/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22537767]

I bet 95% of /lit/ does not actually know what Dialectical Materialism is

[Anonymous No.22537792]

>>22537767
What is it? Im retarded, explain it to me

[Anonymous No.22537802]

Dialectics is a great creativity-enhancing tool. Not a form of logic as Hegel claims or worse, a form of historiography as Marx claims.

Read the start of the SEP article on Hegelian dialectics; it's all you need to know about it.

[Anonymous No.22537805]

>>22537767
>Leningrad philosophy institute
A bunch of bullshit, no doubt.

[Anonymous No.22537810]

Communism makes no sense once one realizes the existence of many other societies right next to the one you want to make super ideal, utopian, comfortable, equal rights, femblablabla.
After a few days of partying, multiculturing, homosexual gay faggots, everyone equal, capitalism abolished, military abolished,
Until nothing but a handful of angry people from the neighbouring tiles show up, aimlessly crush people under their swords, destroy everything to ashes and make the few surviving ones submissive and force them into servantry. The most disobedient ones are sold to other tribes or straight up shot.
This is the dark reality of the human species and you better swallow up this pill than stay in the comfort zone most faggot Westerners are currently sleeping in.

[Anonymous No.22537811]

>>22537792
It is a critique expansion of Hegelian Dialectics. The crucial difference is where Hegelian Dialectics would ultimately be Idealist ( assert all meaning and causal relationships to some ideal either spiritual or mental ), Dialectical Materialism is, well, materialist.

Dialectical Materialism takes the Dialectic itself, the relationship between Quality and Quantity, the negation of the negation, and the empirical understanding of history to a more material and observable level .

[Anonymous No.22537821]

>>22537810
>you want to make super ideal, utopian, comfortable, equal rights, femblablabla.

Ok, so you don't know what dialectical Materialism is

[Anonymous No.22537826]

>>22537821
Oh yes I know what it is, it's the thing described above just with violence to mantain it.

[Anonymous No.22537832]

>>22537826
holy shit you are retarded

[Anonymous No.22537841]

>>22537811
>Dialectical Materialism takes the Dialectic itself, the relationship between Quality and Quantity, the negation of the negation, and the empirical understanding of history to a more material and observable level .
Cultish woo woo masquerading as science by cargo culting "materialism". You have to be a tranny to be into this stuff.

[Anonymous No.22537850]

>>22537832
No I'm not, or in other words, I agree with the dialectal materialist worldview that societies start at tribalism and end at Marxism utopia, but much like in those stories about people realizing they are permanently trapped in hell, the 'Marxism Utopia' soon after the last few vapors that came out of it vanished shows it's real face that it's nothing but tribe society surrounded by other, still isolated tribes.

[Anonymous No.22537851]

>>22537810
I mean, one important idea of marxism/communism is that the state would wither away. What we got with Soviet Union was state becoming more controlling and established in people's lives.
I really liked the book called The Russian Enigma, it's a book by ex commie Croatian guy Ante Ciliga who got involved in Soviet Union during Stalin's era.
It's fun to read how he breaks with Stalin and Trotsky and finally with Lenin, how his naive idealism crumbles when faced with oppressive reality of the Soviet Union.
Like, the whole movement was already off the Marxist tracks when Lenin took power and frankly there was no other way for them because Marx, despite his stupid claims, was still just an utopian and Whites would have taken the power back if state just "withered away".

[Anonymous No.22537852]

>>22537841
Just admit you are too retarded to engage with this level of knowledge

[Anonymous No.22537861]

>>22537850
Marxists are against the idea of a "utopia". Read "Socialism: Utopian vs Scientific" by Engels.

[Anonymous No.22537867]

>>22537851
Communist states are a weird thing to think about it, but I don't deny that the Soviet Union was an actually socialist state with full-blown equality and a complete abolishment of private property. Only, this was made possible by nothing but the complete exercise of violence concentrated into the hands of the party. My question is, is equality so important that such measures, such sacrifices must be taken for it? And what need does it ultimately fulfill?

