/dead/ - dead

From America?

From America?

shut the fuck up you are 16

is this b8

Rangeban anarkiddies already

you're 14 at most

>>2120
12*

>>2121
>>2120
>>2119
>>2118
>>2117
I'm serious. I wasted the other part of my 20's reading all of Marx, and then I read The Unique. Realized that everything I read was bullshit—feels bad but better than never learning.

>>2122
Lots of people had the opposite journey, reading Stirner before getting into marxism. What's your point

>>2122
>I wasted the other part of my 20's reading all of Marx, and then I read The Unique.
Your last thread literally had you just reading Capital recently. At least keep your story straight.

>>2125
>last thread
?

>>2122
Question: if Unique proved to you that everything you read is bullshit, is it that itself a philosophical principle imposed upon you by someone else’s philosophical point of you, hence it is just another spook by its on logic, therefore you can disregard everything in its passages but then if you disregard it you are engaging in the spook of viewing the literature itself as a spook. I mean there is a lot to be said about egoism but to find in it a doctrine is itself a contradiction.

>>2126
See >>331852

Nobody uses the same flag, and the point is exactly the same.

Who else here used to be an anarkiddie and later became a Marxist? Seeing Marxist-Leninists get everything right when it came to geopolitics convinced me to switch teams.

>>2129
Marxist Leninists are every childish as anarkids are. In fact any hard doctrine that professes itself as scientific truth is pure ideology. It’s engaging in the same retardation that says one religious sect is more correct than another, or one liberal ideological doctrine within the current paradigm is more correct than the other. It’s a chimera of politics that can be abstractly called socialism. Marx himself said that all social theories are just social theories that represent an atom of the general movement. If Marx knew about Marxism Leninism and saw what it is today he would criticize that shit ruthlessly for engaging in cult politics the way many sectarians of his day did.

>>2130
>In fact any hard doctrine that professes itself as scientific truth is pure ideology
do you think any science is "pure ideology" then? what about physics?

>Bothering with Stirner in the year the lord 2021
God, why

>>2130
If Marx was alive today, he'd probably get called a kike by people here.

>>2131
Hard sciences don't profess themselves to be truth, though.

>>2114
i started getting into post-leftism last year, so i was 23
I dont totally dislike marx, but reading nihilist communism I got disillusioned with the notion of class counsciousness and workerism in general. like proletarian revolution is a neat idea but it never happened and will never happen

>>2114
>Imagine being an idealist
>marx
pure retard

The idea of the fratbro btfos Stirner's idea of the youth being all about spirit, and even Marx pointed this out.

This sounds like hardcore cope because it was the other way around for me. I grew out of stirner and into marx because marx has a better application of a materialist outlook. Ultimantly, Marx was right about stirner in so far as stirner at the end of the day, at the end of all his deductions, was still entraped in idealism by the concept of the individual ego. That itself is a form of idealism.

>>2492
>I grew into marx because marx has a better application of a materialist outlook
Same here

>>2148
"material" and "non-material" is an idealistic distinction. checkmate, tankie.

>>2494
No, that is a false dichotomy. When I am talking about materialit philosphy I mean understanding the world as histrical forces that influence the way men and women have their ideas shaped and understood in the society they live under. It is a methedology of logic opposed to "idealism" which views the world as a force acted upon by the ideals of great men, or, yes, even the spiritual. Not just "le material vs non material" ideals and idealism exists in Marxist methedology, but, it is founded and influnced by the forces of history acting upon and influence man.

I didn't have a full "Marxist phase". There was a period where I thought there might have been some shred worthwhile in Marxism and I'd work with anyone who was not trying to kill me.

There's nothing post-Marx except reconciliation. That's the trick behind all of it. He was funded by a fucking capitalist. What did you think this was? The working class as a whole never stood a chance. They know it, and that's why the workers have been so sheepish in accepting literally anything. It can only get worse.

