[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord
ReturnCatalogBottom

File: 1677204482139.jpg ( 194.64 KB , 1490x1080 , Iwillfuckingmurderyou.jpg )

 No.466060[Last 50 Posts]

The more older I become the more I understand just how strong is my urge to murder other communists.

Almost every one of them is some kind of a sperg, an idealist, a dogmoid automaton, a lib, a nationalist, a culture warrior, a grifter, a socialite, I could go on and on.
I can't fucking stand you. Every time I talk to one I imagine him choking on his blood, and this image gives me a relief.

First thing that triggers me immensely is the obsession with philosophy. Every time some idealist sperg mentions dialectics to me it takes me titanic effort to not pick up a chair and bash their head into the nearest wall with it.
Seriously, it got so bad that I sometimes daydream about choking Engels and Hegel with a stupid smile on my face.
I'm now convinced that there can not be such thing as a proletarian philosophy. Philosophy is a mind poison of the ruling classes, always has been, and it poisoned the minds of the leaders of the workers movement due to them all being intellectuals. All according to Marxism lol.
This obsession is so widespread that I sometimes wonder if I am the only one who came to Marxism through the study of history and not through some philosophic elitist drivel. It tells

The second thing is idealism (being an insufferable sperg is closely related). It seems like you just can't expect communists to be pragmatic in this day and age. It's like they are stuck between the Scylla of maximalism and the Charybdis of defeatism. It's either "If I can't dance, it's not my revolution!" or "capitalism is actually socialism because they say so". It seems like communists don't have the patience or the mental capacity to just keep fucking grinding to their aims, slowly and methodically, using everyone and everything they can, and patiently waiting for their moment. No, they just NEED to sperg out and express their very important opinion (that 10 out of 10 times is some banal idealism or empty populist platitudes) on every little matter!
At moments like this it usually takes me two to three cigarettes to calm down.

And as we touched on it already, lets discuss the third thing - cheap populism. It is so widespread that I got in more fights over populist rhetoric than over any other thing. It seems like every communist takes his audience for fucking 10-year old kids who can be manipulated by simple tricks. Hey, you know that I can SEE what you are doing? You know we're all adults here? Hey, look me in the fucking eye, do you take me for a fucking idiot bitch? I will string your bowels on a fucking pike!

Yes, I know that our government is against proletariat. Yes, I know that our government doesn't care about human rights if those humans are poor. Yes, I know that our government is militarist. Any more banal platitudes? Do you think you're some fucking preacher that is here to open our eyes or something?
Criticizing - offer. No suggestions - no right to speak. Tattoo these expressions on your retarded fucking head or I will do it. And learn some some fucking rhetoric, sperg. Speak efficiently and concisely, get to the point, respect your audience, don't waste our time, we have lives to live.

Seriously, the only marxist that I can consistently listen to these days without rage quitting is Cockshott, and he is a fucking old fart who sounds like he is gonna die any minute now. But at least he gets to the point and doesn't waste my time, even if he has a tendency to ramble on about his niche stemfaggotry. But I can officially say that he is the least insufferable communist.
>>

 No.466061

I agree with the last part of this blogpost, Cockshott seems to be the only notable leftist alive today that genuinely wants to build a socialist movement
>>

 No.466063

>At moments like this it usually takes me two to three cigarettes to calm down.
I'm tired of addicts, personally. You think maybe you have no patience because you're struggling with addiction?
>>

 No.466064

File: 1677211092608.png ( 174.58 KB , 484x372 , 123456789.png )

op summary since he is a lulzy faggot sperg
>every one of them is some kind of a sperg, an idealist, a dogmoid automaton, a lib, a nationalist, a culture warrior, a grifter, a socialite
>Op likes pig cock and cigarettes
>commie bitches have heads up there own asses(who fookin knoo)

personally, idgaf about proles, nearly all r retarded cunts that like to swim in their own piss. the only appeal commies have is shitting on liberals. i agree op, all commies ive listened to made me want see them get necked or sodomized with hot iron
>>

 No.466068

This is less specific about communists but a rule of politics generally - politicians always lie, so political thought is generally concerned with the fine art of lying. Communists make a number of commitments which makes this tendency very pernicious.
I don't think Marx is 100% bad - he is writing about something very real and reminding people that you can't run away from politics forever or pretend it doesn't exist.

Ultimately the proles and lumpens - who were both in the same group as far as the class war was concerned and were tied to each other whether the liked it or not - really are on their own, and can be picked apart. The ruling ideas, represented in among other places the book Public Opinion, are that the masses run around like headless chickens and can be thrown into as much panic as is needed by engineering crises. He doesn't say it outright, but the implication of Lippmann's thinking is clear. A politics of the low, and of those who have not, would be very different from anything that is allowed today. The only way such a politics can be processed is to lump it together as "crimethink" or attempt to associate it with an anti-intellectual specter of fascism, because obviously fascists were interested in helping poor people live. It's absurd pants on head logic, but the incentives of the haves are that they don't want any new ideologies disrupting this system we've lived in for the past century. The whole point is to present the whole world as something alien to us, and to anyone who isn't in the know of the real plan (hint: EUGENICS).

It should be clear that the primary enemy of the ruling interest isn't an economic thinking, but the idea of democracy. All of the ideologies originally pointed to some interpretation of the democratic idea, fascism included. The fascists simply presumed that the great leader and ruling cartel adequately represented the nation or whatever body of people the fascists co-opted; but the fascist system entailed an invasion of private life and an effort to induce people to identify with the fascist institutions and the cults in such a society. In that way, it was a kind of democratic system, in that mass participation was a feature, but the mass participation was ultimately self-abasement. The fascists were more motivated by the ruling interest than any commitment to the fascist idea in its own right, because they were aware their ideology was a construct to goad everyone into submission and a way to establish the technocrats' supremacy. That's what "liberal democracy" was too, which was in actuality a very anti-democratic idea that adopted philosophical mystification to claim liberalism was something it wasn't. The communist project entailed technocracy as a rule - the whole point of socialism is that scientists would plan economic affairs due to their expertise, and that includes the science of ruling other people. This was a problem that Saint-Simon considered a bad thing in the socialist project, but rather than retain that lesson, there was an effort to negate that.
Really, studying Saint-Simon's thinking, what you can of it, was the real thing that got me thinking about what socialism really was, and what was represented. Saint-Simon is why socialism is associated with a certain kind of kookery, though what he really writes isn't all that strange. It is deliberately misinterpreted by pseuds who need to mystify technology and what the industrial revolution was, because the rise of industry entailed a lot of death, and in liberal so-called democracy, liberals were your best friends and would never hurt you, nosiree Bob.

Anyway, the democratic idea - the idea that people can actually control their own lives without overbearing managers - would be destroyed by one ideological offensive after another, because democracy implied not an idea but a real, continuously reproduced institution of the masses, and the very nature of institutions makes this a problematic proposal. It's too easy for a state or connected actor to disrupt the organization of the people independent of it. That's why the habit of deliberate transgression inherent to eugenics, fascism, and neoliberalism were emphasized, and why routine humiliations of the lowest class were the most necessary disciplinary mechanism to control mass behavior. Making the poor suffer became the whole point of the enterprise, and any idea that this was wrong would be made unthinkable by a strange moral philosophy that rewarded self-indulgence and vanity. At a time where moral and spiritual rebirth were necessary for the people to simply survive, let alone attain any of their higher goals, the left was gripped with a very anti-spiritual view of the world and conceded the moral ground to the conservatives. That was a ridiculously stupid self-own, and while the actual communist states were wiser about this, philosophically they remained on shaky ground. This locked in place when any idea that suggested such a rebirth was intellectually verboten. To be "smart" in the post-war order was to spit on any spiritual or moral foundation except that which the ruling interest advanced. Arguments that any of this was wrong were ipso facto "retarded" and non-sequiturs in the political arena. The idea that the self-proclaimed intelligentsia really didn't know what they claimed to know was anathema to the cargo cult ideology and the ridiculous logic of eugenics that became the central economic logic over any other.

Eugenics and fascism both stood opposed most of all to democracy. Their hatred of the Soviet Union was not because communism was the most evil system ever - they could in theory work with the communists so long as communism never attained its potential and could be rolled back, like how it happened. Their objection to the Soviet Union was that it did nice things for the people like allow them to not be worked totally to death and encouraged benefits, for reasons that made perfect sense to the Soviet people and the leadership. The idea that you would do better by letting workers have some nice things was anathema to the eugenic idea. It wasn't really anathema to liberal capitalism to suggest a capitalism that worked for everyone, but if you did that, capitalism would become socialistic in short order. The CIA would acknowledge at times that the planned economy worked very well for basically everything a state would want, and the appeal of the free market was not that it made life better for the consumer. The consumer had always been despised in liberal society, and the phrase "useless eater" was given ammunition because the liberal hated the idea of people consuming anything. Liberals are fond of austerity as a rule. The reason for retaining capitalism, so far as there was a reason the people wanted to fight communism, is because a great share of middle class wealth was tied to the capitalist arrangement, and there was no easy way to untangle it by, say, nationalizing the firms in the DOW Jones, or promoting socialist globalization that let that middle class keep most of what they actually wanted. The middle class were not enamored with the idea of stock markets, but they had no reason to trust that communists were going to let them have anything. Since the communists railed against that middle class as a rule, it was pretty easy for them to dislike communism out of simple survival interest.

Anyway, the chief aim of the Nazis, and the only way they win, is by destroying the democratic idea. They hoped to just flip the US outright, and their plan for America was always to reduce it to slave plantations and make the Americas completely dependent on Europe and the master race. When that didn't work, their next plan was to insinuate themselves and march through the institutions, just as Gramsci suggested the communists do and the communists would do. It took them a while but they did everything to Nazify America. So many Americans do not know what they lost in 2000, even though the damage was done and the decision to go fascist was made long before. I'm old enough to remember when there was still an idea that America could be something other than slavery and genocide.
>>

 No.466069

I'm convinced that eugene is a rogue AI that escaped from a military lab. This is the only rational explanation of how he can generate those tldrs.
>>

 No.466070

>>466068
cringe but redpilled
>>

 No.466087

File: 1677252031903.jpeg ( 254.41 KB , 640x480 , 689308507.jpeg )

>>466063
>You think maybe you have no patience because you're struggling with addiction?
What's this has to do with anything?

>>466064
bitch, shut the fuck up
you have no fucking politics at all
no politics - no right to speak

>>466068
>This is less specific about communists but a rule of politics generally - politicians always lie, so political thought is generally concerned with the fine art of lying. Communists make a number of commitments which makes this tendency very pernicious.
It's not just about lying. It's about people believing that their populism is good politics. It's about people being both disingenuous populists lying through their teeth and at the same time being idealists who hold positions that are completely removed from the realities of material life and its history. The worst combo possible.

>Ultimately the proles and lumpens - who were both in the same group as far as the class war was concerned and were tied to each other whether the liked it or not - really are on their own, and can be picked apart.
The problem with this is that Lenin was right - proletariat doesn't strive for political aims, for changing the constitution. Their strive is for economic aims only.

And while vanguardism has proven to be a dead end too, at least Lenin was a pragmatic politician who waited for his moment patiently.

The problem is that everything has failed. EVERYTHING. Vanguardism. Entryism. Reformism. Anarchism. And Capitalism seems to be failing too. There is nothing else left.
>>

 No.466095

I don't get why other leftists hate dialectic methodology so much. It's just a methodology of logic nothing more and it's an important one at that. It's the whole foundation for how Marx understood capitalism. I can understand when people who apply it don't know what they are talking about but most people on "the left (tm)" seem to have a fairly good grasp of the concept these days.
>>

 No.466096

>>466087
Syndicalism didn't fail per se; It only failed in so far as to take the reigns of history from the hands of the ruling class. I think a libertarian stent of socialism with a syndicalist economy probably based on some.type of sortition could be the correct path for workers to take as history moves forward, but, actually getting there materially…. unlikely at this point sadly. The best we can hope for is a succdem government over ruling a capitalist economy or some faggots like China has.
>>

 No.466099

>>466095
>It's just a methodology of logic nothing more and it's an important one at that.
No, it's bullshit incoherent mumbo-jumbo for intellectuals to wank over.

>It's the whole foundation for how Marx understood capitalism.
Prove it.

>>466096
>Syndicalism didn't fail per se;
Yugoslavia was syndicalist. It failed more spectacularly than the Soviet Union did.

>The best we can hope for is a succdem government over ruling a capitalist economy or some faggots like China has.
Social democracy (ie Atlee's Britain) is dead and buried now due to globalization. Socdems would be lucky to hold onto their minuscule gains at this point.
>>

 No.466100

File: 1677257495129.jpg ( 19.75 KB , 326x352 , what.jpg )

>>466099
>Yugoslavia was syndicalist.
I don't think you understand what syndicalism is.
>>

 No.466101

>>466100
Great, another idealist retard.

C'mon, tell me what syndicalism in a vacuum akshually is.
>>

 No.466102

>>466087
Everything was meant to fail because it dodged the question on most peoples' mind - who lives and who dies. The argument for not having this giant ritual sacrifice for eugenics would never be allowed any words or standing, because those who did want depopulation only thought of who should live, and the contending parties agreed on who was selected to die - the residuum. So long as the threat of being thrown into the residuum exists, it will always discipline everyone else in the society. The pretense of eugenics is that it will create an antiseptic world where only beautiful people exist, but these people consider most of humanity ugly and retarded. Eugenics in practice is purely a belief in making people suffering, including the faithful who are made to dance like Satanic retards to maintain their lockstep movement. The more they transgress anything decent, the stronger the strategy of eugenics. Any moment of decency becomes a liability, because the futility of the eugenic creed would be clear. None of this has improved humanity in any way. It doesn't make people smarter or better, and it certainly isn't morally sound. The morality of eugenics declares that evil is good and any sort of decency or honesty is retarded, therefore evil. It's an ideology of backstabbing and pure vanity. It's disgusting that otherwise intelligent and capable people waste their lives for this shit, and make me suffer in the process. The only beneficiaries are people who should have not been allowed to possess anything, because they'd just use their wealth to further the cause and made it clear they were committed to total war.
>>

 No.466104

>>466087
That said, everything hasn't "failed", because we are still alive - not living much of a life, and living under the eugenic creed, but we yet breathe and eugenics isn't as all-powerful as its advocates declare. We really don't have to do this, and most people are tasked with defending what they managed to hold onto.

It should be clear that socialism largely concerned the commanding heights of the economy - factories and land held by rich landowners - rather than this doctrine that the government was going to assign you a toothbrush, a girlfriend, and so on. The point of contention was who owned and operated the factory and machines which became increasingly necessary for states and certain interests. Ordinary people never actually needed the machine, and saw no benefit from it. Have computers been used by people for genuine personal gain, compared to what the computer took away from us - because the computer was proliferated as an inroad to govern your private life more than something that was claimed for your benefit. Few users can make use of the computer for their benefit, or only can use the computer for benefit in a few pre-planned ways that were engineered by other people. There was an expectation among PC users that the computer was a tool for their use, and that anyone could write a program, a text file, distribute over the internet, etc., and this was an advantage over being limited to meatspace transportation and communication. When users ssw what they possessed, there was a push to eliminate these uses of the computer that the users could claim, and the opening of the internet was always a means to introduce mass surveillance and control mechanisms. The moment those control mechanisms fail - the moment you don't have Kiwifarms types trolling at the behest of FBI/CIA etc. - is the moment the internet kill switch is activated. Anything on the internet which even suggests information inimical to the ruling ideas is purged, and meanwhile the living environment is enclosed and we are stripped from the materially useful products, and from contact with each other. This is often mystified by blaming the machine, but it was always about who controlled the machine. Those who would use the machine to act against eugenics would be isolated and attacked, and this was faithfully carried out because no one could actually work against the eugenic creed. To go too far was crimethink, because to say what eugenics was would implicate it in atrocities that necessitate anyone outside the eugenic interest to violently resist it.
>>

 No.466202

File: 1677311641359.png ( 240.23 KB , 668x434 , 15-Figure4-1.png )

>>466087
>no politics - no right to speak
commie retard chimp out on full display. Whiny infants covered in red piss pic related
>>

 No.466206

>>466104
>The point of contention was who owned and operated the factory and machines which became increasingly necessary for states and certain interests. Ordinary people never actually needed the machine, and saw no benefit from it.
I disagree, ordinary people want industrially produced goods and hence need the factory machinery.

>Have computers been used by people for genuine personal gain
Yes, even non-techie people can derive some benefits from it, even if it's very limited at the moment.
>compared to what the computer took away from us
nope computers are just machines, that can have malicious programming, but they don't have the agency to count as an actor that takes something away from you. You have to look for malicious actors among the meatier kind.
Of course you have to make sure the computers don't have negative effects on people, like with any other machine.

>because the computer was proliferated as an inroad to govern your private life
there certainly are people who are trying to abuse computer technology towards that end, but that can be frustrated.

>Few users can make use of the computer for their benefit, or only can use the computer for benefit in a few pre-planned ways that were engineered by other people.
It's a new technology, it takes a while for a society to adapt to it. Most people are computer illiterate now, but that won't be the case forever. Eventually most people will become able to program computers, like eventually most people became literate.

>There was an expectation among PC users that the computer was a tool for their use, and that anyone could write a program, a text file, distribute over the internet, etc.
That's not going away, even people that have no control over their computer still want to have control over their computer.

>there was a push to eliminate these uses of the computer that the users could claim, and the opening of the internet was always a means to introduce mass surveillance and control mechanisms. The moment those control mechanisms fail - the moment you don't have Kiwifarms types trolling at the behest of FBI/CIA etc. - is the moment the internet kill switch is activated.
There are indeed very ominous signs of that nature.
However take a step back, and look at it from a different perspective. There are those who wish to damage personal control over personal computation devices and pervert the information technology or even outright destroy it. But we're not going to stop, until we have ethical computers and functional information systems. Even if they destroy the internet, we'll learn from that and build a new one that doesn't have those weak points that was used to destroy the previous iteration. We might go through several iterations until we get it right.

This is not a fight that begun recently, this is a fight that has been going on for millennia, there have been people burning down libraries since the beginning of recorded pre-history. We didn't stop iterating information system because somebody burned down the library of Alexandria. Fascism in WW2 was still trying to burn books, even-tho industrial printing had made that irrelevant.

>Anything on the internet which even suggests information inimical to the ruling ideas is purged
What ever information system they can damage this way will eventually no longer count as the internet. The internet will be whatever system has the necessary resilience against such ruling class malice.
>>

 No.466209

>>466206
>Baseless assertion after baseless assertion, spoken in a matter of fact way
Quotations of Comrade Dunning Kruger
>>

 No.466210

File: 1677328993364.png ( 16.03 KB , 1034x600 , lack of argument error.png )

>>466209
feel free to reply with counter arguments if you think it's wrong
>>

 No.466211

>>466210
No thanks. You're like a child/woman who believes everyone owes you time, attention, and detailed explanations about everything. I point this out not to 'debate you' (since that would be pointless), but rather for the benefit of the board as a whole.
>>

 No.466212

>>466206
Ordinary people did not see an improvement of standard of living for a long time after industrialization started. They had produced goods before the enclosures - it wasn't like the industrial prole was living the high life in the city or lived any better than he did as a farmer or manufacturing worker. There could be members of the working class who rise from the gutter to become something, or made something of their situation, but that only could happen because there was a struggle for position and there was a society in which city-dwellers could participate even with modest means. It wasn't like the industrial workers were clamoring for more factories producing more stuff - in fact, the more efficient industry was, the worse the conditions of the workers would be. This had been the infamous Machine Problem noted by political economists, and one of Marx's contributions is to explain why this happens by the economic logic of capitalism. It's one of his unique contributions to political econ.
So far as industrial workers have favored industry, it was not because they received the benefits of consumption, but because industry was the only way they had jobs at all, and since they needed a job to have food, they eventually stopped breaking the industrial machines. The first reaction of the working class was to smash the machine because they saw correctly that the machine contributed to their woes and only made their bosses stronger. The Luddites are shamed by technophiles but to the worker, the actions of the Luddites were perfectly rational. Why would they praise a machine that they see no benefit from, and that was the reason why they were displaced from the farm as machines entered agriculture?

As for the history of the computer… hoo boy. I'm a computers guy. My family was big into computer science so I know plenty of programmers. If you think the computer is a liberatory tool, you're thinking like a liberal fetishist. It's not even a matter of people not knowing how to code - it's actually been known that people can put together programs without much knowledge, and that practical knowledge of the problem to be modeled is often worth more than being a professional cybernetician. The cyberneticist does well to investigate operations and learn from reality, rather than be caught in the myth of the computer. Thinking that way is what the actually good programmers do, and why institutions have difficulty creating really good programmers, while certain people pick it up without formal education. It was one of the only outliers where you didn't have to conform to the ideological horseshit to get work, because the computer drive was absolutely necessary, and the instituitons were so lousy at training system analysts. They've become a little better, or more likely, more people did pick up computer knowledge due to the machine being so ubiquitous, and became better in spite of the institutions' continued retardation.
>>

 No.466213

>>466211
>you're wrong
<why
>i don't have to explain my self
bruh

>for the benefit of the board as a whole.
if you are doing this for the benefits of lurkers that are just reading along, don't they deserve to know your reasons ?
>>

 No.466215

>>466213
No.

Try giving an opinion on something you're mildly competent on instead of pretending to be an expert and speaking out of your ass on far flung topics for which you are ignorant about.
>>

 No.466219

>>466212
>Ordinary people did not see an improvement of standard of living
That is mostly true. Tho some places like in the Soviet Union, where they build the entire industrial stack in parallel, industrialization was progressing fast enough for ordinary people to experience the benefits from industrialization in their life time.

>the more efficient industry was, the worse the conditions of the workers would be.
>Marx's contributions is to explain why this happens by the economic logic of capitalism.
But you say so your self that the problem is the economic logic, not the machines. So we basically agree on this ?

>The Luddites are shamed by technophiles but to the worker, the actions of the Luddites were perfectly rational
This is a common miss-framing of history. The Luddites where not hostile to technology, they broke the power-looms because they couldn't have them. This was never a battle between technophiles and technophobes.

>If you think the computer is a liberatory tool, you're thinking like a liberal fetishist.
I think it's a tool, and the results (good or bad) depends on who's wielding it.

Today computers and networks are abused to an extraordinary degree, with surveillance, political consent-manufacturing, all the mental-nudging/cajoling-psychological-abuse and so on. I don't know why it happens, maybe there's something wrong with the analysis.

If people for example log on to facebook, they aren't being employed by Mr Zuckerberg since they aren't getting a wage. They also aren't buying a commodity from Mr Zuckerberg because there are no money transactions between users and the Zuck. Maybe the social relation isn't analogous to industrial capitalism with workers in a factory. Maybe it's more analogous to slaves in a plantation, that harvest personal data (like sugarcane and cotton) that the Zuck can sell (or rather sell access to). It's also difficult to extract your "digital-persona" from facebook and take it somewhere else, so that would track with the difficulty of slaves leaving a plantation. It could be wrong tho, and maybe the social relations are closer to feudal lords and feudal serfs and big tech-platforms are run by something analogous to landed aristocracy. It could be wrong to invoke historical comparisons altogether.

I don't share your tech-pessimism, but i do think that we currently lack a sufficient understanding to find a solution.
>>

 No.466220

File: 1677336639520.png ( 1.62 KB , 654x347 , mildly annoyed square.png )

>>466215
>i won't argue my points, I'll insult you instead.
>>

 No.466224

>>466220
Fine
>I disagree, ordinary people want industrially produced goods and hence need the factory machinery.
Decent point, but apparently you are debating a literal retard

>Yes, even non-techie people can derive some benefits from it, even if it's very limited at the moment.
Ok, I guess this has a bit of nuance. You'd have to be either ridiculously dumb or live in a cave to have not derived some benefit from computers.

>nope computers are just machines, that can have malicious programming, but they don't have the agency to count as an actor that takes something away from you. You have to look for malicious actors among the meatier kind.
You really did find the dumbest person here to argue against. AI could have agency, and Bing's chatbot seems to do a good job of feigning intelligence and self awareness, which could make it dangerous. 'Malicious' is in the eye of the beholder.

>there certainly are people who are trying to abuse computer technology towards that end, but that can be frustrated.
I just really dislike the faux certainty, the way everything is stated in unqualified ways, and it strikes me as the mark of an unintelligent person. I'm sure it impresses some people though.

>It's a new technology, it takes a while for a society to adapt to it. Most people are computer illiterate now, but that won't be the case forever.
Debatable at best, but highly unlikely. It's not as if people are deeply familiar with how an electrical current works, which has been around much longer. Of course, why do they need to be, if the light turns on when they flick a switch. From my perspective, millennials seem to be more computer literate compared to zoomers. I've seen this observation echoed by others. So, suggesting that people will become more computer literate is a baseless assertion - one with perhaps sounds good but doesn't comport to evidence or reality

>Eventually most people will become able to program computers, like eventually most people became literate.
Baseless assertion. No evidence provided. There's really not much of a argued response that needs to be made, other than pointing out that there's not evidence to support the claim. Again, 'sounds good' vs 'reality.'

>That's not going away, even people that have no control over their computer still want to have control over their computer.
Baseless assertion. Evidence from the real world suggests the opposite. IPhone gives users less control over their devices, yet that hasnt been an issue with many consumers. (Granted, people who do value control over their devices and privacy are highly unlikely to use iphone)

>There are indeed very ominous signs of that nature.
>However take a step back, and look at it from a different perspective. There are those who wish to damage personal control over personal computation devices and pervert the information technology or even outright destroy it. But we're not going to stop, until we have ethical computers and functional information systems. Even if they destroy the internet, we'll learn from that and build a new one that doesn't have those weak points that was used to destroy the previous iteration. We might go through several iterations until we get it right.
You sound like a cross between an alien and a larping faggot. Who is 'we'? Nothing youre saying is grounded in reality. It's all such a fantasy.

>This is not a fight that begun recently, this is a fight that has been going on for millennia, there have been people burning down libraries since the beginning of recorded pre-history.
Hyperbolic nonsense, and baseless assertion. Usually when someone destroys books, libraries, or suppresses information, there is a very specific intention behind it. Even funnier because to situate yourself into a narrative about an ages-old struggle. This really is children's fiction tier
>We didn't stop iterating information system because somebody burned down the library of Alexandria. Fascism in WW2 was still trying to burn books, even-tho industrial printing had made that irrelevant.
More hyperbolic nonsense, mixed with vagueness to muddle reality.

>The internet will be whatever system has the necessary resilience against such ruling class malice.
"Words have whatever meaning I want them too"
Pomo faggotry
>>

 No.466226

>>466101
Idealism isn't when "people have different opinions than me" What were the characteristics of Yugoslavia and how can we learn from them that is the real question. I am not super familiar with the history of Yugoslavia but I know it was democratically syndicalistic as anarchist Spain was no?
>>

 No.466227

>>466226
No, not at all. Syndicalism is a strategy of using radical unions to organize your revolution against capitalism. It's not at all a form of production and distribution after the revolution; what Yugoslavia used was a form of market socialism.
>>

 No.466235

>>466224
>AI could have agency, and Bing's chatbot seems to do a good job of feigning intelligence and self awareness, which could make it dangerous. 'Malicious' is in the eye of the beholder.
While that's true, all the bad stuff that has happened sofar was shit people programmed computers to do.
I'm undecided about how agency in an AI would come about. It could be an emergent phenomenon. However i have never seen an example of software that has "free features" that you get as a by-product. My experience is that everything computers do has to be programmed into them. It's a box and you only get out as much as you put in. My guess is that if those gpt-type AIs gain agency it some how has to be in the machine-learning-training-data or somewhere in the algorithm.

>I just really dislike the faux certainty
How is it false certainty to say:
<it's possible to frustrate the abuse

>Debatable at best, but highly unlikely. It's not as if people are deeply familiar with how an electrical current works, which has been around much longer. Of course, why do they need to be, if the light turns on when they flick a switch.
Electrical engineering isn't a language skill.
Programming is "talking" to computers.
People had to learn to read and write in order to interact with paper administration.
Eventually they'll have to learn how to program to interact with digital administration. In the long run the skeuomorphic logic from the paper-document age is going to shift to a digital native formal language, maybe some kind of high level script language.
>From my perspective, millennials seem to be more computer literate compared to zoomers.
I don't accept this specific concept of generations, i think it's idealism and puts people into arbitrary groups.
I look at the numbers of people who can program, and that's going up.
You need to pay attention to the type of computer and how it affects the user composition.
Desktop computers select for more technically inclined users than smart-phones.
So when smartphones were introduced, less technical users flooded into the computer-user cohort.
That caused a historically one-off drop in average technical sophistication of computer users.
But for each segment of computer user, trends point towards more technical sophistication.

>IPhone gives users less control over their devices,
Compared to what ? Desktop computers, sure, but is that really a good comparison ?
If you compare smart-phones with feature-phones plus PDAs, then smart-phones are slightly less locked down. Even the ones from the notorious fruit company.
>Granted, people who do value control over their devices and privacy are highly unlikely to use iphone
There wasn't even an option for that before smart-phones.

>You sound like a cross between an alien
You know how aliens sound ?

>Usually when someone destroys books, libraries, or suppresses information, there is a very specific intention behind it.
Oh sure individuals have their specific motivations, but from a historical perspective, there are antagonistic trends, some people try to build information system while others try to tear them down.

>Words have whatever meaning I want them too
Screw-U i'm not making shit up.
The internet was originally defined as an international computer network that used packet-switching and the key feature was that it did not have gate-keepers.
If you go to a big-tech platform you are leaving the internet and enter a corporate internal network.
I'm just using the original meaning.
>>

 No.466258

>>466219
I'm speaking of industry in the 19th century. In the 20th century, you see an increase in standard of living - only that which allowed for the development those who managed society wanted, rather than something done because the workers won or because the managers were nice. You could rise only on the managers' terms, and there were people who accepted this. The change in the 20th century did lead to a conscious redistribution of wealth to allow for a class of technical workers and a base for the new institutions. In the 19th century, there was some class mobility and a concept that tomorrow could be better than today, but it was the exception rather than the rule. The rule was slavery of some sort and a grim existence, where you were lucky to hold on to much at all. There remained independent thought among the workers, and working class people would take an interest in science and politics not because they were cajoled to but because they found the topics interesting. The working class would always approach these concepts on their terms, and this was unacceptable to those of a middle class political mindset. If the working class truly thought for themselves, they would see the arrangements on offer as totally incompatible with the workers' continued existence, and agitate not to hand power over to allies in a revolution, but to never have to deal with middle or upper class politics again. What the working class did want, when they had an aim for social engineering, was democratization of knowledge and to not be lorded over by these institutions, so they can have what they wanted in the first place. It wasn't about an idea of freedom or being praised, but about the tangible end result. The smarter communists recognized this and spoke to the workers as if they had their own interests, and that the communists were there to do something worthwhile for their constituents. It never actually works that way, but if you can't get rid of politics, you could in theory choose a less terrible politician who will let you have nice things. The capitalists at the time did not want the workers to have nice things. What the workers clawed back, they won out of pure spite and because no political or social system could truly stop the workers from having those things. It wasn't some wise idea from above that liberated the workers. The workers were holding on to freedom they already possessed and defending themselves because they were under attack.

I think you mis-interpreted me as anti-tech. I'm noting that the interest that formed around technology, the people who became technicians, have their own motives and something to defend - their stake in this technological knowledge - and this changes their motivations in any struggle of classes or institutions. There is a great effort to mystify what this technological interest is, because certain people wish to defend it, or utilize technology for their aims of social engineering, such as the eugenists. The holders of the technology themselves are not beholden to any particular ideology, and can see eugenics as something that threatens their control of the machine in the long term. The eugenists want everyone to think like them and embrace the Satanic way of thinking, while the tech bros just want to keep what they possess like most people do.
>>

 No.466260

>>466235
The ARPANet was intended to allow for a line of communication in the event of a nuclear attack - basically there would be no center to attack, because command and control could be rerouted through any node. It wasn't originally built with the intent of opening it up for business, although that possibility was something on the mind of people before ARPANet was a thing.

This had a number of implications for command and control, and the nuclear war scenario was an unrealistic one - neither of the chief nuclear powers were actually going to fire the nukes. Basically, what the internet is now and its central control was something that could be engineered. All it really required was a preponderance of information output, that dwarfs anything the people would contribute to the network, with the disadvantages they have. Normal people can't spend all day being internet influencers who are paid and given license to lie profusely. That isn't something that is hardwired into the computer system, but is due to the nature of communciation. Communication theory is pretty interesting stuff if you have a systems analysis background and think these things through. So many people didn't get what McLuhan was really referencing, at that it was only a part of what was coming in the then-future.

