how to into Hegel ?

[Anonymous No.20301126]

Where do I even begin to understand Hegel? I got filtered just reading his Wikipedia page.

I grasp on some level the Hegellian arguments made by dudes like picrel or Fukuyama, but I have no idea what Hegel actually thought, how to apply his way of thinking, or if it’s even worthwhile. Specifically, how these guys go from whatever Hegel said to a monistic history unfolding according to contradictions regarding class interests, thymos, or whatever else.

Fukuyama sort of throws down the gauntlet at the beginning of The Last Man section of that book, basically saying that liberalism is fundamentally stable if we can’t identify further contradictions in it. I could probably think of some, but they don’t square with Marx or Fukuyama’s ideas so I’m curious what the actual nuts and bolts of these arguments are. I realize a lot of people will say “Hegel’s not worth reading haha crazy schizo xD” but I feel like that’s a cope from those such as myself who were filtered.

[Anonymous No.20301259]

bump

[Anonymous No.20301516]

>>20301126
It sounds like you don't know much about philosophy. Marx and Fukuyama are more political theorists than philosophers. Whereas Hegel is an objective idealist. You need to know a bit about Kant and why the thing in itself is a problem to other idealists to understand Hegel.

[Anonymous No.20301571]

>>20301516
>It sounds like you don't know much about philosophy

Correct

>Marx and Fukuyama are more political theorists than philosophers

I feel like this is a false dichotomy. Political philosophy exists. Aristotle, Plato, Hobbes, Rousseau, de Tocqueville, and so on were all philosophers. I do know my shit with political theory and philosophy, but I would agree that Hegel filters me because I’ve never really bothered to read philosophy more broadly.

[Anonymous No.20301589]

>>20301126
you don't need Hegel to understand Marx's arguments. just like read what he wrote lmao. but if you want to understand Hegel himself, then you could start with this https://www.re-press.org/book-files/OA_Version-9780980544015-Reading_Hegel.pdf
>>20301571
what's a true dichotomy though is philosopher—communist. Marx was strictly the latter. he means it when he writes in the Manifesto:
>The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

[Anonymous No.20301595]

>>20301126
Start with Lectures on the Philosophy of History.

[Anonymous No.20301658]

>>20301126
Pertinent to your interests, many find Hegel’s Outlines on the Philosophy of Right (perhaps better translated as Philosophy of Law) more legible than his earlier works. It was one of his last, and presents his full theory of the developed liberal state.
It’s helpful, though, to grasp the overall outline of Hegel’s thought, and where Objective Spirit fits into the System. Objective Spirit is the dimension or moment of human reality estranged from inner Subjective Spirit, which Philosophy of Law defines. Its development terminates in the notion of the rational State, which then becomes the essential substance of History, providing a medium in which subjects can develop their spirituality as Art, Religion, and in an ultimate moment of self-penetrating clarity, Philosophy as such. So Hegel conceives the political realm as 1. The sequence of states and their interactions that make up human history and 2. As an alienated world Man makes for himself, a Second Nature in which he discovers the freedom to develop Arts and learning.
I would advise memorizing, at least in broad outline, the Triangles on Hegel.net before trying to read any of his books. Being a teleological thinker, Hegel is easiest to understand when you already have an idea of where he’s going.

[Anonymous No.20301736]

>>20301589
Thanks for the links anon.

>you don't need Hegel to understand Marx's arguments. just like read what he wrote lmao.

You kind of do, though, because Marx makes assumptions based on Hegel. Marx believes that history proceeds according to a rational process. But does it? Why? Marx never addresses this basic question himself, instead suggesting that Hegel already settled the matter. Hence why his rejoinder to liberal critics was often something to the effect of “read Hegel”.

[Anonymous No.20301750]

>>20301595
>>20301658
thanks bros

[Anonymous No.20302184]

I've heard that Marcuse's Reason and Revolution is a good introduction to Hegel. Any hegelfags here who can confirm this?

[Anonymous No.20302250]

>>20301736
>You kind of do, though, because Marx makes assumptions based on Hegel. Marx believes that history proceeds according to a rational process. But does it? Why?
because it is a product of human activity and the mode of human activity is dictated by the objective natural requirements of social reproduction. this is based on based on the actual study of history, not on Hegel
>Marx never addresses this basic question himself
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a2

[Anonymous No.20302501]

Charles Taylor's Hegel is a good read and will make a lot of post-Hegelian philosophy make sense too. Beiser's Hegel is much shorter and also a necessary read but may be harder without at least a little familiarity with Kant and his importance etc.

Another really good intro to Hegel and his impact is the first parts of Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism, which goes over the Left Hegelians and their thought, its impact on Marx etc., before turning to Marx.

I believe Fukuyama is drawing more on a mid-century half-understanding of Hegel (you'd be surprised how forgotten and unstudied he was between 1850 and the 1930s) and especially drawing heavily on Kojeve's VERY idiosyncratic reading of Hegel, in conjunction with Straussian ideology. For a sense of that, read the short chapter on Kojeve in Reckless Minds, and ideally read Gottfried's book on the Straussians.

[Anonymous No.20302612]

>>20301589
>The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
You must be retarded. No such dichotomisation of philosopher—communist is being inferred by this.

[Anonymous No.20302662]

>>20302612
There is, you are just autistic or in denial.

[Anonymous No.20302706]

>>20302662
OP, this dude who can't into basic literary comprehension is trying to give you advice on Hegel

[Anonymous No.20303089]

>>20302501
based thank you

[Anonymous No.20303182]

>>20302662
probably neither, most likely he's one of many victims who have been made retarded by going to university

[Anonymous No.20303297]

>>20303089
If you choose to read beyond the hegel chapters just keep in mind that Kolakowski is a pro-NATO liberal stooge so you're going to find endless amounts of cherry picking with respect to marxism and marxist figures of the stalin era. It's pretty much /r/sandersforpresident the book.

[Anonymous No.20303412]

>>20303182
Bitter because you were too retarded for university? Literacy scores too low for entry?

[Anonymous No.20303426]

>>20303297
Jesus zoomers are hopeless

You can not like that he was post-Marxist without reducing him to some Congress for Cultural Freedom literal CIA puppet Ben Shapiro of cultural marxism takedowns. Not everything has to conform to rigid culture war dichotomies.

[Anonymous No.20303452]

>>20303426
libs mad

[Anonymous No.20303487]

>>20303452
Get your understanding of Marxism from something other than your parasocial discord "friends" and youtube videos.

[Anonymous No.20303516]

>>20303487
Not that guy but aren’t you the guy that suggests kolakowski when people ask where to start with marx? Kek a but ironic don’t you think? Credit’s where credit’s due, you’re a dedicated shill

[Anonymous No.20303575]

>>20303516
Possibly? I also recommend Taylor and Beiser for Hegel.. They are standard intros. Are you the schizo guy who gets upset about Kolakowski

It's not like it's a good idea to start with Kojeve for Hegel (for reasons stated above) or Postone for Marx, even though Postone is valuable to read in his own right and Kojeve is at least worth knowing about. I try to recommend stuff that is as broad as possible on the assumption that you eventually want to read for yourself and kick the ladder out from under you. Nobody can read Hegel for you, the best they can do is familiarize you with the basic ideas surrounding Hegel. I don't recommend Jean Hippolyte either because he's too idiosyncratic, I don't even recommend Marcuse because Marcuse tends to Heideggerize Hegel.

Would you be mad that someone recommends Isaiah Berlin as a decent introduction to Vico (a very difficult author to figure out and place intellectually) because Berlin was some kind of vaguely centrist classical liberal, whose family also fled the Bolsheviks? Berlin writes good essays, you can get into a lot of figures that are hard to get a handle on otherwise by reading them. That's why I told the above poster to stop filtering his learning through parameters he gets from the most knowledgeable tranny in the discord channel.

[Anonymous No.20303602]

>>20303426
Radio Free Poland!

[Anonymous No.20305143]

>>20303412
I have a STEM degree lmao. I'm merely stating the fact that the people who present a comical inability to understand straightforward sentences from Marx always turn out to be humanities students. which can be perfectly explained by the role humanities (broadly understood) departments play in the ideological edifice of bourgeois society. and that's why it's not the fault of autism or self-deception, but of genuine induced retardation.

[Anonymous No.20305382]

>>20305143
So tell me about the ideologue-communist dichotomisation that marx would also be inferring. Does it make sense to you?
And that's a cute little hypothesis you've got going there but I'm doing a PhD in a STEM field.