I knew better than to go into the usual Germanic faggotry. Marx is only readable because he basically became an adopted son of Britain and was one of the few Germans who got what the British Empire was. Of course, he's a Jew so he probably knew a lot of shit going on, and the Jews typically were smart enough to recognize Krautbrain for what it is. So I read Nietzsche and wondered why this faggot was the rage teens were steered to. I wanted to go back in time and smack that faggot even when I was an insufferable teenaged pissant. Mostly though, early in life I dismissed the Marxists because the face of Marxism was the face you probably recognize - people who were either bullshitters or didn't know the first thing about what was really happening, as they were totally out of what happened post 1945. It was only out of desperation that I looked into anything about socialism, and I think that's how it is with a lot of recent socialists - either they're just looking for edginess for the faggotry, or they're up shit creek without a paddle and went with something that didn't look like it was trying to kill them. It really is hopeless though. The best you can hope for is to somehow survive what's coming, and find what little happiness there is in this living hell. Humanity refused to be anything other than what it always had been at heart, a bunch of lying Satanic apes who are easily cajoled into anything. The world could not change them despite giving every indication of what would happen if humans lived up to their nature. Now the world will be remade in their image, and it is a grisly one.

>>2122
>I wasted the other part of my 20's reading all of Marx, and then I read The Unique.
Who wants to bet that he hasn't read either author's books?

I don't think I've ever really been a Marxist - but I also think dismissing him altogether is generally not great. Like fwiw, Marx's LTV illuminates a lot about how capitalism actually works in practice. Marxist class analysis is broadly way more coherent than the vague, income-based "class" ideas I grew up with - class in capitalism has more fluidity than in feudalism, but it still doesn't have as much as it's supposed to.

Engels' historical analysis in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State does a great job of presenting the course of history de-mystified, and despite it being very old now, there hasn't really been any kind of consensus refutation afaik.

I think a lot of Marx's projections were flatly wrong, and the flaws in Marxist socialism were correctly pointed out by anarchists at the time - Bakunin was right about the centralization of the Marxist state, he was just wrong about all the anti-semitic shit he threw in with it. The "mad prophet" side of Marx, his bitter disregard for others' thought, and a lot of his prescriptions for change were all imperfect and should be scrutinized - but his approach to analyzing capitalism itself was often brilliant.

I was never a marxist in the strict sense, communism and all that. I'm more of a historical materialist, but without all the teleology.
I agree with marx that all history is a history of class conflict, which makes it even more bizzare how fast he throws this fundamental conflict out of the window and proclaims the end of history with communism.
I also like his schemes of reproduction and base-superstructure framework.

I tend to stick with marxism because everything else is even worse.
I completely reject the concept of the natural law. I completely reject the concept of the social contract. I also reject the equilibrium hypothesis. This alone basically locks me out of all the economic, social and legal theory, I have nowhere else to go.

>>2505
Based.
Hist mat is a right wing philosophy implicitly in opposition to ghey western idealism

>>2502
I don't see the problem as Marx having the only deeper view of class, but post-Marx philosophy became the province of cowards and charlatans. Marx does present a particular vision of the world and history, but he isn't the only one who asked these questions, and Marx is a contributor to that milieu rather than the guru handing down pedagogical truths.

