Hegel contradicted every major reading of Hegel, and would demand that you not read anything other than his blog and induct into (AW's interpretation of) Hegel's system initiatically.

When people found out he was some kind of crazy person from Reddit, and that he goes from forum to forum repeating this act until he's banned or ostracized, he left. I remember either the reddit people or /leftypol/ fags called him "Anal Water."

[Anonymous No.15246386]

[Anonymous No.15246406]

>>15241874
the medium of exchange value

[Anonymous No.15246417]

>>15244354
>>15244701
afaik Marx never used the term dialectical materialism, did he? pretty sure Marx talked about "historical materialism" or the "materialist conception of history". Obviously, Marx's theory of history is dialectical, so as short hand, Marxists started using the term DM. ultimately, as far as Marx is concerned, they mean the same thing, DM was just short hand for "the materialist conception of history [which operates dialectically]". If you actually start reading ML's and the like it may get a bit more confusing

[Anonymous No.15246455]

https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/04/28/please-waste-no-time-on-hegel/

Reminder that real marxists don't waste time with diamat or H*gel

[Anonymous No.15246463]

>>15241802
you do not get the distinction between psychology and sociology

[Anonymous No.15246491]

Doesn't the existence of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe kinda shits on dialectic materialism?

[Anonymous No.15246497]

>>15246341
Absolutely based post. All leftist movements in the West are irrelevant and absorbed into the capitalist hegemony, these freaks are incapable of actual revolutionary action let alone winning a simple election with some liberal they prop up as a socialist

[Anonymous No.15246511]

>>15241753
Lenin showed it's not that simple, Gorbachev showed that there are superior and inferior bases, and to be successful for more than 3 generations you need to work within the confines of the superior "base". So the pic is correct with a small asterisk

[Anonymous No.15246648]

>>15241753
Are there any books or articles explaining the progressive socialist takes on the family structure and gender roles?
I see very oftenly repeated in leftist circles that family structures, monogamy, gender roles and other social codes are maintained through capitalism and also help maintain capitalism, but i simply cant see how big family units, deep emotional investiments into some person or gender roles would help capitalism in anyway, to me it seems like the "lonely teen hookup, no commitment culture" jargon codes fit this machine way better than any other. How is it that some radical leftists accuse monogamous exclusive relations of being "capitalistic" when if anything leaving them behind only helps people fit the model of the atomized consumerist individual that has nothing to care for and can be moved and displaced more easily for corporate interests?

Even after reading the history of socialist utopian communes like the kibbutz where kids were raised in communal homes away from parents, with the max effort to eleminate gender roles and emancipate them from domestic labour you saw outright that the first generation of women raised there would still prefer to stick with raising their kids instead of putting them into kid houses, engage in monogamous relations and would still largely prefer to go preform domestic service type labour.
So right after the 2nd generation of people is born the commune switched in a consensual way back to some form of traditional society with collectivist labour.

[Anonymous No.15246671]

>>15246648
I've noticed this too from hanging out with marxists. They always either assume the most naive neoliberal view, that the family is at best an incubation chamber for the "happily" irresponsible consumer-individual, at worst an impediment to his "healthy" incubation (by preventing him from desiring whatever he wants to desire, like cock, or to change his cock into a vaginer), OR they feel basically the same way but back it up with some esoteric shit like Reich about how everybody should be a sexless familiness tranny. But they claim to be anti-totalitarian.

What is it about leftists that attracts these fags?

[Anonymous No.15246838]

>>15246671
I dont know really, there are a lot of them who dont go down this "progressive" sinkhole of assumptions on human nature. But they are mostly composed of upper middle class schmucks that push their subjective values and codes and still ironically remain the as the guardians of truth, to hold some position of power.

[Anonymous No.15246864]

>>15242091

[Anonymous No.15246882]

>>15243568
Marxist humanism is a contradiction in terms. Marx fully developed Marxism when he realized that Feuerbach was a retard and that Stirner was right. Real Marxism is purely descriptive, not prescriptive.

[Anonymous No.15246894]

>>15246882
>Marx realized
>Stirner was right
lol no

[Anonymous No.15246990]

>>15241874
A tool used for making transactions.

