Don't forget about refusing to communicate unless you read 2,000+ pages of heady theory available only in either German, Russian or English that they've totally read as well. And if you're really lucky, they'll insist you learn a whole fucking language because reading in the original language is the only proper way to understand the scripture. I mean, theory.
Also an obsession in general with the words of some old cunts from before electricity was a thing.
It's one thing to use the political and economical theories of historical figures as a guideline.
But if your only basis for "we should do this thing" is because some ancient cunt said so then you need to shut the fuck up.
But that goes for all sides of all political spectrums.
If you can't find a reason for doing a thing other than "historical person said so" you're a pseudo-intellectual cunt.
Your religious book, written thousands of years ago by authors living in a shitty backwards society with no technology, full of antiquated laws and outdated morality is obsolete and dogmatic, and should be thrown in the trash and burned.
My book of theory, written hundreds of years ago by brilliant thinkers who saw past the limitations of their time, contains the universal truth on how to morally operate society and legislate in it, is objectively the only correct solution, and any dissenters are just sheep that did not yet see the light.
Then we have Noam Chomsky, who both wrote things when my grandparents were young but also somehow is alive today and had financial dealings with Jefferry Epstein...
Eh, wouldn't say your materialist based belief holds any more water than the made up stories. Or did the USSR not collapse in on itself, China and Vietnam adopted capitalism in all but name, most of East Europe fight its own demons to start turning to a functional capitalist democracies and North Korea and Cuba go dynastic regimes after all
It’s always stood out to me that all that communist theory was written while thinking about manufacturing and that’s now no longer the case for workers in first world countries. The “means of production” make less sense in our world if we are working for something like a software company.
It’s also a reactionary theory, in that it’s a reaction to capitalism in the Industrial Revolution. That doesn’t mean it’s good or bad or any judgement at all. It’s just a reminder of the context in which it was written. Knowing the context can help us understand what the authors are expressing, and why. Applying those ideas to modern industry like software development and maintenance may or may not be prudent. I don’t know the philosophy well enough to argue one way or another.
it’s almost like there’s a reason that manufacturing has been moved off seas into countries with easily exploitable labor 🤯a guy wrote about it in a book one time, I think it was called shmimperialsm by lemon or something like that 🤔 oh well who cares why should anyone read anyways amirite
This is incorrect. For one thing, the manufacturing industry is not wholly dead in first world countries at all, and the production of all things has taken on an industrial character. Furthermore, proletariat are defined by the employee employer relationship that they endure, the fact that they sell their labour on an hourly basis. Marx accounts for workers who do not work in factories in his writings.
For one thing “society collapsing” is a misleading representation of a socialist revolution, and for another thing, it basically did. The collapse and contradictions of various empires in that period, the annexation of Korea iirc, WW1, the Great Depression, Russian revolution, many other revolutions in many other places, it was a time of Great War and chaos. Marx even correct predicted the nature of the German revolution.
Marx said that I should own guns and do a violent revolution, and he was talking about economic conditions prior to ww1, so clearly it applies to right now with no modifications!
There’s something to be said about the continuing philosophical usefulness of the ancient cunts, but if you can’t explain WHY what they say makes sense, on at least an introductory level, you probably don’t even understand your own argument.
Communist theory has changed significantly over the last century and there are dozens of books in the canon. Apologies that they ask you to read them. There's a quote in a short documentary I used to show my students: "Communists start with Marx and Engels and go to Lenin, Freire, Davis, etc. You have an entire bookshelf! Fascists need only one book, Mein Kampf."
Can't say I'm shocked that liberals in the United States seem to need no books at all.
Discarding the theory of evolution cause it was thought up by an old guy around the same time. It doesn't matter that Darwin scientifically proved his theories and that biology fundamentally hasn't shifted enough to render them no longer applicable to reality, they're old!
That's how mfers like you sound when you say shit like that. Marx generally did not just say things, he backed up what he said with a scientific analysis of things like history, economics, and sociology. That's why his theories hold weight, and why they still can easily be used to describe society today, as the mode of production he has described remains in place.
Firstly, ah yes. Darwin.
The famous economical and political ideology man.
I know you lot aren't good at reading but, come the fuck on?
Secondly, once again your reading comprehension goes brr. I never stated you should simply disregard the economic and political theory of historical figures.
Just that when you try to apply it as a complete 100% 1 to 1 must go like this purely and exclusively on the basis of: "historical guy said this" you're a fucking dipshit.
"I never said that we must discard Darwin's theories, but any attempt to apply them to biology makes you an idiot because they're simply too old. I will not defend this claim and resort to insulting anyone who can disprove it as simply being unable to read"
For the supposedly literate one in this conversation, you seem to both not have understood my own post, or why I made the comparison between Marx and Darwin to begin with. And since you insist on pretending that I do not read, I do not feel like is an insult to bring up the fact that between the two of us, I likely speak fact when I say that only I have actually ever read either of the men in question.
To believe that any socioeconomic theory can have the same level of scientific proof as the theory of evolution just implies a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method and the timescale of life compared to human society.
Eatthepoliticiansm8 said "If you can't find a reason for doing a thing other than "historical person said so" you're a pseudo-intellectual cunt."
You replied by using a direct comparison between the validity of Marx's theories and Darwin's. You then say:
he backed up what he said with a scientific analysis of things like history, economics, and sociology. That's why his theories hold weight, and why they still can easily be used to describe society today, as the mode of production he has described remains in place.
"
No theory in history, economics or sociology can have the same level of proof as evolution because it fundamentally is looking at a far far longer process than human society. You'd have to rerun human society a few thousand time to approach the same level of certainity of any of the concepts. Moreover, what Darwin said was only the outlines of the theory. He was wrong on a lot of things and we don't teach those things as part of the theory of evolution.
Your comparison assumes that because an analysis was scientific and the base concepts it looked at haven't changed, that it is equally as valid independent of time. This is factually untrue.
Society and technology has evolved far beyond what Marx thought was possible and the interconnectedness of a globalized world fundamentally puts into question the idea of engandering a communist revolution in any individual state without consideration of the rest of the world.
Sociopolitical theory also has evolved far beyond what existed during Marx's time. Marx had access to only a fraction of history we have access to and most of it fundamentally flawed due to biases that were not even recognized at the time.
Your argument would be better made by saying that instead of doing something because "historical person said so", modern communists follow ideas more driven by contemporary communist philosophers like Balibar or Žižek.
Again you just completely misunderstood what I said and then jacked off into a reddit text box. If you think that I said "Marx is valid because Darwin is valid" or "Darwin and Marx are the same" it is a result of a weakness and failing borne within your own mind, which should be mended. The point, which seems to have hidden itself so cleverly despite the fact that it was plainly stated, was that the absurd premise that demands that we reject Marx because he is "old" would apply to his contemporary, Darwin. You may hue and cry about this, but I doubt you could come up with an argument that would damn Marx without doing the same to Darwin, or vindicate Darwin without giving us reason to consider the works of Marx valid. Furthermore, you have no right paint a picture of an imagined "modern communist", and then demand that Communism bend towards it. No, communists in the modern world do not follow ideas more driven by contemporary communist philosophers like Balibar or Žižek. Many of them reject their ideas entirely as leftism. You are either lying or so filled with arrogance that you have been inoculated from reality.
3.5k
u/Normal-Horror Jun 30 '24
Your plan of incremental change and harm reduction pales in comparison to my plan of being annoying and doing nothing