As for Origin of the Family, it's actually been pretty well discredited and regarded as an artifact, and wasn't even in line with anthropology at the time. Engels is one of many speculating about the early family, and lifts a lot of his basic material from an American anthropologist he references concerning the natives of America. He's also inserting some of his own peculiarities, Engels being a known womanizer and all. The usual line of argument against Engels' writing there is that the state existed in some form before Greece, and existed in other parts of the world. The Greek thought on the state was highly particular, but it isn't as if most of the world didn't have some political philosophy or theory. What is noted in the Greek conception of the state is its focus on the individual subject, where in the rest of the world the clan and the village remained recognized as a unit, and organized religion was more common in most of the world but the Greeks did not have any organized religion. What relgiion the Greeks did have was often superstititons vaguely resembling polytheism of the old type, and political thought concerning the state suggested a rational basis (and of course, the position of the philosopher and their system) rather than a religious or spiritual one. In India, religion and philosophy were one and the same and the guru was both a spiritual advisor in touch with the gods and the philosopher expounding on what the world was rationally. In China, religion had nothing to do with temporal authority and the Emperor was in the end just a man, which was emphasized in their political thought. We can speculate why it turned out differently, but republics are such a fucked up form of government that the Greeks were the first to really establish the concept in a civilized setting. The particular attitude of the state towards the family is a feature of the republican idea, rather than something inherent to the state's functions. The state at a basic level doesn't regard the family as anything, but philosophical ideas about the state desired to relate to individuals, and the Greek form of the state emphasized that particularly and explicitly. Abolishing the family is straight out of Plato's Republic, after all.
One persistent feature of modern socialism has been its attitude towards family life, and a drive to question the familial relationship and familial obligations in all ways. Free love wingnuts were always present among the left, and it is not for some arbitrary reason. Modernity and industry entailed social transformation, whether people wanted it or not. In the end, the social transformation was co-opted by the state and turned into what we got. It turns out abolishing the family unit doesn't actually work because children need to grow in a home, not in a state facility and administered a pedagogy of the state's choosing. The state goes out of its way to destroy any child it doesn't want, and the finished product of state education leaves much to be desired. We know that now, but Engels didn't know that, despite early experiments in this not really panning out. To be fair, it is an attempt to consider the origin of the family rather than taking it for granted, asking why the family is what it is today and how it is changing. Personally, I think humans will have to adapt on their own, and most won't adapt. They haven't adapted very well so far, unless they're a particular type of person who can inhabit a highly predatory society and somehow enjoy it. This is not a society that allows for a world where we have peace, and it won't be that for us. It won't be that for anyone for a long time, and those who are comfortable are in a world hidden from the rest of us. They do not struggle the way we do. They do not.

In hindsight it is easy to see how Marxism would turn out, if it did not consider the world outside of Marxism. I'd argue that was the point - jump in front of the emerging social transformation and co-opt it, and then ditch the people who didn't get the joke. Those who got what this really was have been in a fairly safe position, one way or another. Marx wasn't the only one - just one of many who stepped in to make sure the social transformation modernity suggested did not happen, except on the terms of those with the will to push it into their desired form. The worst thing for the ruling interest would be if someone stalled the ruling program by noncompliance, up to and including simply leaving that society and picking up the pieces from whatever is left. It was necessary to seed "working class intellectuals" who would steer the workers towards preferred outcome, and that's what we got. It's why the "working class philosophy" is so alien to actual workers - what the workers wanted was a very different project, which entailed never letting something like what we live in exist for a whole century. It's why the social transformation was fought bitterly, and the workers were told they could only imagine a reversion to the past. The future was to be controlled by thought leaders, and Marx is a contributor to that, for reasons that make perfect sense to him and those who imbibe the philosophy. They didn't unilaterally choose this, as if Marx is the only one trying to manipulate history, but Marx described the method by which it can be done, for good or ill. The problem with constructing ideology is that humans are not really ideological creatures in that sense. The imposition of ideology is only possible with a large preponderance of force, and it doesn't know any other solution. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The future as I see it in the 21st century is post-ideological and a rejection of this ideological imposition altogether. The result will be likely that the mask comes off and direct control will become the norm, made possible by advances in dissecting the body and mind. Those military scientists have been cutting up brains for a century and figured out a lot of stuff.

>>2511

This doesn't really discredit much of Engels' historical analysis there - saying "oh, the state also existed before the dawn of European civilization as we know it" seems sort of irrelevant when the creation of European civilization is the primary thing being analyzed.

A lot of the most interesting bits regard how property (as well as roles of the sexes) evolved from the introduction of agriculture to civilization, how rentseeking can be spread thin (ie when he talks about a time when an early state had to intervene because the public's debt was getting out of hand), and the spook-free analysis of the fall of Rome. I expect some of his projections to be wrong, why wouldn't they be?, but it seems like plenty of them aren't.

>>2512
I'm saying that Engels doesn't really analyze why the state does this or possess IMO a correct theory of the state. Marx's thinking on the state is a weakness, created part as a derail and part as a sop to the anarchist tendency within the left. This makes sense because in the Marxist system, the strategy is to capture the state and make it your own, rather than transform its reasoning or processes. Marx is conspicuously silent on what a communist state would be, other than the saying that it will somehow "wither away", which is not at all the tendency of the bureaucratic state or centralized authority. The state is not merely an instrument of class rule - once active, the state's interests take on a life of their own, and this is what fascism demonstrated.