[Anonymous No.20305500]

>>20305382
>So tell me about the ideologue-communist dichotomisation that marx would also be inferring. Does it make sense to you?
to be an ideologue you must work from the premise that ideology stands above historical forms of social organization and that those forms are downstream from ideology. while Marx, in the paragraphs immediately following the one I cited, affirms the exact reverse:
>Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?
>What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
the reason why philosophy is in opposition to communism is because it is an _ideal_ reflection of the _prevailing_ social form, whereas communism is the _real_ movement for the _abolition of the prevailing_ social form.
ideological affirmation/condemnation of something only means that that thing is either in accordance or in contradiction with the prevailing social form, which forms the basis of ideology. therefore:
1) ideological charges against communism ("it's unjust", "it's not morally justified", "it infringes on universal human rights", etc.) can only ever express the fact communism is opposed to the current form of society. but this is a simple statement of fact and can never rise to the level of an actual charge against communism, therefore it's "not deserving of serious examination".
2) conversely, communism itself can't be founded on ideology, and a communist can't be an ideologist, a philosopher, and so on, because something can't at the same time be in accordance (because ideological, as explained above) and in contradiction (because revolutionary) with the prevailing social form.
>And that's a cute little hypothesis you've got going there but I'm doing a PhD in a STEM field.
I was stating a general rule, but maybe I hit on an exception this time and you were actually just born selectively retarded as opposed to the people who are turned selectively retarded later on in life. either that or you classify economics as STEM. or maybe you just spent too much time listening to sociologists or economists. I won't deny that the exceptions can be diverse.

[Anonymous No.20305601]

Am sticking my dick itt with an unrelated question but are there *actual* marxists on this board

[Anonymous No.20305633]

>>20305601
this is probably the most marxist board on this website. really it seems theres an even split of far right/left types but they maintain civility via a common disdain for liberals.

[Anonymous No.20305685]

>>20302706
He's right though, communism is explicitly presented here as dogma, not philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20307137]

>>20305685
no, it's presented as a class movement based on real premises, not as contemplation of abstractions based on elevating the ideal reflection of bourgeois society into universal principles.
dogma was once the clergy and the aristocracy clinging to their old truths in the face of sweeping bourgeois revolution. now dogma is the entire bourgeois ideological edifice, philosophy departments included, clinging to its old truths in the face of sweeping proletarian revolution. the revolutionary class always represents the merciless crushing of dogma. itself it's always on the side of newly discovered truth, because it represents the future form of society.

[Anonymous No.20307144]

>>20301126
I'm so glad this isn't a subject that can be grasped by bitches who just want to skim Wikipedia articles. Start with the greeks.

[Anonymous No.20307160]

>>20301126
>Where do I even begin to understand Hegel?
Hegel is literal nonsense and therefor CANNOT be understood

[Anonymous No.20307191]

>>20307137
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.20307209]

This thread fucking sucks
>>20307160
Illiterate

[Anonymous No.20307747]

>>20305500
holy shit i am NOT read all this cope

[Anonymous No.20308028]

>>20305601
Yes, but you're not gonna get them to debate you.

[Anonymous No.20309093]

Caesar unironically gives a pretty good rundown of it in FNV.

[Anonymous No.20309519]

>>20307209
>Hurr Hurr! If you don't understand my verbal diarrhea, it's cause I'm enlightened and your not.
Yeah, that's exactly the attitude the charlatan himself had. Please take your Hegelian mystical quackery the fuck out of here and go ruin another nation with his shitty ideas.

[Anonymous No.20310299]

>>20309519
nations will be abolished by communism

[Anonymous No.20310310]

>>20310299
In reality the literally opposite has happened time and time again

[Anonymous No.20310639]

>>20310310
and aristocracy would quash peasant revolts again and again, until it couldn't

[Anonymous No.20310692]

>>20301126
Hegel is incredibly difficult to understand, and what makes it even harder is that his reception has been plagued by a huge amount of misreadings to the point that most of continental philosophy is defined by they way they resist a very specific misreading of Hegel. (Nietzsche and Kierkegaard reacted against a vulgair rationalist reading of Hegel, Husserl reacted against a vulgair historicist reading of Hegel, and pretty much all of french philosophy is a reaction against Kojeve's equally historicist reading).

Phenomenology of Spirit is supposed to be the work where his philosophy kind of proves itself by developping itself through all earlier philosophies. Its therefore probably the best work to start with compared with his later logic. Its also the work im most familiar with so i will be giving the most reccomendations on that.
One of the most faithful commentaries is Hyppolite's Genesis and Structure of Hegel's Phenomenology.
Although it is not neccesarily very faithful, a very useful kind of 'analytic' reading is given by Robert Brandom's Spirit of Trust
The Oxford Handbook to Hegel has some really great articles in there, definitely worth it to look up some articles related to whatever chapter youre reading at the moment.

Sadler famously has an enormously long series going paragraph by paragraph through the phenomenology of spirit, great if youre truly ready to dive in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgnp5Dy-v88&list=PL4gvlOxpKKIgR4OyOt31isknkVH2Kweq2

this dude's summaries are also surprisingly good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oppt5B2ePgc&list=PL2JZmtbono_crTO_LoSHutSGFUFu8hfI4

It is also useful to remember that the haha funny ziz man is actually primarily a Hegel scholar. and quite a good one.
He has some great lectures that are less meant for a general public and more for actual philosophers.
https://youtu.be/2rzMkvf1Ess

[Anonymous No.20310827]

>>20310692
What is your opinion on pic-rel?

[Anonymous No.20310874]

>>20301571
Did you read political theory according to the Stanford lecture series on youtube? The names and the order seem awfully familiar

[Anonymous No.20310984]

who cares
Marx shit is so boring
a soulless philosophy for NPCs

[Anonymous No.20311119]

>>20310827
Not the anon you're asking, but having read it, I think the initial thesis is strongly overstated. That is, he does show that Hegel had read some hermetic writings with some interest, but, for example, when you check the context of many of Hegel's references to hermeticism, you'll find that the context supplies Hegel claiming hermeticism is either irrational or insufficiently rational. Now that doesn't mean he dismisses it per se, since, after all, a good number of philosophers he respects interpreted from his system have faults according to that system. But if you're going in expecting to see the strong influence of hermetic ideas on his own, you'll wind up disappointed.

[Anonymous No.20311140]

>>20311119
I agree. But it did convince me that most European philosophers prior to the 20th century were obsessed with the esoteric, and that mysticism exists on a higher plane than philosophy. I used to think that philosophy was the "king of the sciences", but no longer. Maybe it's a queen or a prince, something which orders but doesn't produce nor find resolution.

[Anonymous No.20311171]

>>20301589
>The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
What a fucking retard.
Fuck Karl Marx.

[Anonymous No.20311182]

>>20301589
>>The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
>Oh shit they're right
>Uhhh just don't listen to them, goys! It's a waste of time, communism is irrefutable, trust me goys

[Anonymous No.20311192]

Karl Marx was an antichrist and he is burning in hell.

[Anonymous No.20311239]

>>20311171
largely true though - bearing in mind it was the eastern europeans who made communismsm bad, just like the germans destroyed national socialism.

you can't give sophisticated tools to monkey-creatures and expect them to do it properly.

I always thought, to be honest, a religious argument from the pre-communism french commune - largely religious parish council government - would've reinforced communism and given it a little more of a veneer of parochial self-respect among the lower middle class.

>>20311192
>>20311182
meh, you wouldn't say this in 1900 when you were more obviously exploited, classed and abused by industrialists.


>>20301126
>Where do I even begin to understand Hegel? I got filtered just reading his Wikipedia page.
Why bother lol

He's chiefly known for mentioning the obvious polarism in human socio-political sciences which is inherently obvious to anybody.

Marxisms biggest crime, imo, is the theft and shitting-up of the concept of dialectic. Then again, they were germans and east europeans so what was to be expected.

[Anonymous No.20311253]

>>20311140
>I used to think that philosophy was the "king of the sciences", but no longer. Maybe it's a queen or a prince, something which orders but doesn't produce nor find resolution.
it is, yo just need to go back to pre-christian times and ignore socrates, plato and aristotle, and you'll find the
DISCIPLINE OF CAUSE AND PROOF (i.e. metrics of discerning, proving and thus knowing reality for sure)
in Chrysippus of Soli, and the Roman Stoic School.

"Happy is he who has discovered the Causes of Things, happy is he who has cast beneath his feet all fear (of doubt) and the noise (the clamor) of the all-devouring underworld (the baseless opinions of people)"
Virgil.

[Anonymous No.20311275]

>>20311239
>commie poster is some gay Frenchman
Of course.

[Anonymous No.20311284]

>>20301126
Communism is dated and therefore reactionary.

[Anonymous No.20311294]

>>20311275
lol 'gay frenchman'

Yeah you guys seem to always fucking fall apart when anyone mentions the actual history of the Commune as christian parish council government centuries before Karl Marx was even born - the idea of human collectivism and centralized resource allocation is older even than that; not sure what red scare propagandist thought that ignoring this was going to be mentally healthy for later americans.