[Anonymous No.15247008]

>>15246864

Or you've smelled them, or interacted with them and realized how vain, irrational and gullible they are. Trans are good as a sexual fetish but not as something that should be interacted with normally. All tranny porn has the tranny looking into the camera at themselves making kissy faces instead of enjoying the moment. The self obsession is limitless.

also they molest kids at a higher rate, pathetic

[Anonymous No.15247026]

>>15246380
>>15246417
We can understand these two aspects of Marx’s thought thusly:
Historical materialism is the weapon with which Marx tears down rival ideals. All morality, religious feeling, even thought itself is a product of material relations. In other words, you do not believe such and such because it strikes you as true, but because you are a bourgeois, deterministically serving your class interest, or else you are possessed by a false consciousness that prevents you from seeing the reality of your material situation.
Dialectical materialism on the other hand is the undeniable logic by which history unfolds, moving towards the crescendo of the proletarian revolution and the inauguration of the reign of freedom (whether or not he used the term DM, all of this is undeniably in Marx).
The contradiction arises from pointing the weapon at the revolutionary dialectic itself. It simply doesn’t stand up. In fact, in reality as it actually unfolded, the former is what destroyed the latter. The revolutions in both their eastern despotic and western cultural forms did not transition from Capitalism to Communism, but from Capitalism to an even more bourgeois form of Capitalism, freed from all the societal values and ideals that once restrained the elite class. Nation, religion, morality, (even the revolution itself!) were all thrown aside as masks for power. And that’s where we are today, in the nihilistic world left over after the decomposition of Marxism.

[Anonymous No.15247088]

>>15247008
If you were literate you’d have read past that headline and understand that they were intentionally exposing people to noxious smells to see how that changes their perspective on them. You’re actually proving your own irrationality by judging people off of their “supposed” smell.
>or interacted with them and realized blah blah blah
>source: my ass

[Anonymous No.15247126]

>>15241753
Modern political economy is failing since 150 years to create a better world. Never succeeded once to create a nice place to live. This itself is proof that the base is more important than the superstructure.

[Anonymous No.15247132]

>>15241874
MOney is an alienated social relationship.

[Anonymous No.15247145]

>>15247008
nice anecdote, I hope your brain progresses past affirming internet copy-paste someday

[Anonymous No.15247152]

>>15241993
You are talking about the reformist left. Not the abolitionist one.

[Anonymous No.15247171]

>>15242332
Israeli Kibbutz did pretty well for decades.

[Anonymous No.15247178]

>>15242106
>Marx never used the term Dialectical Materialism nor defined it.
Engels did in the origin of family.

[Anonymous No.15247203]

to be honest
Marxism and dialectical materialism, the best of all that is in continental philosophy
and rather a some synthesis of these two philosophies

[Anonymous No.15247213]

>>15247171
As another anon has posted, i think their evolution towards a more "traditional" society after the first generation of newborns proves that the new leftist views of gender roles and family structures being something super artificial that is held by capitalism are just wrong.

[Anonymous No.15247239]

>>15247178
Engels wasn't a Marxist but a proto-SJW that waited until Marx's death to show his true colors.

[Anonymous No.15247251]

>>15246315
Well what's the alternative then, going to Church?

[Anonymous No.15247283]

>>15247213
I think that one of the issue is that there never was a serious attempt by leftists to theorize what would be good mores for society. All those that wrote on the issue, starting with Engels, went full retard with ideology, advising for communal rearing of children, free love and the like while never trying to back up their propositions with sound rigorous theory to explain how that would work or be beneficial.

[Anonymous No.15247293]

>>15246491
We don't know what happened 12000 years ago. I've heard some paranormal explanation for civilization. Civilization appearing out of the blue, is a very strange phenomenon. In any case, that doesn't mean that once the base (mode of production based on exchange value) is in place, it doesn't dominate the superstructure.

[Anonymous No.15247305]

>>15246671
>I've noticed this too from hanging out with marxists who never read Karl Marx.

[Anonymous No.15247328]

>>15246671
Read Engels origin of family.
Basically Engels don't want hook up culutre. He wants to go back to the primitive Gens: extended families.

[Anonymous No.15247348]

>>15247026
You should try actually reading Marx one day

[Anonymous No.15247397]

>>15247251

Not him, but I think Marx is so wrong precisely because he is to timid in condemning Capitalism, Ontologically speaking. It is nothing less than Yaldabaoth eating you.