[Anonymous No.22537869]

>>22537767
The basis for knowledge of dialectical material is in Spinoza

[Anonymous No.22537871]

>>22537851
>Croatian
Opinion ignored

[Anonymous No.22537876]

most anons on /lit/'s understanding of marxism come from american "culture-wars" pundits and places like /pol/.

[Anonymous No.22537879]

>>22537861
Then what are they in favour of? Explain it but without only taking one society into consideration. This is like describing the possibility of flying neutrons in the absence of protons. Outside the vacuum chamber, this does not happen. My question to socialists: can a socialist nation thrive under the neighborhood of other, non-socialist nations?

[Anonymous No.22537883]

>>22537869
Wrong. His Spiritual monism is very important to Hegel for Dialectics but Dialectics and thus Dialectical Materialism is much more that the small amount of work that you would care to read.

[Anonymous No.22537887]

>>22537869
elaborate pls

[Anonymous No.22537900]

>>22537861
They lie and or delude themselves. Or at least are very naive about it. Especially considering times when Marx and Engels lived. I can sort of forgive modern people who hope for Star Trek communism future with technologies that could transform human condition more radically than what Marx and Engels envisioned.
>>22537867
>full-blown equality
Depends on what you mean by this. Certainly, party members had extra privileges. Also, private property is another funny thing. Sure, they did abolish private businesses and large scale land ownership, but people still had their private plots of land, which were funnily enough important for people to produce extra foodstuffs, which was helpful in the mess that was central planned economy of Soviet Union.

[Anonymous No.22537902]

>>22537879
>Then what are they in favour of?
Progressing to the next inevitable stage of history
Resolving the current contradictions and thus deal with the new ones that will arise
Feudalism had violently negated itself into capitalism and by using economic analysis, it is easy to see that a new system after is inevitable.

[Anonymous No.22537904]

>>22537851
The state - a tool for class oppression - will wither away once economic classes has been abolished.

>Soviet Union
Officially abandoned communism in 1926, so he got only himself to blame for his disillusion (shoulda read marx!)

[Anonymous No.22537906]

>>22537900
> Depends on what you mean by this
I mean by this that selling oneself as an excellent nominee for the job one applied to was generally met with weird looks, and interrogant, suspectful questions that mostly ended with one not getting the job.

[Anonymous No.22537911]

>>22537767
Whenever anyone starts talking to you about dialect-materialism or marxist-leninism just ignore. That shit was all a dead end and should remain buried in the 20th cent. Historical curiosity at best; foil for new left critique at most.

[Anonymous No.22537918]

>>22537911
It is currently more alive than ever
we are entering the negation of the negation

[Anonymous No.22537928]

>>22537918
Thats about as meaningful as saying we're entering kali yuga

[Anonymous No.22537930]

>>22537861
Saying you're not a utopian doesn't make you not a utopian. Saying that your theories are scientific and materialist doesn't make them scientific and materialist.
>>22537852
Go back to leftytwitter and leftypol tranny.

[Anonymous No.22537933]

>>22537902
> Progressing to the next inevitable stage of history
Sure, the history of a particular country or nation.
There is not one singular 'history', that's my point, a single country can go socialist, but it won't hold out long in the neighborhood with other countries.
Feudalism has championed from roughly the end of the Roman Empire in the 5th Century CE until the 19th and even the early 20th Century of our era and it continues, shily, undershadowed by democracy and capitalism.
Capitalism is just the Rhenish League. They have been around since the Middle Ages and controlled most of the Rhine, Denmark, North Germany, Switzerland and parts of Italy during the times of feudalism already. It's not that capitalism has suddenly won over feudalism, it could be said that it is currently just holding a foothold or two more.

[Anonymous No.22537940]

>>22537902
>Progressing to the next inevitable stage of history Resolving the current contradictions and thus deal with the new ones that will arise Feudalism had violently negated itself into capitalism and by using economic analysis, it is easy to see that a new system after is inevitable.
All of this talk is cultish nonsense.