[Anonymous No.20311299]

>>20307209
well why don't you explain it..?
/illiterate

[Anonymous No.20311310]

>>20311275
>>commie poster
ed.
I'll go you one further:

East European resentment of Communism, or anybodies resentmnt ofCommunism comes down, fundamentally to this:

DOLE. SCUM.

The resented being forced to work a job, and 'fled' to the west. This is true when you talk to any expats.

[Anonymous No.20311323]

>>20311310
Marxism is Satanic. Marxists are servants of the devil. It doesn't matter if they think they are just """rational atheists""" (LOL). Whether they realize it or not, they are acting by demonic principles.
Also Lenin was a Jew and Trotsky (Bronstein) was a gay Jew.

[Anonymous No.20311370]

>>20311323
brugh, if your argument is going to begin and end with "they were Jews" that's only going to convince incels and milksops. Also your position is obviously brainwashed christian fundamentalism where you get to throw the baby out with the bathwater w/re: practical sciences, which does you no good.


Also, as I mentioned above, how do you rationalize 'human collectivism' in 'secular government' with the revolutionary constitution of the United States, the enlightenment in general (at a time when the catholic church was the equivalent of taliban / twitter censor / SJW fake-egalitarian) and with knowing the history of the actual parish council commune - communism, in all effect, through the church?

There are no doubt good arguments against Marxist-Communism but these easily debunked claims aren't good arguments.

serious reply.

[Anonymous No.20311383]

>>20311370
When did I ever defend "Enlightenment" liberalism? I did not. That is a false dialectic, and in fact, Marxism was largely just the next step of the Masonic "Enlightenment" project.

[Anonymous No.20311393]

[Anonymous No.20311412]

>>20311294
>>20311370
I'd like to hear more about the parish councils. Any good reading you'd recommend?

[Anonymous No.20311590]

>>20311383
>That is a false dialectic, and in fact, Marxism was largely just the next step of the Masonic "Enlightenment" project.
That's a conspiracy theory, again, you're completely ignoring all history.

>When did I ever defend "Enlightenment" liberalism? I did not.
You didn't, but you didn't seem to realize that the anti-catholic mood came from the Catholics at the time being identical to the modern day SJW and twitter censor (and taliban, since they killed people miserably and tried to rule through terror - and for no good reason).

When you wave away the nonsense of Masonic Conspiracy theories to "subvert the purity of the church" (which are just excuses to avoid examining the many wrongs and criminal perversions which occur in religion) you're able to really observe the internal drives of people actions in ideological-religious group psychosis much better, and gain a handle on the thing.

>>20311412
>I'd like to hear more about the parish councils. Any good reading you'd recommend?
any specifically good titles you mean? no, but you can wiki the subject and find tons of material about it. It's a vast subject.

Probably the most interesting to me was the 1666 great fire of london era where a lot of detail exists on the nature of the parish and borough councils and how they operated. Although Englands religion was different compared to the French Commune of the 'Ancien Regime'. This was the period, especially interesting of the origins of the French Communes, leading up to the Revolution - so peoples grievances are well-documented 'against' Church Communism. When the Revolution happened people simply kicked out the parish council and sat in their chairs.

[Anonymous No.20311623]

>so peoples grievances are well-documented 'against' Church Communism.
for misrule as well as you know lynch-mobbing people for obvious made-up charges or 'hate speech' for having a different opinion on jesus.

[Anonymous No.20311721]

>>20310984
Marx on philosophy:
>Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as onanism and sexual love.
>>20311182
they're not right because they can't be right, because, as I explained here >>20305500, ideology can't even be right or wrong as it doesn't study the actual world in the first place. ideology being right/wrong just means that it conforms/doesn't conform with the interests of the one who makes the judgment of being right/wrong.

HOWEVER, communism is open to all scientific criticism and welcomes it, because the better it comprehends the world, the stronger it is. it's only ideological criticism that can't possibly touch it.

[Anonymous No.20311774]

>>20311721
I think that just confirms it's fundamentally non-philosophical. Philosophy as "love of wisdom" in the ancient sense (implying a pursuit of wisdom out of a recognized lack of having it) has no place in Marxism, which claims to have wisdom.

On the other hand, that might be in tension with Marxism if it simultaneously insists it's dialectical, since dialectics is always retrospective ("the owl of Minerva" etc.). Then it would be philosophical, but at the cost of wisdom or Wissenshaft.

[Anonymous No.20312258]

>>20311721
>HOWEVER, communism is open to all scientific criticism and welcomes it, b
Communism is secular messiahism. Its not scientific or welcome to criticism. Every time communist policies fail, you either blame the bourgeois, revisionism, or say "it wasn't real communism. You have no way of falsification to any of your arguments. You're always right even when you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.20312413]

>>20312258
communists are wrong all the time. Marx openly criticized the Paris Commune for its mistakes and other communists openly criticized the Bolsheviks for mistakes that enabled the defeat of the revolution. your complaint is based on a false dichotomy between 1) communists being always right about everything and things always going according to their hopes, and 2) communism being wrong wholesale. according to your logic the former not being the case should automatically entail the latter. but that's just cope logic of a retard who has no actual arguments to disprove communism as a whole.

[Anonymous No.20312444]

>Communists: There's no such thing as a real communist
>Also communists: >>20312413

[Anonymous No.20312449]

>>20311721
>ideology can't even be right or wrong as it doesn't study the actual world in the first place. ideology being right/wrong just means that it conforms/doesn't conform with the interests of the one who makes the judgment of being right/wrong.

i lol'd at the contradiction

>ideology cant be right or wrong
>....but this statement is right

if you make a claim ideology has validity insofar as the relational dynamics of interest and its interplay in society goes, that can't be right because that would include that statement itself...you're negating the absolute by proposing the relative and then propogating that relative as an absolute. ur contradicting urself.

dialectics are contradictory as well, give me a materially dialectical explanation of the origin of dialectics, what material conditions by necessity led to the rise of dialectical materialism (NOT COMMUNISM, inb4 class consciousness, not what im asking)

[Anonymous No.20312476]

>>20305500

>to be an ideologue you must work from the premise that ideology stands above historical forms of social organization and that those forms are downstream from ideology. while Marx, in the paragraphs immediately following the one I cited, affirms the exact reverse

You continue on contradicting yourself. You say you're not an idealogue because you don't work from the premise that ideology stands above historical forms of social organization, but that in itself doesn't have a dialectical explanation

The only aspect of marxist communism that CAN have a dialectical explanation is the idea of class consciousness, but dialectics themsevles cannot be explained through dialectics. Unless you're an idealist.

So the distinction you're making between communist and a philosopher is arbitrary, because you're picking and choosing - your dialectical position which is the foundation of the rest of your philosophy is as ideological as any other ideological position. You're just reductively analyzing other ideologies from your presuppositions, while acting as if pressupositions are only inherent in other ideologies, except yours... which is what all ideologies do... you lack serious self awareness

[Anonymous No.20312490]

>>20312476
Therefore the antidote to this contradiction is to base your epistemics on a theistic foundation, only if you presuppose that which is by its very definition independent and objective, can you have a coherent framework for ANYTHING, whether that be the philosophical sphere, economic sphere, social sphere etc.. Only coherency is possible if you base it on theology

[Anonymous No.20312501]

>>20312413
>Marx openly criticized the Paris Commune for its mistakes
Yeah, he criticized the Paris Commune for not being terroristic enough. Why even such a terrible argument; he was argue communism FAILED because the Communards didn't kill more fucking Priests.
> other communists openly criticized the Bolsheviks
Lmao, actually they fucking killed them. That's another thing you socialists do, besides secular messiashism, is historical revisionism. AH, yes, the Great Purges and Cultural Revolution was just mere "criticism." No, socialists merely did criticism, we can just ignore the fact they didn't care about "criticism", and just went on murder sprees. you are an utterly delusion.

[Anonymous No.20312644]

This is honestly kind of embarrassing guys. You need to get better material. Communism is over.