The state's invasion of family life was not that they introduced the nuclear family or the family as a way to pass down property, but part of a long-run mission of what I have called the "philosophical state" to relate to individuals who are marked and tracked. This was the system Plato alluded to, in which the family was abolished as it was an impediment to the ideal form of the state. The logic leading to it was active in the Greek and Roman conception of the state, even when the Romans were as obsessed with noble families as anyone. Roman family life was anything but idyllic, but part of the Roman myth was selling this story that patriarchy worked the way it was supposed to, even though nobody believed it by the time the Caesars are a thing.

The long-run goal of abolishing the family would be found in modernity, and that's where we are now. Families are too expensive and too dangerous to consider entering, which is why most men gave up or accepted they're cucks and always have been. Ultimately the goal is to have trained experts command and control everyone worth keeping, while those selected to die are told they are "free", with all "choices" leading to doom. It's why so many people are directionless and listless, like a chimp in captivity. Someone on r9k here made a post about that.

I don't think Engels is entirely wrong or discredited utterly, or lying through his teeth, but I have the advantage of seeing how it turns out today and have access to a lot of historical works through the internet and an abundance of free time. So, a lot of this stuff about the family isn't just me popping off, but is a thing anthropologists and sociologists investigated since the 19th century. Engels as mentioned is taking his inspiration from many early anthropologists / sociologists who were figuring out what they could determine by treating history like science, and so the information and analysis is always limited, and also reliant on a theory with some severe flaws from the outset due to a misunderstanding of society and nature. The particular misunderstandings vary based on where they take their philosophical cues and whether they are consistent with them. I'm just a guy trying to make sense of it in the 21st century, and I may be colored by the present situation and seeing doom all around me, but the way things are now came from somewhere and it was not a sudden or novel thing. The trend towards depopulation and eugenics started a long time ago and has antecedents going back to the thing Engels is writing about, and we can see that more clearly now that we've seen the result and what communism turned into.

>>2505
>it's another "history has no direction" fag
Ok. Tell me, was capitalism a "coincidence" or something? Even some bougeois historians think that history has a direction from primitive societies to "the end of history". You idealists need to explain social change to me while human nature stays constant. Either history is an incoherent mess of chaotic randomness that somehow produces order time and time again, or you're full of shit.

And if history actually does have a direction, then there is obviously should be "the end of history". And either you think it ends with capitalism, or it keeps moving. But it MUST end either way, just as the universe must end.

>>2513
>The state is not merely an instrument of class rule - once active, the state's interests take on a life of their own, and this is what fascism demonstrated.
Pretty sure fascist state was a state of the capitalist class mate.

>>2513

I guess I agree that their projections for the future aren't great, but I see Engels' analysis of the past as mostly very enlightening even if it isn't perfect.

I've entertained the idea that Marx could be a cynic or saboteur before, but… I don't really believe it. "The state will wither away" is certainly horseshit tho - yeah, you're going to have a state consolidate all this central power and then the moment it's unnecessary it will just give that power up? It's goofy. The amount of total vitriol he had for Proudhon, Stirner, George, and basically any other socialist or labor philosopher (whether or not he even thought they were entirely wrong) seems a bit suspect too.

>>2515
Aw yes, national socialist Germany and post Marxist Benito were champions of pure capitalist politics while edgy westoid neet consoomers are champions of the international proletariat
>Fanfic politics

>>2516
Could it have been the case the Marx had a shit and somewhat grandiosely narcissistic personality?

>>2518

Yeh, maybe.

>>2517

Is this actually yr belief here, anon?
They had to coin "privatization" to describe what the Nazis did to industries which had been public under Weimar Germany. And "formerly Marxist Benito" is like trying to reduce Irving Kristol to "former Trotskyist," you're not actually saying much about the ideology these guys ended up proliferating.

>>2514
History itself does not have a direction, but historical actors make plans and organizations persist around certain objectives. It's not as if the world gives a shit about humans or has some grand plan - that's a holdover from Hegel's mysticism, because Hegel is channeling Christian thinking, and the Christian/Jewish view of history has a rationale about the nature of power and spiritual authority. The doctrine of "world-historical missions" is a ruling class motif, not a scientific view of what happens, as if the universe were animated by an urge that is particular to humans. Certain humans want to project as if the world did belong to them, and that only intensified in the 20th century.