[Anonymous No.22537942]

>>22537904
He did read him, lmao.
It's just that the obvious breaks happened first. First with Stalin, then with Trotsky, but he does go further in saying that Lenin himself essentially had to abandon ideas of Marx, to actually even have a chance of completing his revolution and gaining power.
I don't remember how exactly he framed it, but essentially Lenin had to both kill democracy and also other forms of worker's liberty (something about worker's unions and other bullshit about discontent factory workers getting suppressed). Because of course only centralized powerful socialist state could defeat the Whites, not some desperate workers/factory communes that would have been rolled over.
And that is true, but by going this route they just showed that Marx was too utopian.

[Anonymous No.22537944]

>>22537933
>particular country or nation
Are you retarded?

1.) nations are a relatively new concept and make the worst basis for any political understanding. It is metaphysical race science disguised as fact

2.) You can just look at the transition from feudalism to Capitalism. Reference that first. I would start with the 30 years war ( birth of nations ) and Napoleon .

[Anonymous No.22537952]

>>22537940
If you understood basic dialectics you wouldn't be so scared

[Anonymous No.22537954]

>>22537902
Just call it change, not progress.

[Anonymous No.22537963]

>>22537954
potato potato
goalposts moved

[Anonymous No.22537964]

>>22537944
> 1.) nations are a relatively new concept and make the worst basis for any political understanding. It is metaphysical race science disguised as fact
> but bro a country having an own government is impossible bro, nation is a relatively new concept

> You can just look at the transition from feudalism to Capitalism. Reference that first. I would start with the 30 years war ( birth of nations ) and Napoleon
As I said, capitalism is not a new invention. It was largely practiced in it's modern form by the Hanseatic League during the Middle Ages already.

[Anonymous No.22537973]

>>22537963
Only real progress would be escaping this existence and becoming a creator of your own, separate, universe. A sort of gnostic pill. Everything else is slavery to the entropy, not progress.

[Anonymous No.22537979]

>>22537964
>in it's modern form
yeah, so similar to now. wow no difference at all
> during the Middle Ages
this was the 'late' middle ages and in terms of changing modes of production, this is very recent

[Anonymous No.22537985]

>>22537973
that's just and idealist fantasy based from your asocial material conditions.

[Anonymous No.22538005]

>>22537979
No, you don't understand it. Capitalism was no different in the regions controlled by the HANSEATIC LEAGUE during the Middle Ages already. You are underestimating the Middle Ages in diversity, 1/3 of the countries were neither capitalist nor feudalism but theocratic, ruled by a pope or bishop. Just because capitalism became the GENERAL form of politics laterwards doesn't mean it was completely unknown before. It always co-existed with feudalism. The burgeois has always been around the feudalmen, from the beginning of their existence, sometimes as a simping cuck, sometimes pretending he's now sufficiently strong to ignore the presence of the nobleman.

[Anonymous No.22538010]

>>22537985
It might indeed just be a fantasy, but at least it is a hopeful one.
When I look at Marxism all I see is something that will break down or just won't be feasible because of the human nature. At least when we talk about our present technological level.
Might as well abandon this foolish utopian radicalism and just try to improve people's lives on a local level, donate to old and poor or something like that. It would be more noble and worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.22538013]

Death is the only true communist. The greatest equalizer. The perfect utopia.

[Anonymous No.22538019]

>>22538005
>1/3 of the countries were neither capitalist nor feudalism but theocratic,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ok so how did they farm? Did they prey to the ground? How was goods distributed? Through communion?

I see what your problem is. You have liberal mind. You conceive everything as equal separate identities. You can never specify further and realize when something is many things or changing between things. You believe their are ideal monadic forms of each of these ideals as well.

lolol

[Anonymous No.22538021]

>>22538013
Don't you hear them complaining? My neighbor's got more worms...