Technically now the internet doesn't have gatekeepers, but the NSA and so on can control to a large extent digital information. That's why the push to digitalization happened - digital information can be manipulated by algorithm, and so you have a very effective tool for muting what is communicated, and can promulgate ideas through memes and so on. Nothing stops people from creating their own website - I did, and it's pretty easy. You can even find free hosts still. It isn't done because it's hard to find reach, while if you go into the mainstream sites, you can find an audience. The forums were the original hub of internet communication, and the tactics to control them were not some novel technology or control of the source, but taking over moderation and using political tactics to create the chilling effect. It's why ED and Kiwifarms exist - they create a chilling effect that lets people know what happens if you transgress certain lines or are declared fair game. There's little preventing me from purchasing a raspberry pi, finding a server, and hosting something on the internet. The telecom monopoly does make it difficult to enter the internet if you're locked out, but there are ample ways to circumvent it if you think for five minutes about how to get the word out. A smart propagandist will always know to find people who are basically "neutral", who can do the grunt work of disseminating "illegal" information and getting around the internet police. The principle at work with controlling the internet is the principle of the Satan - that there is always one ruling idea that can create a monopoly on spiritual authority by means of force, and that idea tends to regress to the simplest means of control. That is to say, it will resort to snark, rot, vice, and appeals to the lizard brain, and it can simply transgress all decencies until it gets what it wants.
>>

 No.466269

>>466235
Who's 'we' tho
>>

 No.466272

>>466235
Agency is something different from consciousness. We are conscious because we feel and pursue wants that are independent of anything else, and because cognition is something that actually happens, rather than merely an idea or a symbol we accept. We have to believe this in order for our sense of the world to be real, and we can see very easily that we are cognizant because certain processes happen regularly and do not cease until we die, rather than cognition being something passive and truly apart from the world, an idea held above it.
Computers do not feel because they are not designed to feel, or react to events like organic life does. If we did build such a machine, it would not be like today's computers, but it would be an artificial organism with feedback much like our own. We would be creating an artificial human or something human-like, if it were cognizant in the way we are.

You can envision an AI having "agency" in a legal and political sense simply by declaring it so. We can legally and politically declare humans who are conscious to have no agency, and if they act in defiance of the dictate, they are violating the natural law and will be disciplined. This is what slaveries do - declare that the slave has no agency and will, regardless of what processes the slave does. A slave can insist he has agency and a mind of his own, and he'll be laughed out of the room every time. It always happens, and it is very easy. We are trained not to think of it that way and believe that the abolition of slavery was a true thing accomplished by decree, but it has long been known that this was not the whole of abolition. Abolition concerned the institution of chattel slavery rather than all actions between people that could be construed as slavery. If you wished to reimpose de jure slavery with the existing legal code and practices, you wouldn't have to go far. You would use existing practices in psychiatry rather than simply declaring chattel slavery is back. That's what is done to break prisoners - interventions and treatments to make them accept slavery.
>>

 No.466314

>>466227
I would say that it can be a strategy, but, that doesn't say anything about it itself being a viable socialist mode of production which I believe it is the most viable of all our options. The way it is historically defined does not mean it cannot be or behave a different way. What matters is if it works or not and maximizes works freedom; as a productive force.
>>

 No.466335

File: 1677462928164.png ( 141.47 KB , 605x364 , Types-of-Industry.png )

>>466226
>What were the characteristics of Yugoslavia and how can we learn from them that is the real question.
So lets take a look at Yugoslav economic system, shall we?

>I am not super familiar with the history of Yugoslavia but I know it was democratically syndicalistic as anarchist Spain was no?
It was the same coop based market economy of self-managed economic units.

>>466227
>Syndicalism is a strategy of using radical unions to organize your revolution against capitalism.
It is also an economic strategy of organizing production on the union basis.
And even by your narrow definition it is a failure because there are no "radical" unions anymore.

Relax fags, no need to be all defensive. I don't mind coops and union control. In some cases. Small to medium economic unit cases. But anything that has critical significance for society (such as all kinds of infrastructure)? Nah, get fucked, I'm not gonna sit and look how some bunch of union fucks gets to dictate their demands to the whole population by threatening to turn off the power plant. Or how some firm gets to rip me off just because it is a coop.

Looking at the pie chart, at the very least mostly nationalized should be:
- transportation, communications, public utilities (critical)
- mining (natural monopoly)
- wholesale trade
- finance etc. (completely)
- construction (a source of financial instability in a market economy)

So that leaves for coops only services (no financial, internet, etc), manufacturing, agriculture and retail trade. And I wanna at the very least a "commanding heights" state presence in all of them, especially manufacturing, especially electronics and capital goods.

Also coops should not be completely independent, their charter should be drafted by the wider public, including covering such topics as the distribution of profits and labor contractions. I don't wanna see pigs running around under the signboard of a coop.

Also I want a complete state monopoly on foreign trade.
>>

 No.466336

>>466335
This niqqa is acting like he's playing a sim video game
>>

 No.466337

>>466335
>>466335
>o lets take a look at Yugoslav economic system, shall we?



What you posted says nothing about how it actually functioned though

>It was the same coop based market economy of self-managed economic units.

That's not really how syndicalism functioned in spain, per se.

>It is also an economic strategy of organizing production on the union basis.
And even by your narrow definition it is a failure because there are no "radical" unions anymore.


This is not a failure of the economic system though. This is a failure of the revolution itself.

<But anything that has critical significance for society (such as all kinds of infrastructure)?

Why would union members threaten to do that in a system that does not have profits as the central focal point A && B at all because they themselves need that to survive. What you are basically saying here is you are ok with some slavery just as long as it is slavery where you think it matters the most. You seem to be fundementally misunderstanding the nature of my proposition because in a post revolutionary society we will not be under the same forces that govern our economy such as we have today and such as existed even in the soviet union and it's satellites. Any socialist worth his weight today seeks the abolition of commodified wage labor completely not half measures that were undertaken by the soviet union.


>pie chart

Spain was run on a system of labor notes it's really apples and oranges here if you think that what I am talking about is a market system based on cooperatives.

The wider public is the syndicate and is the union. The whole public should be part of and given the option to engage in the union.\ basically over taking the function of the state itself. I think that some federal government obviously will be neccesary, but, the power should be in the hands of the workers. If your idea of socialism doesn't give power to the workers then we are not going to see eye to eye. I don't know if you have actually participated in any union activity, but, union charters are drafted via democratic methodology by the union members themselves. In our ideal scenario that function would be adopted by the general public themselves. You seem to think there is some type of division between the workers and the public but they are actually one and the same.

The point of all of this theorizing is to come to an understanding of what does and does not constitute a rational economic system and the only way to truly understand what is rational is to allow the people who do the labor themselves the ability to democratically decide that ourselves and decide how and when things in the economy should be crated and where they should go, or, where they need to go.
>>

 No.466338

File: 1677468330053.jpg ( 328.65 KB , 2206x453 , IMG_20230227_102343.jpg )

>>

 No.466339

>>466338
Well we know how to take action, but, putting a mass labor movement into action is a little more complicated than your average walk in the park.
>>

 No.466340

>>466339
Have tried explaining to them your view of Yugoslavia, comrade?
>>

 No.466346

File: 1677487346851.jpg ( 26.04 KB , 414x371 , uwotmate.jpg )

>>466336
That's because I know what I want. Not in some vague ass "muh freedum" sense, but in actual concrete policies sense.

>>466337
>What you posted says nothing about how it actually functioned though
How so? It was a coop market economy. An economy where coops optimize for profit.

>That's not really how syndicalism functioned in spain, per se.
And how did it really function then? What was the motive for economic activity? I'm pretty sure anarchists had money..

>this is not a failure of the economic system though. This is a failure of the revolution itself.
A failure is a failure.
To fetishize unions in this day and age, especially as a vehicle of revolutionary change - is to ignore the whole history of the twentieth century. Syndicalist project failed long before the Soviet Union did. Fact.

>Why would union members threaten to do that in a system that does not have profits
Why would syndicalist system have no profits? What would be the motivation of economic activity if you don't have neither profits nor planning administrative directives?

>all because they themselves need that to survive
You know that power station could supply electricity far away from its own location?
Anyway, your argument is based on the assumption that what is critical for the society as a whole is also critical for an individual, or some group of individuals. Which is wrong. Some small group can experience an increase in the standard of living, while the general population experiences decline.

>What you are basically saying here is you are ok with some slavery just as long as it is slavery where you think it matters the most.
How is it slavery? I want for people to have political control over the critical infrastructure and economy. It is the opposite of slavery, it is freedom.
And if your fucking union thinks it can ignore political decisions, then it will be forced to follow them at the gunpoint.

>You seem to be fundementally misunderstanding the nature of my proposition because in a post revolutionary society we will not be under the same forces that govern our economy such as we have today and such as existed even in the soviet union and it's satellites.
And what concrete policies would help you achieve this. Please provide a step-by-step algorithm.

>Any socialist worth his weight today seeks the abolition of commodified wage labor completely not half measures that were undertaken by the soviet union.
Half-measures are inevitable, because mode of production is a process in time, not a state.

>Spain was run on a system of labor notes it's really apples and oranges here if you think that what I am talking about is a market system based on cooperatives.
How did they calculate the abstract labor time if you they didn't have neither markets nor computer systems?

>The wider public is the syndicate and is the union.
That's not a wider public. Union membership is only allowed on the per-enterprise or per-industry basis.

>The whole public should be part of and given the option to engage in the union.
Then it is ceases to be a union. Google the definition of a union please.

>basically over taking the function of the state itself
So what's the difference if the union has no limits for its membership? If it looks like a duck..

>I think that some federal government obviously will be neccesary, but, the power should be in the hands of the workers.
The power should be in the hands of the majority. And if this power comes into conflict with the power of some minority of workers with their union.. well, tough luck.

>If your idea of socialism doesn't give power to the workers then we are not going to see eye to eye.
I'm against giving power to some groups of workers with their own narrow interests. Majoritarianism all the way.

>I don't know if you have actually participated in any union activity, but, union charters are drafted via democratic methodology by the union members themselves.
No. The charter should be democratically drafted by the whole public and then imposed on unions under the threat of legal action.

>In our ideal scenario that function would be adopted by the general public themselves.
union members ≠ general public

>You seem to think there is some type of division between the workers and the public but they are actually one and the same.
There is division between particular union members and the non-members.

>The point of all of this theorizing is to come to an understanding of what does and does not constitute a rational economic system and the only way to truly understand what is rational is to allow the people who do the labor themselves the ability to democratically decide that ourselves and decide how and when things in the economy should be crated and where they should go, or, where they need to go.
People use political systems to decide public matters. So those thing should be decided through a political system, and not by allowing everyone to do whatever the fuck they want.
>>

 No.466347

>>466346
Ever heard of behavioral psychology. If so, political implications?
>>

 No.466349

i aint reading all that
>>

 No.466352

>>466347
I don't know much about behaviorism, because of my aversion to psychology as a discipline.
I know that it at least studies conditioning, so it at least deals with the environmental factors, and so can possibly be tied to the social division of labor and historical materialism. But as far as I can see it usually sticks to simple physical stimuli (light etc), and not complex social stimuli.

I think politics can be accurately understood on the basis of group interests, where you classify social groups on the basis of some characteristic - language, ethnicity, position in the social division of labor, income, relationship to the means of production etc. and see what kinds of policies are common for each social group and where they overlap, to see if some classification has more predictive power about policy preferences than the others.

I do think that stimuli are important tho, especially social stimuli. One such powerful stimuli I see is the desire for a common goal. That's why I prefer a dialog system of planning over the pure computational one - human input should be a part of the planning process on botch ends - the output vector and the optimization process. This would allow for an easy overview of the common goal with all the constraints and bottlenecks against which various groups can optimize to increase output or reduce various deficits in the system. If people can clearly see how their individual optimizations contribute to the common goal, they would be more motivated to keep optimizing. This also does not exclude material stimulation, would reduce social conflict due to the participatory nature of the optimization process itself, while at the same time would clearly define hierarchy of the structural elements (what elements can impose what type of constraints) in the model itself, which would correspond to the political hierarchy, and so would reinforce the structure of the political system itself.
>>

 No.466355

>>466260
If you wanted the internet to have an empowering effect for the masses and to make it function as a way for genuine beneficial collective participation in the general intellect.

How would things have to be set up ?
>>

 No.466356

>>466355
Technology does not have a uniform effect like that - it all comes down to how we use it, our intents. The tool doesn't have an independent world-spirit in that way, especially something like the internet which is intended to be accessed by many people for information, and which affects people whether or not they choose to use it. This isn't really a matter of the computer or a particular advance, but communciation. You'd have the same problem if we communicated by writing on paper, and what is the internet at a basic level except electronic communication of the written word, or things that we could interpret as written streams of bytes? There is nothing mystical about communication, and digital electronic communication is designed in ways that make it rationalizable. You could have the same effect that is made by the internet by other communication means, in that you have a network of people communicating and affecting the world, and people far away and in secure bunkers have ways to shape what you read and what you think. A lot of things that are blamed on the internet really have their source in how we are educated, and the ways social order is maintained. It's not about the computer network itself, but about who is sitting at the computer and who controls the central hubs, and why we're going to those central hubs in the first place. Nothing about the internet suggests we have to give our information to Zuckerberg, and Zuck himself remarked at how stupid the users were for letting him do that. The internet was doing fine as a library with really cheap access, and strangely this use of the internet - which was widely recognized from the moment it was opened to people outside the university - has been downplayed and obfuscated. We do have a problem of whether the information in these libraries can be trusted, and who is updating this information, and the ease of censoring digital information automatically, but at as a basic level, I like having an encyclopedia and vast written documents recallable by a simple search. I didn't ask for influencers to use the internet to create a chilling effect because we're not allowed to protect ourselves and Kiwifags are given sanction to exist. A sane society would root out the KF people and expose them, so we can have nice things again. This has happened, where the KFer types are exposed to some mob justice, because there are ordinary people who do not like this shit. The predatory element doesn't have the untrammeled majority support it insinuates that it has - most people know what that means and fucking hate those people, and out of self-defense would not allow them the sort of sanction they are given. The root of this isn't the machine itself, but the people who are educated and selected to promote a predatory society. The machine responsible is the state school and university selecting certain people and favoring a predatory society over something we would want. That's what I lived through in the 1990s and it destroyed my family and so many other people, for the benefit of people who should not have been allowed to do what they did.

>>466352
Politics is not reducible to Schmittian friend-enemy distinctions, if that's what you're getting at. Classifications are not arbitrary identities but are based on some shared history - Schmitt himself doesn't ask that question about history because it's an open question, and the other political elitists don't ask the question of what makes an elite an elite. That would in the end have to be a materialist question; the political elitist just notes that there is a political elite, by some virtue that elite possess which allows them to rule, and that the elite for a lot of reasons will be a minority, but it can never be too small a group - so the political elite is never reduced to a "cabal" or some super secret group about which nothing can be said, but is a fairly large group of people who hold some means to influence the state and society.
>>

 No.466358

>>466352
You don't touch pussy too often, do you
>>

 No.466360

>>466358
No, I have cat allergy.
>>

 No.466362

>>466356
>The internet was doing fine as a library with really cheap access, and strangely this use of the internet - which was widely recognized from the moment it was opened to people outside the university - has been downplayed and obfuscated.
Ok the good aspects about the internet is the structure that's organized like a library.
Can you be more specific ?

>We do have a problem of whether the information in these libraries can be trusted, and who is updating this information, and the ease of censoring digital information automatically, but at as a basic level, I like having an encyclopedia and vast written documents recallable by a simple search.

Technically libraries are not directly searchable, they organize information by categorical subdivision.

I don't know what you mean with a simple search, but the simplest search you can make is a key-word search that looks for associative tags. Like early webpages and search-engines before they created user profiles.

>we're not allowed to protect ourselves and Kiwifags are given sanction to exist. A sane society would root out the KF people and expose them
I have no idea what those kiwi people are. Tho I've seen that term being used before.

>The machine responsible is the state school and university selecting certain people and favoring a predatory society over something we would want.
I agree that it feels like we live in a predatory society.
>>

 No.466366

>>466362
A librarian may sort the books on the shelf, but it is up to the reader to assemble this information for his own use. The categorization scheme in your local library may not conform to how you would need to access this information, if you must connect knowledge across multiple fields to truly know a thing and its relation to other things.

We use a search engine not with a premade index, but to search for words that we would understand to be relevant. There are indices of pages that are pre-sorted - this was something Yahoo originally did, where pages were sorted by topic to find relevant information without a direct text search. I really think abandoning this index is a mistake, but the index manually compiled, or algorithmically compiled with some schema in mind, is not the entirety of a library's useful content.

The internet is not reducible to a library, but so far as we are concerned purely with information, we can approach it like that. If we refer to the use of the internet for command and control, or for excahnge, we are using the internet for very different purposes. If the user loses control and the internet is running him, that's a problem for the user that shouldn't be mystified or encouraged.
>>

 No.466368

File: 1677538760555.jpg ( 37.64 KB , 549x659 , 1675797705038650.jpg )

I had a massive response to the homsexual OP's gish gallop, but, my computer crashed so I will just point out that you are wrong. You have no understanding of theory or history. You do not understand how linguistics work and how words evolve over time and you do not understand unions at all, or, syndicalism.

You are a faggot and cherry picking and gishgalloping is for homosexuals.
>>

 No.466370

>>466368
Well, boarding the hate train, I would like to say that OP seems to be mashing two different definitions of idealist together, and claims to "hate philosophy" when really you would think a communist or anyone interested in understanding the world would care quite a lot about philosophy, it's just that they would subscribe to materialist philosophy rather than idealist philosophy, but OP seems to think idealist means "utopian" (which to be fair to OP, utopian socialism is philosophically idealist, so it's a pretty confusing evolution of a word to follow) which it does not but it really illustrates OP's confusion about everything he's talking about quite well and succinctly, doesn't it?

Also OP if you read this, know that I share in your eroguro fantasies about hegel and engels so know you aren't alone because dialectics really is idealist and a waste of time, so i despise it's popularizers and want to knifemurderbloodstabattack them, too. I hope you take a greater interest in philosophy so you can articulate that more clearly.
Have you read Rosa Lichenstein's anti-dialectics website? For an introduction/sparknotes I would reccomend reading the symptomaticcommentary interview with her, it's very digestible, even to a philosophical newb.
>>

 No.466372

File: 1677545850202.jpg ( 112.57 KB , 1024x768 , kitten.jpg )

I don't actually hate you, OP. You raise reasonable concerns and I empathize with your frustrations.
>>

 No.466374

>>466370
It really depends how you apply dialectics if it becomes idealist or not. If you apply it like marx did it deff isn't idealistic
>>

 No.466376

>>466370
There is a use for dialectics as an explanatory tool for us, but making it into something where you build a grand narrative and then insist anything that contradicts your theory must be corrected or ignored is a bunch of malarkey. Marx is guilty of that at points, but part of getting Marx is understanding political thought generally, and people who don't really know politics can come to the wrong conclusions or come to the conclusion to follow the gurus.

I do think the dialectical thinking should be depreciated, because we have or could have a better understanding of systems then we did in the 19th century. The great problem is that you'd give up humanism if you spoke about society frankly, and that leads to really bad things. You'd have to view humans as purely an animal, and their political abstractions as just that, and that includes our concepts of right and wrong and morality. If you can see those things as abstractions coming out of us, yet things that have a real origin, you have a way out, but right now the tendency is to remove the thinking of those who don't belong in the coming world, i.e. most of us who aren't with the program. We have the dual problem where humans have been redefined as purely animalistic, yet humanism of a different sort remains - and that's what eugenics does, redefine human as purely the division between slaves and masters, and so humanism becomes an imperial religion rather than the thing it originally entailed. Humanity is stripped of any meaning except that which serves eugenics and the ruling interest. The only way out of this trap would be for humans to go mad, by our social standards - which is to say, truly renounce the political logic which has been with humanity for a long time, and invent something else. It would be a clean break from the past, and it would have to break past the hammerlock on ideas that has arrested human society. There are so many ways this can go wrong, and certain people are already gaming how to rule forever and maximize the slavery they want.

I don't think there has been a serious trend working against the coming slave system. There have only been scattered thoughts starting basically now, and a few really ancient threads that never went anywhere. The concept that we could be anything other than this has been made inadmissible. The institutions and those who hold them will not allow anything new to exist, because that would entail sparing those who were selected to die, or the whole plan of selecting who lives and who dies would have to be forcibly broken. Since there are millions of influential people and their supplicants who made it clear they will fight to the death to defend their conceit, this makes the future of the world very depressing to think about. They have been able to posture and intimidate and transgress all decencies so far, because the threat of what happens when the mask comes off is too much to bear, and they wish to set it up so that when the mask comes off, we all lose and lose completely. That's the game plan and always has been their modus operandi - to see the mass of humanity run around like headless chickens and glory is the sadism of their plan.
>>

 No.466377

Case in point - you can dialectics away the truth that there are many shitty people in humanity, and you can't pretend the devil isn't real or act like you have a totally perfect technocratic solution. If you do that and then make the entire economy a political matter, you're going to have some severe problems, if someone figures out the key to exploit that. Enter eugenics.
>>

 No.466378

>>466376
>I don't think there has been a serious trend working against the coming slave system. There have only been scattered thoughts starting basically now, and a few really ancient threads that never went anywhere.

The braindead stoner left(tm) literally believes something like a neotributary/managerial system is impossible, and a utopic 'worker democracy' free from class oppression and exploitation is a more realistic possiblity.

These people are politically useless outside of being votefodder for the DNC.
>>

 No.466384

>>466377
How can you use dialectics to abstract away shitty people in humanity? Explain yourself. You seem to not really understand what dialectics is.

Humanity just isn't as simple as your ancient moral philosophies and neither is life on this planet. No one is saying that communism will lead to the end of bad people, but, we certainly think that removing the material conditions for why these people exist in the first place will drastically help, or, reduce the population of sed people.

>Eugenics

Eugenics is not hiding around every corner, sorry.
>>

 No.466388

>>466384
>Thinking in moral terms
Ngmi
>>

 No.466389

>>466388
You have poor reading comprehension if you think that was arguing in favor of a moral binary or morality at all.
>>

 No.466390

>>466389
>You have poor reading comprehension if you think that was arguing in favor of a moral binary or morality at all.
<No one is saying that communism will lead to the end of bad people, but, we certainly think that removing the material conditions for why these people exist in the first place will drastically help, or, reduce the population of sed people.
>>

 No.466397

>>466384
Typo - should read "you can't dialectics away shitty people". I.e., if someone is a malevolent actor, you can't act as if those people don't exist or that you're going to invisibilize them. Nor do you assert that goodness is inexplicable - there are reasons why people become good or bad, by whatever standard you use to judge moral behavior. Nor are you going to cajole people to become good with threats or lies or this managerial insanity.

It's telling how much the eugenic creed informs what people think of as moral. Their only concept of moral behavior is eugenic behavior - you think of weeding people out in the institutions or managing them like livestock, while a certain class is sacrosanct and assumed morally good. That which is eugenic is identical with that which is moral, and that's why you can talk about an amoral and hedonistic world order - because it feeds eugenics, and this is the only permissible idea of what is good.
>>

 No.466398

>>466388
He's a eugenist. You'd have to be a eugenist to pretend eugenics isn't at the forefront of the ruling ideas after 2020. It's screamed at maximum volume in everything that has been done. I've seen this since the 1990s. It's not hiding. It's what is promoted. It is a Satanic morality which forbids us to even say what it is, and total fear. To go against eugenics is death at this point. You let it rule for too long. There is no hope, there is no end.
>>

 No.466399

>>466398
Can we ever escape your stupidity and do you have to pollute every single thread with your idealism?
>>

 No.466400

>>466397
What do you define as eugenics?
There's a difference between people who die because of the forces of an economic system and people who are substantially eradicated because of supremacist ideology. Not that it makes the former good, but, you cant just call everything bad that happens eugenics.

Diale4ctical materialism does not try to explain away shitty people either. Rather, it tries to meditgate why people ar eshitty in the first place to some degree. Anything else is just a massive misreading.
>>

 No.466403

>>466400
Eugenics is a practice of total social control and subordination of society to "race betterment". A practice of selective breeding at the local level cannot be eugenics and would fail. It necessarily implies a total society for conditions of eugenics to even be established. That is why it was chosen - it wasn't about making people better, but about control. It relies on an interpretation of science, natural history, and biology to impose forcibly its dictates, and the only form eugenics can take is that of a central council deciding who lives and who dies, and eugenics will out of necessity impose violent restrictions on those selected to fail. It cannot do otherwise.

You could do this by means other than eugenics, but eugenics is the way it is done here and now. Denying the centrality of eugenics - when the ruling power constantly talks about eugenic selection and throws it in our face - is the action of someone who is either a coward or an enabler who chose which side of the war they're on. I can get people who see eugenics as their interest, but the sniveling cowards who mystify are truly contemptible.

As for the shittiness of people, you don't need to invent a philosophical explanation accessible only to a few initiates. That's eugenic thinking insinuating itself rather than a legitimate use of dialectical reasoning. You can use dialogue to arrive at meanings and understandings that are not immediately evident from a description of mechanical action, and you should be cautious when doing so. We have better ways to understand emergent behavior in systems today. Dialectics has always been a crutch for humans, who natively understand stories and relations between animate objects rather than systems and mechanics. We are very bad at mechanistic understandings and do much of that unconsciously, and if we attempted to process the world mechanistically based on our available knowledge, we would be overwhelmed. The overuse of narratives and stories is a way humans make this processing easier, since we are not rational computers but living creatures navigating the world with the senses we possess. We are aware on some level our senses can be deceived, which is why periodically we ask questions about what things are. You wouldn't use this to make up understandings, unless you were attempting to cajole people and tell them to turn off their senses.
With the shittiness of people, we know what they want - they see themselves as strong and their opponents as weak, and act accordingly. There's no dialogue about it and never was. When dialectic is used to mystify this, it is always to protect something we've known for a long time to be a problem, as a way of insinuating fear and mystique around a ruling idea. For example, you can't really describe eugenics as it is, because if you did, it would make clear violent rebellion is the only recourse. You'd be going against the Satan, and that cannot be abided. Anything approaching this will lead to the unwritten law's invocation. You can say "eugenics is mean" but this is a pathetic sop and always was, and this is one of the way eugenics is mystified. None of these people should have been allowed to insinuate themselves as they did, and it was always bitterly resisted. A conspiracy marches in lock step to defend their interests, and has always resorted to fear and force to impose violently their vision for the world, even though many of the beneficiaries of eugenics know it is foul and it is destroying the basis for any material wealth or productivity. It is only in recent years that those who thought eugenics would serve them got the bad news that they were never actually selected to live, and they are inventing copes rather than acknowledging their own war guilt.
>>

 No.466439

File: 1677667389560.png ( 383.28 KB , 598x628 , 1656338565413.png )

>>466403
Is the eugenics in the room with us right now?

I know what eugenics is but I don't understand what the hell you are trying to say. You sound like pepe Silvia trying to explain the lost city of Atlantis to me or something. The idea that eugenics is behind reaking class actions and the general actions of the population is nonsense: It might be true at some level but at a foundational level it misses the mark. You have had this explained to you before and you still cint to double down and cling to this idealistic belief that eugenics is in the driver seat when it isn't
>>

 No.466458

>>466439
Wow the level of denialism with these people. Just look at the shit coming out of the aristocracy's mouth. They want massive death and brag about it. Here's an example of what is a common TED talking point, which is sort of the technophile eugenists' hub for telling their faithful what to think:

https://ideas.ted.com/the-rise-of-the-useless-class/

Does that sound like someone who thinks about helping people? This shit is ubiquitous if you look at the liberal ruling elite for any length of time. Anyone running defense for this should just shut the fuck up and go suck their paymasters' cocks.

Yes, eugenics is their guiding idea. There is no ulterior motive. That is the point - they can kill off the poor and win the struggle for life, so they are doing exactly that. Faggots like you let that happen every time you talk down to me for saying basic shit. I shouldn't have to, but that is where we are, and that is why humanity is doomed. It's not going to be my problem soon enough - I will die and you good people will get to live in this hellworld. There is no good reason for me to go along with this and act like anything good will come out of it, or that it can be ignored. I've done far better by hating these people.

You're a fag for enabling any part of it and you should hang your head in shame before insulting me.
>>

 No.466465

File: 1677681305916.jpg ( 196.65 KB , 882x1080 , 1676760678229023.jpg )

>>466458
Anon, I didn't deny anything. You need to take a course in linguistics because you have absolutely no reading comprehension. I said quite the opposite, actually. What I said was that I Agree with you. That they say they want eugenics, but, that it is not the foundational forces that drive what they do. We have gone over this before and you still are here refusing to acknowledge the fact that our society is driven by the profit motive and not eugenics s an ideal. Just because people say something doesn't mean they are not driven by a force they do not understand. Flat earthers deny gravity and yet it still keeps working on them.
>>

 No.466469

>>466465
>the fact that our society is driven by the profit motive and not eugenics s an ideal
But why are people driven toward the profit motive
>>

 No.466471

>>466469
>>466465
Argh, I might have unintitionally causes some cinfusion: I ment that our society IS driven by the profit motives and to think it's driven by eugenics is idealism.

I just wanted to clear that up.
To answer your question that is like asking "why" are people driven by gravity. It really makes no sense. They just are. Profits are the modus-operandi of capitalism. What matters is that, unlike gravity, is is not a literal objective law of the universe and can be changed.
>>

 No.466479

>>466469
He doesn't have an answer. Depopulation is very very unprofitable, but he willfully ignores what is right in front of him. The rulers are not motivated by profit and it is not a conditional of survival. Why seek profit when you can just take everyone's shit and print yourself money? If someone is not seeing this by now, they're mystifying and they know it. This whole "it's the PROFIT" line is something tested on leftypol and pushed by the influencers. They rely on censorship and berating people for going against this wank, this bastardization which is intended to export the Malthusian logic everywhere possible. According to this story, runaway profits cause a vague "ecological catastrophe" which is mystified once people are caught in the narrative. Because two generations are primed to accept this narrative, it relies on institutional support, and when someone goes against it, the screeching begins. It's really a hypnotic, subconscious programming. The cowardly go for it, and those in the know are not going to give that up.

Yes, eugenics is their GUIDING idea. If you want to look at ulterior motives, you would have to look at the spiritual beliefs dominant among the intelligentsia and the shit they REALLY say behind closed door. I have my sense of what they believe behind eugenics, but eugenics is the visible front for what the rulers are doing now. That's the banner people rally to, and they do so not because it is profitable but because they smell victory, and being with eugenics is being with the ruling ideas and institutions. It's why they talk about ingroups and Schmittian politics.
>>

 No.466486

>>466479
I literally answered the question. Just because you don't like the answer because it doesn't conform to your preexisting ideology doesn't make it wrong. Marx wrote about the myopia of capitalist in their short term race for profits. Capitalists are not a hive mind and can and will do things that in the long run will conflict with the profit motive for short term economic gain. That is the whole basis of the falling rate of profit.
The truth is you have no answer because you are a massive idealistic faggot who doesn't understand anything that he is saying and you refuse to change your religious beliefs in spite of mountains of contradictory evidence like any other religio0us zeatlot.
You saw one youtube video about the world economic forum on 4chan and now you are convinced that every small business owner is literally hitler. Give me a break.
>>

 No.466488

File: 1677695254065.gif ( 3.59 MB , 498x340 , 1675120372506145.gif )

>>466479
Let me ask you something.

Even if we assume your point is correct what then? What is the point of the idealistic fart huffing you are peddling? What is your solution to the issue and what do you plan to do about it?

This is the same bullshit the CIA uses to divert peoples attention away from what really matters which is altering the relations of production.
>>

 No.466507

>>466488
Everything you say requires conflating what I have said with your talking points. It is dishonest and trite.
If you deny the centrality of eugenics after 2020, you're a fag, pure and simple. There is no contradictory evidence, unless you believe there is some anti-eugenicist force somewhere in the institutions.

This entire "it's the profits" belief relies on the belief that there is a Good Capitalist that can be tamed and does the Right Things - i.e. eugenic things. You're eugenist, always will be, so you're a fag. That is the only explanation for denying the extent of eugenics, which just about any honest person will say. The only thing I do is dare to say that it is central, because everyone is afraid of that fight or has some belief in eugenics. I have no such belief because eugenics only means eternal living Hell for me. It means eternal living Hell for a lot of people, but certain people want that eternal living Hell. It is something inherent to leftism, the persistent disease that made sure the left was a doomed cause. With "friends" like this, who needs enemies?

The first solution is to not enable your faggotry, but you are eugenist, Satanic, and enjoy the thrill of sadism. That is the only explanation for your insulting behavior and defense of eugenics at this point, fag, and you are a fag.
>>

 No.466508

>>466488
Also, your line is literally created by CIA. This is what Marcuse tells people to do to disrupt communist parties, and it works because Marxism was created with poison pills. It's not the totally perfect theory, where it cannot fail but can only be failed. This idea of perfect systems that can only be failed is eugenic in nature.
>>

 No.466509

File: 1677717856977.gif ( 621.62 KB , 500x380 , 1677699114644702.gif )

>>466507
>>466508

See and it allways ends like this.
You are a broken record constantly spinning your wheels in the mud with no en goal and absolutely no idea of where you are going. You're like a dog chasing cars and you cannot answer me because you know that what I am saying points that out so you are just going to resort to crying and calling me "Le heckin CIAarino" or whatever. You are a useless midwit, anon.