[Anonymous No.20312855]

>>20312444
>Communists: There's no such thing as a real communist
[citation needed]
>>20312449
>ideology cant be right or wrong
>....but this statement is right
that statement wasn't ideology. 2+2=4 isn't ideology, "the earth orbits the sun" isn't ideology, etc. even "the earth doesn't orbit the sun" isn't ideology, but actually wrong
>give me a materially dialectical explanation of the origin of dialectics, what material conditions by necessity led to the rise of dialectical materialism
the formation of bourgeois society, of the proletariat, of the proletarian movement, and finally of the self-consciousness of the movement as a whole
>NOT COMMUNISM
not communism what? not the origin of communism? but they have common origin, because communism is what gave rise to dialectical materialism. therefore what gave rise to communism is also what gave rise to dialectical materialism.
>>20312476
>You say you're not an idealogue because you don't work from the premise that ideology stands above historical forms of social organization, but that in itself doesn't have a dialectical explanation
I don't know what "dialectical explanation" is supposed to mean, but it has an explanation that isn't ideological, because it's based on real premises, i.e. living human beings and the relations they enter into out of necessity, rather than on ideology such as a particular conception of the soul or of universal justice.
>The only aspect of marxist communism that CAN have a dialectical explanation is the idea of class consciousness, but dialectics themsevles cannot be explained through dialectics.
what does it even mean to "explain dialectics" according to you? you're trying to derail this into empty talk about abstractions because you can't make any actual arguments. it's like you're making some retarded radical skepticism argument except you replace knowledge with "dialectics", whatever that means to you.
>your dialectical position which is the foundation of the rest of your philosophy is as ideological as any other ideological position
what dialectical position? my position derives from the study of human history, not from ideology. is the theory of gravity ideology?
>>20312490
>Therefore the antidote to this contradiction is to base your epistemics on a theistic foundation
you should've opened with being a religious nut, it would've saved me some time. now it's clear you won't produce any concrete objections
>>20312501
>Yeah, he criticized the Paris Commune for not being terroristic enough.
but I thought communists were always right and never blamed themselves
>Lmao, actually they fucking killed them.
no, they haven't
>, yes, the Great Purges and Cultural Revolution was just mere "criticism."
no, the former was an element of the counter-revolution and the latter was an element of the bourgeois revolution

you responded with a bunch of irrelevant garbage. no evidence for communism not being based on science in sight, just a bunch of whining about muh dead priests

[Anonymous No.20312870]

>>20312644
>This is honestly kind of embarrassing guys. You need to get better material. Communism is over.
nobody in this thread has advocated for communism you strange little nonce, your prepackaged fake opinion is misplaced, likely the keyword software you're using just detected lots of uses of the word communism and sent you here in error.

[Anonymous No.20312883]

>>20312644
>Communism is over.
also china seems centuries ahead of europe and america atm for having basic governmental control over their finance, but thats by the by. hereditary monarchy could do the same.

[Anonymous No.20312892]

>>20312855
>[citation needed]
If what's needed to concede an obvious point is a citation then I guess there's no helping you.

[Anonymous No.20312924]

>>20312449
>dialectics are contradictory as well, give me a materially dialectical explanation of the origin of dialectics, what material conditions by necessity led to the rise of dialectical materialism (NOT COMMUNISM, inb4 class consciousness, not what im asking)

" according to Diogenes Laertius, that if the gods took to dialectic, they would adopt no other system than that of Chrysippus"

so the concept is at least 2,200 yrs old

[Anonymous No.20312979]

>>20310827
pretty much what this anon is saying. >>20311119
Its somewhat overstated but Hegel was indeed influenced by the Hermetic tradition, mainly through Boehme.
Although the hermetic tradition provides a sort of poetic weight to what hes doing, thats ultimately not the most important thing going on in his philosophy.
Its the technical arguments, mainly based on Kant's antinomies and the developments made by Frege and Schelling that make Hegel as important as he is.
I imagine it is probably this lack of proper technical basis that Hegel is talking about with hermeticism being 'irrational'

[Anonymous No.20313005]

>>20312870
>nobody in this thread has advocated for communism
>also china seems centuries ahead of europe and america atm
I guess it's no wonder that your pathetic little movement has been reduced to lying to people on the internet. You got buttfucked by Wall Street ten years ago and now you're going to get buttfucked again when the right picks back up. You ain't seen nothing yet, boy. Have fun with that little dialectic of yours.

[Anonymous No.20313079]

>>20312855
Anon, you're quite autistic. Marxists are not criticizing themselves for their failures; they're criticizing people for not doubling down on their awful methods of government and terrorism. You've even doing it now by saying the people who opposed your awful ideas were "counter-revolutionaries." You're a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.20313086]

>>20312855
>NO THEY HAVEN'T
>The Great Purges and Great Cultural Revolution and Pol Pot's killing of people with glasses did not happen bro! Marxists never mass murdered their critics
Its so amazing how delusional you communists kids are. You have to be a dumb kid under the age of 30.

[Anonymous No.20313116]

>>20301126
The first step is not to read Hegel since it's actually shit and pretty easy to sum up. You might prefer go with Bataille's essay "Hegel, Death and Sacrifice" and Jean Hyppolite's texts. Nothing more.

[Anonymous No.20313216]

>>20301589
>>20311182
>>20311171
>Marx says shit for the sake of political expediency
>durrrr we got him guyys he doesn't believe in philosophy!

[Anonymous No.20313252]

>>20312855
you are the archetypal bugman

[Anonymous No.20313267]

>>20313216
>Say Marxists are sophists
>Marx says he's a sophist
>Marxists say - HE WAS JUST KIDDING BRO

[Anonymous No.20313302]

>>20313267
>mfw when every political thinker in history had goals he wanted to achieve and lived in a society and so modified his statements accordingly
>mfw parsing these is part of what people who aren't complete brainlets do when they read and interpret things

haha but ok bro yeah you owned guys owned marx anyways how's high school?

[Anonymous No.20313312]

>>20312892
I have never seen communists say that there's no such thing as a real communist, so it's not an obvious point. I'm still open to seeing citations
>>20313079
>Marxists are not criticizing themselves for their failures
they are, I literally gave an example. understanding the mistakes of communists during the 1917-27 revolutionary wave was the most important work undertaken by later communists, because the movement needs to learn from its mistakes to ensure it doesn't repeat them.
>You've even doing it now by saying the people who opposed your awful ideas were "counter-revolutionaries."
people who opposed the communist revolution in the name of the consolidation and development of national capitalism in countries like Russia were counter-revolutionary with respect to the proletarian revolution. I'm simply using the word correctly. you might be the autist here if you have problems comprehending this
>>20313086
those weren't communists, they were acting exclusively in the interest of the development of industrial capitalism in Russia, China and Cambodia respectively.
>>20313216
he meant it, stop coping and go back to writing your stupid philosophy essay for the ideology factory you're paying to attend
>>20313252
you're the archetypal retard who has to hide behind memes thought up by some underage loser nerds because he doesn't have any arguments
>>20313267
you're illiterate

[Anonymous No.20313330]

>>20313312
what the fuck are you even talking about dude lol i just started this thread because i wanted to learn about hegel

[Anonymous No.20313345]

>>20313312
>wasting my time arguing with a bugman
>ever

[Anonymous No.20313347]

>>20313312
>It wasn't real communism
>>20313302
Lmfao, you're pretty refuting my point by posting a literal Jewish neo-con, an ideology founded by jewish communist trots

[Anonymous No.20313350]

>haha what a nice thread about hegel but just remember communism has never worked no reason to ever read or think about Marx

[Anonymous No.20313365]

>>20313347
lol the Jews aren't the reason you're illiterate anon

[Anonymous No.20313370]

>>20313312
You don't give any arguments. You're just screaming >Not real communism! over and over ad naesum. Every argument you've made in this thread is just a tautology of that argument.
>They were counter-revolutionaries
>Those weren't real communism!
>Real communism hasn't been tried
I really hope you're under the age of 30. Your parents have obviously failed raising you. How dumb have to be believe in such utopia non-sense? The revolutions of 1989 did away with your ideology. You are a lost causer for a failed ideological movement that is never coming back. None of your posts here will even change. You will never live to see your mythical socialist utopia. You are going to die a nobody and that will be that.

[Anonymous No.20313375]

>>20313365
>it wasn't real communism
hahaha imagine being so fucking duped by Jews like this holy shit
>Just give the government all your property and political rights, and we promise you we'll make life better
who the fuck could be this stupid to believe this shit? clearly someone body with mental genetic defect

[Anonymous No.20313403]

>>20313370
I agree with you that this guy is a retard and most definitely a loser in real life but you can't criticize him for le not real communism and also call it a movement that is never coming back when china and other communist states exist

[Anonymous No.20313412]

>>20313403
Lmfao, if China was the utopia Marxists say it is; they would just move there. China is a successful communist country - just go fucking live there. Why are you on 4chan everyday shilling it and Cuba if you're too pussy to even move to your workers' paradise?