[Anonymous No.22538022]

>>22538010
>his foolish utopian radicalism
Literally read for once

[Anonymous No.22538027]

>>22538019
> Ok so how did they farm? Did they prey to the ground? How was goods distributed? Through communion?
Depends. Some places had the allmend, a public lot everyone could use for cattle herding, farming, etc. For the rest, trade was the usual, like common human sense demands.
> see what your problem is. You have liberal mind. You conceive everything as equal separate identities. You can never specify further and realize when something is many things or changing between things. You believe their are ideal monadic forms of each of these ideals as well.
No, I have a conservative mind. I believe nothing has ever changed, besides some minor details that get reverted every time soon.

[Anonymous No.22538032]

>>22538027
>conservative mind
So a liberal mind. Got it.

[Anonymous No.22538043]

>>22538032
> calls anon a libshit
> himself a promoter of superlibshittism, sometimes known under the name of communism

[Anonymous No.22538047]

>>22537767
Of course I don't, I don't care about incel ideology.

[Anonymous No.22538049]

>>22537902
Agreed, AI managerialist ecofascism is the way forward and you can't stop it.

[Anonymous No.22538053]

>>22538022
>we are scientific not utopian
Is just marxist double think. It's hilariously transparent to everyone else.

[Anonymous No.22538080]

>>22537883
So Plato is a dialectical materialist? Dialectics is much more than the small amount of work you would care to read.

>>22537887
He’s not a “Spiritual Monist”, as comrade above said. Spinoza’s political philosophy of nature is distinctively resistant to the kind of cultural-religious ‘motion’ Marx claimed was the real initiator of critique. Read the appendix to Part 4 of the Ethics. There will have been no Marxism without his views on nature, which Hegel merely comprehended.

[Anonymous No.22538087]

how do marxoids cope with being replaced by AI? your utopian future is here and yet you lose in it

[Anonymous No.22538094]

>>22538080
No, It was Heraclitus and Zeno, if you want to talk about so called "proto-dialectics"

But hey, keep saying one of the three greek philosophers that you know of all ready "did it" or something.

[Anonymous No.22538105]

>>22538094
How is this proto-dialectics?

[Anonymous No.22538123]

Marxism is endless pilpul about semantics and theory while chinks fuck you in the ass and get your kids hooked on fentanyl.

[Anonymous No.22538155]

>>22537767
It's not that different from Hegel's concept and frequently gets confused with the Marxist view of historical conflict. The dialectical materialist outlook views the world as a constant series of interrelated and connected processes whereby nothing is permanent and everything changes, existence is the continual process of ceasing to exist and becoming or actualization and there is a contradictory nature in the process by which these changes take place or possibly an antagonistic relationship in forces that drive these changes. Hegel viewed this as an expression of the "world spirit" and marx/Engels just viewed it as being endemic to the natural world. This is the critical difference, the process exists independent of the mind and occurs whether there is even awareness of it whereas the idealist interpretation would make the process dependent on thought or some other abstraction.

[Anonymous No.22538171]

>>22538105
They explain it in the post's book. read it. you'll learn something

[Anonymous No.22538175]

>>22537811
>>22537852
>unnecessarily verbose description
>nobody understands you
>UR JUST 2 STOOPID!!
You must've read Marcuse.

[Anonymous No.22538208]

>>22537944
'Nations' are just ethnic groups, they aren't a 'new concept'.

[Anonymous No.22538220]

>>22538208
His point was even dumber, he pretends governments aren't real.

[Anonymous No.22538224]

>>22538208
Some would disagree with you, that's why they say that modern nation state is a creature of 19th century and so on. But there is also truth that elements of that existed long before. Herodotus already defines who is Greek to him (same language, blood, customs and religion).
It's all just a sort of tribalism that's adapted to different times and contexts, if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.22538237]

>>22538224
What was the custom of the Middle Ages, where marriage between nobility and burgoisie and either them with serfdom was illegitimate and resulted in punishment and decastment of both? Then ethnicities are physically real.

[Anonymous No.22538241]

>>22538224
Sure the nation-state is relatively new(with arguable old examples) but the term, 'nation' state presupposes the ancient definition of nation as a group of people united by a common culture, language and/or ancestry.