To believe your version requires you to believe that capitalists do what they do with no awareness of the situation they're in, as if they ignored Adam Smith and everything political economy produced, and ignored their own sense when operating their firms. The capitalist is quite aware of what they are investing in and the nature of the production process. They wouldn't be able to operate firms unless someone wasn't thinking of long-term projections. To believe your version is to believe that the only possible thought is a crass version of middle class conceits, and that you alone possess the secret knowledge. This is a symptom of Marx's system, its sickness which is the sort of thing that made Marx say that if that is Marxism, then he is not a Marxist.

Bear in mind that Hegel's version of historical progress was explicitly about saying that the Prussian monarchy was the bestest and freest state there ever was, no need for a democratic movement guise! He became the chief ideologue of conservatism, and that's why conservatism became so damn faggy and why they see "Marxists" everywhere - because rightoids are far more easily cajoled by this method than those who are drawn to leftism, while the leftists are largely chaotic and their demands inchoate.

Anyway, historical materialism is very much against the idea that history itself has a direction, and there have been authors in the past suggesting that states and societies are like organisms with their own lifecycle and trajectory. That is what people are often seeing - the rise of sociology and social engineering, which is mystified by ideology. Ideology only ever mystifies though - it's a smokescreen and cover for the actions which are politically important. If anyone believes ideology is real, they're an idiot, and most people voting are not strongly impressed by ideology. The ideology is only useful as a rhetorical weapon, and that's the great secret of ideology. Up until the fascists, most people didn't even give a shit about "ideology" and thought people talking that shit were a bunch of fags. They didn't give a shit what a "liberal" was. Talking to much older people when I was young - so Silent generation mostly - you'd be surprised how many really saw past the whole anticommunism story, and didn't really care about fighting communism. Bear in mind many of them remembered the switch, when before the US and USSR were allies and then the USSR was switched into the new Nazis and the "commienazi" meme was created out of nothing.

>>2514
>But it MUST end either way, just as the universe must end.
Why? Why the universe must end? Maybe it will go on forever. Time is relative anyway.

>>2525

It's also an odd dichotomy - either history is a chaotic mess or there's an "end of history." I don't really accept that premise. The actual end of history will be when people stop writing it - even if we eventually attained communism/anarchy/mutualism/whatever, there is no realistic way to rule out progress or even conflict. Whatever the future holds, the factors which will determine it are only partially visible or knowable. Even if history has a direction, it might not have an end which fits into our narrative understanding.

>>2515
And the fascist state took on a life of its own. The capitalists needed something other than the might of gold to impose order on the situation, and that's what all of the 20th century major states saw. Fascism was not unique in doing this, but fascism was a harbringer of what was coming. Fascism very much employed the rhetoric of "world-historical missions" to suggest its inevitability, and insinuated itself time and time again. Its objectives were not in service to a crass motive, but suggested an enclosure that capitalism as a situation could not impose.
Fascism represented one path to an alliance of interests that came to dominate the 20th century - capitalists of a particular sort loved fascism, while other capitalists had no great commitment. If fascism was the purest and highest stage of capitalism, there wouldn't have been any reason for the capitalist world to do anything but align with Nazi Germany, and that is exactly the meme the Nazis promoted - that fascism was inevitable, the future, and the only way you can protect "freedom". It's the purest distilled nastiness of the German race, and the primitive fascism of Mussolini could only have given way to the eugenicist core that made the fascist movement possible. It imposes its philosophy and corrupts anything it touches, and the Germanic philosophy was very helpful as a mystification of the greater eugenic mission of fascism; and so there was this dual system where the aristocracy produced a bastardized version of British liberalism and the Nazified version of the German ideology, and mashed them together to completely shit up America and begin the process of returning it to the European fold. They always bemoan the idea of America being anything other than an appendage of Europe, and the Nazi plan was to burn the place down and turn into plantations and favelas.
Anyway if you talk to people who know what shit really is and have some stake in their bottom line, they don't give a shit about ideology or an imagined economic order. They really don't. The state at its core has always been an instrument to serve its holders, and those interests are not reduced to one class as an identity. The capitalist class itself is divided between competing interests, both those that were apparent from the outset and the growing technological interest and the interest of bureaucrats and the "clerks" as some Marxists have called them. They're all in the bourgeois, or most of them are, but fascism suggested that the whole society was a lifeboat, and we had to get rid of the deadweight for the volk/best to survive. It alluded to vaguely democratic concepts only to bastardize them and substitute an actual society, democratic or otherwise, with an image of the Great Leader waving his mighty hand to move history. Those who formulated fascism and supported its rise knew well how political elites functioned, since they were among those elites and wanted to keep it that way. Fascism didn't exist to "save capitalism", as if the actors were purely motivated by the shinies like a ghetto nigra with remarkably low cunning. The interests around fascism knew that to perpetuate themselves in the long term required a logic that superceded capitalism, or at least capitalism in its recognizable form. That had been understood by everyone, and when FDR did save capitalism, it was not without some very huge modifications. A lot of dumbasses conflate what the Americans did between 1933-1970 with "fascism" because they're lazy, but a fascist America would not have bothered maintaining pretenses of democracy at all. The US all the way up to 2000 did a lot of things that a fascist government would never entertain, and only gradually did fascist practices insinuate themselves. It wouldn't have been possible to make America fascist - they tried boosting the idea and Americans rejected it, because they had no reason to go along with it and could tell the Nazi/fascist plan was as mentioned, to destroy America and revert it all to a colony of slaveholders. We had that vision a long time ago and it failed.

