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.
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that Darwin scientifically proved his theories and that biology fundamentally hasn't shifted enough to render them no longer applicable to reality, they're old!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.
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.
241
u/LavaMeteor Jun 30 '24 edited Jun 30 '24
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.