[Anonymous No.22539006]

>>22538241
No, common ancestry is the primary foundation of the meaning of nation. Natio is derived from a Latin form for family

[Anonymous No.22539016]

Yeah I don't think it's worth studying philosophy

[Anonymous No.22539032]

>>22539006
Not him, and I agree with you, but I got to this point in a very roundabout way in escape of retardation. All of the terminology surrounding nation and ethnicity is so retardedly taught in US schools that it is difficult to escape the ignorance. It is so bad that my assumption is that this misunderstanding is by design. Jews are very pragmatic and concise about it. Everyone else should be, as well. Even if one finds nationalism repugnant, one should still understand what nationalism actually means.

[Anonymous No.22539054]

>>22537767
It's just a critique of Dialectical Idealism by substituting 'idea' with 'matter'. 'Thought' with 'labour'.

[Anonymous No.22539055]

>>22537944
>race
>metaphysical
LMAO guess again, nigger. No wonder your shitty ideology failed the world revolution during ww1. Communism/Marxism is an outdated and failed ideology

[Anonymous No.22539065]

>>22539006
Isn't it from 'nasci' for race?

[Anonymous No.22539422]

>>22537767
Any sort of materialism is fake and gay.

[Anonymous No.22539428]

>>22537767
I know exactly what dialectical materialism is. It's when capitalist societies engineer a society of castrated trannified consumer slaves who live as individual units without family or religion

[Anonymous No.22539651]

>>22538010
>Mao, however, could not find Lin’s view acceptable. He believed there was no absolute authority anywhere, let alone his own, capable of stabilizing the inconstancy of the human condition. A now famous letter to Jiang Qing of July 1966, which circulated after Lin’s death in 1971, is instructive. Mao wrote that in “that speech of our friend” there were ideas that “deeply disturbed” him. He did not subscribe to the idea that the main problem was to forestall an attempted coup; that was not what Mao meant by the “struggle against revisionism.” If anything, one novelty in Mao’s analysis was the possibility of a “peaceful restoration” of capitalism. Moreover, he found the extolling of the supreme authority of his genius ridiculous.

>“I have never thought that the pamphlets I have written had such magic power. Now that he has taken to inflating them, the whole country will follow suit. It seems to be exactly like the scene of the marrow-monger wife Wang who boasts of the quality of her goods.” Such exaltation, Mao dialectically commented, would inexorably be transformed into its opposite. “They flatter me by praising me to the stars, but things turn into their contrary: the higher one is driven, the harder his fall. I am prepared to fall, shattering all my flesh and bones. It does not matter; matter is not destroyed, it only falls to pieces.”
-- Mao

[Anonymous No.22540038]

>>22537811
>empirical understanding of history
that's what they say, but not what they do. In other words marxists lie.

[Anonymous No.22540042]

>>22539006
the problem with nationalism is that is another inorganic creation by atheists to replace monarchies with nations. nations existed before atheists took power, but nations as a basis for a political system is a leftist invention only to subvert the previous system. Like anything made up by leftists, it turned to shit quickly and leftists killed each other over this lol. Nationalism is so devoid of any substance that you have right wing atheists defending nationalism, just like you have left wing atheists defending it lol, and this since the first day of the revolutions. LOL.

Here is the cope of the nationalists: people who said nationalism existed said it was the language who unified people. The truth is that languages were so numerous that basically only a tiny group of people spoke the same language. The paucity of languages nowadays stem from the revolutionists who killed people who didnt want to speak the unified language. During monarchies, there was a humongous quantity of languages and the kings didnt give a shit about unifying people thru languages. and they were proud to speak differently form the peasants, whereas they lived in the same tiny area.
After being BTFO, they move on to saying nationalism existed due to folklore. folklore is by definition very local. folklore at the north of a ''nation'' is completely different than the one at the south, same with counties, boroughs whatever.
Then they seethe and their last cope is ethnicity which is a very vague idea. If there were mass migrations, then ethnicity is meaningless and if people didnt migrate a lot, then ethnicity just means ''my tiny shitty village'' which has nothing to do with nationalism.