What I am saying is exactly what proves profitability is central to the existence and motivations of our system but you are to much of a midwit idealist to understand that.
Go away.
>>

 No.466510

>>466509
If the rulers were interested in profitability, they wouldn't liquidate the lower and middle strata of capital. That has been their plan for some time, and many of the middle strata have accepted that they will accept the oligarchy. This means the end of profit-seeking even as a pretense. The only reason it persisted was to convince the lower orders of capital that business would still go on as long as they kept their head down. 2020 put an end to that.

If someone were interested in restoring profitability, they would take very different steps. Trump signaled that he would do that, but obviously Trump is a showman. There is nothing but the monopolists taking what they didn't take in 2008. A monopolist has no interest in profitability because they own what they really want; far from it, destroying profitability is exactly what monopolists at the apex of the arrangement would want, because it allows them to liquidate competitors and the failed capitalists. This is really fucking basic shit, and Marx understood that. The argument Marx makes is that capitalism leads to regular fucking-over of a lot of people as a rule, and that many people he writes to are going to be screwed if the system continues as it was. It wasn't just fucking over the workers - they were always fucked. The weaker capitalist struggles and is set up to lose, and when the weaker capitalists see the writing on the wall, they can either lick boot of the winners or they can rebel. Marx is telling some of those people, particularly those in certain sectors of the bourgeoisie, "hey, look at this thing I call the proletariat, we can use these people".
>>

 No.466512

File: 1677723327914.jpg ( 60.69 KB , 1094x575 , 1675401869050855.jpg )

>>466510
Why wouldn't they? As technology evolves and the ability to produce commodities becomes easier and easier, again, capitalism requires the working class less and less. This falls directly in line with the profit motive of capitalism. They don't want to cull the working class because they are "le heckin evil bad dudes!!!!!" They want to cull us because they have to pay us money in order to preform labor and produce capital that they can turn into surplus profits. Even so they will still require, theoretically, profits in order to obtain capital and initiate trade amongst one another. Even oligarchies still follow market laws under capitalism. You people love to bastardize marx in order to justify your vapid stupidity but you cannot fool me.

The basic shit is: Capitalism is an economic system predicated upon the production of commodities for profit by the working class. Those who have nothing to sell but their labor for a wage in a market economy. That is true today as it was in the late 19th century. Nothing you say or no matter how many temper tantrums you throw will ever change that fact.
That is basic Marxism. Cope seethe dilate.
I am literally going to kill myself if I have to explain this very simple fact to anymore of you retards I swear to god.
>>

 No.466513

>>466512
The cost of active liquidation of the lower classes is extremely expensive in manpower. You would have to employ a large sector of the population towards the task of killing of another portion.
You have to mystify away the apparatus that is killing us for your thinking to hold, which you do because you are eugenist and want the killing to continue as if it were a passive force of nature. This stops the moment the machine is no longer active, and when no one has any incentive compelling them to participate. It only stops them. It does not stop because you can cajole a revolution into existence. It stops when there is a genuine counter-force to eugenics, which you habitually refuse to allow because you chose which side of the war you are on.

Since it is clear eugenics has won, the human project is failed. There is no hope. That's why you cower like a sniveling faggot and think attacking me is worth more than winning a single fucking thing, fag.
>>

 No.466515

>>466513
Do you seriously not understand economics at all, or, are you just choosing to ignore me because I feel like this has been explained to you ad-infinitum. Also, it's really fucking annoying to keep hearing you accuse me of "mystifying" anything when you are sitting here thinking that eugenics isn't intrisically woven into the system capitalism rather than there being a magically group of people overtly trying to genocide the working class. Capitalism will naturally lead to these conclusions, again, through the profit motive. With revolutionary potential dead (and the rest of it being channeled into fighting non existent enemies and being completely fucking brain dead morons like you) we can deduce how capitalism will most likely contiue forward from our current point in history.

Again, the falling rate of profit is going to keep making the profit margins that can be achived righter and tigher in the economy. As Marx poited out, capitalists can off set this in two ways: A. Technological advancment and B: Become closer and closer to out right slavery. Seeing how we live in the nice first world that will leave one option in the US (and most likely into the future as well) again this is going to mean that workers are naturally going to be weeded out in the economy as they are replaced with robots more and more.
No magical cabal of evil bad dudes who look like lex Luthar required.

By the way I Am stil waiting for you to answer >>466488 spoiler you can't
>>

 No.466517

>>466515
You're just autistically repeating "profit profit profit" and can't answer how mass liquidation which those in charge announce over and over again is supposed to be a profit-making venture. Highly unproductive labor does not serve a disciplinary function, if the goal were to accumulate tokens of value. Mass propaganda everywhere which costs trillions of dollars and charges exorbitant wealth to do nothing but lie is not about selling things to people, fag. You are a retarded middle class grasping fag through and through. You're Satanic and refuse to understand basic human behavior, because you've been enabled, you fag fag fag fag fag.

This is what happens when the rulers win, fag. You're a fag and an enabler, and you don't even get paid anything. You do it for the cheap thrill, and that's all you are and will ever be, Satanic.
>>

 No.466518

This entire thinking requires believing capitalism is a "perfect system" and communism must violate and transgress to exist. It is Hitlerian, it is Satanic, it is fag thinking, and it was tested on leftypol because it's a /pol colony. Fag.
>>

 No.466520

>>466518
>hurr durr satanic hitler communism
>>

 No.466521

>>466520
You are not a communist, fag. You're an idiot creating a substitute to derail any meaningful conversation.
Normal people know what eugenics is and don't reflexively defend it. Only fags do.
>>

 No.466522

File: 1677728076571.jpg ( 74.38 KB , 593x552 , 1675280418907572.jpg )

>>466517
I seriously don't think this anon can read at this point. Is English not your first language or are you seriously just more brain dead and retarded than I ever could have possibly comprehended because I have explained it to you multiple times in this thread and now I will do so again:

Capitalism naturally will result in the genocide of the working class with out revolutionary fever to encompass the masses as capitalism continues to progress historically because due to the falling rate of profit technology will slowly replace organized labor resulting in a crisis of capital which will be resolved dialectic ally one way or the other up to and including the targeted genocide of the working class.

Again, this is a real, objective, material explanation for the forces of capitalism that do not require a spooky Lex Luthar economic forum member hiding under your bed.

Also, for the millionth fucking time the goal personally doesn't have to be to accrue profit, but, that is what is required objectively in order for a company to sustain its existence. This is basic economics you fucking retard. You are possibly one of the dumbest people on earth.

>>466518
No it doesn't you moronic faggot; As has again be explained to your stupid ass near infinitum capitalism is not a perfect system nore does profit being the a-priori system by which the economy functions means capitalism is a perfect system nore does it mean that workers cannot arise to the task to take history into their own hands.
Just because you are a dumb ass with no understanding of politics, history, or economics, or, well, anything really, doesn't mean that what I am says is your dumb ass strawman.

You are an idealist faggot kill yourself.

Still waiting for you to answer >>466488
>>

 No.466523

>>466522
Capitalism is not a passive force animating the world. You don't have capitalism without capitalists. Society and all you can say about consists in the first instance of social agents. If you're not talking about the behavior of rational agents, you are not talking about capitalism in any real sense. You're talking about a myth, a story you tell to supplant any understanding. Capitalism is premised on rational agents either wanting it to exist, or preferring it to the alternatives given what they know about the world. You're too Satanic to understand that, and at this point you have to be deliberately stupid to not see the centrality of eugenics, or the message coming out of the ruling institutions and the talking heads. They don't shut up about depopulation and it's fucking everywhere. You're a fag for denying it.
>>

 No.466524

>>466521
No one is defending eugenics you useless tool. Answer >>466488
>>

 No.466525

File: 1677728919852.png ( 274.66 KB , 512x512 , 1670614909376080.png )

>>466523
>Capitalism is not a passive force animating the world.

I never said it was

>You don't have capitalism without capitalists.

Ok and you don't have capitalists with out profits.

>If you're not talking about the behavior of rational agents, you are not talking about capitalism in any real sense.

Libertarian brainworms. Capitalism is not about "free agents" capitalism is a mode of production with an objective methedoloy. You are the one talking about something that is not capitalism making up grand narratives you massive fucking RETARD. You literally are suggesting that a spooky cabal of faggots is planing objectively world domination or something when even if that is true it doesn't matter because they are still guided by the forces of capitalism.


Do you think that capitalism doesn't have an underlying logic to it? Serious question. Do you think that economic systems of production have no method by which they function? Do you think things just happen for no reason in the current economy? You make absolutely no sense and you are so mind mindbogglingly stupid I am at an absolute loss for words here.

>Capitalism is premised on rational agents either wanting it to exist,

Only in the mind of moronic liberatarian idealists like yourself.

>You're too Satanic to understand that

<ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS LE HECKIN SATANARINO

Why don't you go back to twitter since that seems to be your speed; The slow lane.

>and at this point you have to be deliberately stupid to not see the centrality of eugenics


If eugenics is central to the function of our political and economic system then why can you remove the spooky jews you claim are running the country and the system as we understand it will still continue functioning exactly as it is today?

You can literally remove every single person in power today and some one will eventually replace them because capitalism functions by an a-priori methodology.

Do you think that people just inherently support eugenics?

Can you actually answer anything or are you going to keep pussyfooting around the point like a faggot?

Holy fuck you are stupid
>>

 No.466526

>>466521
>You're an idiot creating a substitute to derail any meaningful conversation.

The lack of self awareness here is astounding.
>>

 No.466529

>>466524
Yes you are. If you deny the centrality of eugenics despite the extreme propaganda sent out daily by the press, where they brag about the war against the weak and taking away all of those benefits, you are an enabler. That is the GUIDING principle, retard. The profit is not sought out of some sense that profit is the Demiurge. Profit was always a means to an end in certain conditions, fag.

The motives for eugenics are that it is the surest way to secure the alliance of interests ruling presently - those who rule can only do so through an intellectual elite and lockstep enforcement of morality. They do this so they can win the war against their chosen enemies, the residuum and those who do not go along with their program. Eugenics was the chosen front for this, the scientific face of the ruling interest, because it united that interest on the basis of biology and presumed hereditary virtue. This incentive is naturalized and considered eternal, and can arrest history. If you wished to rule a permanent tyranny, you would resort to eugenics as the obvious way to do that in this time and with the conditions eugenics was envisioned in.
I don't think you need to explain human avarice with a theory. You would have to presume that humans are "naturally pure good" to engage in such a sophist's argument. Capitalism obviously is premised on a belief that individual pursuit of wealth is morally sound - free trade is at its core premised on moral philosophy, rather than a just-so story of why humans engage in market activity. There are things humans do which are contrary to market society every day, and none of the classical liberals were making the claim that the market was an ideological absolute. Only the eugenic creed truly indulged in that. You are eugenist and Satanic, and so all things must regress to the absolute, the primordial light, for your world-system to remain coherent. Therefore you will attack anyone who opposes the creed with vigor, but cannot lift a finger to defend anyone. That's why you are a Satanic and not a person worth listening to, and why you persist in being a fag, fag, FAG.
>>

 No.466530

If you argue that humans are amoral creatures moved along like evolutionary flotsam or automata, you are making claims which are not defensible by any concept of "human" that we have long understood. Decision making in humans is guided by some moral philosophy; otherwise, the human is nothing more than a vessel animated by forces. In such a world, there is no point in speaking of communism, and the only outcome is that the Satanic impulse carries out its mission to the intended conclusion. It makes the thinking that motivates greed and eugenics and absolute and eternal, which I know you believe. That is why you are defending - the eternity of the eugenic creed and the eternal thrill of making others suffer. You can do that if you like, but the outcome to the rest of us of that thinking has always been known. That is why so many people resist eugenics, because eugenics is not truly natural the way you insinuate that it must be, because you believe eugenics is the absolute and above all other moral codes. You would have to enshrine eugenics as a super-science above all to deny its centrality at this point, because as I said, the propaganda in favor of eugenics is everywhere.

Given the victory of the Satanic thrill, I have no expectation that this will change any time soon. That is the end state of humanity, because of faggots like this who want it. The countervailing force against it lacked the "want it more" that the eugenists brought to bear. The moment the eugenists built nuclear weapons and pointed them at the civilians was the moment humanity was done. The rest was just a matter of pointing to the nukes any time a crisis appeared to displease the creed. It's also why the first response to nuclear weapons was to say "bring it, fuckers". You didn't see Stalin or Mao prance like retards while being afraid of nuclear war. If you're going to build those things, you better fucking use them or shut up.
>>

 No.466532

File: 1677744387973.png ( 352.91 KB , 399x652 , 3s4de65fr76t8g7.png )

>>466524
i am
>>

 No.466544

File: 1677771632156.jpg ( 8.13 KB , 250x190 , 1677693078078-2.jpg )

>>466530
This is your brain on idealism.
>>

 No.466956

File: 1678341599381.jpg ( 54.05 KB , 521x937 , ce1.jpg )

>>466060
holy fucking based and same
>>

 No.467435

Update: I still fucking hate communists.

Especially I hate leftoids that throw around the term "scientific socialism" and then proceed to cling to their 19th century dogmas about the inevitability of communism, post-scarcity, everything according to need, blah-blah and other philosophical ramblings. They couldn't be further from "the science" even if they run from it.

Obviously brainlet leftoids try to use the authority of science to peddle their own biases. Pathetic.

Somehow in a finite universe with HARD PHYSICAL constraints leftoids would have infinite everything for their every whim.
This BLIND faith in that humanity has no HARD CONSTRAINS IMPOSED ON THEM BY THE UNIVERSE is a variation of general techno-utopianism, the same techno-utopianism that is the guiding light of all capitalist apologists.
A curious convergence of the left and right indeed.
>>

 No.467436

>>467435
>is a variation of general techno-utopianism
or more generally anthropocentric bias that is a byproduct of religious mindset

there always must be a guiding light to salvation, humanity can't just run into a dead end
IT JUST CAN'T OKAY!
>>

 No.467439

I also hate communists that still cling to their special snowflake variation of "democratic centralism" as if 20th century didn't happen

nothing screams "scientific" louder than when you stick your head into the sand and ignore reality that proved you wrong
>>

 No.467441

Also nothing screams "scientific" more louder than when you ignore your own theory of the primacy of the material base over superstructure and claim that a state is socialist because it has red flags and is ruled by a party that has "communist" in its name.

Lenin at least had the decency to not claim that USSR under NEP was socialist.
>>

 No.467442

also nothing more "scientific" than when you completely ignore demographic trends and rising wages and still claim that a country still has domestic abundance of labor relative to capital and that's why it just can't be imperialist

IT JUST CAN'T BE EVEN A LITTLE BIT IMPERIALIST! IT JUST CAN'T, OKAY! LOOK AT THE FLAGS!
>>

 No.467443

I also in general hate leftoids who can't reduce their abstract thought notions to concrete policies. This ties to my passionate hate of philosophy because those notions are usually of the philosophical kind.

NEVER IN MY LIFE have I seen a "philosopher" who would voluntarily descend to our sinful earth from his ivory tower.
Only under immense pressure, only when backed into the corner with no way out.
>>

 No.467444

I also hate leftoids who chase trends and don't stick to their principles. Those leftoids are usually also big into philosophy.

As soon as science proper separated from philosophy - philosophy immediately was reduced to being a tool of the class rule tho more like class cope

It's a general rule of thumb that if person thinks they can find profound truths in philosophical wankery - they have a reactionary bias.
If you view philosophy as anything but "what class interest does this particular piece of wankery consciously or subconsciously represents?", then I have dad news - you're an eternal brainlet.
>>

 No.467445

File: 1679137235639.jpg ( 72.57 KB , 960x540 , virgo supercluster.jpg )

>>467435
Well technically speaking most of the historic scientific socialists didn't think socialism was inevitable, they considered barbarism a real possibility. If you look at the 20th century you kinda got both, there was a big thrust towards socialism in the Soviet Union etc and barbarism with fascism in WW2.

Post scarcity is definitely possible, people are finite beings with finite needs and wants. And we'll eventually be able to satisfy all the needs and wants of 99% of people. There's always going to be a small fraction of people who aren't happy unless they own everything, and the rest of society owns nothing while living in misery, but that's not the clientele for socialism anyway. Since we're not catering to megalomania, we're going to call post scarcity for 99% of people as close enough. Capitalism only satisfies about 10% of a population, so it's a big step up.

>a finite universe with HARD PHYSICAL constraints
That's just an assumption we're making based on current rather limited astrophysics capabilities. At least wait a few years until the recently launched James Webb telescope had time to bring in more data. There's enough matter and energy for trillions of years of sublime existence, even with the current horizons there are no practically relevant limitations, other than those set by scientific and technological understanding. Even if we don't make any further advances in science, we'll be able to operate as if there were no limits for countless millennia. There's no reason to worry about the limits of the Universe, unless you want to use it for concern trolling. The things we do today will only affect the next 200 to 500 years anyway, so it's not worth thinking further ahead than that.

>the same techno-utopianism that is the guiding light of all capitalist apologists.
Well the capitalist have build a techno-dystopia, but that doesn't mean we can't do better.
The capitalists might have lost their credibility when it comes to using technology for progress but why would that apply to socialists ?

Maybe humanity ends trillions of years from now, having "only" expanded 33 megaparsecs (110 m lightyears) throughout the Virgo supercluster and "only" colonized roughly 100k galaxies. And the last human dies on some artificial habitat that's powered by a black-hole hawking-radiation collector in the post-stellar phase of the universe. That would still be a phenomenal run for our species. And we're at the beginning of that adventure, so cheer up.
>>

 No.467449

>>467445
>Well technically speaking most of the historic scientific socialists didn't think socialism was inevitable, they considered barbarism a real possibility.
which undermined their claims to being "scientific" because "barbarism" is not a mode of production, but a populist political term

>Post scarcity is definitely possible, people are finite beings with finite needs and wants.
People live on a finite planet in a finite solar system in a finite milky way galaxy, et cetera

It's a big leap of faith to claim that what is THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE would be PRACTICALLY FEASIBLE

>even with the current horizons there are no practically relevant limitations, other than those set by scientific and technological understanding
there are very PRACTICAL limitations such as the speed limit
or even more practical limits such as energy and material costs

you utopoid fags always amaze me by your sheer ignorance of just how fragile our position on this planet, in this solar system, in this galaxy, in this universe really is

space is a cold hostile place for life, and no mode of productions would change this basic fact
>>

 No.467450

>>467445
I thought particle physicists did some fancy math using triangles that prove the universe extends forever in all directions.
>>

 No.467451

>>467446
>which undermined their claims to being "scientific" because "barbarism" is not a mode of production,
if you want to be scientific about it it's a mode of destruction

>People live on a finite planet in a finite solar system in a finite milky way galaxy, et cetera
So ?
What are you complaining about, if planets were infinite we'd never be able to explore space, leveling up to the next level would be an infinity far away.

>It's a big leap of faith to claim that what is theoretically POSSIBLE would be FEASIBLE
The nay-sayers have so far been wrong every time. We'll render our selves able to explore the universe just to prove people like you wrong.

>there are very PRACTICAL limitations such as the speed limit
We can easily explore the entire virgo supercluster without breaking the speed of light.

>or even more practical limits such as energy and material costs
Not really no, we'll just improve the productive forces a bit, that'll make it affordable.

>just how fragile our position on this planet, in this solar system, in this galaxy, in this universe
If we tech-up and go exploring the universe we'll find ways to improve the robustness of our position.

>space is a cold hostile place for life
Sure you have to build massive spaceships and what not. You can't swim naked through the cosmos.
>>

 No.467452

>>467450
>I thought particle physicists did some fancy math using triangles that prove the universe extends forever in all directions.
If we can only go slower than light-speed, we'll only be able to reach several hundred thousand galaxies before the cosmic expansion makes the rest of the universe move away from us faster than we can go towards it.

Of course if we figure out faster than light, we'll be able to go on forever.

There's some chance that if we don't figure out faster than light, we might be able to figure out how the universe made matter and energy in the first place and tap that for civilization-go-juice.
>>

 No.467453

File: 1679140726464.jpeg ( 19.73 KB , 474x318 , th-2713292193.jpeg )

>>467451
>if you want to be scientific about it it's a mode of destruction
No brainlet, if you want to be even somewhat coherent with your own theory of historical materialism then fascism would be a capitalist mode of production
fascism is a variant of the superstructure, not of the base

and the so-called "barbarism" is nothing more than a moral term

>We'll render our selves able to explore the universe just to prove people like you wrong.
Very "scientific" lol

<U DON'T UNDERSTAND WE WOULD JUST USE MAGIC TO DEAL WITH VARIOUS SCARCITIES! THAT'S HOW WE WOULD ACHIEVE COMMUNISM!
Gods, I fucking HATE communists.
>>

 No.467454

>>467453
Sure fascism is capitalist. But I'm not going to call fascism a mode of production, because fascism didn't produce much of anything.

>Very "scientific" lol
Yes actually trying to prove others wrong is part of the scientific process.

>WE WOULD JUST USE MAGIC
maybe you should not use straw-men arguments.

>Gods, I fucking HATE communists.
That's very flattering but we're not gods.
>>

 No.467455

>>467454
>But I'm not going to call fascism a mode of production, because fascism didn't produce much of anything.
fascism is a superstructure, retard
can't you read?

>Yes actually trying to prove others wrong is part of the scientific process.
you didn't try to prove shit
you just wrote a bunch of wishful thinking

>maybe you should not use straw-men arguments
"DUDE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY" is not an argument
there are also limits to the development of the technology irrespective of the mode of production

>That's very flattering but we're not gods.
autist, reread that sentence again
>>

 No.467456

>>467453
Fascism is socialism. It's literally when the economy is subsumed and directed by a state, and recalcitrant and wholly parasitic capitalists are ushered into concentration camps. Basically the same as the soviet union or pre-Deng China.
>>

 No.467457

>>467456
>wholly parasitic capitalists are ushered into concentration camps
please do tell me what capitalists were "ushered" into concentration camps in Germany, Spain, Chile, Portugal, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc etc
>>

 No.467458

>>467457
Only the ones that refused to get with the program and submit to the people's supreme state
>>

 No.467459

>>467458
name them

protip: even jewish big capitalists in nazi Germany weren't sent to concentration camps
>>

 No.467460

>>467456
>It's literally when the economy is subsumed and directed by a state
never happened in fascism
all the "direction" was done only in the military related sectors and by giving capitalists massive subsidies with favorable government contracts and even then capitalists frequently sabotaged production plans when their profit margins suffered
>>

 No.467461

>>467460
>by giving capitalists massive subsidies with favorable government contracts
oh, and also cheap slave labor
>>

 No.469998

File: 1686546888170.png ( 294.83 KB , 574x604 , 67gf976f976f.png )

commies love golden showers
>>

 No.470004

>>469998
anarcho-autist try not to insert fetish into his politics challenge
>>

 No.470036

>>466060
See you have hit 30 and you realise that one of the main reasons Socialism never goes anywhere in the West is because the movement is filled with BPD/NPD narcissistic supply wreckers, nerds and autists!
I mean, this is why I switched my focus to studying China, Vietnam, Cuba. I've found it very easy to frame Socialism as pragmatic policy as practiced in say China. Show them some Chinese laser cities and most people realise the West is on the wrong path.
>>

 No.470850

File: 1688819635510.png ( 287.05 KB , 720x405 , 123456.png )

>>470036
>See you have hit 20
fixed, retards hit their 30s while still forgetting to wipe their asses.
me and my shitty highschool buds knew politics is just cheap novelty and pretty much pissed off everyone being contrarian and shit
>studying China, Vietnam, Cuba. I've found it very easy to frame Socialism as pragmatic
still sounds like circlejerking,chang
>>

 No.470854

File: 1688823613779.jpeg ( 16.81 KB , 474x266 , just remember.jpeg )

>>470850
that's all fine and dandy that you're an enlightened "above politics" individual

just remember that politics are silly when you get your draft card, king
>>

 No.470855

File: 1688824580497-0.webm ( 3.05 MB , 1440x1080 , - Bats Make a Diff.webm )

File: 1688824580497-1.png ( 548.47 KB , 1280x720 , 3s46de5fr6tg.png )

>>470854
nah i just kno my place as a peasant, pretty much consider myself beneath it all at the end of the day, fam.
>just remember that politics are silly when you get your draft card, king
draft is never gonna happen and even if it does, i will literally use my mass reserve of retardation to dodge it
>>

 No.470857

>>470855
>draft is never gonna happen
what, you expect to win a war against china without a draft lol?

>and even if it does, i will literally use my mass reserve of retardation to dodge it
if you're not a literal cripple, all it takes is one law to make you eligible for a draft buddy
>>

 No.470858

File: 1688826381165.png ( 264.08 KB , 562x551 , tbyby.png )

>>470857
>what, you expect to lose a war against china without a draft lol?
fixed, also…..
>what, you expect to win a war against other states lol?
further fixed, the union is in all likelood gonna shit itself before that happens
>if you're not a literal cripple, all it takes is one law to make you eligible for a draft buddy
yea the 1960/70s really shits on the idea of draft even kicking in, having actual retards reinforce the ranks is gonna cause feddies to get more teddies, frendo
>>

 No.470873

I still haven't read a single word of this screeching
I hate this site but I prefer being surrounded by commie retards than the usual other kind of retards
>>

 No.470883

File: 1688857690384.png ( 530.56 KB , 909x444 , 4ed65fr7gt6hyuj.png )

>>470873
>I prefer being surrounded by retards than the retarded usual retards other kind of retards
dis u?
>>

 No.470885

>>470883
Yeah, me on the right
>>

 No.471915

>>466060
kneeggerpill faggot autistic infantile screeching
go back
>>

 No.477644

File: 1705536146586.jpg ( 226.02 KB , 1280x746 , Topol-M.jpg )

>>466060
>tldr: I hate communists because they are communists
Here's your problem. Communists are such spergs because they believe in communism, ie a classless society. They believe in it because they belong to the intelligentsia. It is their class that dictates their belief system.

Now contrast this with the true proletarian ideology: No classless society is possible. There will always be at least two classes: proletariat and the intelligentsia. Proletariat should RULE. This is what dictatorship of the proletariat is all about. Dictatorship of the proletariat OVER the intelligentsia.

You hate communists because communism is an ideology alien to your class. Hell, it openly proclaims that it wants to ABOLISH your class.
>>

 No.477645

>>477644
>No classless society is possible. There will always be at least two classes: proletariat and the intelligentsia.
Now if we logically continue this line of thought we come to further conclusions: Domination of one class over the other necessitates the existence of state with its repressive apparatus.

As communism is a sub-type of anarchism, we can safely conclude that anarchism in general is alien to the proletariat. That it is an ideology of intelligentsia. Which is pretty fucking obvious to anyone who interacted with workers tbh.
>>

 No.477647

File: 1705542779758.jpg ( 172.18 KB , 524x746 , Volkspolizei.jpg )

In conclusion: Intelligentsia projects messianic properties onto the proletariat, that are alien to the proletariat itself. Proletariat is not here to bring you your anarchist utopia. IT IS HERE TO RULE YOU.
>>

 No.477649

>>477645
This take is completely divorced from history.
>>

 No.477650

>>477649
?? what history?
>>

 No.477651

>>477650
United States history and how workers went from being class aware and consciously moving towards a future beyond capitalism and today. Shit doesn't just happen. People think the way society tells them to think and tells them what's ok.
>>

 No.477652

>>477651
the fuck you smoking? nobody was consciously moving anywhere, you had a bunch of marxoid retards running around like headless chickens just like you have today

while proles were trying to get concessions from the capitalists (which they ultimately got) like they always do
>>

 No.477653

>>477652
Yeah sure fag.
Whatever you say, lmao.
The amount of self awareness here is so low I'm not even going to bother explaining to you the history of labor in the US and how people died so you can enjoy not getting treated like a slave at your job at McDonald's. God damn people are stupid these days.
>>

 No.477654

>>477653
"the history of labor" is that proles organized into unions and striked (and died in the process) to get concessions, which they got after ww2

I don't owe SHIT to you marxoid retards
>>

 No.477655

>>477654
Most of the concessions were won before the war, actually. Thanks in no small part to three socialist parties together comprising over a million. Post-war is when porky when to wear tearing them back.
>>

 No.477656

>>477655
nobody was tearing back anything until the crisis in the 70s

your "socialist parties" were selling newspapers and running election campaigns, while all the real action was going on in the unions

majority of your "over a million" membership had union membership also
>>

 No.477657

>>477656
>nobody was tearing back anything until the crisis in the 70s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-hartley_act
>>

 No.477660

>>477657
limiting further strikes ≠ tearing back achieved gains
>>

 No.477661

>>477651
>>477652
You might both be wrong about what limited the labor movement in the US. It's all about that leverage.

The US ruling class gained the ability to do imperialist super-exploitation on a huge chunk of the world, and that's why US labor movements became weak. If US labor goes on strike the Imperialist bourgeoisie in the US can still feed on the surplus they get from other places.

In retrospect, it might have been possible for US labor to gain some kind of leverage over the imperial mechanisms as well. But the only theory on the squeezable weak-points of the imperial machine that i have come across comes from Lenin, and he looked at this from the point of view of what can be done from the periphery. I don't know of anybody who examined the imperial machinery located in the core from that perspective.
>>

 No.477662

>>477660
The right to strike was something that was earned, so yes, that is tearing back an achieved gain.
>>

 No.477663

>>477662
there was an economic boom after the war

it's a known empirical fact that unions get especially strong in the boom phase of the cycle due to the labor shortage

nobody could tear back shit even if they wanted to until the bust phase
>>

 No.477666

>>477644
>This is what dictatorship of the proletariat is all about. Dictatorship of the proletariat OVER the intelligentsia.
And as long as peasantry exists - over it too.

Marxoids have this retarded notion that proletariat is not antagonistic to peasantry by its very nature. When SU literally had the bitterest fucking class conflict between the city (proletariat) and the countryside (peasantry).

crisis of 29 is when you know Stalin regime was ultimately a left tyranny and that every marxoid who cries about muh peasantry while at the same time championing proletariat is a fucking retard

you either stick to your class to the end - or you get ice-picked by someone who does
>>

 No.477667

>>477666
>you either stick to your class to the end - or you get ice-picked by someone who does
ie general humanist notions are groundless

humanism can exist to the extent that the ruling classes tolerate it

all marxoids-humanoids (seriously the most annoying type) can hope for is that proletariat as a ruling class would have a relatively high tolerance to it
>>

 No.477668

>>477663
>it's a known empirical fact that unions get especially strong in the boom phase of the cycle due to the labor shortage
Meanwhile, in actual materialist empirical reality, unions are strongest in periods of economic crisis as workers are forced to assert themselves to survive.
>>

 No.477669

>>477663
This uygha cannot be serious HAHAHAHAHAHA
>>

 No.477671

File: 1705592920474.jpeg ( 37.82 KB , 474x843 , bbatem.jpeg )

>>477668
>workers are stronger when they get laid off en masse due to economic contraction
genius marxoid economist strikes again

that your westoid unions got assfucked with outsourcing doesn't negate the fact that there was an increased union activity in the periphery during the boom

maybe try looking at the number of strikes in China and India and their rising wages dumbfuck
>>

 No.477672

File: 1705595689512.jpg ( 217.29 KB , 896x935 , animig.jpg )

*Ahem*

To continue my line of thought.. marxoid preoccupation with the idiotic question "How can we abolish the state?" prevents them from asking the real question: "What kind of state would facilitate proletarian rule over other classes?"

their utopianism makes them completely useless to the proletariat, as the second question requires them to go down to the nitty-gritty of institutional organizational details, which Marx famously labeled as "utopianism" (self-consciousness on the level of a typical marxoid)

That's why Owen gets far more respect from me than our plagiarizing Marxoid: At least he TRIED to be useful!

All marxoids ever do is appropriate proletarian inventions as their own, and then sell them back to us as some revelations. They appropriated ricardian socialism, council system (which goes back at least as far as the English revolution), union practice, etc-etc.

I'd say Enough is Enough!
>>

 No.477673

>>477671
That doesn't make sense if they had unions then outsourcing wouldn't fly would it? Unions must have gone away for different reasons. You keep making shit up in this thread.
>>

 No.477674

>>477673
>if they had unions then outsourcing wouldn't fly would it?
lol

no, dumbfuck, first you get outsourcing, then you get unions (you can't have unions when there are no jobs, duh)

>Unions must have gone away for different reasons.
Unions have gone away because jobs have gone away. Even the last redneck knows this, but apparently not our enlightened advanced section lol.
>>

 No.477682

File: 1705612100780.jpg ( 209.89 KB , 1280x720 , soviet-anime-schoolgirl.jpg )

>>477672
>the real question: "What kind of state would facilitate proletarian rule over other classes?"
Now let's try to view the october revolution in the light of this question.

Various marxoids claim that proletariat really "came to power" in the process of the october revolution. But how could proletariat really "come to power" in a situation of a revolutionary chaos? How could it "come to power" without a state structure that would facilitate such power? This statement contradicts the very basic premise of historical materialism: no class power without state power.

Conclusion: proletariat could fully come to power only AFTER the revolution, when the new state is built to facilitate such power.