[Anonymous No.20313420]

>>20313412
I'm not a marxist bro but your criticize is clearly flawed

[Anonymous No.20313422]

>>20313375
>it wasn't real communism

I never even said that lol I just wanted to ask non-brainlets a question about Hegel. Awesome canned response though, gommunists btfo'd again with fagts and logic :DDD

[Anonymous No.20313426]

>>20313420
criticism*

[Anonymous No.20313457]

>>20313412
>>20313375
>>20313347
>haha if cuba's so good just move there
>actually, the USSR was communist

damn this is some genius level shit. anyways where should i start with ben shapiro i think i got filtered by picrel

[Anonymous No.20313464]

>>20313420
Its not flawed at all. You're going to call China a successful Communist country, which is oxymoronic according to the very same Marxists in the thread, because communism is supposedly 'stateless." China, according to Marxists themselves, have none of the socialist traits they defend. You Marxists are not taken seriously because you just change what socialism means, like a sophist, when you're cornered on specifics. China did away with the Peoples Communes, its agricultural co-operatives for privatization and foreign investment. Chinese workers don't even have a right to strike, form a union or even have universal free education or healthcare. In China, workers have to rent, pay into social security, pretty much live any normal person would have to live in the west. First you argue it wasn't real communism. Then, when you realize that's not persuasive enough; you just lie about what communism is so that people are stupid enough to go along with your arguments. Lets accept the argument that China is communist. Why does it matter when so many countries in Western Europe, even Taiwan, is a richer and better place to live for most people? That's fucking why Xi sends his children to be educated in the US and not in his shit hole country. That's why people flee Communism in Cuba and China to come here in the first place. You kids just don't have any good arguments at all. You're just jobless bums who are annoying.

[Anonymous No.20313476]

>>20313464
so basically,
>not real communism
refrain from posting on this website

[Anonymous No.20313484]

>>20313457
>Communists can't agree on what communism is
>Split into two different minor ideologies
>Hahaha, those fucking dumb conservatives don't know what Marxism because we keep changing what it is and lying about it
lmfao
>Shapiro
Just read the Bell Shaped Curve. It gives you all the arguments you need to refute Marxism. Genetics determine everything about society from wealth, political beliefs and class. There's just so much evidence now that I don't even know why people bother with non-sense from some schizo-rabbi from the 19th century.

[Anonymous No.20313490]

>>20313464
>Its not flawed at all. You're going to call China a successful Communist country, which is oxymoronic according to the very same Marxists in the thread, because communism is supposedly 'stateless." China, according to Marxists themselves, have none of the socialist traits they defend. You Marxists are not taken seriously because you just change what socialism means, like a sophist, when you're cornered on specifics. China did away with the Peoples Communes, its agricultural co-operatives for privatization and foreign investment. Chinese workers don't even have a right to strike, form a union or even have universal free education or healthcare. In China, workers have to rent, pay into social security, pretty much live any normal person would have to live in the west. First you argue it wasn't real communism. Then, when you realize that's not persuasive enough; you just lie about what communism is so that people are stupid enough to go along with your arguments. Lets accept the argument that China is communist. Why does it matter when so many countries in Western Europe, even Taiwan, is a richer and better place to live for most people? That's fucking why Xi sends his children to be educated in the US and not in his shit hole country. That's why people flee Communism in Cuba and China to come here in the first place. You kids just don't have any good arguments at all. You're just jobless bums who are annoying.

[Anonymous No.20313492]

>>20313476
Yes, that's literally it boils down to from Marxists.
>Its not real Marxism, but if it is, we get lie about what we said in the past about it and pretend people are stupid enough to fall for it
Get a job, bum

[Anonymous No.20313502]

>>20313370
>>20313464
Self btfo’d

[Anonymous No.20313507]

>>20313502
If you want to say China is a successful communist country while saying communism is "stateless, moneyless and classless" and ignoring China doesn't have any of those things.. go ahead. I don't really care. Just go live there and fuck off. Literally nobody cares. Instead, you just live here and push communism while collecting a state check.

[Anonymous No.20313510]

>>20313507
anon please tell the room how much marx you've really read

[Anonymous No.20313526]

>>20313484
Who's changing the definition? Marxism is a broad intellectual tradition worthy of thoughtful engagement. Same with conservatism. I don't know why you're coming on a board devoted to discussing texts just to mindlessly regurgitate Heritage Foundation talking points.

[Anonymous No.20313549]

>>20313510
Why can't you well-read Marxists make a working communist system? Its probably because your fantasy books aren't a reflection of it. That's why you should read Bastiat and Seneca instead of retards like Marx. They actually have views that reflect reality instead of the Marvel comic book understanding of sociology that you have, Anon.

[Anonymous No.20313554]

>>20313549
Didn't I already tell you that I'm not a marxist? I'm just letting you know that you're a retard

[Anonymous No.20313562]

>>20313554
oh I replied off a reply of yours to someone else. well here I am telling you I'm the guy who said he's not a marxist and that you're a retard

[Anonymous No.20313563]

>>20313526
>Its a broad intellectual tradition
This is just an tautology for sophistry
>broooo its all just subjective bro.....
Its just meaningless non-sense because you don't want to be pined down on specifics. You rather waste peoples' time with post-modernist argle-bargle, and think people have to care what you have to say. At end of the day, you just want to steal peoples' property and kill them. It doesn't really how many different ways you call your theft - be it "democratic socialism" or "Marxism-Leninism." Its the same garbage regardless.

[Anonymous No.20313564]

>>20313549
anon i hope for your sake this is bait

[Anonymous No.20313572]

>>20313562
You very much are a Marxist. Only a Marxist would use a boogeyman like the Heritage Foundation. A retarded American one at that. I'm just surprised you didn't call me agent for the Koch brothers like you faggots always do.

[Anonymous No.20313575]

>>20313572
that wasn't me lmao

[Anonymous No.20313578]

>>20313564
anon i hope for your sake you have plans when your mom stops paying your bills

[Anonymous No.20313583]

>>20313510
>if you read Marx communism actually works
>everyone else was just doing it wrong
lmfao

[Anonymous No.20313588]

>The heritage foundation is paying you speak bad about Marxism
ahahaha holy shit dude. Holodomor, The Great Leap Forward, Cambodia's killing fields... Tito's genocides... bro that's just conservatives lie bro trust me bro please bro. East Germany built a wall to keep people from escaping because it was such a utopia bro!

[Anonymous No.20313591]

>>20313583
you can strawman if it helps you cope

[Anonymous No.20313610]

>>20313591
Marxism is literally a cope for people who genetic defects and don't want to acknowledge it. Not even Marxists read Marx because its just bullshit, and you're ad libing and winging it. That doesn't really work either because you can't even make good arguments for communism. You just preach about the communist revolution from your basement while real men have lives.

[Anonymous No.20313616]

>>20313591
>Read Marx, ignore reality
>Wasn't real communism

[Anonymous No.20313651]

>>20313347
Lol the neocons literally sided with Kojeve over Strauss who hated that "export freedom" shit

[Anonymous No.20313656]

>>20313651
Kojeve was a founder of the EU hahaha what the fuck are you talking about nigga

[Anonymous No.20313667]

>>20313616
>>20313588
>>20313563
I'm unironically a conservative anon lol. Highly rec picrel if you want an big boy conservative critique of Marx and Marxian ideology from somebody who isn't a complete brainlet. I get that you're probably like 17 but maybe someday you'll be able to think beyond thought terminating cliches and stop being complete cancer on this board.

[Anonymous No.20313686]

>>20313616
another retarded anon. I'm literally calling out others for doing the le not real communism meme
>>20313610
ok, and? I already said I'm not a marxist. I'm a PhD student from a family who employs over 500 people. Why would I be preaching about marxism? Just accept that I'm someone who wishes to call you retarded and nothing more

[Correan Collar No.20313700]

>>20301126
at home chuds feel like a tourist lmao, anti-marxists seething

[Anonymous No.20313706]

>>20313667
>I'm unironically a conservative
You mean progressives going the speed limit.
>>20313686
>I'm a PhD student from a family who employs over 500 people.
Yes and I'm Elon Musk.

[Anonymous No.20313709]

>>20313706
cope. I hope this has been a wake up call on at least a subconscious level

[Anonymous No.20313711]

>>20313667
>I'm a professional student who lives off subsidized loans and government grants
Nobody is surprised you're a Marxist.

[Anonymous No.20313716]

>>20313711
meds

[Anonymous No.20313720]

>>20313709
Why even brag about having a Phd when most people make more money than you lmfao. You had to go college for nearly a decade just to make less money than a high school drop pout.

[Anonymous No.20313747]

>>20313720
Why do you think I'm bragging? You think that everyone in opposition to you is a deadbeat loser and I'm telling that I am the opposite. I can guarantee that you are literally too stupid to do what I do. And maybe this was hard for you to infer from me telling you that my family employs a lot of people, but money is not and never will be a problem for me.

[Anonymous No.20313753]

>>20313667
>You only criticize Marxism through writing a book
>Atrocities committed by communists isn't real criticism
Yeah, bro, I bet you think you can't criticize people jumping off buildings because there aren't books about it being suicidal lmfao

[Correan Collar No.20313758]

>>20313711
he literally just said he wasn't chud

[Anonymous No.20313764]

>>20313706
>You mean progressives going the speed limit.
>unironically quoting michael malice on a literature forum

you need to be 18 to post here

[Anonymous No.20313770]

>>20313747
Everyone knows Marxism is pushed by academia. That's literally where they all ran too into the 60s. You a deadbeat loser using government grants and loans to promote an ideology to funnel more money into your pocket. You just exposed the real reason why you're Marxist, and you think that's intelligent lmfao.