Point being, these things are not reducible to the crudest narrative, and the interest of any politician is always going to be their survival and perpetuation before anything else. They're not given over to ideas in the abstract.

>>2516
I think it's more complicated than "pure saboteur". The anarchists very much were agents provocateur, certainly in the Anglo world. Marx had a genuine mission to unite an interest around what communism became - people who were much like himself and amenable to his interpretation of communism. That mission simply didn't involve the working class as a whole, and Marx wasn't shy about that in his actual writings. If the workers were to attach themselves to Marx's camp and remain in place, that was good for them, but they weren't going to get much from that, and Marx at the end of the day serves his interests rather than serving some mission of self-sacrifice. Usually the Marxists shoo away the workers they don't want, which is most of them, and when they do have to go to the workers, they're extremely insulting to the point of ridicule. That's the part that gets me thinking there was a plan sorted out late in the 19th century for the intellectuals to cajole and keep down the masses, and give them bullshit programs. They probably didn't expect Lenin would succeed, or that the Russians would be able to survive for long, or that they would take communism seriously after the revolution was over. There was a lot of doubt about what communism even meant during the 1920s, and whether the communist world should reconcile with the liberal capitalists, and there was still national/superpower fuckery between the Anglos and Germans. The trap had been set by the political reality in 1918 - letting the war happen with anything short of a new plan for democracy in the world was the death knell of communism as any sort of movement people would want. Everyone was focused on the next big war, and that made the fascist idea much more appealing. So in the end, the "movement that abolishes the present state of things" was fascism rather than communism - or at least, it was possible to make that impression. I just think ideology has run its course and you're seeing the mask come off right now about what this really was.

IIRC Marx and Proudhon had a mutual pissing match so Marx was settling his beef by outliving the OG French anarchist. You see the same thing with Lenin pissing on Kautsky after 1917 and never letting up. Kautsky would outlive Lenin but 1914 broke Kautsky's brain forever and he was never going to live that one down. It's not really sabotage, just really conflicting personalities and aims at a time where it would be a really bad idea; and Marxism was likely to result in that due to its fundamental take on the world.

I see Marxism as useful largely because it gives people insight into how ruling class politics actually works, if you can pierce through the ideology and figure out how things work analytically. To get it you have to be able to de-bullshit what Hegel is really about, and when you do - as many have figured out so I didn't have to - you see Marxism is very different from the narrative version offered to college idiots. It is important to see it as an understanding rather than a Bible to be read like an incredulous zealot. If you know your religion, you know that religion always invites interpretation, and Marx is writing what amounts to a materialist religion rather than a "pure science". It's almost coded in certain ways so that those who get politics and the context can get what is really being said, because speaking too frankly would either be impossible or would give away the game too early. Really though, Marx's writings by and large were not intended for an audience that didn't get political thinking. The uneducated workers were expected to follow and make themselves useful, rather than become scholars. Even if the workers did pass through the rites of education, they often didn't get in full what the system was about, and had to be pulled aside at some point to learn the truth of these things. It happens to everyone who has bright hopes.