Further conclusion: proletariat can be said to "come to power" in the Soviet Union only to the extent that the new state acted in their class interests against other classes.

Further conclusion: no "Soviet Thermidor" as the substance of the Stalin regime was exploitation of the countryside by the urban population (it is well documented how much Stalin despised the peasantry on an almost instinctual level).

Further conclusion: Proletariat can be exploitative as a ruling class also.

Further conclusion: Proletarian ideology is not an ideology of "all the toiling masses". It is a ruling ideology of the proletariat class ONLY.

Further conclusion: real "Thermidor" can be said to happen only after the ww2, with the death of Stalin (Khrushchev was a clear cut case of the peasant reaction).

Final conclusion: Stalin was a tyrant that objectively (unconsciously?) pursued interests of the proletariat against all the other classes.
>>

 No.477683

>>477672
>marxist preoccupation with the question "How can we abolish the state?"
>prevents them from asking the question: "What kind of state would facilitate proletarian rule over other classes?"
When Marxists say "abolish the state" they don't mean getting rid of governance institutions, just the bits that bully people on behalf of the ruling class.

The proletariat are a huge masse of people, they don't all fit into the top spot of the pyramid shaped power-structure of the capitalist state, so you can't just invert the power-relations between classes and expect that to work. However i'll try to humor your request of designing a mechanism for proletarian class-domination.

I think you have to formalize all power-relations and all means of exerting influence or shaping outcomes.

So the base-line of political thinking will have to be a differentiation between Granted-Power and Taken-Power. So the former is power that is freely given by the proletariat and retractable at any time. While the latter is power that has been taken, by means of force or deception and cannot be annulled by a simple formal procedure.

If you want to have a state that is not capable of doing anything else other than enforcing proletarian rule, you need to quell all avenues of taken-power. That means if a proletarian experiences the exertion of power over them that is not granted or resists retraction, proletarians must have the means and organization to impose a annulment of taken-power by force.

I think this would reliably perpetuate proletarian rule. However if you try to order the cleaning lady to scrub the toilet for minimum wage, she can retract your power to give orders, and if you don't get the hint that you only have a carrot for incentives, she and her friends will use the big stick on you. So in the proletarian state work that nobody wants to do will have to be the best payed. Expect to see the coal-miner park his yacht next to the one owned by the guy who clears blockages in the sewer system.

I'm not sure i captured your intentions, so is this structure what you were looking for ?
>>

 No.477684

>>477683
>just the bits that bully people on behalf of the ruling class.
stopped reading right there

Proletariat SHOULD BE THE RULING CLASS marxoid retard, with the governance institutions that "bully" people on its behalf
>>

 No.477685

>>477684
>stopped reading right there
>Proletariat SHOULD BE THE RULING CLASS
You should have read the rest of the post.
>>

 No.477686

File: 1705614168406.jpg ( 70.49 KB , 512x480 , red-banner.jpg )

>>477685
*SIGH*

okaaay..

>>477683
>The proletariat are a huge masse of people, they don't all fit into the top spot of the pyramid shaped power-structure of the capitalist state
Do you have any substantive arguments as to why proletariat in principle can't rule the lesser classes by inverting the pyramid?

>So the base-line of political thinking will have to be a differentiation between Granted-Power and Taken-Power.
You lost me there again, marxoid retard.

Here, let me explain it to you in proletarian terms: MAJORITY decides - YOU obey. Or get fucked.

Capisce?
>>

 No.477688

File: 1705618332532.jpg ( 333.5 KB , 1280x720 , oooo.jpg )

>>477686
>the lesser classes
mhmm.. yesss..

if I were to describe my ideology, it would be "proletarian supremacist"
>>

 No.477689

>>477686
>Do you have any substantive arguments as to why proletariat in principle can't rule the lesser classes by inverting the pyramid?
If you want to have a state, that's a pyramid with the pointy bit up. If the pointy bit is not up, it doesn't qualify as a state.

A inverted pyramid that's the classless, stateless, money-less society Marx talked about.

<differentiation between Granted-Power and Taken-Power.
>You lost me there again
Ok look at it from the first person point of view of a prole. You want all power to go through you and the other proles. That means you and the proles are the ones that grant power or un-grant it. And you can design your political system in such a manor that all the rules center all power on you and the other proles.

But some people are not going to comply with that, and they will want to take power for them selves, after-all that's how we ended up in class societies to begin with. You have to account for the reality that some people will succeed at taking power that wasn't granted by the proles. You have to design your system to expect and handle that. The first step is to give it a name and describe it. I chose to call it "taken-power" because i thought that was clear and simple.

>Here, let me explain it to you in proletarian terms: MAJORITY decides
Yeah but that's a declaration of a political goal, not a practical means to achieve it. Consider that bourgeois democracy already has officially ceded all power to the majority. But the practical reality is of course very different. You're not challenging the current systems of power. What you are suggesting only challenges something like a feudal king.

Here are the more practical bits of the previous post
<If you want to have a state that is not capable of doing anything else other than enforcing proletarian rule, you need to quell all avenues of taken-power. That means if a proletarian experiences the exertion of power over them that was not granted by the proles or resists retraction, proletarians must have the means and organization to impose a annulment of taken-power by force.

<I think this would reliably perpetuate proletarian rule. However if you try to order the cleaning lady to scrub the toilet for minimum wage, she can retract your power to give orders, and if you don't get the hint that you only have a carrot for incentives, she and her friends will use the big stick on you. So in the proletarian state work that nobody wants to do will have to be the best payed. Expect to see the coal-miner park his yacht next to the one owned by the guy who clears blockages in the sewer system.
>>

 No.477690

>>477689
>If the pointy bit is not up, it doesn't qualify as a state.
literally "just don't call it a state bro" tier

you have classes, you have a repressive state apparatus

the only difference is that the bigger (and better) class is on top and represses all the smaller classes

but this is somehow not a state.. okay bro lol
>>

 No.477692

File: 1705620625117.jpg ( 112.38 KB , 859x1080 , polizei.jpg )

>>477689
>You have to account for the reality that some people will succeed at taking power that wasn't granted by the proles. You have to design your system to expect and handle that.
yes, that's what repressive apparatus is for dumbfuck - to repress intelligentsia (or any other class) who would want to usurp power from the proletariat

>Yeah but that's a declaration of a political goal, not a practical means to achieve it.
practically you achieve it by massive popular jury courts and other means

they will decide if you live or die

>However if you try to order the cleaning lady to scrub the toilet for minimum wage, she can retract your power to give orders, and if you don't get the hint that you only have a carrot for incentives, she and her friends will use the big stick on you.
If majority (local or federal, whatever) decides through referendum or some other decision making process that cleaning lady is gonna get minimum wage - she's gonna get minimum wage, uygha lol.

She and her "friends" would have to deal with the fucking Volkspolizei if they gonna cause trouble lol.
>>

 No.477693

and yes, before you ask: Volkspolizei should be conscription based (as we hopefully wouldn't need military service anymore)

a year of service I think would be enough
>>

 No.477695

>>477690
>you have classes, you have a repressive state apparatus
>the only difference is that the bigger (and better) class is on top and represses all the smaller classes
The Soviets did more or less that. The problem is that you only get one generation of revolutionaries that see the mask-off version of capitalism, who experience the complete lack of humanity and how far the ruling classes are willing to go. That one generation of revolutionairies gets shocked into becoming a ruthless force of nature that creates a better world by crushing anything and everything that stands in the way.

But eventually Gen1 retires, and then the people that follow in their foot-steps, they experience a much nicer world, they only hear the stories about what mask-off capitalism was like. Gen2 will not repress the enemies of the proletariat as vigorously. And by the time Gen3 comes around there isn't going to be the will to destroy the enemy. You have to realize that the basic instinct of "our kind" is live and let live, the "other side" has us at a disadvantage there.

Keep in mind the managerial strata and the intelligentsia in the Soviet Union did not side with the workers when push came to shove.

The sell-outs that dissolved the Soviet Union and cast the post Soviet states into the ravenous neoliberal mega-death grip weren't that strong. The Soviet state could have easily crushed them. But the good people in the system couldn't even imagine that the horrors of the 1990s were a possibility. They could not summon the will to exert the powers (they very much had) to prevent it.

Lenin knew about this, he called it "the state withering away". His calculation was that by the time this was going to happen the economy would have realized such a advanced socialist mode of production which would have so completely transformed society that none of this was going to matter, because socialism would have become self-reproducing and irreversible. It turns out Lenin under-estimated how long it would actually take to complete the transformation of the economic base.

You can take over the capitalist state and then make it enforce proletarian rule. However that will only work for a time, you have to build a new system, that is specifically designed to serve the proles. When the capitalists took over they too began replacing feudal structures with capitalist ones. You have to do the same.

The ruling class of big capitalists are a very small group of people, they build systems that are designed for a tiny minority to subjugate the rest of society. The proles are a large group they need other systems. Start with that.
>>

 No.477698

File: 1705646608664.png ( 768.58 KB , 940x725 , baka-stalin.png )

>>477695
marxoid, you're just a low autism score retard and I'm not even gonna entertain your tldrs because you're clearly just rambling at this point

The problem is as follows: can we create a state structure that breaks the iron law of oligarchy?

Obviously vanguardoid solution doesn't break it - max you can hope for is a fucking tyrant that's gonna get more retarded and paranoid with the old age.

"Abolishing the state" doesn't break it either. You can't abolish the state, so all that would entail in practice is surrender of state power to one of the lesser classes.

Proletariat needs its own state with its own defensive and offensive mechanisms against the other classes.

You want to disarm the proletariat of its state power, so you should be dealt with as the enemy of the proletariat.
>>

 No.477708

File: 1705688382106.jpg ( 370.39 KB , 1058x1024 , your-pov.jpg )

Title: Why Proletariat is superior to all the other classes that hitherto existed, or why it should rule them all in perpetuity.

Definition: Proletariat - direct producers of goods and services that do their work without personally owning their means of production.

Point 1: Proletariat is a majority class in industrialized societies.

Point 2: Proletariat is growing as technology develops, while the other classes shrink.

Point 3: Proletariat directly produces what it consumes.

Point 4: Proletariat is more educated than any other major class, and gets more educated as technology develops.

Point 5: Proletariat tends to higher organization.

Point 6: Proletariat tends to the materialist viewpoint of the world.

Point 7: Proletariat is my class.
>>

 No.477713

Title: Why intelligentsia is a separate antagonistic class, or why classless society is not possible.

Definition: intelligentsia - indirect producers of goods and services that do their work through direct producers.

Point 1: Is a minority class.

Point 2: Grows with the proletariat.

Point 3: Consumes what it doesn't directly produce.

Point 4: More educated than any other minor class.

Point 5: Tends to lower organization.

Point 6: Tends to idealism.

Point 7: Not my class.

Conclusion: Should be kept disorganized and confused.
>>

 No.477714

>>477698
>your tldrs
that's still too much text? damn.

So your wish-list is:
>a state structure that breaks the iron law of oligarchy?
>Proletariat's own state with its own defensive and offensive mechanisms against the other classes.
>no vanguard party

How about Cockshotts proposal for cybernetic socialism then ?
Instead of an electoral system you have sortition (election by lot), that's not vulnerable to oligarchy.
In addition to that you have a government website where every citizen registers their priorities that policy has to aim for.
For defense you do an armed/trainned population + small high-end professional military

I can't condense Marxist theory of the state into a twitter-post, so i'll drop that.
>>

 No.477717

>>477714
>that's still too much text? damn.
yes, too much text about ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. damn indeed.

>How about Cockshotts proposal for cybernetic socialism then ?
What proposal? He didn't propose any new constitution, so there's nothing substantial to talk about.

Call me when he drafts a fucking constitution lol.

>I can't condense Marxist theory of the state into a twitter-post, so i'll drop that.
Except you can lol. Here, let me do it for you: State will wither away because.. because… reasons!

Nice "theory", dog!
>>

 No.477718

File: 1705723240014.jpg ( 91.81 KB , 512x512 , afghanistan-oreimo.jpg )

Also, please don't quote Leninoid at me: I CAN'T STAND that dogmoid retard, it takes me ENORMOUS effort to try and read his shit.

If you really can't help yourself (like a dog can't help but pee on his own bed), I would very much prefer that you at least quote Stalinoid at me. I unironically have much easier time with his shit.
>>

 No.477720

>>477717
>What proposal? He didn't propose any new constitution
You only accept proposals for a socio-economic system in the form of a very specific type of legal document ?
Huh ?! That's a first.

I guess that could be done, but it might require inventing a bunch of new legal jargon. Might take a while.

>>477718
>it takes me ENORMOUS effort to try and read Lenin.
>I would very much prefer that you at least quote Stalin at me.
Some people have described Stalin's theory work as simplified Leninism.
Maybe they're on to something.
>>

 No.477722

File: 1705732753159.jpg ( 106.47 KB , 478x424 , miku-gommunism.jpg )

>>477720
>You only accept proposals for a socio-economic system in the form of a very specific type of legal document ?
Constitution is not just some "type of legal document". It is a blueprint of the state.

I'm just looking at what worked in the past for the other ruling classes.

Bourgeoisie when it was coming into power paid great attention to their Constitution. And it paid off: American Constitution is still the most effective system of bourgeois class rule ever created. All the other bourgeois states at the very least try to emulate it in some aspects, even if they are opposed to the USA as a state.

Stalinoid had the right idea with his Soviet Constitution (he was inspired by the drafting of the American Constitution?), but the retard failed miserably.

>Some people have described Stalin's theory work as simplified Leninism.
More like he was a codifier of Leninism.

He also was uncharacteristically pragmatic for a marxoid, and didn't really share typical marxoid idealistic dogmas (such as withering away of the state lol). He also basically called Engels a retard (which he was) in irritation lol.

He was pretty based for a marxoid (and a tyrant), tbh.
>>

 No.477726

File: 1705734891067.jpg ( 208.04 KB , 947x768 , just-another-day-at-the-of….jpg )

>>477724
No arguments? SAD.

btw, never met a negro in my life
>>

 No.477730

File: 1705735370098.jpg ( 233.31 KB , 692x1080 , sehr-gut.jpg )

>>477728
Based goblincels.
>>

 No.477737

File: 1705738978301.jpg ( 414.45 KB , 1280x1197 , nato-pervert.jpg )

>>477722
>Stalinoid had the right idea with his Soviet Constitution
That Constitution is also hilarious as fuck: it doesn't have any mention of a vanguard party (in Brezhnev times they added "the leading role of the CPSU" part).

It's like that shit was created for some other fucking state lol.
>>

 No.477739

File: 1705741099382.jpg ( 498.63 KB , 1147x800 , forever-friends.jpg )

>>477738
Ugly fucking nails.
>>

 No.477753

File: 1705805802740.jpg ( 306.53 KB , 838x1080 , 1957-just-fuck-my-shit-up.jpg )

Speaking about Cockshott, it's interesting that he ditched diamat for thermodynamics, as I came to the same conclusion (that it's a far better framework for histmat) after reading Prigogine. Tho I ditched diamat straight away when I first encountered it in Stalin's pamphlet, as just another manifestation of philosophycel brainrot (never rated philosophy).

Let me tell you retards, it feels fucking GOOD to come to histmat through history (duh), and not philosophy or reading the collected works of Lenin!

Tho Cockshott doesn't seem to spill (understand?) the full consequences of this change in frameworks. They are as follows: NO GOMMUNISM FOR U RETARD!

According to thermodynamic theory life evolves in the direction of higher organizational forms to produce more entropy. Stateless form of human being is a LOWER form of being (that produces LESS entropy) compared to the statist form. This process is IRREVERSIBLE.

This framework also answers the most fundamental philosophycel question that humans have been asking since the dawn of time: "Why do we exist?"

Short answer: To bring about the heat death of the universe.

You're welcome.
>>

 No.477755

>>477753
>According to thermodynamic theory life evolves in the direction of higher organizational forms to produce more entropy.
A better way to describe it would be to say matter rearranges it self to maximize entropy, and life catches a ride.

>Stateless form of human being is a LOWER form of being (that produces LESS entropy) compared to the statist form. This process is IRREVERSIBLE.
Socialism is a highly productivist ideology, Marx's argument why socialism will displace capitalism, is because capitalism would become a fetter on the productive forces. So socialism unfettering the productive forces would make it better at entropy maximization, and thus the statistically more likely outcome from a thermodynamics point of view.

<Can science answer the big WHY question ?
<Like "Why do we exist?"
Scientists are only interested in the HOW questions.

The big WHY questions tend to lead to a infinite regression search for the original purpose from which all other types of purpose flow from. If you say that the purpose of life is to raise entropy, you'll just get a new question which asks what the purpose of entropy is.

So don't bother with the why questions, it's a line of thinking that'll get your mind stuck in a loop.
>>

 No.477756

>>477753
"Philosophical brainrot" describes what you just wrote. It's the purest imperial religion you can imagine. You dumb fags are a stain on the already-failed human race.

All of these stupidities ultimately arise from granting to life "natural order" and powers it does not actually possess. The natural order of the world is a dead order. That's why the promotion of nature-worship and appeals to nature in all of the ruling ideas. It is a way, understood since Antiquity, to shout "DIE DIE DIE" like maniacs, and make others comply under threat of unlimited torture. It's funny, you can read Plato's Republic and it's pretty clear this is a thought experiment to show a ridiculously evil city-state that wouldn't be able to know it was evil.
>>

 No.477757

>>477722
A constitution is a legal document - that's what the definition of a legal state is. The architecture of any state is not what is written in the constitution, as if that is all there was to see. The state as a machine is executive, not constructed out of words you wrote on a paper. This was understood to everyone who ever wrote a constitution as what the document meant. You would write a constitution as if humans were rational and independent actors who read the thing. Lawyers do not say the constitution is made of magic to make reality what you want it to be. The most basic legal education would tell you what the law really is and from where laws and courts derive their authority, and it has nothing to do with a constitution casting some magical spell to make the world go. Constitutions are written by men specifically to guide the legal apparatus and establish what a government aspires to accomplish. They presume the state has already been established as a going concern, and the constitutions always start early on with an establishment clause to affirm that this has happened, and anything someone wrote was actually acted on by men, instead of some words that mean nothing.

This idea of "worshipping the constitution" would be alien to anyone until Germanic idealism found an excuse to lie profusely about basic concepts of law and what a state even is. It's a fucking mind virus. This isn't to say "constitutions are worthless" - that's Germanic idiocy. Constitutions were written with the expectation that men understood them and could ask why this document was written in the first place, and what would change as time passes and new situations arise. The US Constitution says remarkably little about what the US is supposed to be, because it's not a blueprint of society with a Biblical answer to everything. Hilariously, where you do have a body of religious law like is Lslam, jurists establish precedent. Constitutions of the state are not religious claims and explicitly aim not to be that, nor do they seek to supplant the prior religious laws. That's a Germanic idea that is autocratic, and when you do that, there is no need of a "constitution" - which, if you know German history and autocracy, was exactly the struggle German kings waged, insisting that they would not regard any "constitution" or the meaning of such a document.

Also, Americans who actually know the Constitution are the first to admit that this document is and always was a piece of shit. When Americans advise others on how to construct their state, they say explicitly to never do it like that. At this point, nearly everything in the Constitution has been mutated into its exact opposite. When you have a court that revels in excessive sentences and abandons any concept that law exists for anything but punishment and torture, most of the Bill of Rights and basic parts of what the government even set out to do in its establishment at a basic level are completely abrogated, so that a hidden power is the true governing law of the land. That was not only taken for granted, but exceeded any purpose the torture and punishment would have accomplished. Now, the constitution and legal documents are used as nothing more than an excuse for abject humiliation, because "the system is never wrong". That's what Germanism does to a motherfucker.
>>

 No.477759

File: 1705814626358.png ( 1021.11 KB , 1470x2817 , where.png )

>>477755
>A better way to describe it would be to say matter rearranges it self to maximize entropy, and life catches a ride.
No it's not. This completely misses the point that life "rearranges it self" into different FORMS to maximize entropy. Your definition COMPLETELY misses the hierarchical aspect of the organization of life.

>Socialism is a highly productivist ideology
ideology can't be productive, socio-economic system can

>Marx's argument why socialism will displace capitalism, is because capitalism would become a fetter on the productive forces. So socialism unfettering the productive forces would make it better at entropy maximization, and thus the statistically more likely outcome from a thermodynamics point of view.
Yes, I've heard it all before about "fetters" and "contradictions" and shit.

You don't seem to get my point. I don't deny that the socio-economic system that comes after capitalism would need to be more productive. I deny that this system would be STATELESS and CLASSLESS.

Again, the ONLY reason marxoids assume the possibility of communism is because of dialectics (particularly negation of the negation "law"). And I've ditched dialectics already, so I have no reason to assume it.

>Can science answer the big WHY question ?
Yes.

>Scientists are only interested in the HOW questions.
"Scientists" are still coping about the heat death.

>The big WHY questions tend to lead to a infinite regression search for the original purpose from which all other types of purpose flow from.
Nah, we know the end purpose of the arrow of time already - the heat death, ie maximum entropy.

From this original purpose all the other purposes flow - we are entropy producing machines, the Angels of Death itself!

>If you say that the purpose of life is to raise entropy, you'll just get a new question which asks what the purpose of entropy is.
The purpose of entropy is to increase probability.

<inb4 b-but what is the purpose of probability?

>>477756
>It's funny, you can read Plato's Republic and it's pretty clear this is a thought experiment to show a ridiculously evil city-state that wouldn't be able to know it was evil.
Dunno the fuck you rambling about, but Plato's Republic was not a fucking "thought experiment", but a massive aristocratic cope after his dear senpai (and I would bet a fuckbuddy) got guillotined for anti-state propaganda.
>>

 No.477760

>>477759
Exactly - he wanted a state that would never execute his guru, and the only way to do that would be to make something so horrifically insidious that no one would know who or what to attack, and then make it illegal to name the ruling power as what it was, by elaborate deception. That's what aristocracies do.
>>

 No.477761

The same imperial pseudoscience you're writing is the same sort of thing - a cope of dope fiends and worthless men and women who inherited the empire better men won and ran it into the ground because they were up to some Harry Potter business.
>>

 No.477762

File: 1705815757878.jpg ( 83.73 KB , 779x521 , doesnt-get-it.jpg )

>>477761
>>

 No.477763

>>477762
Says the person who can't understand what a constitution is, and thinks it's made of magic and asserted reality. It's like you can connect the dots for them, and they just recapitulate the same insanity, expecting different results.
>>

 No.477764

Also, entropy proper has nothing to do with "informational chaos" let alone a retarded conceit about it. The motion of particles to generate the phenomenon of heat is not a description of all systems in all places, which can be superimposed freely on reality to make the world conform to a preferred cosmology. It pertains only to systems of temperature and heat, which generate physical force. Only so far as this informational content led to an understanding of temperature and force was it meaningful, and the systems you are implying are like heat have nothing to do with heat, and usually are abstractions which cannot be treated like that at all. This is something a basic education would have taught, if education weren't designed to produce eugenist screamers who are conditioned to obey.
>>

 No.477766

File: 1705823162816.jpg ( 6.25 MB , 3482x2485 , a-quiet-night.jpg )

>>477764
>The motion of particles to generate the phenomenon of heat is not a description of all systems in all places, which can be superimposed freely on reality to make the world conform to a preferred cosmology.
Do you even materialism?

Literally all of universe is made of particles that are subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Including your retarded mind.

It's not a fucking coincidence that Shannon "suddenly" found out that Boltzmann's formula applies to fucking communications technology.

>>477763
>Says the person who can't understand what a constitution is, and thinks it's made of magic and asserted reality.
Listen retard, constitution is not just the written words. It's the fucking institutional arrangement.

Learn2read between the lines, dog.
>>

 No.477769

File: 1705831270231.png ( 846.5 KB , 996x720 , gommunism-everywhere.png )

>>477759
>I deny that this system would be STATELESS and CLASSLESS.
Tho I suppose IN PRINCIPLE we can imagine the next organizational form after socialism (or whatever you wanna call it) to be something completely different from all the previous forms of human organization.

For example if it wouldn't be a form of human organization at all lol. But a form of organization of what would come AFTER humans.

After all, who said that children can't surpass their parents (in entropy production)?

But that's sci-fi territory already, and not a given at all.
>>

 No.477770

>>477766
Do you actually think the political class and officers of the state believe in a literalist and originalist reading of the 1789 Constitution? My god, the levels of ideology on this asshole.

I can't even begin with this asshole. It's pure ideology, pure degeneration. Marxism is a hell of a drug if you don't know what you're doing with it. The "ruthless critique of everything that exists" turns the world into a slurry of indescribable parties where no form can be identified. You're supposed to figure out that is a bad thing, not bark like a Satanic retard and think this is good, with a straight face.

You're either extremely disingenuous and wish to deny that basic thought exists outside of your own conceits, or you really believe the shit you write. I have to believe it's the latter - there are so many sad people who actually think the world conforms to this pseudoscientific conceit of what nature is.
>>

 No.477771

>>477770
Was supposed to be "particles" instead of "parties" but the political terminology is a wonderful accident of mine. It explains the thousand and one Trotskyite sects.
>>

 No.477772

>>477769
The "stateless and classless" line was trialed by someone at Langley to disconnect socialism from anything it historically was or anythign relevant. Establishing a status quo of socialism or communism is already making clear that a "state" exists. You could imagine a world where the state is no longer relevant to daily life (which is what Marx's view of it was, and what Engels reiterated), and doesn't have this authority to invade private life that is unwarranted and highly counter-productive, for the most spurious purposes. That was something most people, Marxists or not, could understand easily enough. The absurdity of the state and the conservative order was the majority position, and those who espoused the conservative position didn't have a leg to stand on to justify any of this. It was purely about people with a badge power tripping and believing that was the point. For the Right, political power is a means to property, and they intended to use that power to take everyone else's shit for purely selfish reasons, not even pretending that there was any other goal to society. The better of them knew you had to at least make something functional to feed that property, and that in the long run, property would have to be defended against a world that was hostile to the idea, in addition to the conflict of proprietors with each other.

As for "classless" - well, the people who espouse these ideas have pretty clear ideas about who belongs in their perfect society, and have trained themselves to see an oppressed class as not part of any society. That is the dominant value of the past 50 years, and it would surprise me how thoroughly this has been accepted and operationalized in every activity humans undertake. The only places that are exceptional are "safe spaces" for the extreme losers who are already disconnected, and these chambers are policed to ensure the slaves don't find a way around the mediation of information.

I have too much to write to spend too much time untangling the mess of bullshit. It would be easier to just abolish the bullshit and build anew a worthwhile view of what society even is, to construct what would have been possible in a different society, if humans didn't choose to do this. All that we rail against was a choice of someone, and those people were not fated to make that choice. If they had sense of what the world and nature was, no such plan would be self-evident, and that is one reason it took this long for people to be so brazen to believe such a retarded ideology as that of the 21st century should be allowed to propagate so freely, and anything decent must be suppressed.
>>

 No.477777

>>477759
>Your definition COMPLETELY misses the hierarchical aspect of the organization of life.
Most lifeforms are single cell organism that don't have any hierarchy. Some of the social animals do appear to have hierarchies, but we can't really be sure to what extend this is human bias.

>You don't seem to get my point. I don't deny that the socio-economic system that comes after capitalism would need to be more productive. I deny that this system would be STATELESS and CLASSLESS.
I think it's likely that socialism will have states in the lower stages, and those states will enforce proletarian rule over the residual elements of the class societies that came before. But in the higher stages of socialism, i don't see how that would be plausible, once you have changed the economic base you're going to get a different super-structure.
>>

 No.477778

>>477764
>Also, entropy proper has nothing to do with "informational chaos"
I don't know what "informational chaos" means to you, but entropy is strongly related to information, not just heat.
>>

 No.477779

>>477778
Information is not an uncountable number of particles whose position is not known and "just that", if you are suggesting all systems of information behave like heat particles.

Life to be recognizably life is very much not that - as are most developed and coherent things. You can see the insanity on display in today's academy, ruled by imperial pseudoscience in order to defend eugenics. It's the only thing they ever believed in, and we are asked to suffer and die for a lie that did nothing good at all. This assoication of life with "entropy" is a death cult and nothing more.

The reason you can use entropic information to describe heat is because we don't actually have a "substance of heat" or "unit of heat" that can be identified in nature, because it's not a "thing" at all in that sense. Heat exists precisely because of vibrating particles, and the use of entropic information is to suggest "random, vague stuff" happens to create the mechanics of heat and cold in locales, and that this activity itself means something. It says nothing about proper systems, or any necessary origin of a "system".

This shit didn't start until logical positivist faggotry made the rounds, and that vile doctrine is among the greatest abominations ever committed to paper. It really is an atrocity.
>>

 No.477780

File: 1705868287450.jpg ( 533.9 KB , 1800x1290 , loli-kuriles.jpg )

>>477759
>Again, the ONLY reason marxoids assume the possibility of communism is because of dialectics (particularly negation of the negation "law").
Tho maybe I'm not being entirely fair to communists here.

Dialectical "laws" are an ex-post rationalization (as always) of some conclusions arrived at from the class analysis (that the dynamics of class conflict would lead to the end of classes).

But would it, really? Suppose that the class of direct producers wins state power and establishes a new form of economic organization. Would that automatically lead to the abolition of classes?

It doesn't follow. So far we have only seen one ruling class replacing another, and not the abolition of both classes.
>>

 No.477781

File: 1705868947231.png ( 749.71 KB , 569x1000 , soviet-dogpill.png )

>>477777
>Most lifeforms are single cell organism that don't have any hierarchy. Some of the social animals do appear to have hierarchies, but we can't really be sure to what extend this is human bias.
Cell is already a hierarchy of organelles.

You're tilting at windmills here, it is pretty established at this point that all life tends to higher organization to some degree (maybe not gradually, but certainly in sudden bursts such as Cambrian explosion).

>But in the higher stages of socialism, i don't see how that would be plausible, once you have changed the economic base you're going to get a different super-structure.
Why would a change in economic base lead to a classless society? Did a change from feudalism to capitalism led to a classless society?
>>

 No.477782

>>477781
*eucaryotic cell
>>

 No.477785

>>477780
>Suppose that the class of direct producers wins state power and establishes a new form of economic organization. Would that automatically lead to the abolition of classes?
It CAN lead to abolition of exploitation. But does abolition of exploitation lead to a classless society?
>>

 No.477786

>>477781
Social and political hierarchies are very different from natural hierarchies of systems, stemming from entirely different causes. Nothing about society is "found in nature", beyond the existence of social agents that communicate with each other. Society exists only for conscious and intelligent agencies that regard such a condition. For non-thinking life, there is no "society" as such - only the sociality that is read into their behavior. It doesn't occur to the cell that it is consciously seeking any society on its own power. Unconsciously, life may be drawn to certain conditions that favor it, but this is very different from animals moving on their own power, in a way that must be adaptive to the animal's active existence rather than a conceit held about what it "ought" to be.

A drive towards "self-organization" as a natural law is not substantiated by anything, as if life had any preferred teleology. What happens instead is that animal life actively responds to its environment - that's why animals have nervous systems, rather than some accidental firing of nerves that "randomly" built a brain that is unaware of any of its conditions. For simpler organisms, they would change very rapidly - which is why fruit flies mutate in a short enough time span that the changes are observed and would act on the population to confirm "natural selection", or the struggle for life carried out in the lab conditions of fruit flies producing its expected outcome. As life adapts to its environment, or it changes for a multitude of causes which would only be confirmed by specific historical rationales, other life adapts to this newcomer, or else. Nothing any complex life does is random or beholden to a flat law that mandates any degree of complexity, and the reality shows that increasingly complexity and degeneration are both fates of life. The natural order is not very, uh, orderly. The way nature selects is very bloody, very slow, and very unpleasant.
>>

 No.477787

So much of this is just an import of Whig History into the natural world (which is really what Darwinian selection is btw). But, wherever there is a developing intelligence - which a central brain and nervous system must maintain - intelligence itself has objectives that would generally select for the trait and discourage stupidity, and acquired technology - acquired traits - are almost never reversed or lost if they can perpetuate in the world. They either cannot coexist with an alien trait struggling against them, or the traits are co-opted by the victor in the "struggle for life", or they begin splitting into two different groups with different mating populations.

The funniest thing is that for Darwin's theory to work - to import political economy into nature - life-forms are granted for that purpose agency to act on their own power, yet every defense of Darwinism today suggests the exact opposite. If you are doing that, you can't really speak of natural selection or genetic struggle or "laws of evolution" that conform to any political conceit, or some sense that life conforms to inexorable historical progress. This thinking is Germanic.
>>

 No.477788

File: 1705875036986.png ( 1.09 MB , 1446x1163 , revolution.png )

>>477785
>does abolition of exploitation lead to a classless society?
Yessss, I guess this can be called the main theorem of historical materialism: "Exploitation is a necessary condition for the existence of classes"

Now all that's left is to prove (or disprove) it.
>>

 No.477789

>>477788
Trivially disproven if you figure out that class is at first a cocneit in peoples' mind, rather than something "reluctantly accepted". The aristocrats have freely admitted to those who "get it" that social class is something entirely assigned by them and their institutions, rather than a "real thing" that they believe in. In the final battle, there are those who won and those who lost, who is a member of the club and who isn't. The property they hold doesn't really matter, as long as they have some basis to exist and command other people. Social class is overwhelmingly something supported by spiritual authority - religion, philosophy, ideology, and above all, education.
>>

 No.477790

The gold/silver/copper essences that constitute "social class" in the sense that it meaningfully affects institutional judgements, are acknowledged to be a fiction, monopolized by those who rule to decide where everyone will be and what they do.
>>

 No.477791

>>477781
>Cell is already a hierarchy
i think you are overstretching the metaphor.