[Anonymous No.20313778]

>>20313764
>he thinks it isn't true
lmfao

[Anonymous No.20313791]

>>20313770
Yes anon, my PhD in polymer physics and rheology is all so I can promote marxism to aspergic young adults

[Anonymous No.20313793]

>>20313747
>I'm smart because I paid the government for a humanities certificate to show up and brain wash me with Marxist propaganda
kek

[Anonymous No.20313797]

>>20313791
You went to college to learn something you learn online for free. Holy shit, keep going Anon. I grantee you there are people in your field who never went to college and make more money than you.

[Anonymous No.20313800]

>>20313656
*Strauss* hated the "export freedom" shit

[Anonymous No.20313803]

>>20313797
yeah I'm thinkin cope

[Anonymous No.20313818]

>>20313803
This entire thread is you coping nobody on 4chan takes your ideology seriously. Its just you samefagging on a slow board because all the popular boards just bully you and force you to come here.

[Anonymous No.20313834]

I don't know if I've ever seen commies so ruthlessly and utterly BTFO. This is seriously the best you can do?

[Anonymous No.20313846]

>>20313753
You realize this is a literature board right?

[Anonymous No.20313859]

>>20313846
Anon, do you think communist atrocities aren't well documented in literature?

[Anonymous No.20313866]

>>20313846
What does have to do with the point, retard? Do you think literature is only way to discuss ideas or critique ideas?

[Anonymous No.20313876]

>>20313846
>You need literature to prove putting your hand on a stove is dangerous
Yeah, people with autism, like you, tend not have very strong critical thinking skills or good intuition. That's why you're attracted to such shitty ideologues.

[Anonymous No.20313885]

>>20313846
Fucking pathetic.

[Anonymous No.20313901]

>>20313330
I'm responding to posts. are you autistic?
>>20313347
>It wasn't real communism
if by it you mean development of capitalism or the reaction against the proletarian revolution then yeah, that wasn't communism
>>20313370
>You don't give any arguments
I have, you're just choosing to ignore them
>The revolutions of 1989 did away with your ideology.
lol, I hate to break it to you, but states switching from one bourgeois government to another and from alignment with one bourgeois imperialist bloc to another didn't do away with class struggle.
>You are a lost causer for a failed ideological movement that is never coming back.
it never went away. the working class movement for own emancipation will exist as long as the working class exists.
>You will never live to see your mythical socialist utopia.
ok?
>You are going to die a nobody and that will be that.
I'm content with my life. I think you might be projecting a little bit here
>>20313375
political rights will be abolished
>>20313464
>Lets accept the argument that China is communist. Why does it matter when so many countries in Western Europe, even Taiwan, is a richer and better place to live for most people?
well, Taiwan must be communist too. or are you saying Taiwan isn't real communism?
>>20313549
>Why can't you well-read Marxists make a working communist system?
a society is made by all its actual members living their lives, not thought up by a group of "well-read" people. you're basically asking why Marxists haven't written a fantasy novel and the answer is because they're concerned with the real world
>>20313610
is it even possible to project more

[Anonymous No.20313914]

>>20313866
>>20313859
>>20313876
ITT: brainlets seething because they can't understand why they'd be expected to talk about books on a literature forum

go back to /pol/ and actually come back when you've read a book

[Anonymous No.20313980]

wow, what a shitshow

[Anonymous No.20314087]

>>20313901
>It wasn't real communism now
>The people overthrowing their communist governments meant means they good, actually
>Can't convince actually create a communist society, somehow that means its still a good idea because empirical evidence doesn't matter, only my feelings do
What else do we have here?
>Taiwan must be communist too. or are you saying Taiwan isn't real communism?
Taiwan is a poor shit hole like China so I don't think so. Communism needs to make countries poor so I would think Taiwan would be something else.

[Anonymous No.20314696]

>>20312855
>that statement wasn't ideology

Ok i'm done being respectful. Are you retarded?

Thats not what I said, i said that dialectics, which are the basis for your worldview, are arbitrary and equally ideological, your statement about communism stems from the dialectical presupposition which is ideological, hence the rest being equally ideological

>the formation of bourgeois society, of the proletariat, of the proletarian movement, and finally of the self-consciousness of the movement as a whole

You are so fucking predictable. I literally said in advance that class consciousness doesn't explain dialectical materialism, dialectical materialism is a philosophy which predates communism as communism STEMS from dialectical materialism, so give me a dialectical explanation of dialectical materialism

This is not how causality works, something from the future cannot cause the existence of that which precedes it. I cannot impregnate a girl, and then when the child is born say that the reason I impregnated the girl is because the child wouldn't exist if i didn't impregnate her.

>I don't know what "dialectical explanation" is supposed to mean, but it has an explanation that isn't ideological, because it's based on real premises, i.e. living human beings and the relations they enter into out of necessity, rather than on ideology such as a particular conception of the soul or of universal justice.

Are you fucking braindead you no life communist scum? You don't even know what dialectical materialism is. Dialectical materialism explains philosophies and ideas through the material lens as stemming from a set of material conditions, therefore, i am asking you as a dialectical materialist to show me how dialectical materialism is consistent, because surely if you claim that every idea has a material explanation as to why it arose, you can explain to me what material explanation you have as to why dialectical materialism rose. Class consciousness is not an answer, because dialectical materialism precedes class consciousness.

I am not being redundantly skeptical i am pointing out how dialectical materialism is inconsistent and therefore incoherent you fucking pea brained communist HEIL HITLER.

I am pointing out how dialectical materialism does what it accuses others of doing, because it pressuposes an axiom which is not justifiable within its own accordance, and accuses only other ideologies of doing that.

[Anonymous No.20314700]

>>20312855
ALSO FUCKING LOL at you bringing up modern china as an example of a communist country being ahead of the west

Its literally state capitalism you coon you're not even consistent within your own ideology

[Anonymous No.20314720]

>>20312855

>you should've opened with being a religious nut, it would've saved me some time. now it's clear you won't produce any concrete objections


So let me get this straight, I'm not being concrete because I'm asking an ideology which says it can explain every ideology through materialism, to explain itself, through materialism? This seems very straight forward and concrete.

So far your only objection to this critique is that the bourgeois led to class conscioussness, which is not what I asked for, class consciousness is not dialectical materialism, dialectical materialism is a lens through which you view history with which you arrive at class consciousness - meaning it precedes class consciousness, hence there needs to be an explanation as to how it arose that isn't "muh class consciousness" because thats not what I asked.


I've studied Marx, I've studied Idealism and Schmitt, I understand Materialism to its core, up until lastt week I was a full blown materialist myself, Schmittians are more of materialists than Marxists. However i realized its inconsistent, so don't give me that bullshit as if ive never read any of your retarded thinkers, I have. I honestly don't think that YOU have, because if you have read them you'd realize how inconsistent it is. You can't claim to know how to explain all phenomena but then not know how to explain yourself - this is the core issue of dialectical materialism.

Sure it explains class consciousness, but that doesn't explain ITSELF, hence it collapsing on its own

[Anonymous No.20314730]

>>20312855
The bottom of the story is your ideology is DEAD

Not only is it a fucking pea brained ideology, but its DEAD. It will NEVER rise again. Ideologies are geopolitical vessels so the only reason your ideology had any relevancy in the 20th century is because of Russia as a geopolitical superpower - which had collapsed, and now russia is a neo fascist superpower alongwith china, Fucking cry about it you coon.

You're stuck in the 19th century understanding of Politics

[Anonymous No.20314762]

>>20314720
By the way, dialectical materialism doesn't have to lead to communism and class consciousness, I will correct myself there.

If you view all humanity as acting from their biological imperative and fighting for their fundamental interest, then you have to ask yourself, how do they do that? they do this by collectivizing, organizing in groups. How are groups created? well, groups are created in negation because positive identity is possible, why are you a worker but not a blue collar worker? Why do you identify yourself as a worker first and foremost but not a blue collar worker, because the negation between the identity of the worker, and the identity of the bleu collar worker is minor IN COMPARISON to the negation between both of them and the capitalist - henceforth bringing unity amongst the two. So groups are created in negation (similarity to one another in relation to the absence of similarity in relation to an outgroup) - i.e the differences amongst each other have to be minor in comparison to the differences in relation to a third party outgroup as to enable cooperation. So, groups identify based on similarity in relation to others, but why is this? Because what best way to ensure the survival, reproduction and safety of ones genes but only cooperate with those most similar to you in relation to others, so this is why ethnic organization is a thing. Every group does this. Class consciousness falls in this category too.