>>2518
Marx's boisterousness in his writing is not an accident. He knew exactly how to get people pissed at him and score wins with his fan base. He's the most epic shitposter in human history.

>>2526
There's been a long-run trajectory of Chrisitanity and its final outcome. You can see the millennarian doomposting still, and it was huge in the 1990s. Everyone is always looking for the end times, and the indulgence in prophecy is something early socialism did. It's really code for the machinations and conspiracies at high levels of politics and the workings of secret societies. This is how Revelation has been interpreted by serious scholars - that it's a code for the plans of the Christian church and movement moving forward, and these are appropriated in early modernity to issue prophecies of the empires. The British Empire was really big into eschatology and figuring out who Gog and Magog were, and GWB was really into this apocalypse narrative. You can see something similar with Muslims and al-Dajjal.

Invoking "the end of history" as a materialist is just goofy pseudoscience; but Marx knows this when he writes his allegories. He's expecting the reader not to be autistically literal in reading things.

>>2525
>Why? Why the universe must end?
Because Big Bang. If there is a beginning, there must also be an end.

>Time is relative anyway.
And? There is still arrow of time.

>>2526
>It's also an odd dichotomy - either history is a chaotic mess or there's an "end of history."
If history is not a chaotic mess then there must be some laws that govern it. It means there is a logic to history that leads somewhere, to some end result.
Logic can't just lead nowhere, to no conclusions.

>>2531

Yeah it can. Say, for instance, that the stream of logic is cut off mid-sentence by death. Then death would be the conclusion whether or not it was the perceived logical one. The logic of human history can only be sussed out by human perception, which can simply end without reaching a logical resolution. Understandings of how things unfold can be made by looking backwards, but for as long as humans exist there will always be limits on how much can be understood in the present or in the future - a logical conclusion to fundamentally human issues is not assured.

>>2526
>Even if history has a direction, it might not have an end which fits into our narrative understanding.
If all history is the history of class struggle, then the end of history means the end of class struggle, ie classes.

Either historical change is completely random, or determined by something. This something can't be innate human nature because it stays constant in this timeframe. So you better explain to me what this something can be, or I will be forced to conclude that humanity is just a random mess.

>>2533

I wouldn't say it's either completely random or determined by one specific thing. Class struggle provides a good metric to look at history we already have, and it can be assumed that class struggle will continue into the future - but whether class struggle actually ends, whether classes are actually erased, whether the erasing of class (should it ever happen) is to be permanently stable, etc. are things we simply can't say. Logic can only be applied by people to events, and we can attempt to use logic to determine the future through action… but all of this is still just some little mammals running around on a planet, the artifice of our logic comes tertiary to a whole lot of other factors, and these can not be fully predicted or understood. So if I was to say "oh, it should resolve this way" or "oh it's resolved now" that doesn't actually make any sense - I have no way of knowing whether even this single issue is resolved now or how it should resolve in the future if it ever resolves at all.

>>2530
Without getting into the speciousness of the "Big Bang" theory - the term enters the lexicon as a pejorative to describe something that was considered absurd at the time - the universe doesn't begin with what we can observe, but a true beginning. No materialist scientific theory can be used to make philosophical claims of that sort. There has always been in naturalism the unspoken assumption of a prime mover, and science is not a purely materialist or positivist doctrine - in science you build models of the natural world with certain caveats.

Even if you get past that philosophical hurdle, it says nothing about particular events in the universe following this universal orientation. That's a purely philosophical claim and a very piss poor one. The ends of individual humans and whole societies can be absurd or end abruptly, rather than fitting some prescribed narrative. It's a very pernicious doctrine that is particular to eugenics and its view of "genes as destiny", rather than anything that stands up to any observation we make about the past. Eugenics, of course, must declare "history is bunk" so that the Great Leader Galton is never wrong. Eugenics cannot fail, it can only be failed.