>it is pretty established at this point that all life tends to higher organization to some degree
When socialists say stateless, classless and moneyless they don't mean getting rid of higher order organizational levels in society.

>Why would a change in the economic base lead to a classless society?
Division into classes is where most of the economic inefficiencies comes from. Capitalism is relatively inefficient because the most efficient options aren't in the interest of the ruling big bourgeoisie that decides these things. The higher modes of production probably aren't reachable with something like that holding society back.
>>

 No.477792

>>477789
>Trivially disproven if you figure out that class is at first a cocneit in peoples' mind
Class is an objective category that can be seen in the different types of income distribution.

Exploitation is an objective category too (if ltv is true).

You're just a solipsist, eugene.
>>

 No.477794

>>477792
>Class is an objective category that can be seen in the different types of income distribution.
So NEETs are not actually working class and won't survive the revolution.
>>

 No.477796

File: 1705878657127.jpg ( 717.28 KB , 1920x1200 , Sanya-V-Litvyak.jpg )

>>477786
>Social and political hierarchies are very different from natural hierarchies of systems, stemming from entirely different causes.
>Nothing about society is "found in nature", beyond the existence of social agents that communicate with each other.
And that's where I would strongly disagree.

Thermodynamics provides a unified framework that applies to ALL forms of organized matter, on ALL levels.

>A drive towards "self-organization" as a natural law is not substantiated by anything, as if life had any preferred teleology.
It is substantiated by thermodynamics.

Guess life DOES have a teleology to it after all (which is implied already by the existence of the arrow of time).
>>

 No.477797

>>477791
>i think you are overstretching the metaphor.
that's not a metaphor

hierarchy = organization

>When socialists say stateless, classless and moneyless they don't mean getting rid of higher order organizational levels in society.
yes, I know that when communists say stateless they don't actually mean stateless

that's the problem lol

>Division into classes is where most of the economic inefficiencies comes from.
and you getting this from what exactly?

really existing classless societies (nomadic hunter-gatherers) were not more efficient than really existing class societies lol
>>

 No.477798

>>477797
>Waaa was only my definition of words are correct.
God shut up already, Jesus. Brother I'm Christ communist do desire a stateless society socialism being a lower phase of communism allows for the existence of a state. I personally think a minarchist approach is correct but communism is stateless as in no state at all as class relations have been homogenized by that point and no longer exist in the sensenof competition between two classes.

I'm not caught up on the whole convo cause I haven't been on on it in a while but ffs. Lol. You people are always so fucking whiny and faggy with you pedantic ideology. If you ever learn to actually have a conversation with people you mightnlearn something. Have sex.
>>

 No.477799

>>477798
lol, words have meaning sweetie.

How about you invent new word for your special snowflake totally stateless state so you wouldn't confuse normal people anymore?
>>

 No.477800

>>477797
>that's not a metaphor
yes it is.

>hierarchy = organization
hierarchy is a form of organization, but not all forms of organization are hierarchical.
Also if you are going to call a cell, an organization, you are playing with words. When lipids make up the membranes of cells they didn't have a org-meeting where that got decided.

>yes, I know that when communists say stateless they don't actually mean stateless
>that's the problem lol
Lets try this:

1) In capitalism states compete against each other in geo-political power-struggle.
2) Some countries go socialist first and need a powerful state-apparatus to compete in that arena.
3) Eventually all the countries will go socialist.
4) Once world socialism is achieved those geo-political conflicts can be slowly resolved.
5) Once geo-political power-struggle fades away, states become unnecessary and get converted into simple regional governance

That's the birds-eye view of how socialism will become stateless.
Nobody ever said it would be "government-less" or primitivism.
The type of social organization that can govern a entire planet with peaceful diplomatic means is probably a lot more advanced than anything that exists today.
>>

 No.477801

>>466060
>First thing that triggers me immensely is the obsession with philosophy. Every time some idealist sperg mentions dialectics to me it takes me titanic effort to not pick up a chair and bash their head into the nearest wall with it.
Seriously, it got so bad that I sometimes daydream about choking Engels and Hegel with a stupid smile on my face.
I'm now convinced that there can not be such thing as a proletarian philosophy. Philosophy is a mind poison of the ruling classes, always has been, and it poisoned the minds of the leaders of the workers movement due to them all being intellectuals. All according to Marxism lol.

This. Philosophy is just intellectual laziness. Most philosophy is just circular arguments about why objects are a certain color and shape. And they go about the same thing for a few dozen pages.
Most philsophical discussiion is always about the same dumv shit like: "Is sex with your mom immoral?"
"Is murder immoral?"

>It seems like every communist takes his audience for fucking 10-year old kids who can be manipulated by simple tricks. Hey, you know that I can SEE what you are doing? You know we're all adults here? Hey, look me in the fucking eye, do you take me for a fucking idiot bitch? I will string your bowels on a fucking pike!


I dont think its acceptable to talk down to kids like that either.
What I do find out as I get older is that adults really do like being talked to like children. Look at our pop culture with "OMG so relatable" meme videos.

Idealism is often assumed to be aproduct of youth. But its actually a product of adulthood.

When was the last time a child or teenager created a rough draft for some academic mumbo jumbo?
>>

 No.477802

>>477786
Right wingers like to say "Man is above the animals" but then also use "its not natiral."


Alot of what we consider "unnatural" is found to be prominent in the animal kingdom. Theres species where females are the aggressors amd males are the passives.

Theres also species where animals naturally change their sex or engage in homosex.

Also, our current social-legal definitiin of childhood amd adulthood is far off from biologocal maturation.
Humans so far are the only creatures that willfully delayes their own maturation.
>>

 No.477810

File: 1705894926735.jpg ( 826.87 KB , 1240x1754 , sanya-vkk.jpg )

>>477800
>yes it is.
no it is not.

>hierarchy is a form of organization, but not all forms of organization are hierarchical.
hierarchical principle predominates in organization of matter

>Also if you are going to call a cell, an organization, you are playing with words. When lipids make up the membranes of cells they didn't have a org-meeting where that got decided.
hello autismo

<organization
<noun
<1. The act or process of organizing.

>Lets try this:
nah, let's try this:

<state = government
>>

 No.477817

>>477799
>Sweetie

Go back to reddit you stupid new faggot.

Yes words have meanings. Words have many different meanings not just the ones that you personally like unless you haven't noticed words in the dictionary have like 2 - 3 meanings on average, dumb ass. Realistically, linguistically, definitions matter very little to the actual substance of the conversation but children like you just want to throw your hands up and throw a little hissy fit rather than actually engage with other interlocutors; demanding that "NO IT IS THIS WAY WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT" Grow up and learn something.
>>

 No.477820

>>477792
You do realize that if you put class in nature, it will never be abolished, right? Social class like all social information is stuff in the imaginations of human consciousness, not a "thing" you can find in a lab. The basic conditions of sociality don't have any inherent regard for any institution - just the communication between social agents. Any institution that would make social class possible is something we invented and largely imposed on the world.

The lowest class isn't "exploited" in any serious sense - they have nothing to exploit - but their numbers are significant enough to be marked and thrown in workhouses, institutions, and put through humiliations no one else would ever have endured. The lowest class, the beggars and vagrants, are the social distinction which make all others possible. Everything else - every institution, every technology, every deed of property, and the conceits of ruling ideas - is premised on the infliction of suffering as the overriding goal, if we agree with the aristocratic value system. If we don't, then "natural social law" or "natural law" generally has no basis to exist.

>>477796
You don't realize how circular your reasoning is? "It's true because I say it's true and it must be true, therefore it is true."
Thermodynamics presumed particles were definitionless "points", in order to define the phenomenon of heat without a substantive cause or agent that constituted it. The very concept prohibits its application to "organized matter" as a general rule. "Organized matter", once organized, would operate on principles particular to whatever was organized. You have to invent philosophical excuses to pretend that what systems you see don't actually exist, or always reduce to some prime matter - and this is where the aristocratic origins of dialectical woo woo are apparent.

>>477802
Well, Rightoids are fags. Fags lovge to stick their dick in the poopy and find an excuse to naturalize it. Most homosexuals and gay men will admit it's a mental illness, but a fag - a true, unbridled fag - insists that his depravity, greater than mere homosexuality, must be enshrined institutionally.

Humans don't actually "delay their maturation" in a biological sense. This is purely a "retarded ideology", or an effort to cajole and herd humans to the slaughter. Humans grow and develop on their own power and in their own time, regardless of what any school or pedagogue says. We never stop changing throughout our lives. A 40 year old "man-child" is still 40 and would have had experiences appropriate to his real age rather than "mental age", a construct which is wholly eugenist. 40 year old "slow people" will tell you about their lives and they match the trajectory of someone who would have been in that position had their brains been damaged and society treated them with unlimited contempt, torture, and sought to maximize the thrill of it. No one could survive that and be happy, and that's the point. That's what humanity chose to be, more than anything else, so that's what we get.
>>

 No.477821

The extreme stupidity in this thread, the mashed up pseudo-philosophy of snot-nosed teens, proves exactly the points I make - that if someone attempts to correct this error, the Retarded Ideology will just recapitulate ad nauseum more lies. This isn't a stalling tactic. It is the point of the Germanic filth.
>>

 No.477823

>>477821
Just because you disagree with something doesn't make is "pseudo-philosphy. I think that this is actually a really lame excuse to justify your own lack of either understanding, or, ability to actually converse about deeper concepts. You're on like 6 layers of cope.
>>

 No.477824

>>477820
Class doesn't exist in nature, kek. Categories do not exist in nature. These are strata we ourselves have created as people. You are so far up your own ass at this point that you are starting to become incomprehensible. If you just simply would read a little marx and get off your own farts you would understand how fucking retarded you sound. You can say "the lowest (working) class is not exploited" (Even though 1:1 You cannot afford to purchase what it is you make in a capitalist economic system) and "that they have "nothing to exploit" even though it is literally objective reality that workers must sell their labor under capitalism to surivive. But, at the end of the day, you might as well be denying gravity exists or that the earth is round. It's just sophistry you say to retards to dumb to understand what you are saying to make yourself feel like you matter (you don't) You want desperately to confront the ghost of Karl Marx, but, you will never be him. You will never reach and achieve the same levels of inquiry that he did. You will never be able to stand up to his philosophy. You will always live in his shadow you skitzo faggot.

Cope.
>>

 No.477827

Holy shit you faggots trigger me immensely.

You are all idealists. None of you is free from idealism. Take some euthanasia pills.

>>477820
>You do realize that if you put class in nature, it will never be abolished, right?
Nature is not static retard. Histmat deals with changes in NATURE at the level of human societies retard. Humans are a part of NATURE RETARD.

>You don't realize how circular your reasoning is?
My appeals to thermodynamics are not circular. They may be proven wrong, but they are not circular.

>Thermodynamics presumed particles were definitionless "points", in order to define the phenomenon of heat without a substantive cause or agent that constituted it. The very concept prohibits its application to "organized matter" as a general rule.
The very concept of idealized gas prohibits its application to the real world? Are you retarded?

Thermodynamics is as much about macro objects as it is about micro particles. The fucking arrow of time is a macro phenomenon arising from the micro world, that your retarded mind can literally fucking FEEL directly.

>"Organized matter", once organized, would operate on principles particular to whatever was organized.
The principle is the same retard, that's the whole point. Organized matter needs energy to stay organized and so is subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Try building a fucking perpetuum mobile on different principles lol.

>>477824
>Class doesn't exist in nature, kek. Categories do not exist in nature.
"Atoms" don't exist in nature either by this logic. Nothing exists in nature by this logic lol. Hell, even laws of physics don't exist.
>>

 No.477828

>>466060
good, be more angry, harness it even
>>

 No.477829

>>477827
Claims about nature imply a transcendant reality. If it were not that, you would contend with numerous things which operate on their own power, rather than general rules or laws of things.

Last I heard, you don't change the laws of physics by thinking that the world ought to be different. This is a very basic error in thinking about the world.
Jesus, you fags.
>>

 No.477830

>>477827
The laws of physics don't "exist", of course. They are observed by us as the property of physical matter generally, not a "thing" that is imposed on reality. Again, very basic concepts of philosophy, which Germanic ideology cannot acknowledge.

They don't seem to get that "dialectism" arose in a cosmology where God moved the world like a Demiurge, and this can't be adapted to an atheistic view as-is. That is kind of the point - to show that this ideology doesn't actually work, but that if you think like this and put it in an actual factual human doing science, you can destroy anything and, if no one has a mind or will to stop you, that's it.
>>

 No.477831

This thread should be nuked. The retardation of the imperial pseuds has made it intolerable, and they have a desire to make us all as retarded as them.
>>

 No.477834

>>466224
>From my perspective, millennials seem to be more computer literate compared to zoomers. I've seen this observation echoed by others.

I wonder if this observation is based on generational idpol bias. At this point, millennials will conjure up any pathology on their juniors based on isolated incidents.
>>

 No.477859

>>477827
Holy fuck you are so fucking retarded please stop posting you just ramble and flood the board like some retard AI spam bot. do you not understand the difference in that Class is an imaterial lingustic explination for a phenomena found under class societies and how atom literally objectively exist.

Class cannot be measured it is not real. God damnit you are so dumb stop posting retard.
>>

 No.477860

>>477834
What do you mean, anon. Zoomers can't into computers. They only use social media.
>>

 No.477861

>>477834
>generational idpol bias
You are not going far enough.
You have to ditch the generational grouping all-together.

>>477859
>noooooo
>Pay no attention to class-divisions behind the curtain.
The effects of class societies are measurable, and the verdict is devastating.

>>477860
It appears that people have gotten less computer literate over time, but consider that it might have just gotten easier to get online for computer illiterate people. And what you are witnessing is the effects of a changing selection bias rather than a change in computer literacy in the population.
>>

 No.477862

>>477860
same could be said about millennials then.
>>

 No.477923

>>477862
Not really. Millennials grew up with computers.
>>

 No.477924

>>477861
What the hell are you talking about? The post I was replying to isn't saying that our society is fucked up because of class relations.
>>

 No.477934

>>477923
funny. whenever society complains about cyber pathology they point fingers at zoomers.

"We millennials didnt grow up with computers".

Again, zoomers are no less computer literate than millennials.
>>

 No.477935

>>477820
>Humans don't actually "delay their maturation" in a biological sense. This is purely a "retarded ideology", or an effort to cajole and herd humans to the slaughter. Humans grow and develop on their own power and in their own time, regardless of what any school or pedagogue says. We never stop changing throughout our lives. A 40 year old "man-child" is still 40 and would have had experiences appropriate to his real age rather than "mental age", a construct which is wholly eugenist. 40 year old "slow people" will tell you about their lives and they match the trajectory of someone who would have been in that position had their brains been damaged and society treated them with unlimited contempt, torture, and sought to maximize the thrill of it. No one could survive that and be happy, and that's the point. That's what humanity chose to be, more than anything else, so that's what we get.


I never said we biologically delay our maturation. We delay it psychologically. You admit then that adolescence is artificial and that teens are young adults by right.

Also, experiences are defined solely by age.
The idea that age numbers are ametric of maturity within themselves is also pure idealism.
>>

 No.477937

>>477935
*are not defined by age
>>

 No.477940

>>477935
Psychologically we live our lives. That's the point. What you or institutions mark someone as has no relevance on what they do with their lives by decree alone. I'm not getting any younger, but then, even when I was young, I hated this "life-on-rails" belief that never fit anything and was intended to grind down subjects to herd them like animals. It's what schools do to humiliate those they selected to die. They never talk to people they want to keep like that. Never. It's only intended to destroy the mind, and they want to destroy a lot of minds and a lot of bodies.
>>

 No.477942

tl;dr
also, weeb.
>>

 No.477943

>>477940
so you admit that young people are wrongfully infantilized.

By right we are supposed to.begin true adulthood at thirteen.

The economic recession alomgside helicopter parenting and pop culture has dumbed us down.

The average human loses twenty years of potential now.
>>

 No.477946

>>477943
>By right we are supposed to.begin true adulthood at thirteen.
Either a pedocreep who wants to fuck teenagers or a porky who wants to bring back child-labor.
>>

 No.477956

File: 1706045905512.jpg ( 336.22 KB , 1280x720 , weeb-revolution.jpg )

>>477942
Anime is the true proletarian mass culture, you fucking aristocrat.
>>

 No.477957

>>477956
It is the culture of the peasantry (NEETs), who allow themselves to escape into madness by a process of cultural appropriation.
The proles largely watch netflix and normie stuff.
>>

 No.477962

>>477943
I do not regard "adulthood" as a meaningful distinction outside of social proof and the judgements of others. The age of majority is set high as the time where someone is obligated to be independent, rather than when they're going to be ready - and the trap of society is that you're never ready for the world of shit you were born into, and the point of infantilization is to make sure you are further removed. Normally, children pick up more and more association with society starting around the age of 8 - basically as soon as they're capable of forming any coherent understanding of political society or have standards of comparison. No one expects children significantly younger to have sense about much at all, and it has nothing to do with natural intelligence or lack thereof. No reasonable person is born with knowledge of society and politics. The nature of this knowledge is that it is specifically designed not to be self-evident or reverse-engineered, in the way most of us learn anything.

As for me, I've seen this as living my life, not living the life assigned to me by thought leaders. The life assigned to me is to be a living abortion, to live solely to be humiliated by others. Compliance is not an option, and that will never go away. I knew that for as long as I can remember. One of the great things about becoming officially Old is that I see more than ever what a joke all of this has been, and how much of this revolves around the perversions of men rather than anything worth caring about. The way it is now, humans lose all of their potential, as it is to be sacrificed to this beast we live under. Everything we ever hope to aspire is seen as a tool for the betterment of an aristocracy that made itself one with both "society" and "nature" and told us this is all there is. So, the merits assigned to me are all things designed to make sure my life is worse, and this is just accepted. Those who are inducted into such a society are then obligated to march in lockstep against those who are locked out. That has been the entire point of the project - not to make us weaker in some abstract measure, but to enforce a rigid separation of humanity into castes, and into two broad groups: those selected to live, and those selected to die. Up there, they talk about this all the time, and it's the only thing they ever really believed in. It's frustrating to find enablers pretending it wasn't about that.

The worst mistake I ever made was believing I was the asshole, and losing my sense of what other humans were. I had to believe humans were better than what they appeared to be, or at least they were motivated more by self-interest than the malice that I detected as their original purpose. That's not what humans are, though. They are malicious, inclined towards incredible evil even in the best of cases, and I am no exception. It takes a special kind of retardation to embrace this as a lifestyle and the point in-of-itself. But, for those humans who benefit from it in their view, why would they have ever thought differently? I shouldn't expect them to think about consequences when those consequences were the point, and they're clearly happy living in a torture world where the thrill of torture must be maximized. The idea that it should be different is inadmissible to them, let alone that it even could be so. It's too much to even allow the smallest decency except as a stalling measure to await greater torture. More and more, the pretenses of anything else are abolished, because those who embraced the purest malice selected for each other and made it illegal for us to defend ourselves, even by walking away.

In such a world, nothing can grow. The most effective way to torture someone is to infantilize them, to make it clear that they are, now and forever, retarded. It doesn't matter what mark of distinction you receive. It really is a joke. Yet, life proceeds regardless of this. What I believe now I had to do, I have already done, for it really has nothing to do with society or any proof from others. What I do now is something I would like to do, but I've already resolved to do what I must if the worst comes to pass, and if the absolute worst case scenario happens again, I have my "way out". In the meantime, I have no reason to say anything other than the truth - that humanity is a failed race, and has chosen to be a race rather than anything humanity might have been because eugenics won. This is the result.
>>

 No.477963

As for the obvious - why do you think pederasty is thrown in your face, and why is aristocracy always granted sacrosanctity? Why do they choose to put that out as the trap and inducement, and celebrate openly the hypocrisy? It targets two things - sexual perversion, and concepts of intelligence and retardation allowing agency.

I hope the people here don't need to be told why children do not want sex and find it disgusting, and don't indulge in the fake posturing of the perverts who want to "teach the controversy". When this topic is raised as often as it is, with the intent of those who promulgate it, it creates a condition where state invasion of private life and the family is justified and an unlimited inquisition and insinuations can be made. In this way, a target family can be destroyed, and that's what these filthy Germanics always wanted. That's what they believe in. What a foul race, full of every hypocrisy, and so fucktarded by ideology that they don't believe in things like math. It's not their fault, like they were genetically destined for this. It was because of peculiar institutions - institutions that began as an alien imposition on what existed before - that selected for controlled insanity and told them for generations, "this is you". It's ritualized child abuse as not just state policy, but a culture. Said culture had always been resisted out of some sense that this is wrong and leads to obvious disaster, and every time the Kraut aristocracy gets what it wants, it just makes everyone around them suffer, and that has been the point.

Frankly, I don't believe humans should engage in any sexual behavior, and if they do, they would do so both because they want a child - the obvious consequence of such a thing - and because a woman actually likes the man and vice versa, or at least gets along with them well enough to do the thing. Eventually this will be displaced. But, eugenics destroyed that and made sure everyone will be as Satanic as them, which begs the question why anyone would subject a child to this hell.
>>

 No.477966

>>477946
>teenagers having jobs and relationships is child abuse.
>it is normal and acceptable to be a cringelord with zero life skills in your youth
>It should be noramlized to struggle with "adulting" in your twenties due to useless parents and teachers not training you in your childhood.
>>

 No.477967

>>477957
Anime is as normie as ypu can get.

>>477962
>I knew that for as long as I can remember. One of the great things about becoming officially Old is that I see more than ever what a joke all of this has been, and how much of this revolves around the perversions of men rather than anything worth caring about.

I think the idea of "wisdom comes with age" is more a subjective matter than automatic.

Anyone can see the wirld as it is at a young age.
But society actively smothers/kills precociousness and worldly awareness in youth.

Innocence is more a sociological effect rather than a natural effect.

True innocence is supposed to die by age seven.
But our Victorian philosophy wants to ensnare teenagers and vicenarians into the cult of innocence.
>>

 No.477970

>>477963
Has anyone ever noticed that alot of European cultural crises in the past millennium was causes by Germanics?


Protestantism amd Nazism.
>>

 No.477972

>>477967
The world "as it is" is not really how it is when it involves people as the most obvious threat to yourself. If the world were exactly what we sensed in the sense Randroids and their ilk believed, then there wouldn't be any need for a concept of maturity. Naturally, Randroids - the "A is A" crowd - are master infantilizers and pure eugenic creed, where this stuff is most prominent.

The world is what our sense tells us, as we would expect, but among our senses is the sense of thought, and we encounter deceptive creatures called humans. It doesn't matter how old you are - those with occulted and favored knowledge will always hold it against you. Those people will make themselves known to remind you that you will never be allowed in, and that they control the world and you just live here for a time.

You were never innocent, but also, you were never really "in the know" - until you are, and it's too late. We could leave that shitshow any time, but to leave it is to leave "heaven". It means leaving society and its conceits of social proof, and surrendering claims to property, belonging, purpose. The question of life becomes very different, if there is a question at all. In case you believe you can pretend the devil doesn't exist, you will receive a rude awakening, or you remain autistic and truly retarded. There was a world outside of this rot, but it has been enclosed, and to speak of it is to speak of something far removed from what is acceptable. This is an entry point for transgressors of social decencies we would have understood, who do not want those decencies to exist for various purposes.

You yourself have internalized this "stageist", pedagogical view of what humans "ought" to be. Originally this concept was not a total cradle-to-grave slavery, but a sense of what the progress of a living creature was expected to be, based on experience. For various reasons, this both gave way to a systems understanding, and it allowed cajolers to dictate against sense and reason what you are. This is the Anglo-Germanic mind virus.

>>477970
Gold star for you. So much of it is cope because they aren't Romans and won't ever truly win like the Romans did. So, rather than ask if their lifestyle is the problem, they co-opt someone else and insist they're actually Persians or something. It's stupid and gay.
>>

 No.477973

>>477970
That said, the worst of the cope came when the aristocratic Germans were completely BTFO by French troops drawn from the scum of the Earth and some Corsican general. It violated everything they believed about how wars were fought, and they've coped ever since. The people who were competent and understood that democratization would throw out these useless aristocrats were suppressed, because that was the way things went down in 1848. From there, it was downhill for most of the world.

Democratization was a double-edged sword, but it was clear that democracy was not the intended outcome of those who instigated the French Revolution in the first place. It arose first from those who commandeered the revolution for their preferred project because they could, and then from the lower orders agitating against everything the revolution created and that which caused the revolution, which as usual is aristocratic incompetence.
>>

 No.477975

>>477966
>teenagers having jobs is child abuse
Exploiting adults is abuse. Doing it to children is also abuse, but it's worse, more predatory because children can defend them selves even less than adults.
>teenagers having relationships is child abuse.
With each other probably not, but with adults yes.

>it is normal and acceptable to be a cringelord with zero life skills
It's indeed unfortunate that class society wastes the potential of so many people. But the primary problem is the ruling class that's crushing us, that's what you got to point the finger at. You know, don't punch down, punch up. Shit's fucked because of the ruling class, not because of (insert scapegoat here).

>It should be noramlized to struggle with "adulting" in your twenties due to useless parents and teachers not training you in your childhood.
Society often fails at raising children because capitalism is exploiting people to hard, draining all the energy out of people until there's nothing left to benefit the children. In a class society often the rich people try to sabotage the children of the poor people and so on. People struggle because the system is designed to crush people.

I get the sense you want to take problems that clearly originate from the capitalist system and class society and turn it into some kind of cultural battlefield, a socio-political mechanism designed to neutralize any form of political organization that might actually lead to positive change.

I do not know how best to organize child rearing or education, here's my guess:

In education there are 2 systems so far. Formal education that works for people who are motivated by collecting points (test scores) and titles. The other one are informal apprenticeships, that works for people who are motivated by seeing results. Those work, but maybe we need to find additional patterns.

As for raising children, there's no magic formula, have a selection of grownups that spend time with the kids, so there's positive role models to emulate or negative role models that teach what not to do. Anything's better than neglect. But that also means there are fewer work-hours available for the economy.

If you want to improve society on this issue or any other, you will run into opposition from the ruling class, because improving society takes effort, and that means less effort gets spend on doing the bidding of the ruling class.
>>

 No.477981

>>477975
>As for raising children, there's no magic formula, have a selection of grownups that spend time with the kids, so there's positive role models to emulate or negative role models that teach what not to do. Anything's better than neglect. But that also means there are fewer work-hours available for the economy.


Role models are shitty moral practicioners.
Theyre just designated adults paid to fabricate their own virtue.

Im the old days, we had village elders take the children and teach them life skills.

Parents are terrible life coaches on their own. Especially fathers.

>In education there are 2 systems so far. Formal education that works for people who are motivated by collecting points (test scores) and titles. The other one are informal apprenticeships, that works for people who are motivated by seeing results. Those work, but maybe we need to find additional patterns.

Our education system since the mid-19th century has been about scoring points.
We made a mistake promoting liberal arts and college to all proles while neglecting trades.

>Exploiting adults is abuse. Doing it to children is also abuse, but it's worse, more predatory because children can defend them selves even less than adults.

The vulnerability of children is due to the paternalistic treatment given to them from adults. Innocence is less a natural effect and more an institutional one.

>With each other probably not, but with adults yes.

By natural law, teens are adults.
We treated them like children around the mid-19th century.
Nowadays, even in your twenties youre still seen as a child.

Arrested development is a real crisis.

Irony is, treating young adulta like children makes them more susceptible to abuse.
This idea that youth needs exemption from labor and other basic responsibilities makes an immature angsty phase that we see in youth for the past century.

Prolonged inocence breeds immaturity.

>It's indeed unfortunate that class society wastes the potential of so many people. But the primary problem is the ruling class that's crushing us, that's what you got to point the finger at. You know, don't punch down, punch up. Shit's fucked because of the ruling class, not because of (insert scapegoat here).


Lets be honest: the working class may not be in control but heyre not blameless. Alot of our sociological bullshit is because of the selfish delusions of the proles thinking themselves as being denied of their birthright to rule the world.

Most proles think themselves too good for trades and think their own kids are too precious for the real world.
They antagonize their kids' right to social autonomy.
>>

 No.477987

File: 1706073980987.jpg ( 126 KB , 561x370 , The More You Know.jpg )

>>477973
More ahistorical drivel about the advent of democracy in the liberal revolutions of the 19th century. Protip: the French revolutions resulted in democracy nowhere and in fact if anything in some places was a step backwards because they replaced the local democratic assemblies in some places (which had significant female participation) with electoral systems and male-only suffrage. Free yourself of two centuries of English/French liberal propaganda and realize that electoral republics are the opposite of democracies and in ancient times their sworn enemy.
>>

 No.477988

>>477987
they replaced the local democratic assemblies that existed in some places under feudalism*
>>

 No.477989

>>477981
>Role models are shitty
Most children learn by copying from grown-ups, so i don't see how you get around that.

>Im the old days, we had village elders take the children and teach them life skills.
>Parents are terrible life coaches on their own. Especially fathers.
I hope you realize that I'm reading everything through economics glasses. And my first thought is that: capitalists can't really exploit old people very well but they can exploit fathers.

>Our education system since the mid-19th century has been about scoring points.
Yes the formal one, but people also learn about stuff outside in other places than schools, i'm calling that informal education.

>The vulnerability of children is due to the paternalistic treatment given to them from adults.
I'm calling bullshit on that. Human offspring is not like the offspring of most other animals. Most animals can walk around a few minutes after birth, humans need a whopping 12 to 15 months just to gain the ability to walk. I'm not sure about the biology here but i think humans traded having a giant brain with superb mental faculties in exchange for being born "half done" and utterly help-less as a result. From an evolutionary perspective humans are a care-giver species.

>This idea that youth needs exemption from labor
Remember the economics glasses.
To me you appear like somebody trying to invent some kind of moral panic to justify bringing back child-labor, because capitalism wants to increase the labor supply.

>makes them more susceptible to abuse.
In the 1800s when child-labor was allowed capitalist chained children to industrial equipment and made them toil for 12-16h a day. That didn't reduce the susceptibility of abuse, that was abuse.

>Lets be honest: the working class may not be in control but heyre not blameless. Alot of our sociological bullshit is because of the selfish delusions of the proles thinking themselves as being denied of their birthright to rule the world.
You can only blame the people in control.
No capitalism is a broken system, obedience and submission from workers can't fix it.
Yes ruling the world is the birth-right of the proles, they build civilization.
Rulers of class societies are the ones with the selfish delusions of conquering the world, that's what's screwing everything up.

Just look at the US ruling class for example, they control North America which is the best piece of real-estate on the planet. Lots of easy to defend coast-lines, lots of fertile land for food security, lots of rivers for cost effective transport, lots of natural resources, enough space and people to grow large and immensely powerful, no big neighbors threatening stability. And what did they do with all that potential ? Did they turn the US into a quasi-paradise ? No they went for a global empire instead, thinking they were the exception that could make an empire work. Now that their empire is crumbling like every other empire in all of history, do they re-consider their options ? No of course not, they're doubling down on failure like all the other imperials at the tail end of their respective empires. Lets face it ruling classes all tend towards similar bullshit.

>Most proles think themselves too good for trade
I know there are plenty aristocratic minded people who think working with their hands is beneath them, but it's not really about prestige, it's about wages being too low, that makes people avoid it. Besides capitalists were the ones that attached a stigma to trade-work when they drove down wages.
>>

 No.477990

>>477934
What are you talking about? Re-read what I said. Mellenials did grow up with computers. Literal desktop computers. Phones didn't come around till much later and are strickly a zoomer thing. Sure there is over lap but most millennials know how to use A desktop computer. Most zoomers are more familiar with phones.
>>

 No.477991

>>477924
The AI robots are glitching out, relax.
>>

 No.477992

>>477987
The concept of questioning the social hierarchy at all didn't exist, you dumb fuck. You're hepped up on ideology. It's pure mind virus with you.

The political theater had nothing to do with what people cared about, nor did an assembly which most people never had any part in and never wanted to include most of the people. You're such a god damned Satanic that you don't even understand anything. Any idea inimical to Ingsoc is inadmissible for you. You refused to acknowledge anything relevant to what I write and just recapitulate worship of institutions, as if that were the basis for political power - by decree of someone giving you permission to act. That is political rule, not political power, and under the rule of kings, the kings and nobility sure as hell weren't friends of democracy.