[Anonymous No.15247400]

>>15247213
>>15247239

Engels didn't glorify hook-up culture and single motherhood, like many trads think he did. He was a fan of the primitive Gens: extended families, mostly throught maternal line. He accused civilization for breaking the primitive Gens. So unironically, Engels is more trad than the trads, because the trads want to go back to 1850 version of family, when Engels want to go back to the primitive Gens and Barbarian family organization. It's pretty obvious when you read the book, and not wikipedia summaries.
>>15247239
Not really. He was clearly against pederasty, prostitution.

[Anonymous No.15247418]

>>15247088
Nothing is more rational then embracing instinct which has taken centuries to evolve.

>>15247145
Vaginal take, my views having nothing to do with the vain obsessive nature of any Alphabet person. It's quite clear why they are disliked, and they abuse their persecuted status to infect academia since it is a sin to criticize them. This is the reason for their over-representation academia and media.

[Anonymous No.15247484]

>>15247400
Im not saying that Engels supported this, i know very well that Marx and Engels prefered and wanted to go back to those more traditional codes but with women having more autonomy over themselves.
Im mainly talking about the "new left" that emerged in the 60s and took the social values of utopian socialists and used "social constructionism" to try to refute everyone.

[Anonymous No.15247518]

>>15247251
Read Bataille's The Accursed Share.

[Anonymous No.15247542]

Weber did. The superstructure shapes the base more than the other way around.

[Anonymous No.15247778]

>>15247348
I have. Where am I wrong?

[Anonymous No.15248101]

>>15247778
Have sex. Read Marx.
Not him, but you should read Das Kapital Vol.3.

[Anonymous No.15248174]

>>15248101
How does anything Vol III deal with the contradiction?

[Anonymous No.15248270]

>>15248174
Capitalism cannot renew itself forever due to the TRPF.

[Anonymous No.15248301]

>>15248270
That has nothing to do with the contradiction. You’re like “yeah I know I’m fucked here but what about this other thing.”

[Anonymous No.15248369]

>>15241753
There’s nothing to refute. “HURR IDEAS HAPPEN AND PEOPLES’ OPINIONS REACT TO THEM” is just Hegel but less nuanced. It doesn’t have to be refuted, it just needs contextualisation.

Because the context of this discussion cannot be ignored: the liberals won so hard that Leftism no longer actually exists and we are primarily dealing with the desiccated leper colony that remains.

A group of people so comically irrelevant that their chief instrument of attempting to enable their stupid ideas is mass importing retarded mud people from liberal countries that have already adopted total liberalism.

[Anonymous No.15248388]

>>15248301
I globally agree with you about the other thing. It's admitted that Capitalism has absorbed everything. That doesn't mean it will never reach a point where it cannot renew itself anymore, and for this reason, Marxism is more relevant than ever.

[Anonymous No.15248421]

>>15241753
"Dialectical Materialism" is Marxist-Leninist fanfic
Fuck that shit, embrace S T R A S S E R I S M

[Anonymous No.15248491]

>>15248388
Supposing that global capitalism finds itself in crisis fro which it doesn’t recover (seems plausible eventually, even if it doesn’t happen as Marx predicts), it doesn’t follow that what comes next is a the reign of freedom, or even a single system of production. Fragmentation, reversion to slave economy, population collapse, a new dark age are all essentially equiprobable. The belief in the succession of Capitalism by Communism and the revolution would be a product of your disaffected position in relation to production under historical materialism. They would have no truth value.
The consequence of the contradiction is not that Capitalism won’t some day end, the consequence is that Marxism is bound to decompose into nihilism.

[Anonymous No.15248691]

>>15248369
The left didn't win at all, their ideology was completely dismantled by the system they swore to take down, to the point that almost nobody understands the system is up and running and using their own slang as a motto

[Anonymous No.15249050]

>>15248691
Just say ideology, we know what that is here

[Anonymous No.15250080]

I've always thought that a true revolution will happen of its own accord. It will never happen as the direct consequence of a collective will. It will be an accident. But once it happens, it will persist

[Anonymous No.15250476]

>>15250080
I, too, believe in the providential revolution, where the last shall forever be first.

[Anonymous No.15250558]

>>15244560
>the thing in itself

WOuld be a good movie title, or a punchline.