So dialectical materialism doesn't lead us to fighting for the workers as much as it doesnt lead us to fighting for whites, or any other group. Class consciousness is just another example of group competition for individual interest

[Anonymous No.20315148]

>>20313005
Hey, you're the one with the movement narrative so weak an out of touch with reality that they need to make-up that people somewhere (i.e. here) are Communists so that your world view of makes some sense.

it's the same thing as the libtards pretending that nazis, if you stop and think about it.

gay american filth you, with a cut penis and half-retarded brain.

[Anonymous No.20315180]

>>20314730
holy shit --- even the guy you're replying to is not a communist, nothing has been said that you make your reply relevant lol

THE WORD COON HAHAHAHAHA

btw the west is fucked on so many levels,most of all racial homogeneity (COON! HAHAHAHA), and china is lovely, so so ... much for that.

The problem with you american red scare mutts, since the 1900s workers movements, is that you think anything that isn't your peculiar fucked up way of over-taxation with no government representation is 'evil communism', which is obviously a false dichotomy.

This thread was interesting yesterday when someone (me) mentioned the Church Communes and collectivism being thousands of years old. I get the feeling that a very strong part of your ideology is to say that anything better than your own wagecuckery and chaotic unmanaged (criminal) financial sector (an criminal insane government) is "evil communism".

It's your brainwashing, can't you see? You MUST oppose anything different even though you have nothing socially, culturally or economically speaking that's worth getting out of bed for, and a fake view of the 'happy golden age' which you've conflated with television commercials from forty years ago.

meanwhile your streets are 3rd world level filthy your media and government hates you, you have no job rights at all, your taxes have never been higher, your food is still as bad as it was 30 yrs ago, you have no families, your relationships end in divorces 99.99% of the time, your religion is a joke, your healthcare system is just evil, your cinema hates you, your own boys would rather be drag queens than be like you, your own women would rather fuck anybody else than you, your politicians speak in baby-talk, your country has started more wars in the last half century than anybody..

- presuming you're an American that is

NATURALLY YOU PROJECT YOUR FAULTS


reminder: how much tax do you pay and you don't even get free healthcare? you actually fight against your own well-being on that front, which is insane to the rest of us in literally every other country

[Anonymous No.20315197]

> collectivism being thousands of years old
i mean: central government, if you research the palace/manor economies; completely built upon centralized resource allocation, these are the ways human societies have always existed.

the origins of the stock market, which you seem to be defending with every waking moment, even began as a resource trade exchange before it became a pump and dump place where the economy is ruined every few years by criminally minded retards,probably such as yourself, because i bet you pretend to be a stock-broker in your spare time.

[Anonymous No.20315250]

>>20313464
>In China, workers have to rent, pay into social security, pretty much live any normal person would have to live in the west.
so you're saying China is just as good as America - 'cos these things are Good, yes? lol

>. China did away with the Peoples Communes, its agricultural co-operatives for privatization and foreign investment.
This isn't exactly true; China is constantly setting up agricultural projects across its country and it can do this because it has an actual government which can do things to help grow the economy.

The yankee model of "foreign investment" is there in places, but it's not really all that important. In a lot of respects they're happy to take money from american businesses who don't want to set up shop in america and pay their taxes to their own government, but that situation in and of itself is caused 'by' the yankee capitalist delusions where businesses are out of control and are allowed to do that, largely because to prevent them doing that would be called 'communism' by people like you - which just shows that you have no idea what youre doing and highlights the flaw in "capitalist" anarchy; the out of control finance, and no government control over sectors, etc. etc.

To e fair though, China isn't doing well because it is or was Communist, rather: they retain governmental control over their own affairs so they can repair damage and plan ahead to preemptively avoid terrible situations occurring, which is utterly absent in the western governments by design - but again 'you' (others) would complain very loudly that any attempt to put government back in control of, say, finance to prevent crime, would be communism so... any kind of self-improvement is unlikely until, ironically, it really does reach the point of radical crazy people getting into office, far too late, and making things worse.

[Anonymous No.20315270]

>The yankee model of "foreign investment" is there in places, but it's not really all that important.
eg. remember Trumps Tariff war with China? America can increase tariffs on imports (this is how theyre supposed to earn money to pay for the government, not via income taxes btw) but when they do this it greatly harms the american consumer dues to the trickle down process of price increase - this this really no impact whatsoever on, in this case, workers in China a state backed industry who can weather the storm with greater security than any private company.

Private industry, compared to nationalized industries in key sectors, is largely irrelevant because it is compeltely superflous. But to uswith veyr few nationalized state shareholder industries anymore seems to be far more important than it is for legitimate countries.

Good example is the russian sanctions; nobody really gives a shit if mcdonalds and facebook suddenly leave for one reason or another; these 'companies' are meaningless and more often unwanted to begin with.

so there's also that.

[Anonymous No.20315283]

Best and easiest way to understand government,is this:

There is one company of which, you, tax-payer, are the share-holder and investor. This is the state. So long as you pay taxes this one company continues to exist as the most powerful company around, dwarfing any other company. As a shareholder it behooves you to assert your shareholder rights.

dichotomies of capitalism vs communism are just distractions away from this fundamental truth.

[Anonymous No.20315290]

>>20314087
>The people overthrowing their communist governments meant means they good, actually
no, what I said is that bourgeois governments changing has no direct relation to communism
>Can't convince actually create a communist society, somehow that means its still a good idea
a society isn't thought up by a bunch of people. and I never said it's a "good idea". it's not an idea, but a scientific description of the future social form
>because empirical evidence doesn't matter, only my feelings do
what empirical data do you have about a communist society?
>>20314696
>i said that dialectics, which are the basis for your worldview
where have I said that "dialectics are the basis of my worldview"?
>your statement about communism stems from the dialectical presupposition
what presupposition?
>I literally said in advance that class consciousness doesn't explain dialectical materialism
except it does
>dialectical materialism is a philosophy which predates communism as communism STEMS from dialectical materialism
no, you got it completely backwards. dialectical materialism is the name for the correct scientific conception of human history, not a philosophy. and it doesn't predate communism, but stems from it. first there was the communist movement, then the communist movement achieved a certain level of development, it thereby produced people at its vanguard who were able to comprehend the movement in broad terms, and those people then used that comprehension as a key to elaborate the correct understanding of human history, i.e. dialectical materialism.
>Dialectical materialism explains philosophies and ideas through the material lens as stemming from a set of material conditions
sure, and this is not based on an ideological conception but on the study of how philosophies and ideas were historically produced and what they expressed. hence it's not ideology.
>if you claim that every idea has a material explanation as to why it arose, you can explain to me what material explanation you have as to why dialectical materialism rose
I already explained that. long story short, it arose through bourgeois society emerging from feudalism, which caused the proletariat to form and strife with the bourgeoisie, which caused the proletarian movement, which caused this movement reaching comprehension of itself and of human history as a whole, i.e. dialectical materialism.
>Class consciousness is not an answer, because dialectical materialism precedes class consciousness.
no, it doesn't. it's the proletariat's class consciousness reaching maturity. there's a reason why Marx expressed dialectical materialism in the 1840s, and not, for example, in the 1600s. and the reason is that in the 1600s there wasn't class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
>because it pressuposes an axiom which is not justifiable within its own accordance
what axiom?

[Anonymous No.20315310]

>>20314700
>ALSO FUCKING LOL at you bringing up modern china as an example of a communist country being ahead of the west
I haven't. you're illiterate/retarded/all of the above. in the post you quotelink I describe the Cultural Revolution as an element of the capitalist revolution. lol
>>20314720
>I'm not being concrete because I'm asking an ideology which says it can explain every ideology through materialism, to explain itself, through materialism?
no, you weren't being concrete because you did nothing but vaguely gesture around the word "dialectics", which means fuck all until you specify what exactly you want to refer by it. the question you ask now is concrete though, and I've already answered it.
>class consciousness is not dialectical materialism, dialectical materialism is a lens through which you view history
proletarian class consciousness is dialectical materialism. it's the comprehension of the class position of the proletariat and of its class movement as a whole. but such comprehension is inevitably premised on the comprehension of bourgeois society and hence the comprehension of human history as a whole.
so a complete class consciousness of the proletariat has the same content as dialectical materialism.
>through which you view history with which you arrive at class consciousness
no, you arrive at class consciousness through waging and witnessing class struggle. you seem to live in a fantasy world where people who first fought over wages and working conditions were, as if by a touch of a magic wand, already aware of the correct conception of humanity's history and future, and of the ultimate meaning of their partial struggles. but that's just utterly retarded if you stop to think about it for 15 seconds.
>I've studied Marx
you failed miserably then, because what I'm explaining to you is laid down in the Manifesto. it's not some arcane knowledge.
>However i realized its inconsistent
sorry but you might have brain damage. so I wouldn't trust my judgment on such things if I were you
>>20314730
it's not an ideology but a movement, and it will be alive until capitalism is abolished, because capitalism itself produces and sustains this movement through its normal functioning

[Anonymous No.20315779]

>>20315290
yea youre officially diagnosed with the NIGGER RETARD disorder. please consult ur local pharmaceutical center for medication retard nigger

your response "no u" wow ur so smart, average communist iq 60

[Anonymous No.20315785]

>>20315310
>layd down in the manifesto


what a fucking retard. citing a propaganda pamplet, meanwhile im talking about das kapital and the foundation behind marxism which is material dialectic

ur response is you being confused, saying "no you" and "u failed". no argument whatsoever, thanks for provcing to everyone here that Marxists deserve to get tortured for hours before theyre beheaded with a blunt knife, no conversation with you "people" is possible

[Anonymous No.20315847]

>>20301126
Here's an idea: How about actually trying to read Hegel?
You fucking dumb fuck. Go jump before a train.