None who can contest politics were interested in "democracy" or giving people anything. Anything pertaining to democracy came about because the classes you take for granted and hold institutionally sacrosanct were worthless for producing anything, and were all happy to let the revolution kill people left and right. Yet you keep braying that the same tactics are totally what "should" happen, purely to fit your narrow interest which no one in their right mind should ever support. You'd just throw away power and rule and waste it on faggotry anyway - and that's what the rulers today programmed you to be, just a pure enabler.

So fucking sick of you retards shitting up anyone trying to tell you anything and interjecting with your blind worship of institutions.
>>

 No.477993

This may be a surprise to you, but nothing in this world is what the rulers tell you it is, handed down pedagogically in a way that beats you into accepting it. That has always been what was contested by the lower orders. In the 21st century, that is no longer admissible. Satan won. Eugenics won. This is the result. We'll never have anything ever again, thanks to enablers like these.
>>

 No.477994

Nonetheless, anything that was worth keeping in history came from human beings, not the institutions - not these things which existed entirely to snuff out all potential so that we're steered like cattle. That's what the argument about "proper maturity" really entailed, but that thought is wholly inadmissible to Satanics.
>>

 No.478001

>>477992
>>477993
>>477994
Take your meds schizo, you seem to be deliberately misreading posts to go on long diatribes against shadows now.
>>

 No.478006

>>478001
You're a complete fag.
>>

 No.478007

>>478006
No u, fag.
>>

 No.478009

>>477990
And again, so did zoomers. Millennials also adapted mobike phones.


We still have laptop computers which zoomers also use.
>>

 No.478010

>>478009
Holy fuck you retard. Saying that mellenials use co0mputers more and are more literate with computers does not mean that zoomers are totally 100% illiterate with desktops and laptops and vice versa but I am stating the obvious fact that mellenials obviously are going to be better intergraded into desktops and laptops.
>>

 No.478011

>>478010
Youre exaggerating the "mobile vs desktop" differemces.

Again, millennials are using mobile phones at fhe same rate as zoomers are and vice versa.

Also, we have videos amd tips shared by people tinkering with the hardware/software of their mobile phones.

And ypu can clear cookies and other storage data off ypir mobile phone.
>>

 No.478017

>>477989
>Most children learn by copying from grown-ups, so i don't see how you get around that.

And most adults whom are conscientous of their behavior around children act very sterile/fake.

Adults enforce morals by hypocrisy.
"Im older than you therefore you should respect me" while having no virtue to offer.
This is especially a problem with adult males.

>I hope you realize that I'm reading everything through economics glasses. And my first thought is that: capitalists can't really exploit old people very well but they can exploit fathers.

Capitalists get too much credit for the degradation. Everyone is exploitable in their own way. Amd often people are willfully lead by their vices.
Old people are exploitable via memorabilia and religio-conservative politics.
Parenthood is not a mandatory route for adulthood. Yet so many people choose to mix procreative fluids to create new lofe because they want a domestic fantasy life of their own.
Then when they get slammed with bills and pediatric diagnoses they realised they made a mistake and take it out on the spouse and kids.

>I'm calling bullshit on that. Human offspring is not like the offspring of most other animals. Most animals can walk around a few minutes after birth, humans need a whopping 12 to 15 months just to gain the ability to walk. I'm not sure about the biology here but i think humans traded having a giant brain with superb mental faculties in exchange for being born "half done" and utterly help-less as a result. From an evolutionary perspective humans are a care-giver species.

Theres alot of species that need at least a couple months before they can mobilize on their own.
Also the long maturation rate of humans is due to safetyism.

>In the 1800s when child-labor was allowed capitalist chained children to industrial equipment and made them toil for 12-16h a day. That didn't reduce the susceptibility of abuse, that was abuse.

As were the schools amd some home environments. Also, most children arund the nineteenth century were working on family farms or guilds. Kids working in factories was more white immigrant children.

>You can only blame the people in control.
No capitalism is a broken system, obedience and submission from workers can't fix it.
Yes ruling the world is the birth-right of the proles, they build civilization.
Rulers of class societies are the ones with the selfish delusions of conquering the world, that's what's screwing everything up.

This is why leftism fails. You assume the proles are innocent just because theyre not in control. Proles can/have/will sell out for "prospect".
The differemce between the bourgeoise and the proletariat is more grey than you think.
Go into the first world ghettos.Theyre the most selfish willfully ognorant people whom think themselves as the next hip-hop/country mogul.

Capitalism is a brokem system because people want it for personal gain.
Not because its inherently defective.

>Just look at the US ruling class for example, they control North America which is the best piece of real-estate on the planet. Lots of easy to defend coast-lines, lots of fertile land for food security, lots of rivers for cost effective transport, lots of natural resources, enough space and people to grow large and immensely powerful, no big neighbors threatening stability. And what did they do with all that potential ? Did they turn the US into a quasi-paradise ? No they went for a global empire instead, thinking they were the exception that could make an empire work. Now that their empire is crumbling like every other empire in all of history, do they re-consider their options ? No of course not, they're doubling down on failure like all the other imperials at the tail end of their respective empires. Lets face it ruling classes all tend towards similar bullshit.

And proles are also complicit. Remember it takes two to tango Ruling classes are only as powerful as the masses allow them to be. Would Trump or Biden be successful if the proles werent ferverous about them?
Yes theyre backed by corporate sponsors but their name as a franchise is due to proles simping for them.
The January Sixth 2021 riot on the White House is willfull assertion from the semilumpenprole suburbanites.

>I know there are plenty aristocratic minded people who think working with their hands is beneath them, but it's not really about prestige, it's about wages being too low, that makes people avoid it. Besides capitalists were the ones that attached a stigma to trade-work when they drove down wages

Fair point. But again, even when we are seeing the effects of overselling college education, people still avoid trades like the plague.
Irony is, you could live easier with a low wage trade work than as a college graduate.
Alot of college graduates end up in dead end jobs with five/six figure student loan debt.
Ans they live worse than if they never went to college.


>Remember the economics glasses.
To me you appear like somebody trying to invent some kind of moral panic to justify bringing back child-labor, because capitalism wants to increase the labor supply.

This is a popular defense used whenever I bring up the exemption of young people from tge labor market.

Of anything it sounds more like people whom would rather avoid working to fullfill their childhood misadventures they never got to have.

This is why young people end up exploited by schools amd shitty fast food jobs.
By this mentality, women amd ethnic minorities should be barred from working and rely on paternalistic protections.

We are seeing a new era where people waste away their prime years with zero practical skills amd stability due to social-legal covenant that prioritizes "innocence" over autonomy.

Millennial/Gen X progressuves are advocating to postpone adulthood until thirty. Its gonna make life worse for everyone.
>>

 No.478021

>>478011
>Again, millennials are using mobile phones at fhe same rate as zoomers are and vice versa.

Do you have any actual data to support this or are you just pulling this out of your ass?
>>

 No.478022

>>478017
>Capitalists get too much credit for the degradation. Everyone is exploitable in their own way.
<i didn't kill the guy, it was his fault for not being bullet proof
This is psychopathy-logic.
>>

 No.478030

>>478022
>oh no proles wuz innocent gudboiz who dindunuffin


If proles are reslly that passuve and lack agency, the they dont deserve any liberation.

Your logic of the absolute non-agency of the proletsriat would never fly with old school leftism.

What the original leftists understood was that capitalism is aproblem because people were entixed by it.
Marx, Lenin, amd Stalin understood that humans are arrogant prospectors amd that communism would filter it into more virtuous avenues.
They understood capitalism as the modern expression of greed, not the cause of greed.
>>

 No.478031

>>466069
AI is a misnomer.

Even if AI becomes a practical possibility, humans will always outdo bots in spewing bullshit.

Remember, human creatd bots to further their ideas.
>>

 No.478038

>>478030
You are trying to excuse scams, by saying that it's alright because people can be scammed.
Cut the crap, waffling about agency, if you scam people, that just makes you a crook.
>>

 No.478045

>>478038
Im not excusing scams. Im just pointing out that your idea the proles are agency-less innocents does not translate to reality.
>>

 No.478055

>>478045
Historical analysis does not mean that people have no agency. It just means that your moral system of judgment is irrelevant.
>>

 No.478058

>>478055
Then you admit that the proles are some part responsible for the neoliberal order.


You leftists clamin to be logical materialist deducers yet you keep promotong the idea of the proletariat being purely passive is idealistic.

How are you any different from the right?
>>

 No.478060

>>478058
>Individual peoplemate all part of !y retarded monolitj.

Literal pea brain their. You're not an honest actor so there's no point in even actually having this discussion.
>>

 No.478069

>>478058
>the proles are some part responsible for the neoliberal order.
Not that anon, but the responsibility question can be simplified to:

In case the proles rule via a dictatorship of the proletariat, they will become responsible for what happens.

The shit that happens under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in capitalism is the fault of the capitalists.
>>

 No.478083

>>478069
It's no ones "fault" that's the whole point. Allowing retards like the retard in this thread to construct a moral dichotomy just distracts away from the reality that capitalism as a mode of production should be abolished and that it is, infact, in the self interest of the working class to do so.
>>

 No.478140

File: 1706408686782.jpg ( 31.8 KB , 768x432 , facepalm.jpg )

>>477682
>Further conclusion: proletariat can be said to "come to power" in the Soviet Union only to the extent that the new state acted in their class interests against other classes.
>Further conclusion: no "Soviet Thermidor" as the substance of the Stalin regime was exploitation of the countryside by the urban population (it is well documented how much Stalin despised the peasantry on an almost instinctual level).
>Further conclusion: Proletariat can be exploitative as a ruling class also.
>Further conclusion: real "Thermidor" can be said to happen only after the ww2, with the death of Stalin (Khrushchev was a clear cut case of the peasant reaction).
>Final conclusion: Stalin was a tyrant that objectively (unconsciously?) pursued interests of the proletariat against all the other classes.
God, you are so fucking retarded.

Stalin wasn't some champion of the proletariat against all the other classes. He was a champion of the new ruling class - nomenklatura. Proletariat wasn't exploiting shit, it lived in fucking barracks in overcrowded cities and got send to labor camps for being late to work.

You can take your conclusion about Stalin being a tyrant of the proletariat, replace "proletariat" with "nomenklatura", and all the same arguments would apply. The retard killed far more proletarians than he ever killed nomenklatura. Khrushchev was a reaction of the nomenklatura class against their retarded tyrant that outlived his usefulness after the ww2.

The ideology of this new ruling class reflected their new mode of production: chauvinism, elitism, conservatism, ethnocentrism, antisemitism. Stalin with his Great Russo-chauvinism was the best example of this new ruling class ideology, this ideology of the new Soviet Empire.

If there ever was a Thermidor, it happened in the course of the October Revolution, because vanguardism is not a proletarian ideology. October Revolution was a vanguardist revolution, a nomenklatura revolution. Just like in the previous bourgeois revolutions urban proletariat was used as a sledgehammer by the new ruling class against the old one, and so are the soviets were used to smash the old order. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and all the other vanguardists may as well genuinely believed that they are making a proletarian revolution. Guess what? HISTMAT DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK. English revolutionaries believed in God, French revolutionaries believed in Reason, and Russian revolutionaries believed in Communism. Same shit.

Histmat wins again and communists BTFOd. It boggles my mind that marxists that supposedly adhere to the histmat methodology don't apply it to fucking Real Existing Socialism, when that shit had far clearer class divisions than capitalism can ever hope for. The obvious "nomenklatura - intelligentsia - proletariat" class triangle.
>>

 No.478142

>The ideology of this new ruling class reflected their new mode of production: chauvinism, elitism, conservatism, ethnocentrism, antisemitism.
Forgot the big one: pathological secrecy, conspiring mentality.
Vanguard lived as a conspiracy before coming to power, and it ruled as a conspiracy after coming to power.
>>

 No.478151

File: 1706414625217.jpg ( 13.35 KB , 300x423 , parenti.jpg )

>>478140
>Soviet Socialism wasn't pure enough

<“Real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this ‘pure socialism’ view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.”

– Michael Parenti, “Blackshirts and Reds”
>>

 No.478155

The real question is "Do we need to go through this vanguardoid shit if capitalism grinds to a halt?", because it might just so happen that RES would be the only alternative.

God, I sure hope fucking no. This is like being a hunter-gatherer and fighting for an agrarian revolution lol.

Reminded me of an old Soviet anecdote:
<In a cave by a fire sits a man wrapped in an animal skin. Above is a slogan scrawled on the skin of an animal: "Forward to the slave-holding system, the bright future of all mankind!"
>>

 No.478156

>>478151
except I don't assume "real socialism" retard

cry more about me applying histmat methodology to your mode of production and to you retards
>>

 No.478157

>>478151
>Blackshirts and Reds
Also, after watching that Prolekult documentary on fascism when he calls nazis a capitalist vanguard, I became even more convinced that vanguardism in general can be classified as a superstructure of a new mode of production, that in both variants was born out of the Great Depression.
>>

 No.478158

>>478151
I generally like Parenti, but this is just a total piss take of his. No amount of moralizing, grandstanding, appeals to hypocrisy, etc. can change the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed precisely because of well-founded critiques pertaining to its failure to fully democratize work and planning.
>>

 No.478159

>>478155
>The real question is "Do we need to go through this vanguard if capitalism grinds to a halt?"
It depends.
If capitalism degenerates into hard fascism kicking off WW3. That will push everybody towards command/war-economy. Which in turn will lead to a resurgence of classical ML-type state-socialism.

>>478157
>Also, after watching that Prolekult documentary on fascism when he calls nazis a capitalist vanguard, I became even more convinced that vanguardism in general can be classified as a superstructure of a new mode of production, that in both variants was born out of the Great Depression.
Interesting thought. But i would not consider fascism a superstructure of a mode of production. Look at Europe after WW2, fascism clearly was a mode of destruction.

>>478158
>the Soviet Union collapsed precisely because of well-founded critiques pertaining to its failure to fully democratize work and planning.
This is perhaps too strongly worded, the soviet system was not structurally doomed to failure, it could have been saved in various ways. One of those ways would have been doing Cockshott type cybernetic socialism with sortition democracy and democratic polling for surplus allocation priorities. Which would have democratized work and planning.
>>

 No.478231

>>478159
>If capitalism degenerates into hard fascism kicking off WW3.
I was talking more about the breakdown of the global financial system Great Depression style. That time global economy basically disintegrated into isolated national fiefdoms.

>But i would not consider fascism a superstructure of a mode of production. Look at Europe after WW2, fascism clearly was a mode of destruction.
Histmat doesn't have such a category as a "mode of destruction".

What are the chances that two ideologically opposed political camps start to move beyond capitalism right after the Great Depression hits, and they both take the same fucking vanguardist political form? That's one big fucking coincidence, don't you think?

>One of those ways would have been doing Cockshott type cybernetic socialism with sortition democracy and democratic polling for surplus allocation priorities.
That would require fucking another violent revolution, this time to overthrow RES.
>>

 No.478233

>>478231
>I was talking more about the breakdown of the global financial system Great Depression style. That time global economy basically disintegrated into isolated national fiefdoms.
There is no THE global financial system, there are multiple systems. The wallstreet crash of 08 and the rise of economic sanctions made sure of that. I wouldn't presume these systems to be as interdependent as they once were, so if Wallstreet croaks again, it might not affect Asia, as it once did. The Chinese might fill the global vacuum, if wallstreet drops the ball.

>Histmat doesn't have such a category as a "mode of destruction".
Yeah that was meant tongue in cheek.
I consider fascism little more than a breakdown of order, it doesn't have a mode of production. Fascism is national suicide, it's a faction of capital that lost, and tries to drag everybody else into the abyss with them.

>What are the chances that two ideologically opposed political camps start to move beyond capitalism right after the Great Depression hits, and they both take the same fucking vanguardist political form?
Probably next to 0%. Reality bears that out, the Soviet system was almost the polar opposite of the fascism of the Nazi-type. The nazis tried to privatize everything, while the Soviets tried to collectivize everything. You can only measure a political system by what it does. Political systems do not have a type of Being only Doing.

<One of those ways would have been doing Cockshott type cybernetic socialism
>That would require fucking another violent revolution, this time to overthrow RES.
Not really, the soviet system had a lot more variation in political streams, it wasn't like neo-liberalism that has a single political stream. Yuri Andropov who was General secretary from 1982 until he died in 1984, wanted to go for cybernetics, maybe it's just bad luck that the reformer guy didn't last long enough to make it happen.
>>

 No.478262

>>478233
>There is no THE global financial system
you're retarded

dollar is still the global reserve currency and china is still buying US treasury bonds with its surplus

>so if Wallstreet croaks again, it might not affect Asia, as it once did.
yep, you're retarded

>I consider fascism little more than a breakdown of order, it doesn't have a mode of production.
whatever your theory is, it's not histmat

according to histmat every society has a mode of production

>Reality bears that out, the Soviet system was almost the polar opposite of the fascism of the Nazi-type.
Did you watch that Prolekult documentary? It had many similarities.

I would say RES was a fully advanced vanguardist mode of production, while Nazi Germany was stuck in transition. But their development trend was the same.

Anyway, whatever Nazi Germany was, it was clearly not capitalism anymore.

>The nazis tried to privatize everything, while the Soviets tried to collectivize everything.
Capitalism collapsed in Germany with the Great Depression.

Nazi industry operated according to the state rearmament plans. It doesn't really matter from a functional perspective if profits go to the state budget or to private individuals.

>Yuri Andropov
This is the same idealism as claiming that capitalism, feudalism, or any other mode of production can be reformed. It contradicts basic hitmat.

See, where I'm coming from is that RES was a new antagonistic mode of production. And according to histmat you CAN'T reform antagonistic class society, at least not until you have a successful violent revolution somewhere first.

For me, looking back at the 20th century just reinforces the traditional hard determinist histmat position: there are very few degrees of freedom in history.

It's the freedom between Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. Vanguardists thought they have cheated history, when they were it's puppets all along lol.
>>

 No.478264

>>478140
>It boggles my mind that marxists that supposedly adhere to the histmat methodology don't apply it to fucking Real Existing Socialism
It's because of an influence of christian eschatology on the leftist movement and leftist intellectuals.

There's nothing inherently eschatological to the histmat method. There is no inherent concept of "the End of History". That is an external addition to the method, it doesn't follow from the basic assumptions.

Their histmat stops at capitalism, because their history stops at capitalism.
>>

 No.478265

>>478262
>Vanguardists thought they have cheated history, when they were it's puppets all along lol.
That's the sheer beauty of histmat - it takes agency on a societal level away from humans.

All revolutionaries thought they were going against history, when in reality they WERE history.

Histmat COMPLETELY collapses marxist ideology on itself - it is a product of the base, not an abstract knowledge.
>>

 No.478275

File: 1706606335497.jpeg ( 13.83 KB , 474x355 , death.jpeg )

>>478264
>There is no inherent concept of "the End of History".
Indeed, for the End of History from a histmat perspective would mean the end of technical development.

It would mean the death of society. Communism is a Death Cult from a histmat perspective.
>>

 No.478276

If we replace dialectics with thermodynamics as a logical basis of histmat, then if follows that the History could end only with the Universe itself.
>>

 No.478277

>>478276
>the History could end only with the Universe itself
ie, we can't really say how many more modes of production are there in the future

and we can't say they would be necessarily better for humans either, just like we can't say that serfdom was better than slavery

all we can say really, is that they would be better at producing entropy
>>

 No.478279

Just like the dreams of peasants about a free agrarian commune were but a mirage soon to be destroyed under the iron heels of progress, so are the dreams of proletariat about a free association of producers are to be destroyed under the iron heels of planned production.

History is not about freedom. It was never about freedom.
>>

 No.478280

File: 1706612747360.png ( 2.43 MB , 1422x1026 , chimera.png )

Would Lenin do what he had done if he didn't believe in Communism?

You can't have a change in the mode of production without revolutions and therefore revolutionaries. And revolutionaries need to believe in something.

But as histmat destroys everything it touches, revolutionaries would need to believe in something else.

Revolutions need their Chimeras. What would be the chimeras of future revolutions I wonder?
>>

 No.478281

I guess the Chimera is always the same - the Chimera of Freedom.
>>

 No.478282

Nazis believed they were revolutionaries. And in a sense, they were.

Their Chimera was a Chimera of Nation. The Chimera of the Freedom of Nation.

It is always about freedom.
>>

 No.478283

Which is no wonder. Freedom at its basis is always freedom from need. Freedom from material constraints of the mode of production.

It doesn't really matter in what ideological clothes this basic freedom dresses itself - its function is always the same.
>>

 No.478301

>>478262
China has been reducing it's dollar reserves, and re-arranging their finance system. It's not very likely that a second wall-street-crash would threaten their economic stability like the one in 2008.

>according to histmat every society has a mode of production
Fascism is the breakdown of society as well. If you try to find economic similarities i guess fascism has some commonalities with Neo-liberalism, like the excessive privatizations.

>It had many similarities.
I don't understand why you insist of attempting to equate the Soviets with the Nazis ?
Do you not realize that it's a neo-liberal ideological trope.

Look at what the soviets did versus what the Nazis, it's night and day difference.
The Nazis wrecked an old power and turned it into rubble.
The Soviets created a new block and build it into a global super-power.
Even the way they fought wars was completely different the Soviets favored rationally calculated military design/strategy, while the Nazis chased after fantasy super-weapons, like a tank that was so big it could mount naval artillery at the extreme end.
Economically fascism did little more than liquidate what was left over to spend all of it on batshit aspirations of conquest while the Soviets focused on building a massive industrial base, that could easily be converted to civilian production after the war.

>Anyway, whatever Nazi Germany was, it was clearly not capitalism anymore.
The basic Marxist definition of fascism is the open dictatorship of the reactionary imperial finance bourgoisie. So you can't really say it's got nothing to do with capitalism. I'm willing to say that fascism is a type of capitalist breakdown. You could probably say that Nazi Germany was being sacrificed as a battering ram of capitalism to attack the competing socialist system in the Soviet union.

>Nazi industry operated according to the state rearmament plans.
Lol no, fascism didn't have a coherent economic structure, let alone something as high level as a planned economy.

<Yuri Andropov's ambitions for cybernetics socialism were idealism
I don't think so.

>RES was a new antagonistic mode of production.
So what Lenin called lower stage socialism, you want to make that into a mode of production ?
I don't know, i have to think about it.

>For me, looking back at the 20th century just reinforces the traditional hard determinist histmat position: there are very few degrees of freedom in history.
You're not entirely wrong. Historical materialism does say this to some degree. Marx said that in class societies: Men make history but they don't make it as they please. But that only applies to pre-history. Once class society is overcome humanity gains the ability to decide it's path and start history proper.

I don't really know what you mean with determinism, or why you think that determinism limits choices. You never have the choice to do something that's physically impossible. You can't choose to not be bound by gravity and then float into space. But that doesn't mean you can't choose from options that are physically possible.
You somehow seem to be hung up on the fact that you the bio-mechanical machine making choices by using brain processes, is also just part of material reality.

>It's the freedom between Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany.
I'm having a hard time following your logic, "history" kinda chose both options. There was fascism in Germany and Soviet socialism in Russia.

>Vanguardists thought they have cheated history, when they were it's puppets all along lol.
<people that lived in the past are now part of history
You are trying to turn something obvious and banal into something profound.
>>

 No.478302

>>478275
<historical material says Fukuyama style End of History is wrong
yes
<communism is at odds with historical materialism
only in your mind
>Communism is a Death Cult
obviously not
>>

 No.478303

>>478265
The historical materialist perspective is that humans try to re-organize society in a way that humanity gains more agency on a societal level

>All revolutionaries thought they were going against history
They thought they were making history and at least some of them were right about that.

historical materialism is part of Marxist ideology, it doesn't "collapse" it, wtf are you smoking ?
>>

 No.478304

>>478280
>But as histmat destroys everything it touches
stop trying to make historical materialism into strange woowoo
>>

 No.478305

>>478282
>Nazis believed they were revolutionaries. And in a sense, they were.
Bullshit they were counter revolutionaries, and who gives a shit about Nazi-delusions
>>

 No.478319

File: 1706717083131.jpg ( 640.62 KB , 1780x1579 , hai.jpg )

>>478301
>China blah-blah
Idealism.

Histmat doesn't care what anyone does.

>Fascism is the breakdown of society as well.
Breakdown of society is Great Depression, not Nazi rearmament plans.

>If you try to find economic similarities i guess fascism has some commonalities with Neo-liberalism, like the excessive privatizations.
It has more similarities to RES.

>I don't understand why you insist of attempting to equate the Soviets with the Nazis ?
I'm just following histmat method.

>Do you not realize that it's a neo-liberal ideological trope.
Histmat doesn't care.

>Look at what the soviets did versus what the Nazis, it's night and day difference.
Not according to histmat.

>The Nazis wrecked an old power and turned it into rubble.
Histmat doesn't care.

>The Soviets created a new block and build it into a global super-power.
Histmat doesn't care.

>Even the way they fought wars was completely different
Histmat doesn't care.

All histmat cares about is material reproduction of life.

>Economically fascism did little more than liquidate what was left over to spend all of it on batshit aspirations of conquest while the Soviets focused on building a massive industrial base, that could easily be converted to civilian production after the war.
Both DE-FACTO had planned economies after the Great Depression. Both used their planned economies mainly for rearmament and military build up for the upcoming war.

One was destroyed in the war, and the other kept struggling with trying to convert its planning economy for civilian production until its collapse.

>The basic Marxist definition of fascism is the open dictatorship of the reactionary imperial finance bourgoisie.
That's not a histmat definition.

Histmat doesn't care about marxist definitions.

>Lol no, fascism didn't have a coherent economic structure, let alone something as high level as a planned economy.
Nazi Germany's economy operated according to plans for years.

Histmat doesn't care about your emotions.

>Yuri Andropov's ambitions for cybernetics socialism were idealism
Histmat doesn't care about individuals.

If you think RES problems were purely technical, then you're an idealist (and low autism score).

Also, Gorby was Andropov's man.

>So what Lenin blah-blah
Histmat doesn't care about Lenins.

Lenins are just useful idiots of History.

>you want to make that into a mode of production?
It IS a mode of production according to histmat. And antagonistic one at that.

>Marx said blah-blah
Histmat doesn't care about Marxes.

Men "make history" between Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. Pick your color palette.

>But that only applies to pre-history.
There is no "pre-history". All history is a history of physical matter.

>Once class society is overcome humanity gains the ability to decide it's path and start history proper.
Histmat doesn't care about humanity.

>I don't really know what you mean with determinism, or why you think that determinism limits choices.
You're too low autism score to understand.

>But that doesn't mean you can't choose from options that are physically possible.
Your options are between Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. Pick your color palette.

>You somehow seem to be hung up on the fact that you the bio-mechanical machine making choices by using brain processes, is also just part of material reality.
Because I'm a consistent materialist.

>I'm having a hard time following your logic, "history" kinda chose both options.
Because they are the same option. Both paths lead to the same vanguardist mode of production.

Because histmat doesn't care.

>people that lived in the past are now part of history
People are already a part of history when they are alive. When they are fucking BORN.

>communism is at odds with historical materialism
It is.

Communism is the end of histmat. And histmat ends only with the universe.

>Communism is a Death Cult
Yes.

Society that doesn't have technical development, that doesn't ascend the entropy production ladder, is a DEAD society to histmat.

>The historical materialist perspective is that humans try to re-organize society in a way that humanity gains more agency on a societal level
Agency has nothing to do with histmat, that is a marxist brainrot.

Histmat is about producing entropy, not agency.

>They thought they were making history
They thought they were cheating histmat. Russia was still largely feudal.

>historical materialism is part of Marxist ideology
Histmat came out of marxism, yes. And just like Cronus, it killed its own parent.

Marxism is just an ideology like many. And like any ideology it is subject to histmat.

Hitsmat has PRIMACY.

>stop trying to make historical materialism into strange woowoo
"woowoo" is your ideology

>Bullshit they were counter revolutionaries
They were vanguardists advancing a new mode of production.

They were OBJECTIVELY revolutionaries.

Only "delusions" here are your subjectivist idealisms.

Histmat still doesn't care.
>>

 No.478320

File: 1706719322489.jpg ( 241.94 KB , 1536x864 , podracing.jpg )

>>478319
>>

 No.478321

Has the asshole brigade come to wreck the day again? God damn this is what happens when I get a life. Here goes…

>>478140

God you are an insufferable fag. You know nothing about what a revolution is and are the last person who should be leading anything… even less than me. Fortunately for me, I am trying to avoid the revolution as much as possible, because the revolution you'll get just locks in this death cult forever.

>>478231
Why do you not think this is what the powers of the world wanted? They don't exist to produce things for you and don't exist to seek the support of the consumer or the worker. Time and time again, anyone of note has made it clear that they will never, ever let the little people have anything ever again. If you and I actually have something of value to them, that is seen as a stain on history, an error in the natural order. They quite like this situation where everyone much claw, beg, and scrape to simply exist, because it was too much for them to let us live. This was the original complaint of the people since at least the 18th century, recorded into the annals sensed by anyone who is not a complete fucktard. If you have to invent a grand theory to make people believe they're slaves and you will be their emancipator, you don't want to acknowledge what is right in front of everyone.

1929 was planned - a clearing of the debris. Really, economic crises in generally are planned or at least predicted, but 1929 was the most clearly planned crisis until the even bigger crisis of 2008. The difference in 2008 is that the people live under such terror that even speaking the name of your enemies means death. In 1929, there was still some fight left in the humans against what was coming for them. None of those fights were waged by this state or that state, as if the aristocracies which rule states ever cared about their supposed "team". They were in some sense waged through the states as proxies, but just like 1914, 1939 and all that came out of that was another war to get poor people killed.

This strange idea that there was an imagined republic of equality declared by ideology is one of the most enduring stupidities, as if we're too stupid to not see the distinctions of people. It wasn't until this period of social engineering that we weren't allowed to say who actually ruled us, or their genuine modus operandi - or at least, there was for the first time a public expectation of obedience to the intolerable.
>>

 No.478368

>>478140
kys radlib, your entire view comes from the current view of the world and you feed it
>>

 No.478369

>>478321
>Why do you not think this is what the powers of the world wanted?
The powers of the world wanted the consolidation of Soviet power? Leave aside the ideological aspect of socialism v capitalism. Even if the Soviets had been a regular capitalist power. That would still have amounted to a big rival power block. You're mad if you think WW2 went their way.

>They don't exist to produce things
They don't produce anything, the workers produce all the things.
>don't exist to seek the support of the consumer or the worker.
Nothing happens without workers. And the consumer is the subject of ideological justification. Most political, military and economic power can only be given, not taken and that requires seeking support from the population. The Neo-liberals just figured that out. They went all in with the moronic theory of seaking the means of control instead of the means of production, and as a result they made the west geo-politically impotent and economically feeble.

>This strange idea that there was an imagined republic of equality declared by ideology
That's one of our ideological victories. Nobody gets away with declaring them selves the master-race not even Zionstan.
>>

 No.478390

>>478369
The rise of the USSR had nothing to do with the Great Depression, and the USSR didn't exist because people were made miserable in Britain and America. By 1929, everyone who mattered recognized that the USSR was now a thing, and it's not like the Russians cajoled history in the way you probably think history works. The USSR was insulated from the effects of it because they were not founded on a philosophy of cannibalizing everything in sight. Even in your revisionist history, you have to imagine that everyone exists as flotsam to be cajoled by thought alone, and then you call it "material conditions" like a retard.

The way the Soviet leadership saw this was that there was unquestionably the one world power, and so their everything they did attempted to do everything to reconcile with that world power. The Party did not move history by making a theory saying history worked that way. That would be profoundly retarded and counterproductive. Stalin would call those people degenerates, because they are. Very clearly, the Soviet Union did not dictate global hegemony, and that wasn't even a goal. Their best hope was a friendlier imperial government, if such a thing was possible. While Khrushchev receive much of the blame for utter submissiveness to the US, neither the USSR nor the US at the time saw each other as mortal enemies destined to fight out of some volkisch sense of eternal nation-essence conflicts. That was always Germanic faggotry. Stalin would have loved, and tried many times over, to make a lasting peace and cooperate with the empire, but he wouldn't submit to the ridiculous program they wanted. (And this is one reason they're still relitigating Trotsky/Stalin - it isn't hard to see that Trotsky was "their man" and would have run the USSR into the ground with every eugenics social experiment imaginable.)

Globally, the capitalist world called the shots, then and certainly now. Communism appeared ascendant in the minds of the ideologues and the fags, but realistically, it's hard to say you're going to be the new world order if you can't even agree on what "communism" is supposed to be, and get into slapfights with other communists more than Christians get into doctrinal fights with other Christians. There were a lot of people who wanted "not this imperial eugenics shit", and the Soviet Union was seen by the world as the thing - the one thing - that was not 100% on board with that agenda, for all of the reasons not-insane people saw eugenics as an abomination from the start. It didn't stop the eugenists from asserting policy in the communist world, but advancing eugenics would have been - and was - the death of the country and anything the Communist Party hoped to accomplished. Yet, they could never bring themselves to fight it. Their political theory, the entire project that was practically a religion for them, didn't allow them to acknowledge the nature of the situation. Some of them attempted to, or at least knew and acted accordingly like semi-reasonable people.