Don't forget it's the french leftists who created nationalism. And, just like today, the only way they did it is by killing anybody who shitted on their dogmas, ie being pro pro democratic republics, ie pro mercantilism.

[Anonymous No.22540051]

>>22537841
>You have to be a tranny to be into this stuff.
they are

[Anonymous No.22540372]

>>22537767
And I bet that 95% of Marxists don't know what it is either.

[Anonymous No.22540375]

on the contrary, try finding a persuasive conservative who doesn't.
on the other hand, I am sure that 99% of marxists, both self-proclaimed or closeted, have never read one book that praises and explains what capitalism is.
how could they, given that most of them ignore something as simple and irrefutable as the laws of supply and demand.

[Anonymous No.22540435]

>>22540375
>conservatives
>understanding anything
a hearty KEK

[Anonymous No.22540496]

>>22537767
Three of the people on that cover didn't either.

[Anonymous No.22540785]

>>22537811
>>22537902
>Dialectical Materialism takes the Dialectic itself, the relationship between Quality and Quantity, the negation of the negation, and the empirical understanding of history to a more material and observable level .
>Feudalism had violently negated itself into capitalism and by using economic analysis, it is easy to see that a new system after is inevitable.
It's funny to me how some people are so deep into this cult that they can't even notice the absolute nonsense coming out of their mouths.

[Anonymous No.22540789]

>>22537767
i bet no marxist will summarize it because that will probably ruin it

[Anonymous No.22540790]

>>22537918
Actual fucking fascists have more political weight than marxists these days. It's 100% absolutely fucking dead mate.

[Anonymous No.22540797]

>>22537918
>we are entering the negation of the negation
Sorry but I already negated the negation of your negation, forgot to tell you.

[Anonymous No.22540805]

>>22540790
problem solved, from the anon below you :)

[Anonymous No.22540828]

>>22537767
>>22537792
>>22537802
>>22537805
>>22537810
>>22537811
>>22537821
>>22537826
>>22537832
>>22537841
>>22537850
>>22537851
>>22537852
>>22537861
>>22537867
>>22537869
>>22537871
>>22537876
>>22537879
>>22537883
>>22537887
>>22537900
>>22537902
>>22537904
>>22537906
>>22537911
>>22537918
>>22537928
>>22537930
>>22537933
>>22537940
>>22537942
>>22537944
>>22537952
>>22537954
>>22537963
>>22537964
>>22537973
>>22537979
>>22537985
>>22538005
>>22538010
>>22538013
>>22538019
>>22538021
>>22538022
>>22538027
>>22538032
>>22538043
>>22538047
>>22538049
>>22538053
>>22538080
>>22538087
>>22538094
>>22538105
>>22538123
>>22538155
>>22538171
>>22538175
>>22538208
>>22538220
>>22538224
>>22538237
>>22538241
>>22539006
>>22539016
>>22539032
>>22539054
>>22539055
>>22539065
>>22539422
>>22539428
>>22539651
>>22540038
>>22540042
>>22540051
>>22540372
>>22540375
>>22540435
>>22540496
>>22540785
>>22540789
>>22540790
>>22540797
>>22540805

You're all wrong.

No I will not elaborate.

[Anonymous No.22540847]

>>22537811
>Hegelian Dialectics: an interpretive method in which the contradiction between a proposition (thesis) and its antithesis is resolved at a higher level of truth (synthesis)

So Dialectical Materialism is essentially this but the synthesis revolves around materialism?

[Anonymous No.22540851]

>>22540042
>nations existed before atheists took power, but nations as a basis for a political system
I agree on the first part, we see that already in Herodotus and how he defines who is a Greek for him.
For the second part, it's true (or at least mostly true), that nation state was not a dominant political system, but that doesn't mean that ethnic, tribal (and so national) feelings, ideas didn't influence politics in one way or another. It's just that imperialism of the monarchies had a bigger importance and precedence over them.