[Anonymous No.20315864]

>>20313350
>Feds are afraid of Marxism
They defanged it decades ago and moved on

[Anonymous No.20315876]

>>20312258
>>20312501
>>20312413
Marxism and Leninism are rebranded Socialism. They hijacked the name communism from anarchists who rightfully wore it on their banners (being for the own community, autarchy, etc) and have corrupted the original meaning of it from then till forever.
Anarchists, love them or hate them, but they were the ones who from the get go pointed to Marx' communism as something that will never work because a centralized Party will never give up their power once it has risen to it. That's why they were slyly kicked from the international workers assembly by marxists when they saw to it that the assembly was held in the US at some point, where most anarchists were blacklisted from travelling.

[Anonymous No.20315950]

>>20315779
I'm taking vitamin D and fish oil. is that good?
>>20315785
>what a fucking retard. citing a propaganda pamplet, meanwhile im talking about das kapital and the foundation behind marxism
the Manifesto explains the foundation. it explains all the parts you misunderstand. why would you even talk about the 4000 pages long Capital if you can't even read and comprehend the 40 pages of the Manifesto?
>no argument whatsoever
lol it's full of arguments. I didn't just say "you failed". I said "you failed" after I explained like 5 times why your entire argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of the basics of Marxism. the fact that you choose to ignore the explanations doesn't mean that they aren't there.
>thanks for provcing to everyone here that Marxists deserve to get tortured for hours before theyre beheaded with a blunt knife, no conversation with you "people" is possible
the heights of projection reached by some here are mindblowingly amazing. you complain about me having no arguments in the same post where you categorically refuse to put forward any argument against my rebuttals and instead you choose the strategy of pretending like I didn't explain exactly why you're wrong.
>>20315847
well, I said that at the beginning already >>20301589 and OP acknowledged my post, so maybe he's already reading him
>>20315876
>They hijacked the name communism from anarchists
lol, from which anarchists did they hijack the name?
>being for the own community, autarchy, etc
autarchy is impossible when the productive forces are developed to the world scale, which they are. so it's meaningless to "be for autarchy". in practice it means supporting the private property of all the wannabe-autarchic groups — the opposite of communism, which aims at the abolition of any private units of property.
>Anarchists... were the ones who from the get go pointed to Marx' communism as something that will never work because a centralized Party will never give up their power once it has risen to it.
and this is a moronic argument based on not understanding that political power has material a source. they rather think it emanates from the ether.
>That's why they were slyly kicked from the international workers assembly by marxists
no, they were kicked out because they tried to sabotage the proletariat by detracting it from aiming at political supremacy, which is the primary condition for defeating the bourgeoisie and abolishing capitalism.

[Anonymous No.20315996]

>>20315950
>lol, from which anarchists did they hijack the name?
The French commune, for one. It was literally written on their flags. Vive la Commune
>autarchy is impossible when the productive forces are developed to the world scale, which they are. so it's meaningless to "be for autarchy".
Think of decentralized production and government. I never said it was feasible/attainable (as of yet), but anarchists were the ones that were on to it.
>political power has material a source. they rather think it emanates from the ether.
No. They believe it arises from the concrete situation. Every form of representation is an act of postponing a solution of direct action. Anarchists are actually the only political fraction that do not look down on the present as "politically impotent"; they rather take the present moment as an absolute and act, directly, from there.
>they were kicked out because they tried to sabotage the proletariat by detracting it from aiming at political supremacy, which is the primary condition for defeating the bourgeoisie and abolishing capitalism
Oh so you are a socialist abolishionist who believes private property is unnatural and all that, never mind then.

[Anonymous No.20316007]

>>20315950
>they were kicked out because they tried to sabotage the proletariat by detracting it from aiming at political supremacy,
And what a success story that political supremacy turned out to be wherever it came about, huh?

[Anonymous No.20316144]

>>20315148
I guess you could keep clinging to that narrative if it makes you feel better.

[Anonymous No.20316263]

>>20315996
>The French commune, for one. It was literally written on their flags. Vive la Commune
so you're saying they traveled in time from 1848 to 1871 to steal a word from anarchists? admittedly, Marx and Engels were pretty based, but let's not make them into heroes with superpowers
>Think of decentralized production and government.
that's called capitalism (given the level of productive forces attained by humanity). you have the world split into countless independent productive enterprises and 200 or so governments
>but anarchists were the ones that were on to it
yeah, they love to exalt abstract ideas that upon examination always turn out to be only ideal reflections of the existing bourgeois society
>No. They believe it arises from the concrete situation
"situation" is an empty abstraction. situation of what?
>Every form of representation is an act of postponing a solution of direct action. Anarchists are actually the only political fraction that do not look down on the present as "politically impotent"; they rather take the present moment as an absolute and act, directly, from there.
meaningless babble
>Oh so you are a socialist abolishionist who believes private property is unnatural and all that, never mind then.
no, where have I said that it's unnatural? I already repeated a thousand times in this thread that communism doesn't start from any ideological principle, "private property is unnatural" included.
also, are you suggesting that the word "communist" should refer to people who support private property rather than those who seek to abolish it? because if you are then that would be pretty funny
>>20316007
>And what a success story that political supremacy turned out to be wherever it came about, huh?
it did. the political defeat of the proletariat in Russia or China led to the class being completely crushed on all possible fronts by the bourgeoisie in the following decades. this has confirmed that in order to win, the proletariat needs to, in the first place, successfully hold onto political power.

[Anonymous No.20316499]

>>20316144
lol oh noses, i've been identified as a fat retarded stupid american no MATTER WHAT my left/right ideological spectrum sez at present.
oh noses, this mirror is too profound take it aways and leave me to my porn and mcmush, do not make me think(!) i am whatever gender i wish!! wahhh nuffins my fault it's DEM COONS AND DEM JEWZ

[Anonymous No.20316512]

>>20315785
>ur response is you being confused, saying "no you" and "u failed". no argument whatsoever, thanks for provcing to everyone here that Marxists deserve to get tortured for hours before theyre beheaded with a blunt knife, no conversation with you "people" is possible
and that, kids, is why we killed all the white people in '26, they just wouldn't listen and insisted upon beheading dissenters and advertised it so naturally we had to strike first..

whats that you say, i'm white? HAHAHAHA shush now goy

[Anonymous No.20316525]

>>20315785
honestly, uncle coon,
we humans might take your threats on these things more seriously if american white men weren't a universal retard and fairy man.

we both know you don't have the social networking logistics rally more than 2 people together in one room, let alone do anything more than quote meme soundbites when your standing there in front of the other guy.

[Anonymous No.20316535]

paradoxically, if you rose above that baseline level of dumb animal consumer, then you'd be called a communist too.


again, real real point here:nobody in this thread has advocated communism even once. it just 'sounds' communistic to the american audience, like free cancer surgery 'sounds' like nazi germany.


such people are checked out mentally

[Anonymous No.20316559]

>>20316535
Imagine being so dead-set on proving that someone else thinks everything is communist that you sperg out and accuse everyone of being American. What a trip.

[Anonymous No.20316599]

>>20316559
lol i was just responding to the guy who actually is deciding that people taling about hegel or the reality of communism in human socity are someow communists.

there's not infinite paths to having that opinion, its more often cucked yankees who are as described and believe 'communism' is the fundamental flaw in why their own nominally capitalist society is shit.

i have even less respect for the dole scum who flee/fled 'communist' countries because they didn't want to work a job, or who were religious terrorists and resented being educated out of it, or whose grandparents were actual nazis and feared persecution from the authorities for their crimes.

it's just the most outlandish, the yankee perspective on this; where they cry socialism at basic tax-payer funded helpful things. its obviously brainwashing since they'd not have such self-hurting opinions otherwise. no?

meh.

i think this thread has run it course. i hope hegel is happy at what he did.

[Anonymous No.20316796]

>>20316599
Lol.

[Anonymous No.20317460]

Strawman: the thread