>Most political, military and economic power can only be given, not taken and that requires seeking support from the population.
This is just responsibilization. Are you responsible for being beaten and humiliated from cradle to grave, and that being the entire society, for a whole century? Are you responsible for the rewriting of history and the gigantic Nazi coup machine that rules over you, that you're not allowed to call what it is? No one "gave" the eugenists any right and certainly no consent to any of that. That's why it's quasi-illegal to speak of what these things are, though now it has gone on for so long that no one needs to worry. From 1940 on, the people were done. It was only a matter of extinguishing the last vestiges of the old world. The 1960s would appear to history as a series of disasters and defeats for everything the left as a historical force stood for, and it was largely done by the left's intellectual leadership openly abandoning any mass politics. Once they got what they wanted, every opportunist and enabler of opportunism had no interest in giving to the filthy masses a single thing ever again, and so the "left institutions" embraced open contempt for the idea that the people were anything but animals to be cajoled. When the right parties, which would have been destroyed against any mass opposition, were given every initiative time and time again, and the institutional left spent more of its energy shaming their own supporters and rolling out a purple carpet as the foil to the rightist vanguard, they surrendered forever any connection with reality. There were factions of the left, and this is not a small thing, that knew this was bullshit and tried to rally something. Anyone who got too close to acknowledging the genuine situation was "retarded", or more often declared politically insane for not embracing the militarization of society, the preparations for the "Jehad" we live under now.
>>

 No.478391

>>478390
>The rise of the USSR had nothing to do with the Great Depression
Yes it did. Capitalism has a crisis cycle, while soviet economic planning did not. Exploiting the crisis phase where capitalism grinds to a halt, allowing the soviet system to make up ground was part of the strategy for soviet construction under conditions of global capitalism.
>>

 No.478404

>>478391
This is the pants on head retardation I hear every fucking day. The Soviet system was isolated from the global economic order. Its existence did not "create the crisis", and the USSR consciously divorced itself from an institution it did not need nor want. This is reproduction of the Malthusian myth that people consume mindlessly and that this constitutes "growth", and that all history is moved by this force alone. The reality is that the rise of the Soviet Union meant little for the bottom line of captialists or the imperial states. Already by this time, conservation and deliberate austerity were the dominant ideas of aristocracy, willfully implemented by themselves to create that crisis. The 1920s prioritized fictitious capital because the aristocracy, those who would become oligarchs, wanted a crisis. Crisis is when oligarchs buy up a country for pennies on the dollar. You fags failing to understand that should just not be allowed to write about history at all. If anything, the rise of the Soviet Union delayed plans to start the "Jehad" by about 50 years. What is happening now would have never stopped from the democides of the 1930s, and the 1950s would not have been a "quiet shadow purge" but wholesale and open extermination of cities. That is what the Nazis represented and what the worst case scenario would have been.

There are reasons why the leadership of the imperial core at the time did not pull the trigger, that were not wholly a reaction. This is the problem with Hegeloid cajolers - they always think you can push people to do anything with complete nonsense. They always think autistically and believe they are the motor driving history. It's dumb, and smarter Marxists will tell you to never actually do that. Smarter Hegeloids will admit in secret that it's all about bullshitting because they want to crush poor people and torture them.

The decisions of the leadership of the United States between 1929 to 1969 were almost entirely decisions of their own making, rather than things "forced" upon them, when it came to organizing their society. The rulers developed their economy and set the world order basically as they wanted it, and pulled the plug and did neoliberalism basically when they wanted it - scripted as early as the 1920s if you understand their governing MO, which you will absolutely and eternally refuse to do. They don't ask themselves what the Soviet Union would do, or actually believe the anticommunist drivel. The smarter people running the US knew the entire Cold War narrative was bullshit, but ideological fags will be fags.

As for the Soviet Union's behavior, they were in control of their destiny, for good or ill, up to the bitter end. It was a choice of elements within the Soviet system to disband, rather than fight it out. The outcome of the "ideas of 1914" was to demarcate the world into ecosystems - parcels of land - where trade and movement of labor could be controlled and corralled, so that conditions of eugenics could be created. That was the dominant idea that the empire acted on above all others, rather than any "fear of communism". In the worst case scenario, the leadership could cook up a fake "revolution" of students and enablers, drag down the conditions of the property holders to break them, and decide that instead of being CEO, they will be Central Planner and Premier, or effectively would be so and find suitable figureheads to be the face of a new communist party. None of these people are invested in ideology, and none of these people are retarded enough to believe capitalism was anything other than a disaster. That was the understanding any educated person, even the anticommunists, would have had. The anticommunists just wanted pure and full eugenism, and didn't like communism because it suggested that petty-managers and the worst fags in human history wouldn't get their way.
>>

 No.478406

>>478404
Take your meds.
>>

 No.478407

>>478404
>The Soviet system was isolated from the global economic order.
Now that's idealism.

Obviously the soviets tried to disconnect from global capitalism. After WW2 they took drastic measures like the iron curtain and building tens of thousands of nukes. But they never managed to fully isolate.

Having a better economy than the competing capitalist order that was important for the Soviets, especially in the beginning. Having a comparably huge industrial base for example, that was a key ingredient for keeping fascism out.

So if you build a socialist economy it would be wise to time it so that it coincides with a down-turn in the capitalist crisis cycle. So you can get more "delta V" between the old and the new system.
>>

 No.478408

>>478406
Fag.
>>

 No.478409

>>478407
What do you think an economy is, magic? There are mechanicistic causes of every crisis that can be discerned by anyone with sufficient information, which heads of states and those at the commanding heights would possess and use to their advantage. There are no crises without actors - that is the basic concept of a crisis in political and economic language, and the way by which the concept enters modern language.

The USSR was insulated against those crises and emphasized this as one of the reasons for the state's existence - what it offered to the people. This did not prevent them from their internal crises, or facing external pressure that informed their behavior, but by the design of the state, the USSR - like any of the modern super-states - was effectively insulated from instigated crisis from outside of its institutions. If a great power faces externally instigated crisis, it is because they are not a great power. They would be vassals of one of the few powers that matter.

More to the point - "economic crises" are completely fictitious renderings. The crisis happens at a time the commanding heights choose, and not before. Those who command the state are not stupid and see a moment where the dominant power can best extract concessions. Politicians and the apex of human societies always seek to engineer crisis if they can get away with it, then prepare the "solution" just as the crisis hits - a solution which very obviously required years of preparation and many hands working on the "solution" before a crisis presents itself. In the past, this could be done because the vast majority of humanity was not involved in politics, so these decisions were made by a few courtiers and powerful magnates. In the past, political crisis was not what the people feared. From the perspective of most people, political crisis was just another excuse to kill off poor people, like war, famine, plague, or anything else that they were familiar with.

There is so much wrong with your view that requires basic understanding of what humans do, which you religiously refuse to do. You'd rather be a fag.

Crisis could only become global when institutional chokeholds were global. The Empire never faced a real "crisis", and when it did, it was a crisis of their own choosing. If you want a crisis where the wheels really came off, the Crisis of the Third Century is the example most people are thinking of - but in this crisis, the men who instigated the crisis were aware that what they were doing would set off a reaction of events that worked for them, but didn't work for the concept of "Rome". But, the emperors and generals who would usurp the throne or secede from imperial rule altogether made decisions that were very sensical for them and those in their camp. The Roman Empire at that time was an abstraction that meant little more than the supply arm of the legions. When there was a solution to the crisis, it was because there were men who won and saw that they had to rule over this gigantic thing, not because "material conditions ended it and returned the revolution to its original state, perpetually recycling history". The result of the middle of the third century was the effective dissolution of "the Roman Empire", and its replacement with a new inheritor state. What really happened was not a "crisis" of the planned sort, but a rotten empire dropping the facade and fictions that kept it together for the prior 4-5 centuries. It is only in ideology that there is a belief that there was a "Roman Empire" analogous to a unitary national security state.

The point being, the things that are in motion are not what you believe they are at all. Literally everything you write and believe in is a pure fantasy, intentionally divorced from how anything works or what anyone making decisions does or would do. Only dumbasses think reality works in line with these pseudo-theories, and they are propagated as a deliberate and flagrant lie that stupid people repeat because they've been beaten and abused, mind-raped from cradle to grave to believe any of this shit is normal.

What does happen are schemes to push nations and entities to war with each other, and efforts of those who do not want to be pushed to resist that. If you actually believe the market "acts on its own" and people are as stupid as you or worse, you do not know anything at all about how the simplest firm must operate. So many businesses fail because of this retarded ideology. There has never been an "unplanned economic crisis" in modern history. There have been dislocations that were not planned, or allowed to happen by neglect or disinterest in stopping them. There have been famines and plagues which were not engineered with full deliberation, but no state has ever responded to those things with anything we would regard as "efficiency". States only do the barest minimum they must to put out the fires they didn't start themselves, and usually the holders of states - or their subordinates who want to negotiate for position and undermine their masters - create more fires than they put out, while ignoring chronic and endemic imperial diseases with full knowledge that they are running the project into the ground. Empires, like states, are in the end tools for the extraction of wealth and human suffering. Anyone who believes that institutions or the imperial crown are like magic and the source of true wisdom is a greater fag than you. No one in a position to care is going to throw away their interests for an abstract idea of institutional supremacy. They only act in accord with this when the institution clearly benefits from a lie, and the holders of institutions have always made golden parachutes for themselves when they sell the monorail and have their getaway with the money bags prepared beforehand. That's what these institutions that you believe are eternal and necessary for modern states are - get-rich quick scams. That's what the university, this whole idea of the Academy, has always been. The difference, which retards and ideological fags will never get because they refuse to, is that the wealth and influence institutions care about has nothing to do with tokens of dubious currency - dubious currency that the apex of the institutions has always manipulated to their advantage, because their institutions are granted the sacrosanctity of a church but with none of the expectations from the laity a religion would require.

The point here is that "global capitalism" is not a vague aspersion, but an empire unto itself. When the USSR is fighting "America", they're not fighting the legal entity of the USA in an imagine battle of the volks. They're fighting this imperial beast with tendrils around the world, including many of the Politburo looking to sell out when the getting is good. That's what the "American" empire is - they have no attachment to America as an idea or a piece of land or to its people, and always remind Americans of how much the rulers hate Americans. The USSR was insulated from this by choice because they were protesting the empire's economic program, and refused to allow the planned crises the Empire uses to keep its territories compliant. Literally the only reason why anticommunism is a thing is because of their refusal to get with the planned crisis program. It has nothing to do with a blind affinity for property or the rulers actually believing capitalism is made of magic. That's pure fag thinking. CIA are among the first people who will tell you - in private of course - that capitalism is the gayest and most retarded system you could possibly imagine, and they'd be in a position to know. They don't give a shit about that, and neither did anyone who is not fucktarded. The appeal of capitalism was in such sorry shape by 1950 that anticommunism couldn't even pretend capitalism was anything other than a disaster, and this is where they hit upon the idea of rebranding capitalism as something entirely different, until they could just rewrite history in a generation after torturing enough children and finding their enablers.
>>

 No.478410

As for the US, there wasn't an "economic crisis" until Reagan came in and his crooks plundered everything they could get their hands on, beginning the plan of wholesale looting. None of that looting was "materially necessary" or served "national security" or the empire in any way. The looting was done because that was the spoils they fought for. In 1989, the last vestiges of global resistance to eugenics were annihilated. It was no longer even conceivable. Humanity proved itself to be a failed race, a demonic race.
>>

 No.478411

Before the 20th century, what usually precipitated crisis was not "economic forces", but war or revolution. Wars came about not as reactions, but proactive plans waged by men who believed that war was moral and upright, precisely because war is the classic check against population growth and the best way aristocracy could find to make poor people suffer and die. In the 20th century, aristocracy found a new way to maximize the thrill of torture, and here we are.
>>

 No.478413

When someone considers that the whole business of the pre-modern state was war and extracting taxes to feed the rulers, the idea that they would "have" to face economic crisis at the level of the state is absurd. The monarchs of the world were always able to say "let them eat cake" and make everyone else do exactly that. The only thing that changed in modernity is that the "rebellious generals" were able to realize a good opportunity for a power grab, and this is always how revolutions begin. They don't start from vague aspersions or the number three cause of death for black people behind porkchops and FEMA. What precipitates the French Revolution, but the war in America and the French going bankrupt in an effort to undermine the rise of Britain? Those who funded the war effort saw an opportunity for a power grab. The colonists saw an opportunity to assert the power they already possessed due to the crown not really giving a fuck what happened in the Americas. The East India company saw a power grab, as it is the Company that really ran global capitalism at that time, around which the luminaries of eugenism would assemble and export the idea of pure corporate governance. Said Company was at the heart of so much of what happened from the moment the Company effectively ruled India. This is a history that used to be taught by the way, since it would be impossible to really understand what the US was without this. It's not like incompetent men "just so" happened to drain the French treasury. The interested parties who saw a weak king knew they could get the young Louis XVI to sign off on anything, and those parties were well known to anyone who studied the history of the revolution and what the men who took part in it thought the game was. None of the men contesting this were so stupid that they didn't know what was what, as if they existed purely to be cajoled into action by agentur in the way ideology insists it happens. When the Republic happens, they initiate a war of conquest because, aside from already being at war with the old order due to a crime of Being, they realized "well, fuck, we have this gigantic army that is kicking so much ass, so why shouldn't we rule the continent?"
>>

 No.478451

>>478390
Eugene your takes are so shit even retarded tankoids that are one step away from fascism can dunk on you.

>The rise of the USSR had nothing to do with the Great Depression, and the USSR didn't exist because people were made miserable in Britain and America. By 1929, everyone who mattered recognized that the USSR was now a thing, and it's not like the Russians cajoled history in the way you probably think history works.
I just can't deal with you fucking retarded idealists anymore.. IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER WHAT ANYONE RECOGNIZED A JURIDICAL ENTITY CALLED "USSR" AS.

REALITY EXISTS OUTSIDE PEOPLE'S MINDS YOU FUCKING RETARD. IT DOESN'T CARE WHAT LABEL YOU PUT ON A FUCKING ROCK. WHY IS IT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND FOR YOU SOLIPSISTIC RETARDS!

By 1929 SU was for all intents and purposes a capitalist fucking society. October Revolution was DE-FACTO a capitalist revolution. Because reality DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK what you put on your fucking banner you retarded vanguardoid. And histmat doesn't give a fuck about dogmoid Lenins and Trotskys either - one died of a fucking stroke like a little bitch after going on a massive capitalist reform program and other got icepicked by a more pragmatic politician that better understood what histmat demanded of him.

Smenovekhovtsy were actually RIGHT all along while dogmoid marxoid retards were running around like headless chickens with their world revolution.

They were right in pointing out that there's nothing inherently anticapitalist in vanguardist one party political system. Current China example now proves this point without any doubt. They were right in pointing out that USSR was on a steady course of capitalist development. THEY WERE RIGHT.

They just didn't take into account only one little thing - FUCKING GREAT DEPRESSION LOL.

The ACTUAL, IN TERMS OF HISTMAT, OBJECTIVE revolution happened in 29 when the global wheat marked fucking COLLAPSED and with it the NEP path to industrialization. It happened with the first five year plan and collectivization when Stalin basically said "fuck it". Without external circumstances pushing his hand that little Russian chauvinist faggot would've been just another Xi/Putin/Park/pick-your-favourite-bourgeois-authoritarian.

AGAIN, histmat doesn't give a fuck if vanguardoids believe they are building communism while they embark on capitalist reforms and nation state-building. Old Molotov is actually the best example of this - completely brainwashed party slave no different from a 17th century brainwashed puritan fanatically building capitalism in the name of biblical God lol.

You retards can believe in whatever the fuck you want - histmat doesn't give a fuck because you will believe in what histmat needs you to believe and then get icepicked or still denied membership in your collapsing vanguardoid party when you're 80 years old lol.
>>

 No.478452

>>478451
"tankies" are the highest form of socialists
>>

 No.478454

>>478452
Lol yes, especially when they shill for national capitalist states in inter-imperialist conflicts.
>>

 No.478455

>>478454
you're a dumbass
>>

 No.478458

>>478455
And you're a useful idiot.

States, nations, and useful idiots come and go, but MATTER is ETERNAL.

Eat shit.
>>

 No.478459

>>478458
pee pee poo poo


you eat doo doo. monkey fucks is eternal
>>

 No.478466

>>478459
Stuck a nerve huh? Don't worry, you'll be not the first to die for some abstract ideal like a stupid idiot.

Who ever remembers countless retards killed in world wars? Not even a statistic because the next generation don't really give a shit, and rightfully so.
>>

 No.478467

>>478452
>"tankies" are the highest form of socialists
Lenin,Stalin etc called Soviet-state-socialism lower-stage socialism. But the bolsheviks definitely liked to smoke pot, if you read the archived letters there are a few mentions of cannabis enjoyment, so at times they probably were the "highest" socialists.

>>478454
Nah the so called "tankies" tend to "shill" for anti-imperialist states

>>478458
>States, nations, and useful idiots come and go, but MATTER is ETERNAL.
Technically matter probably isn't eternal, even the normal stable isotopes of matter (not radioactive) will eventually decay after many aeons in the deep future. That's sort of still speculative physics.
>>

 No.478469

>>478467
>Technically matter probably isn't eternal, even the normal stable isotopes of matter (not radioactive) will eventually decay after many aeons in the deep future.
Technically you're probably an idiot.

Guess what genius, elementary beta particles and gamma radiation are ALSO MATTER.

OH WOWIE! WAVES ARE ALSO MATTER?! WHO WOULD'VE THOUGHT!

There is nothing more ETERNAL in this world than the conservation law.

YOUR GOD DIES WITH YOU, BUT MATTERS LIVES FOREVER WITHOUT YOU.
>>

 No.478471

>Lenin,Stalin etc called Soviet-state-socialism lower-stage socialism.
I guess that totally changes things in the real world now! Just imagine what would happen if they called a proton an electron! WOWIE! THE MATTER WOULD DISSIPATE! THE POWER OF MARXISM-LENINISM! DIALECTICS!
>>

 No.478473

>Nah the so called "tankies" tend to "shill" for anti-imperialist states
Yea, "anti-imperialist" states like Russia that start wars to protect their CIS sphere of influence and gas pipelines.

Anyway, out of topic, tankoid faggot. We've been over this in other threads.
>>

 No.478475

>>478473
>CIS sphere of influence

uygha what, lol.
>>

 No.478476

>>478475
Commonwealth of Independent States. Post-Soviet common economic space that tried to be the next EU. Retard.
>>

 No.478477

>>478466
you talk tough for a liberal. poo poo poo poo poo
>>

 No.478480

>>478477
and you talk tough for a dead meat

don't forget to confess your sins before matter in your body returns to the lower level of entropy production lol
>>

 No.478481

>>478469
The hard materialist position is that the bedrock of matter is probably point-like particles and waves are an emergent phenomenon of their motion.

Conservation of energy doesn't prohibit particles from decaying, maybe some particles are eternal but the second law of thermodynamics doesn't require it. There's also stuff like vacuum energy, about which we know very little.

Also be careful to avoid invoking a static and eternal concept of reality. The presence of the cosmic microwave background makes it most likely that there was a beginning. Be mindful that "enternal" doesn't just meant infinite existence into the future, it also means infinite existence into the past (no end, no beginning)

I don't understand your hostility towards me, you're not wrong to look at the world through the lenses of statistical mechanics (what entropy increase does to states of matter). But you are
>>

 No.478482

>>478481 (me)
>But you are
<Accidentally clicked reply before finishing the post
You are going further than what can currently be proven, that makes it a weak position.
>>

 No.478483

>>478481
If you're arguing with retards - you need to do it on their level.

Obviously MATTER and ETERNAL are abstractions no different from GOD. And that's the whole fucking point, that's the only language retards could understand.

If you want a more intellectual approach you could use a more nuanced philosophical concept of PERMANENCE.

Conservation laws imply a PERMANENCE of SOMETHING. Something which I call by convention MATTER.
>>

 No.478484

>>478483
I think this went over my head. I don't understand why you compare matter to a god. Materialism kinda avoids the question about deities, because from a materialist perspective, a god appears to be religious thoughts in the brains of religious people.

>If you want a more intellectual approach you could use a more nuanced philosophical concept of PERMANENCE.
>Conservation laws imply a PERMANENCE of SOMETHING. Something which I call by convention MATTER.
I don't understand this either, you want to treat matter and permanence as equivalent ? At the moment the scientific view is that the void/non-existence decays and then the big bang happens. That's when matter and space-time begins. We don't really know how permanent matter is, that's a open question.
>>

 No.478489

>>478484
I don't understand you either.

wdym "void/non existence"? You mean physical vacuum?

wdym "decays"? You mean dissipation of energy, is increased entropy?

How can the Big Bang happen when the energy is fully dissipated? This doesn't make any sense. Matter and spacetime already exists.

Again, we can assume matter is permanent because we assume conservation laws. If matter was not permanent then the first law of thermodynamics wouldn't hold and the first law is not an open question, which is shown by patent bureaus moratorium on perpetuum mobile proposals.
>>

 No.478490

Also, I posted that vid not as an endorsement of philosophy or anything. For me philosophy is simply the absence of science. Where science advances - philosophy retreats. It's a dying beast.

That vid illustrates this perfectly. Both Shop and Hegel were wrong. There is no ideal Will or Absolute Spirit, only moving matter. And matter moves in the direction of greater entropy, not greater freedom.

Where science advances - the chimeras of mind DIE.
>>

 No.478491

>>478489
>wdym "void/non existence"? You mean physical vacuum?
Entropy can be looked at, as forcing energy to spread out. Like heat in a radiator is concentrated and when it warms up a room it spreads out.

Entropy also forces a rise in disorder (related to information).
page filled with zeros: low entropy, highly ordered
page filled with random characters: higher entropy, more disordered

The void is less than a vacuum (which still has characteristics like spacial dimensions and a energy potential)
In information terms the void is a little bit like the page full of zeros which is highly ordered and low entropy. And if entropy increases, matter and space-time pop into existence to allow for more "disordered information". Don't overthink this, because i have left out the relation between energy and information for the sake of simplicity.

>wdym "decays"? You mean dissipation of energy, is increased entropy?
I mean decay in the physics sense like when a heavy atom decays into 2 lighter ones plus a bunch of extra particles.
Think of the void as a condition that is very unstable, in some ways like a super-heavy element that only lasts a few milliseconds. I know that's counter intuitive, most people would imagine a void not only as stable but static and unchanging, but there is no reason to make this assumption. It's a bit like nature abhors a vacuum and that's why it's hard to suck out all the air from a container, and it seems that nature abhors a void to such a degree that it makes matter pop into existence just to get rid of it.

>How can the Big Bang happen when the energy is fully dissipated? This doesn't make any sense.
Because you are assuming that a void is fully dissipated energy, but i said it was nothingness, dissipated energy is still something.

>Matter and spacetime already exists.
No that's incompatible with observations of physical reality. All the clues point to a beginning.

>Again, we can assume matter is permanent because we assume conservation laws. If matter was not permanent then the first law of thermodynamics wouldn't hold and the first law is not an open question,
No space and time begin with the big bang too, it's not violating the 1. thermodynamics law if matter doesn't predate time and space. Predating time doesn't make sense anyway and without space there's no place for the matter to be.

>which is shown by patent bureaus moratorium on perpetuum mobile proposals.
That is correct based on current physics, perpetual motion machines are not possible. A perpetual motion machine would need to reverse entropy and that means reversing the flow of time. If somebody could manipulate time, the patent office has to close up shop anyway, because patents rely on time. Not that they're conspiring to prevent that with the moratorium, they just got tired of wasting time on contraptions that never work.
>>

 No.478503

>>478489
Iromy is, science proves that the physical universe is far more exotic and somewhat transcendant than philosophy.

Philosophy relies on imposes expectations of the human mind.
Science is the opposite.
>>

 No.478507

>>478484
"Big Bang" is nothing but imperial cosmology. It was so stupid that people who asked this question in the language of science invented "Big Bang" as a term of abuse because it was ridiculous. Like the "modern synthesis", it was created for political purposes rather than anything it explained. This is when the institutions starting locking out those who weren't meant for the world to come as they say it.

The retard brigade shows the result of this brainrot and letting it go on for this long.

>>478451
Retard here doesn't understand that accepting the USSR's existence was to reconcile with what it represented - for a time. This idea that ideologies are like Germanic nation-state essences is screaming faggotry. You fags, and you are fags, constantly misconstrue anything anyone else says if it doesn't fit your grand narrative. If anyone tries to reason with you, they get the hard lesson that you only want more faggotry.

As far as anyone competent cared, states - whatever their basis - always operate in accord with their real conditions, rather than what they would prefer to believe. None of these people, the Nazis included, were "pure ideologues". The Nazis are a classic pump and dump scheme applied to run a whole country into the ground. They're pure imperial bootlicking shitstains, so it didn't cost them anything to throw a whole country away for faggotry. It's the believers in ideology and grand narratives who continuously recapitulate fascism, because they don't want any other type of world to exist. They want the world where things "work" in accord with their grand narrative. Anything else is weird and scary.

Isn't it funny that the winners of the Great Depression were decided in advance, and had a program ready to go the moment they created enough crisis to steer a country wherever they wanted? That is what states do - they do not fear crisis. They create them, and the state itself as a force always benefits from crisis. Most of the people lose, but those at the top of the mountain always love crisis. What they fear is a world where the little people no longer follow them, or a world where they would face existential annihilation - which aristocracy has not faced in many centuries, even when their conditions were severely reduced. The end of aristocracy is truly the end of humanity as we have known it. It's why they keep insisting you must identify as "human", and only their version of humanity is acceptable. They did the artful substitution where what "human" once entailed is replaced with a purely eugenist and racial concept of humanity. When they talk about "human rights", they're talking about "slave's rights" - i.e., a non-sequitur they use to insult you. Fags like you allow this to go on because it's too much for you to not be fags, and you always decide to kick down and make my life worse than it has to be, because you are cowardly fags who want to push that reward stimulus.

>>478481
You do realize making grand theories about fundamental nature is a very philosophically idealist view of the world, when you say stupid shit like this? The only "hard materialist" claim is that there is a world. That's it. It says nothing about the nature of the world by any idea imposed on it. Materialism implied science in the genuine sense, which the shit-tier education you receive doesn't allow to exist.
If you're bowdlerizing quantum theory, the "contradiction" of a point-like particle and wave is a clever trick for the pseuds, or a frank admission that we don't know what we think we know. The atomic theory we recognize came about because observations supported a claim that chemical compounds are divisible in such a way, and there was a reason why it could be that way. It was never a claim that the universe "just is" that way. Before modern chemistry, the view of matter was that it was basically "unknowable", until Dalton noticed the results of an experiment produced clean divisions of substance, and believed that this was due to granular matter's composition arresting in some purified state, from which ordinary mechanical action would not split the substance. That has continued to be the basic claim of particle physics - not that the world conformed to an elegant theory, but that continued experiments confirmed what these "atoms" were, and that electricity and magnetism too were comprised of something substantive.

No philosophy worthwhile makes any of these "eternal and unchanging claims" about the nature of matter and all that exists. That's always imperial religion and the eugenic creed in particular, which is always "above science", the first and holiest proclamation of the institutions. That is the basis for the imperial cult and the practices of this empire.

>>478503
Science isn't a "thing", a religion unto itself. Science is a method or approach humans use to study something. Anyone who says "science says this" is a fucking idiot. Science doesn't say anything except claims about how you can go about studying the material world where science is an applicable concept. You can conduct shitty science - there is a lot of it in this threat - and it's still science. Institutional claims are very much opposed to science in the sense that has any fidelity to truth. To the institutions, truth and science are another piece of property which can be manipulated, and there is nothing in the world that allows "pure science" to exist. There are scientific approaches to everything imaginable, and science is always materialistic at its core. The ideas we hold that allow us to conduct science are, in the moment we exercise them, not beholden to "science" as a force. We can understand ourselves and why we are what we are - this is one of the reasons why humans can do science in any sense that is real, and it is presumed the scientist is aware of their own biases sufficiently and can't be cajoled. That was abolished with the rise of the eugenic creed.
>>

 No.478508

>>478507
Take your meds.
>>

 No.478509

>>478508
Fag. (Stop replying to me, you're not going to intimidate me and make this a safe space no matter how hard you try. Feds aren't too bright.)
>>

 No.478513

>>478509
We just want you to get the help you need anon.
>>

 No.478514

>>478490
>>478503
Both of you are correct that science has vanquished a lot of brain-worms and proved that reality outpaces our wildest imagination, but you still need philosophy of science, otherwise you get solipsism that says physical reality doesn't exists it's all in my mind

>>478507
>"Big Bang" is nothing but imperial cosmology.
>it was created for political purposes
The big bang theory explains
<the cosmic microwave background radiation.
<Hubble expansion
<helium and lithium preponderance
and predicts
<the max age for ancient stars correctly
You gotta come up with a better explanation for those.
>>

 No.478608

>>478514
You don't need "philosophy" as such, but you are always operating with a metaphysical model in mind. That's what any "system" must be, and without the "system", general theories of knowledge - what is called "science" though the theory of knowledge is not identical with "science" as a concept despite that being hammered ad nauseum - would be impossible. You can conduct science with a crude or uncertain metaphysics, but you can never conduct science in the meaningful sense if it does not pertain to the world. The concept that the world doesn't exist or is imagined is purely a philosophical conceit, rather than "bad science". There are things that call themselves science which are anathema to genuine scientific inquiry, and so successful as pedagogy been at destroying science that the impostor is confused with the genuine article.

The philosophy of science, at best, polices philosophers and pedagogues and forces them to reconcile with reality. It is the institutions which constantly insist on falsifying reality, because institutions have no substance in of themselves and never can. They're just information and abstractions that exist in human communication, rather than fixed relations ordained by any natural law or by any force. Class society is only ever created by repeated and deliberate imposition, if it is to be considered class society in the sense most people regard it as relevant. The existence of "different essences" or different types of people would not in of itself necessitate social classes, but eugenics ensured that the slightest distinction may be grounds for termination and unlimited torture, and the thrill of torture will be maximized. Eugenics knows no other way.
>>

 No.478613

>>478514
Funny thing is that putting Hubble's name on it went against a lot of Hubble's own obsrevations. They like taking others' names and reimagining that they were perfect eugenists, while Hubble mostly just took down the notes and wrote what he found by looking at the stars a lot.

Given how little information about the universe has been gathered, it is really presumptive to claim with the certainty of ideology that the world is this, the world is that. Cosmology as a science must make a lot of guesses in order for the universe to make sense, but for the eugenist, if fundamental reality does not recapitulate eugenics, then reality must be altered to conform with "nature" - and they always imagine themselves as one with nature, as a nature-god, and as the Satan, all at once.
>>

 No.478615

>>478608
Boldly states:
>You don't need "philosophy" as such
precedes to do philosophy of science anyway:
>but you can never conduct science in the meaningful sense if it does not pertain to the world.
>>

 No.478618

>>478615
Saying "there is a world" is not a philosophical claim. It would be a requirement of any worthwhile conversation, which you already decided you didn't want to do. The implications of that might construct a philosophy, but no philosophy is necessary to have "real science". Science does not create reality or make reality. It is a tool and way of thinking for us, from the naive presumption that there is a world that any of our language refers to, or that any symbolic expression that suggests the world is knowable and intelligible. Symbolic communication is impossible without a world that exists prior to any of our conceits about it. How that world may be constituted is something you can debate non-stop, but if you want to insist there is no world, you show pure contempt - which is all the fags of this sorry forum ever have, because they don't want to refer to reality. They want to masturbate all day and scream like the Satanic retards they are. I apologize to any non-asshole persons but you all admit leftypol is a sad excuse that exists to destroy anything the left once pointed to. By now, anyone here who isn't a fucktard got out, and it's all Satanists, feds, and the idiots who don't know anything about anything and are herded contemptuously.

It's stupid that I have to say this, but I had people unironically claim that reality is purely dictated by philosophers, by their "mediation", and that the institutions are infallible. Literal Ingsoc shit.

At the heart of this is the belief that all knowledge is institutional - is a creature of states and firms, and the person who is utterly alien from any world from the body the institutional represetation called a "person" represents. Knowledge and science have nothing to do with any institution dogmatically asserting what truth is. That's not even religion. That's just contemptuous faggotry to occult knowledge.
>>

 No.478619

To say anything about the world other than "it exists" requires suppositions - but without anything that would "suppose" the world's existence that can be taken for granted, the possibilities you can suppose are limited. You cannot assert that "you" exist, or that "you" can mediate anything, without asking basic questions about yourself and what constitutes "you". You can of course choose to believe that all of your sense-experience is irrelevant. You can even conduct science as if your senses and all of your measurements were completely unreliable. If you did that, you would produce a very disjointed and circular science that isn't useful, and this is exactly what institutional science exhorts its subjects to do. It is still science in a sense - these institutions rule through science and monopolize truth regarding a world that is acknowledged to exist, in some way. Realistically, though, we take our sense experience as self-evidently existing. That sense experience is not "us" or "thought" - consciousness has no bearing whatsoever on knowledge, because consciousness is phenomenal rather than rational. Consciousness does suggest that there would be a reason why we want to know about the world. It may be claimed that there are things which are not practically knowable *to us*, but to claim something is absolutely unknowable or only knowable through received aristocratic knowledge is to lie contemptuously about basic things. If you are to speak of God for instance, you are presuming God is knowable, even if such an entity is either far removed from anything we could know *as we are constituted presently, in the past, and in the foreseeable future*. The unknowable cannot exist. It starts with claiming you can't know God, then you can't know things that you very clearly have seen, then you are told you know nothing, then you are told you are nothing but a living abortion. The Satanic cycle is pre-historic in its origins.