>>2531
It's a false dichotomy. There is a reason why events happen, but it doesn't involve some "world spirit" that suggests that the ruling ideas are inevitably correct and absolute, or will become absolute in the future. Living things down to the individual move on their own power, as do many of the non-living things in the world. There's not actually a principle you are obligated to folllow. The state compels submission because it can, not because the state did much for you. You can argue there is a condition states generally exist in - I call this the "general fear", i.e. we assemble in state societies because of the fear of predation at a psychological level, rather than any tendency outside of us that suggests the state has meaning. God, which is the inspiration for a lot of our thinking about the spiritual authority of states and that which may oppose them, is largely a metaphor for this very process - that is, that the state really involves the cult of power and the Satan, which can claim the throne of heaven until a new Satan overcomes it. "God" is the transcendent purpose that is implied - it is in short a theory of the permanence of the state as a philosophical idea, represented by the godhead and its instruments of rule. God and the Satan exist in a cooperative arrangement - this is the way it is presented in the Old Testament, and in Judaism the Satan isn't really a malevolent antagonist but something fulfilling a function for God. The Christian interpretation of the Satan goes through multiple rounds, sometimes with the Satan being a parable for foolishness or hubris, others with the Satan being an angelic deceiver of the most sublime sort, and others still maintain that the Satan is the actual "God". It gets confusing when you really get into the weeds of Christian theology, and then Islam has its own take on all of this and a lot of symbology suggesting it isn't at all what it purports to be. The crescent is reminiscent not of the traditional religions but of elder Middle East pagan cults, which displaced the religions that did develop in Iran and spread through the Persian Empire.

Anyway, order at a local level does not require a central arbiter "directing" the universe. This has been known to everyone. You might be able to detect recurring events in the universe and suggest natural laws or expectations we hold about it, but no system is organized at a level beyond that which its connections actually allow. There is a time and place to compare different systems to find their similarities, but we know that a planet and a bug are two very different propositions, and the bug would be a bug if it existed on some other planet. It isn't tied to the Earth in a way that makes the Earth an absolute requirement for the bug to exist at all. This gets tricky because life is an open system and responsive to its environment, but if you take the extreme version of this idea of "everything interconnected", motion and differentiation become impossible and we can't separate ideas from their assigned position. You can see how this is a meme used to suggest that certain people should be consigned to the rank the state gives to them, and this is a principle found throughout Germanic education and its guiding philosophies. It was cosntructed specifically to be anti-democratic and anti-liberal.

>>2534
>>2533
Class struggle is not an essence of the universe, and if that is your takeaway from Marx, you're a pretty bad Marxist, or you believe that class struggle really is eternal (which is something Marx could be seen as implying). Class struggle doesn't exist "just because" - it was understood that the struggle of classes was a struggle of individuals of those classes for position, before the classes formed distinct institutions through which they could project power. The bourgeoisie wouldn't be a class for itself if it did not have states, associations, conspiracies, and so on that organized the program of their class - and the bourgeoisie is not one uniform class, but a collection of interests defined as the name suggests by their origin in city life and the mercantile interests that held their support base in those cities. There was of course a time where the bourgeoisie didn't exist as such, or their character was very different from what it became in the liberal order. The class fights because it has something to fight for, rather than fighting for only their conceits. The greatest difficulty for the workers is that they only had their own bodies to fight for, and those bodies are disconnected from other bodies and under constant attack. If the society ceases to work for enough of the bourgeoisie and they are not dealt with, they produce a destabilizing element in the state, seeking its overthrow and replacement with something else.

Marxist narratives typically have huge difficulty with scale - and this weakness was engineered deliberately in the Germanic philosophy, so pedagogues could intimidate students by telling them they can't count, they can't read, they can't they can't they can't, until someone is convinced they can't and gives up, or keeps trying and failing because they're not given the cheat code or allowed to present themselves as understanding. The German education system only wanted soldiers to follow - university education was to be restricted to a favored group selected in advance, and they were mighty racist as they typically are about admissions.

>>2505
It depends on what you are talking about and what you mean by communiam if class becomes irrelevant or not.

pretty much within a month of being familiar with typical leftist/marx rhetoric. reflecting on previous work experiences coming to the conclusion proles got no soul. leftynons should themselves the favor and enter bandit mode