[Anonymous No.22540859]

>>22540847
2/2

Or Dialectical Materialism is Hegelian Dialectics, but specifically pertaining to materialism...

I don't fucking know dude, someone explain this shit to me

[Anonymous No.22540876]

[Anonymous No.22540886]

>>22537767
Wouldn't the obvious refutation of Dialectical Materialism be that not all historical and social conflict revolved around material gain?

[Anonymous No.22540957]

>>22540886
That would be a refutation of Historical Materialism

[Anonymous No.22540971]

>>22537767
There's a 100% chance OP is a tranny.

[Anonymous No.22540997]

>>22540971
>liberals or anarchists caring about DM
what did the dumb /pol/tard mean by this?

[Anonymous No.22541014]

>>22537767
You don't need to put shit in your mouth to know it is shit.

[Anonymous No.22541026]

>>22540997
Those are marxists, just like you.

[Anonymous No.22541031]

>>22537767
I used to say Marxism doesn't work, without having read any Marxist theory, just to fit it in with the crowd.

Then I started reading Marxist theory and realized, oh wow, it actually doesn't work people aren't lying.

[Anonymous No.22541036]

>>22541031
sure you did bud

[Anonymous No.22541044]

>>22541026
No, they are retards who haven't read a single philosophical text in their lives, just like you.

[Anonymous No.22541063]

>>22541044
Those are all mugshots from the portland antifa riots, which you know because all marxists look like that, including you.

[Anonymous No.22541079]

>>22541063
>portland antifa riots
>marxists
What causes such abject retardation? Browsing /pol/ or porn addiction?

[Anonymous No.22541089]

>>22541079
>noooo they're not marxists because they make us look bad
you all look like that, including yourself, which is why you're getting so buttflustered

[Anonymous No.22541112]

>>22541089
The only reason you're so obsessed with antifa losers is because you're as dysgenic as them.

[Anonymous No.22541123]

>>22541112
I become more right wing the stronger I get, whereas the zenith of your marxist praxis is trooning out.

[Anonymous No.22541151]

>>22541123
I get it, you're opposed to marxism, because socialist states punished dysgenic sodomites such as yourself.

[Anonymous No.22541162]

>>22541151
Why do you all troon out, then?

[Anonymous No.22541168]

>>22537767
I don’t agree because I doubt matter is real.

[Anonymous No.22541177]

>>22540886
yeah, obviously wrong
>>22541063
>>22541162
>antifa
>Marxists
https://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/cosi/cosiicebie.html
>One can see here the fundamental similarity of the ideologies (if one dares say it) of fascism and anti-fascism. Both proclaim that it is thoughts, ideas, the will of human groupings which determine social phenomena. Against these ideologies, which we call bourgeois because both defend capitalism, against all these faded «idealists», of today and tomorrow, Marxism has demonstrated that it is, on the contrary, social relations which determine the movement of ideas. This is the keystone of Marxism

[Anonymous No.22541180]

>>22541162
Liberalism rots the minds of the weak turning them either into fags(such as you) or troons

[Anonymous No.22541192]

>>22541180
>>22541177
They aren't liberals, they're marxists.
You know this because you look the same.

[Anonymous No.22541208]

>>22541192
Nope, they're the face of modern western liberalism and their ideology is more similar to the homofascism that motivates bottom-feeding fags such as you

[Anonymous No.22541288]

>>22541208
>N-NO YOU
>Okay... b-both sides?
No.
You look like that because you're a marxist.
You can't get in shape, because if you did, the very act of getting in shape would make you right wing.
But that doesnt even matter, because trooning out ensured the only shape you'll ever be in is that of a disgusting abomination.
No refunds btw.

[Anonymous No.22541344]

>>22541288
post your lifts bro

[Anonymous No.22541573]

>>22541288
>getting in shape would make you right wing.
KEK
Go do your faggy larp in the daily BAP thread

[Anonymous No.22541640]

>Dialectical Materialism
A belief that contradictions exist only in material sense. You can see this in historical pattern. But Marx was wrong. He thought that there's alternative to capitalistic mode of production because he saw feudal society got replaced by capitalistic society (false induction). Even Stalin stoped doing what Marx wrote and instead implemented "state capitalism." Back then in the USSR there were still coupons and money right?

Marx = Adam Smith + Hegel. Marx used Smith's LTV as a framework to expose exploitative relation because worker produces value and capitalist steals that value and tried to demistify Hegelian Dialectics.

Both have been proven wrong. It is not exploitative if it consensual (plus there's something called minimum wage so then worker can still fulfill his basic needs) and Marx failed to demistify hegelian dialectics since his followers believe dialectical materialism is unfalsifiable despite history refuted it multiple times.

"Philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways. The point; however is to change it." - Marx. Yeah he changed it for the worst.

>B-but real socialism has never been tried!1!1!1! Bolsheviks weren't real socialist!1!1!

No true Scotsman fallacy. Denialist with rotting brain.

[Anonymous No.22541771]

>>22541573
>getting in shape would make you right wing.
Of course.
Just look at the way you're reacting.
And then go look in your mirror.

[Anonymous No.22542062]

>>22540375
>"actually, capitalism is this idealistic concept and current capitalist societies aren't actually capitalist and they would benefit from being 'actually capitalist'"
how is this any different from the "it wasn't REAL communism" argument?
put down your utopianism and realize that this is how capitalist and socialist societies actually function when they are realized.

[Anonymous No.22542130]

>>22541771
Just like how a tranny who's larping as a woman, does not magically become one, you larping as an Ubermensch, won't magically not make you a weak shitskin

[Anonymous No.22542171]

>>22542130
But it already has.
I don't know what other people can do about not being white, but it turns out "live action role playing as a fitness buff at gyms six days a week" caused me to become much stronger, and much more right wing.
Which is also why you're desperately trying to convince others not to get fit, and tells us everything we nees to know about how you look.

[Anonymous No.22542190]

>>22541640
I don't think you're the dumbest person ITT but you're definitely close.

[Anonymous No.22542238]

>>22541640
>He thought that there's alternative to capitalistic mode of production because he saw feudal society got replaced by capitalistic society (false induction).
that's not the line of reasoning you tard. how about you read Marx before attempting to present his arguments?
the reasoning isn't from the previous transformation to the next transformation but from the tendency of bourgeois society itself towards dissolution.
>capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm

>Even Stalin stoped doing what Marx wrote and instead implemented "state capitalism."
it's almost as if the movement of history is determined by the outcome of class struggle and not by decisions of individuals. it's almost as if that's literally what Marxism says
>since his followers believe dialectical materialism is unfalsifiable despite history refuted it multiple times
something that's correct can't be falsifiable. and it certainly hasn't been refuted
>B-but real socialism has never been tried!1!1!1! Bolsheviks weren't real socialist!1!1!
they were real socialists, but beginning a revolution doesn't guarantee successfully carrying it out to the end. that's subject to the outcome of class struggle. Marxism doesn't say the proletariat is guaranteed to win in every instance. that'd be retarded because it had already been proven wrong before Marx was even born.

[Anonymous No.22543252]

>>22537879
This book makes this point when dis using the difference between dialectical material of Lenin and stalin that priorities a nationals internal development through the development of internal contradictions, over Trotsky's views that the contradictions external to a nation gave priority for development.

[Anonymous No.22543254]

I'd like to keep it that way.

[Anonymous No.22543387]

>>22537821
>Ok, so you don't know what dialectical Materialism is
>My super smart philosophical system will survive contact with the real world. Why? Because it says it will!

[Anonymous No.22543424]

>>22537810
>"There is no Marxist dogma!" -- Lenin

It's lipstick on a criminal pig. "To each according to their need ..." 'equality' et. al. aren't ever mentioned and there will still be luxury elite overclasses.

>>22537867
>Communist states are a weird thing to think about

There's no speed running the Worker's Eschaton. Communism is Capitalism's worst centralizing and leveling impulses writ large. They're not incompatible. It's only a question of establishing a planetary legal monopoly.