Humans are very conceited creatures, which is funny because human history is dominated by humanity's rank incompetence and admission that they really are just jabbering Satanic apes muddling through history up to now. Of course much of the world is unknowable to any faculty humans are likely to ever possess. Every time such a faculty is suggested, it is violently snuffed out, and usually those who are allowed to express new knowledge as "real" do so because their knowledge advances the Satanic core of the human race. Anyone who wanted this to be decent has been purged, sidelined, or only saw decency as expedient for some purpose but would always give it up when a core tenet of the human constitution was at stake. Everything you aspire to learn, do, or be, is in service to a demonic race ruled by a few assholes, and that's all humanity will ever be. If humans were going to be anything different, none of the past century would have been allowed to go on at all. It would be shut down immediately, the officers advancing the present program marked down and eliminated for suggesting anything of the sort.
>>

 No.478620

>>478615
The point of what I said there isn't that "anyone can be a scientist", but that science at the most basic level doesn't pertain to any particular metaphysical, institutional, or other claims, and doesn't even require a baseline level of competence. You can do shitty science, and you can be a proper scientist doing your best and still arrive at the wrong answer. Science is not guaranteed to "make" truth, and the words you say, the papers written, are not the truth. They are always things that are independently verified - that was the only reason why science could be seen as a spiritual authority in its own right. Otherwise, what anyone says is "the science" would be nothing more than an assertion of a monopoly on knowledge, which everyone else would ignore as they conduct science in whatever way suits them.

About the only consistent thing you can say about science is that it is always conducted by entities with some knowledge process - that is, science as a method persists through us, and exists because we are alien to the world science pertains to. The truth will be true regardless of anything we say or do in science, or anything we do in life.

You can in some sense "make your own truth". Politics and abstractions are things we created, and we most definitely have created those things and act on them. But, this only applies to the narrow purviews that we conceive. None of this would be relevant outside of humanity, and nearly all of it is irrelevant within humanity. Most of humanity just sees themselves starved out, humiliated, and sees the same thrill of torture that has been the race's defining quality.
>>

 No.478621

So, for *us* to conduct science, we often invent some philosophy or formal body of knowledge - but even if we lack "philosophy of science" as a category, we are still building models of the world and conducting science. Every tribe in history has a concept of science no matter how primitive, which tells you how ubiquitous science and technology really are - something which rankles aristocracy to no end. Most tribes' concept of science is remarkably similar to what an ordinary person would consider to be the purview and purpose of science today. The only exception are institutions and particular nations which oriented their project wholly around eugenics, and that's why there is this idiotic Anglo-Germanic pissing contest that everyone else in the world sees correctly as the faggiest damn thing you can possibly imagine.
>>

 No.478622

It's not as if humans didn't know how to think until some classical aristocrat philosopher guys received fire from Prometheus or Lucifer, thus allowing us to think for the first time. That has always been recognized as the complete faggotry it is, but there are cults who believe this is how knowledge works, because they see some benefit from group membership.
>>

 No.478623

>>478618
>Saying "there is a world" is not a philosophical claim.
Whether or not there is a world shouldn't be a philosophical debate, but sadly it is.

>Science does not create reality or make reality. It is a tool and way of thinking for us, from the naive presumption that there is a world that any of our language refers to, or that any symbolic expression that suggests the world is knowable and intelligible.
Yes this is reasonable. Philosophically you are saying objective reality exists. We can measure what it is to varying degrees of accuracy, and derive theoretical models that make predictions with varying rates of success. But this is not universally accepted, there is a lot of philosophical debate about this.

We have not won this argument yet.
>>

 No.478638

>>478623
What I'm saying is that the subject of science is a world outside of us, whatever we assume it is. If the world doesn't exist or is unknowable, then there isn't a truth that science concerns itself with.

Philosophers can argue whether there is a world, but if they do, they're going to have to substitute another world for the one that science concerns itself with. If there is a world, then any particular theory about it only comes after its existence is accepted. You cannot with science find "fundamental truth" in that sense, nor is such a truth necessary as a first principle for science to be conducted. Science begins with both skepticism and ignorance of the world - otherwise, we wouldn't speak of a method to learn the truth from our prior position. All of the frameworks we develop to understand the world come from our sense experience, and among the first questions anyone asks is where they came from, since that is intrinsically interesting and explains where and why we are now. Our sense experience doesn't have any primacy to "make reality", and we can learn without too great a development that nothing about our sense experience is special or privileged. We sense things because we have bodies and organs that developed to do so, and before those organs were constituted, there was nothing to sense anything - but we can easily see that there was a world before we were conceived. Nothing about consciousness is "outside of time" and it can't be to speak of the phenomenon. "I" am not reducible to conscious sense, of course. There is a past existence of me which does not exist here and now, and large parts of my existence are beneath conscious notice or any connection with immediate sense. There are records pertaining to my existence, evidence that some entity corresponding to me exists, and that existence cannot be undone even if I would want to. Everything that happens lasts forever, whether we regard it as relevant or not. Otherwise, the bastards wouldn't have spent so much effort trying to enslave, humiliate, or destroy me and anyone like me.

There isn't an argument to make. If philosophy has a wildly self-serving vision of what the world is, at odds with everything that happens around us and our native sense and reason, it is incumbent on philosophy to account for itself.

The point being that any effort to understand the world before us is in some sense a scientific view, even if the "scientist" repudiates the idea of science while doing so. That's what science does. It doesn't make grand claims about fundamental truth or metaphysics. Every axiom regarding the world is in doubt, including our own existence. Every axiom and every theory, every philosophy or religion we develop, is something we believe in for good reasons, but those assertions are not in of themselves science. It is possible for people with different axioms to communicate with each other and understand the cosmological views. The eugenists are not ignorant of this - they obsess over commanding others' reality and this means that on some level, they are aware that what they do is a system of deliberate and habitual lying for the sake of lying. Eugenics makes spiritual and political claims which require it to regard all truth and ideas but the eugenic creed as inadmissible, only tolerating them as clear inferiors that are overridden by the eugenic super-truths held by their institution against the world.

>objective reality exists
I deny that there is a "subject" worth considering if we are speaking of science properly. Everything in science is an object or a thing. We may choose whatever reference points we like, but for science to be science in the meaningful sense, all of us are talking about the same thing. That thing can be the universe as a whole, or some system that is regarded as an object of interest. Everyone who shares that interest will have a view of what that thing is or does, whether they agree with "the science" or not. If someone wishes to section off parts of the world so that each thing is its own universe, where science "stays in its lane", they have to invent a science or pseudoscience to claim why this is possible, or rely on philosophical assertions about reality itself which can be judged. I am under no obligation to indulge others' solipsism, nor is anyone obligated to indulge my beliefs. The latter has been made painfully clear to me, even when the "obligation" I ask for is to not be tortured today, and the reasons why I must be tortured are nothing but a self-perpetuating thought form which insists we're not allowed to be anything else, which did nothing for anyone. I used to think most humans were too self-interested to follow through with what this society is doing now. Why I believed this is a marker of how foolish I have been, when all evidence is that humanity is at core a demonic race, and any good they do is an exceptional situation. If humans really were ruled by self-interest, none of what has happened in the past century would have been tolerated, and it's not like there hasn't been an effort to find something else. Yet, at their core, humans would never give up their stake in this society they created, and that stake was premised on the ritual humiliation and torture of a suffering class or group designated to be the living example of failure. That's what humans really are, and rather than mitigate the consequences of that as past societies did, the present rulers glorified the rot of it all, because they didn't need to be anything else for the first time in their history. Anyone who was decent was selected against, while the most demonic of the race were promoted and told how great they were over and over again. What decency remains is a facade or a holding action so that the next sacrifice will be greater, the glory will be greater. That is the only "restraint" aristocracy believes in for themselves - that if they hold off pleasure for later, they will fatten the cattle. For us, we are told to restrain our activities not for any good reason, but to make them happier. Eugenics knows no other way.
>>

 No.478639

We could argue that "objective reality" doesn't exist in some sense - that there isn't a "universal reference point" that all are obligated to respect. Obviously you raised the point that philosophers can deny the existence or the world or basic facts we independently adjudicated about it, and this would be impossible if "objective reality exists" in that sense. My argument rather than suggesting there is a universal reference point is that, however we are constituted, we are all objects that regard a world outside of us to exist. Everything we "are", everything that constitutes human existence, is contingent on objects existing, and for every object we can suppose, there is an explanation for why it is as it is, why it does as it does. This does not necessarily correspond to a historical cause and effect - it is possible to speak of things which are eternal or transcend causality as we know it. But, it is to say, there is a way in which anything can exist, and nothing "just is". It is possible to use a reductio ad absurdum to destroy anything - Germanic philosophy does this all the fucking time - but all of the ways humans can bullshit about the world in language are limited by their faculties. Since humans are liars to the core, they expend a great deal of energy maintaining these lies, so that the ritual sacrifice which defines the race may continue. If humans were not that, nearly everything humans do in society and politics would cease immediately. Then, humans would look to each other, recognize that the problem really is other people and their deliberate choice to make the world this miserable, and see that humans can never reconcile with each other, let alone "be the same essential thing". The best humans can do is a project to reduce their presence, pass on to an afterlife, and construct in miniature parts of the world where we don't have to do this. Only those who have forsaken the rituals that founded the human race would be able to accomplish any of this, and eugenics policed society to ensure that no such people could exist with finality. Before the dominance of eugenics, there was always significant doubt among the favored classes about their mission, and what they really wanted out of this world. The thrill of torture and enslaving others isn't all it is cracked up to be. Those who were most familiar with slave management will tell you that it's a grossly inefficient system for anything useful. Economically, based on what humans value politically and spiritually, slavery is a godsend - literally, that's why every major religion exists, to uphold various forms of slavery. For anything we actually wanted, the costs of slavery are pure overhead, carried out not because it is necessary but because humans refused to allow the workers any part of the product except a pittance which binds them to the beast called "society" that aristocracy made the only possible society. The cause of socialism would have entailed something that is sensical to the naive - free association that would result from the development of industry and technology, and that association being self-evidently useful to many interested parties in humanity. It would have been far easier to let the poor have the thing they wanted, and to not charge a premium for security. But, that's not what humans are. At every moment where it appeared that humans were finally going to get over themselves, a terrible force in the race "corrects" such behavior. Eugenics is just the overt institutional fountainhead of something humans will never escape from, no matter what technology they create or whatever their efforts. The only choice humans might have is how much rot they will tolerate before they find something more interesting to do, such as literally anything else. Economically, if you understand the utilitarian ethos, to do anything but torture others is "retarded" and counterproductive, and this makes a lot of political sense to the empire. So long as you are stuck playing that game, you are destined to lose and live the worst possible life, and their ethos will tell the leaders to deprive the people specifically of that which allowed them security. The empire will let people produce toxic shit, and this empire loves selling opium and psychedelics. It dreams of perfect mind control, and has come a long ways towards accomplishing that. The perfection of mind control will be the final world-historical task of the human race, and what comes out of that will determine just what this will be. Its victory is assured - the last vestiges of any other outcome for humanity were wiped out by the deliberate malice of those who were free to do other than what they have done, and many of these people were not rulers or favored. Humans at their core chose to kick down and enjoyed humiliating others more than just about anything else they did, and so that's the way history turned out. There wasn't a good argument - for humanity - to be anything else. Another race would probably never have tolerated any of the institutions which made humanity foul, and those institutions existed because of particular failures of humans rather than as universal rules. Something like prostitution for instance almost certainly wouldn't exist if not for century after century of ritual upholding and glorifying the practice. It wouldn't exist because it would be seen as an abomination, roughly on the level that child pornography is viewed now but without the obvious situation where the feds produce the shit to entrap those rejected from the mating game. More than that, a race that wasn't so stupid would probably have no demand for prostitution, and would probably regard the sex act as a nuisance to be done - or not done - and then people would live their life. The main reason why humans turn to this bizarre addiction is because they have been caged and made to believe that it evokes a special force that it doesn't actually possess. There is no "there" there. A better race would not even entertain the fictions of marriage. The act would purely be done because a male and female are to reproduce, for whatever reason that might be done. Anything else would be a waste of time at best and a vice to be ashamed of. In a different time, family life and obligations were the central focus rather than the orgy which was just a part of the rigamarole. Under eugenics though, the orgies are now mandatory and absolute, and rejection from the orgies means rejection from any security. Historically, those who were cast out of the game, or disinterested in mating, could go about their life and find whatever they're going to find. Now, sexual rejection and marks of eugenic shame are treason and the greatest crime - in fact, they are the only crime eugenists believe in, for eugenists laugh at the idea that laws apply to them. That's why you have "incels" today, though by now, the "incel" space has been completely colonized by Nazism. What I've seen over the past decade is that the old excuses and "positive thinking" cult non longer works on people. Too many have been cast out and made to suffer for this beast, and enough of us have said our entire lives that this imposition is bullshit. The people who were part of that cult of positive thinking are the people who eugenics selected for, and now they're in full siege mode against their sworn enemies. They won, and now they don't have to deign to talk down to us. The "Jehad" started. The thrill of torture will be maximized.
>>

 No.479065

Ok, it's time to continue my humiliation of leftoids.

For all the butthurt faggots reading this, I have only one message: COPE AND SEETHE. I DON'T give a fuck, I have such low opinion of your intellectual faculties than I literally don't view you as fellow conscious beings.

Ok, now with that out of the way, today's punching bag is a YT channel by the name "The Marxist Project" (TMP for short) - typical idealist leftoid that belongs to the declassified element in the system of material reproduction.

The target of my critique is his video on histmat. My rationale for singling out this particular video: histmat is the ONLY element in the whole body of leftoid "theory" worth critiquing. Everything else is just a big stinking pile of SHIT.

Now, onto the video:

>Historical Materialism is the application of diamat to history.
<proceeds to illustrate this by ignoring majority of diamat laws when describing the histmat method
titanic autism score

>historical materialist rejects the notion of eternal principles or phenomena
How are laws of dialectics not eternal principles, retardoid? They don't MEAN anything, yes lol. But they are still eternal.

You can't have teleology without universal laws that would drive such teleology. Kindergarten level shit.

you leftoid retards don't just have eternal principles, you have fucking eternal PHENOMENA like communism (which are incompatible with a strict mechanical materialism)

>capitalist ideology is ahistorical
HELLO? ANYBODY'S HOME? COMMUNISM IS AHISTORICAL TOO!

you're doing exactly what you're critiquing your opponents for retard

>serfs had better lives than salves and workers had better lives than serfs
yea retard, great generalization

I'm sure that some rich fucking slave with his own business in the late Roman Empire had it worse than a fucking peasant in medieval England

or what, did you think all slaves in the Ancient world worked in the fucking silver mines? I wouldn't be surprised if you did - ignorance is the hallmark of a leftoid after all

also nevermind the simple historical fact that the rise of industrial capitalism gave a second wind to slavery all around the world, from chattel slavery in the Americas to chattel slavery (that by some confusion is called serfdom) in Eastern Europe

but who cares about such historical minutia that doesn't fit in into your neat schema, amiright leftoid?

>the next stage, however is a radical departure from the previous systems
Great, another leftoid retard straight out of the 19th century. HELLO? ANYBODY'S HOME? THERE WAS THIS THING CALLED THE SOCIALIST CAMP IN THE 20TH CENTURY!

reality proved the next stage is not so radical after all lol - just another class society

>Socialism which Marx and other saw blah blah
huh? how's that histmat's problem? leftoids can see whatever the fuck they want lol

the simple reality is that Socialism is a CLASS SOCIETY in line with all the previous historical development, not a "negation", "reversal" and other such meaningless bullshit

>As transnational corporations erase borders and erode the nation state, the possibility of socialist revolution magnifies
<Leftoid retard says as we enter a second decade of de-globalization following the 08 crisis
remember kids, materialism is when you ignore reality!

>we should be careful in creating a linear or deterministic version of history
>Leftoid retard says after presenting a linear version of history
*SIGH*

Deterministic doesn't mean linear, leftoid retardoid.

>muh constant state of change
CHANGE CAN BE DETERMINISTIC! IMAGINE THAT!

stick to your phallosophy leftoids, leave the question of determinism and indeterminism to physicists

>blah blah base doesn't determine superstructure, that's just vulgar materialism
you don't like something? just add "vulgar" to it! that'll make the argument! the oldest trick in the marxoid book!

>human though has no impact on the material reality around them
<b-but what about muh free will!!
*SIGH*

Human though has an impact on reality, because it is a PRODUCT of reality, is DETERMINED by reality. Retard.

It's really interesting how modern leftoids all shy away from determinism that is characteristic of mature Marx but somehow cling to retarded communism lol.

>it is not about grand narrative
WHAT IF YOUR COMMUNISM THEN? HUH?! SHUT THE FUCK UP RETARD!

Holy shit this retarded bitch pisses me off to no end, even his fucking voice makes me cringe. I'M DONE.
>>

 No.479067

>>479065
Historical materialism is not particular to Marx. Marx's historical materialism made particular claims that history could be studied with science and how to go about that, but the idea that historical materialism is a thing predates Marx by a lot. The idea that you would actually believe historical idealism - stories and narratives - is a newfangled thing. In his day, Herodotus was called the Father of Lies for a reason. The quoted video is what happens when Marxism is mixed with a total lack of any historical context, where people do believe that ideas move and cajole the world. The notion that you can treat scientific findings as ideas coequal with the models was a new thing - and it originated with German idealism which was designed to short-circuit and stunt the brain, and that is the greatest cope of all - and it is mostly a rightist cope that was transplanted into leftism.

With Marx's political economy writing, everything he writes would be comprehensible to someone who knew of British political economy. They read his arguments, dissected the flaws as they saw them, and re-made their arguments not as a reaction but because money itself was never the objective of those who ruled the empire. It's strange to me how the people who got Marx the most were his ostensible enemies, and "if that is Marxism, I am not a Marxist."

I don't say all this as a defense or apologia of Marx or his claims, but just saying - the bad Hegelisms that pass for "the science" these days have little to do with what the communists were writing about, or what anyone serious was writing about. The contemptuous treatment of knowledge was only possible when institutions could enforce such control of the mind in ways that were previously impossible, and that is a topic far removed from much of what Marx wrote about. At most you could see in Marx why the 20th century turned out the way it did, but only if you understood what Marx was writing against and those who responded to Marx most of all. During his life, Marx was not particularly noteworthy and treated like an intruder, which he very much was. He was a bigger deal among Germans since much of what Marx writes is part of the German philosophical milieu and spends a lot of ink saying that the conservative order is full of shit. The conservative order in turn says "nuh uh" and so begins the Germanic habit of fighting wars over religion, now with ideology and pseudoscience. It's hilarious to me that people who think they're totally leftist say things that came straight from fascism - and if you understood fascism properly as the political ideology of eugenics, this makes sense, why the left continually lapses into fascist thinking and fascism seems invincible to the leftoid brain. Eugenics prevailed and cannibalized every other thought, and it was the left parties aiding and abetting eugenics which secured its victory.

>I'm sure that some rich fucking slave with his own business in the late Roman Empire had it worse than a fucking peasant in medieval England

>or what, did you think all slaves in the Ancient world worked in the fucking silver mines? I wouldn't be surprised if you did - ignorance is the hallmark of a leftoid after all

Congratulations, you've discovered Whig History calling itself "the science", as is its habit.

If you think mechanistically, you wouldn't describe societies with statistical aspersions at all. Every society, every system, and every strata within society, has its winners and losers. Slaves in the American South found ways to exist within that system and ever since - all slaves are not equal, moreso than all men being unequal in a political sense. Slavery is premised on vast inequality within the class of slaves to be slavery, but not one of those distinctions is a political class distinction or regarded by law - by law, a slave is a slave no matter what. It was always in operations, which every slave master had to abide, that the inequalities of slavery were stark and apparent to anyone who has been oppressed. And so the Germanic idealist habit is to say "math is gay" and invent a whole irrational pseudoscience - and this pseudoscience could only function if it worked in concert with a global imperial religion and cult. Alongside the philosophers selling bullshit were the secret societies that were understood then and now to be tendrils of the British Empire, and occultism goes back further than the foundation of this particular empire. That's when you go down the rabbit hole they don't like to talk about.

<Leftoid retard says as we enter a second decade of de-globalization following the 08 crisis

Globalization has only grown stronger - but not for the narratives sold to leftoids. The decline of the nation-state as a political force is not explicable with the theories that the left was institutionally wed to, and they aren't explicable by "common sense" that was forcibly imposed to retard everyone's knowledge of what was being done to them. The end of the nation-state is the end of mass politics as a force and the end of democratization. That was always the goal of the conservative movement, and the sickest thing is that they convinced leftoids to be useful idiots for that mission.
>>

 No.479068

I'm writing my book on political thought and why many of these errors are made, which will be followed by a writing about history and "modes of production" as a concept, tying together the first three books into a framework useful for the project I am undertaking. I may not complete it. It probably won't interest most people.
>>

 No.479071

>>478639
>We could argue that "objective reality" doesn't exist in some sense - that there isn't a "universal reference point" that all are obligated to respect. Obviously you raised the point that philosophers can deny the existence or the world or basic facts we independently adjudicated about it, and this would be impossible if "objective reality exists" in that sense. My argument rather than suggesting there is a universal reference point is that, however we are constituted, we are all objects that regard a world outside of us to exist.
That is not logically sound. You have to believe that there is a single physical objective reality, for the possibility of a world outside of us. People can have contradicting models of reality in their heads, but reality it self can't disagree with it self.
The other philosophical paths where you posit non objective realities that in some way or another depend on the person looking at it, will lead you to some kind of solipsism where the bedrock of reality is thoughts.
>>

 No.479072

>>479065
You are making 2 claims
a) reality is deterministic
b) that you can make accurate predictions

point a) is probably right, but point b) less so.

Consider that a deterministic reality, just means that you can't posit free will that can disobey the laws of physics. A deterministic reality doesn't necessary mean that the future is already written. So far we've only been able to find laws of physics that give statistical likelihoods for outcomes. At least at our present level of understanding the universe does not appear to be a clockwork.
>>

 No.479073

>>479071
I'm saying there aren't any "ideas" or "forms" in the universe itself which are immune to mis-interpretation, such that we would have to abide the holy word of matter itself. Matter has no "words" as such - we construct language for our purpose, and nothing about language is "hardcoded" in that way. That would include any symbols or "ideas" we possess to understand the world.

We can believe there is a world while believing that our knowledge of it is always limited. That's what "objective reality" would mean - ideas about the world. Reality itself does not care about our objective or subjective view at all in order to exist.

It's a really nagging detail - we are able to conclude trivially that we are as we are because we exist in history, and that other humans are much like us, sharing enough commonalities so that dialogue is possible. We're all part of the same world whether we like it or not, and if we're not having a discussion about the world, it has nothing to do with science in the genuine sense. It's important to make this clear to prevent "scientism" or inventing arbitraries barriers about what science is "allowed" to investigate and what shibboleths are made sacred.

For this to work, you would have to argue that metaphysics arose from somewhere, rather than "just being there" - that there is a reason why this works, or at least, a metaphysical model can conform to the world we actually live in if it is to be a viable basis for any other knowledge. You can have knowledge without metaphysics, but formalizing knowledge - systematizing it - requires a metaphysical understanding. That's what a "system" is - a metaphysical construct, rather than something in nature itself. You can see how this sleight of hand is used as a trick to cajole people into following "the science", especially if they're habituated to believe science derives from institutional authority. The proper source of science is not "on high", but from human beings and minds who conduct science from premises they acquired throughout their childhood. Only humans with symbolic language conduct science, and science doesn't have an existence in the world outside of minds that carry out the task. Science doesn't have any authority by "being", in other words, nor does any institution have any special claim to science. The reasons science can be a spiritual authority ultimately comes down to a human want for truth and independent verification, which science allows. Science doesn't have spiritual authority because it's "science-y", but because we have long familiarized ourselves with science or methods like it and believe that before we place faith in institutions or pedagogues. We can of course dispute a method of science, but if we are to approach the world scientifically, we all agree there is a world we're all speaking of, whatever the method of understanding it. In that way, the particular metaphysical conceits people hold are not intrinsically a barrier, provided two different systems can somehow be reconciled enough for both parties to know what the other is referring to. The German ideology is designed to short-circuit that permanently by stunting the brain - and the sick thing is that this actually works, because of what knowledge and science really are. Those are qualities particular to knowledge and say nothing about the world itself, but they can be superimposed on the world, and if successful, there is nothing in the world stopping this, and it can be a weapon.

>The other philosophical paths where you posit non objective realities that in some way or another depend on the person looking at it, will lead you to some kind of solipsism where the bedrock of reality is thoughts.
I think you're caught on "reality" being dictated by institutional facts, and that this "is" reality. The facts that are adjudicated are never "just so" true - and facts are judged, not given freely as a fait accompli. It always works that way. Science at heart concerns an approach to the world. The facts found by any scientific approach are things which themselves may be judged by those who also conduct the same science, and facts are always asserted by judgement, even if that judgement is internal to us. Because it is very convenient to not relitigate commonly known facts, we omit this process, but a clever sleight of hand can use this convenience - a limitation of us - to bullbait and cajole.
>>

 No.479074

It's also not difficult to disprove solipsism without any appeal to institutional facts. If the world is "in our minds", then we are not referring to anything that could be real or substantive, or everything we say and do is irrelevant and absurd. We can do that if we wish, but it is not pertinent to this problem we encounter in society and in life. A child can see through solipsism very easily, and it is a retarded ideology which insists children as natural solipsists and idealists until granted social proof. Most children are endlessly inquisitive about the world and trusting, because they must be so, and this is taken as a sign of weakness to exploit by a predatory element like Germanism.
>>

 No.479076

Of course that disproof would be for us - we have no way of proving it in court as a fact. Those who hold courts can hold this monopoly on judgement to say up is down, there are no black swans, and so on, and this is what a loathsome shit like Karl Popper did. But, if we cared to have any genuine dialogue, and such a thing is possible despite all efforts to make it inadmissible, it would be almost mandatory to see that this retarded ideology - logical positivism is one of its names - is something that should have been rejected and never allowed to be insinuated even as a joke. It only persists because eugenics and its ultraviolence found such a bastardization of reason useful for its aims.

>>479072
I don't know how many times I have to tell you that free will has nothing to do with natural determinism. The scourge of Popperism poisons the mind.

Really though, physicalism is really a type of metaphysical wank, and it is not hard to disprove it. What is really being relitigated is a creed which makes dialogue or meaningful conversation in language inadmissible, which is what eugenics must do ultraviolently.
>>

 No.479078

>>479072
No, I'm making the opposite claim - reality is deterministic, but it doesn't mean you can make accurate predictions. Chaos is deterministic but unpredictable.

I find all the talk about free will useless, because it is an ill-defined concept. Especially in the context of histmat theory where even such highly abstract concept as ideology is tied to the system of material reproduction of life.
>>

 No.479079

>Especially in the context of histmat theory where even such highly abstract concept as ideology is tied to the system of material reproduction of life.
and where we deal with large groups of people, ie free will on an individual level doesn't translate to free will on a societal level

an individual gas particle can be said to have "free will" because its individual trajectory can't be predicted, but it doesn't mean the gas itself doesn't have statistical properties
>>

 No.479085

>>479078
Saying "reality is deterministic" is a tautology. Who determines anything? We do - we judge what happens after it happens, and only then is reality "determined" by anything. Nothing in nature has determined anything. Events happen in nature, but nature didn't command the world to do anything. Everything in the world operates on its own power, by mechanisms that we accepted as facts without suggesting there was anything "moving the facts". Absent a compelling argument, there is nothing "moving the force" except the force itself. And so, the world itself "determines" what happens because the objects in question were able to do anything at all. The question is only relevant to us, because to the world, all that happens is just some random particles moving about, and that suits the world's purposes just fine. It didn't need any purpose that mapped on to rationality or anything we would judge as a purpose of existence, and such a quest is foolishness.

The real question being asked is what we can determine, based on what we know. Contrary to the philosophers, we can say we know quite a lot about the world, because we have accumulated over a very long record many facts, observations, and experiences regarding it. For us, that is the only reality we can communicate. We can't communicate anything we don't know or believe is at least possible, and we cannot think "illegal thoughts" - all of our knowledge is limited by the faculties available to us.

The only way you get around this is by getting rid of this arbitrary conceit that humans have anything special about them - and this is a very new thing. It's not what any ancient philosopher believed, nor was it inherent to early modernity. The early moderns were highly skeptical of scientific fads - they considered reason to be something apart from "science", which is of course correct. Science is not purely about reason or dictated by rationality in that way, nor is rationality reducible to science. The latter is very obvious - so much of reason is far removed from worthwhile scientific inquiry. The former is something institutions begrudgingly accept before recapitulating their monopoly on knowledge, and that monopoly is peculiar to humans. It has no natural basis whatsoever. You can be the most rational human ever and your science can still be wrong or worthless, and much of science really did come together by happenstance and random-ass people tinkering with things. Humans are terrible at rationality, but they're great at reverse-engineering and pattern recognition. Whether this less-than-perfect approach is effective is irrelevant to the reality that this is how scientific inquiry had to begin - with the confused musings of apes who were once children, who didn't have a "germ of rationality" passed to them so that information transmitted perfectly and without any filter from parent to offspring, like genetic material. You can see why eugenics inserted itself into the idea of intelligence itself, rather than any other question heredity might have explained. Virtually nothing of eugenics concerned anything other than the imperial conceit regarding intelligence, because it was never a legitimate inquiry into the natural world. It was a pseudoscientific fad for the followers and enablers, and a very deliberate coup of the institutions for those who got what this was and weren't fucktards. Everything eugenics imposed is not something you would do to actually improve a race through selective breeding. Such a project, if it were carried out for any effective aim, would not rely on taboos, insinuations, and habitual lying at the core of its doctrine. If that happened though, the reality would come out that you couldn't really make the claims the eugenists made about biology and society.

Everything eugenics did had two overarching objectives:
-Restore slavery. You can pinpoint the origin of the eugenics movement at 1865. No more American slavery and the winding down of slavery in the rest of the world meant that its advocates were looking for a new slavery. Had slavery continued, the only way slavery could continue into the technocratic period would be to enslave outright a majority of the "core" population. And so, eugenics is a thorough slave system at its core, and this overrides other objectives they hold.
-Destroying the concept of a republic and above all the democratic idea. The latter is something that was the envy of aristocrats all over the world, and has really been the long-run goal of aristocracy throughout human history. Even so, many aristocrats balked at the idea that they would breed their children like dogs. The destruction of a republic is particular to the British Empire, aimed towards their overriding goal at the time - dismantling any such experiments, rolling them back, and making the idea of a republic so unworkable, by its own logic, that people would beg for anything to be rid of such a beast. Everything British eugenics did was a deliberate effort to undermine anything that made a republic at all functional, and it did so through the mechanisms of republicanism. It might have been possible to have a form of eugenics without the insinuations and insane shrieking, but that's not what humans are, and again, such a eugenics would not have accomplished much, nor had a base of fanatical supporters. It would instead have been yet another fad, marginal and thrown away, but even more useless than most of the fads. This is because heredity did not function in any way like the eugenists believed, and there were people at the time and in the following decades trying to tell their fellow scientists this very thing. Many of those scientists had no moral objection to eugenics, but questioned how this was weaponized to promote very particular people - and eugenics at its core is nothing more than an imperial clique of the worst scum of the British Empire. It was only when those scum won and made common cause with the current ruling institutions that history was rewritten to make it appear like "everyone was always a eugenist, what are you, RETARDED?".

What eugenics does is not merely a revival of the despotic idea as something favorable. There are many examples of that throughout the world, and at heart, republics are just despotisms that encourage competition to be the big man and get a bunch of grifters to join the fun. In practice, despots never actually rule in the way they're "supposed" to. What eugenics wanted was not a temporary measure or reactive. They wanted to "perfect humanity" and finalize its form of government into the worst thing it can possibly be. This would be done to maximize the thrill of torture. That is the only explanation for their behavior during the 1980s and especially the 1990s.
>>

 No.479086

And why this is relevant to the present discussion is simple - deliberate and flagrant violations of reason and science are inherent to the eugenic creed. "Ignorance is strength" was the first part of that trifecta. It really is strength - actually thinking about the shit coming out of your mouth is a liability against those who have no shame and can do what most will not.

The way this is done is by "teaching the controversy", and Galton set out to do this right away. That's why the idiotic "nature vs. nurture" argument, "science vs. religion", and so on are seeded. These arguments are so facile a child would see through them, and this is part of the fun - to violently "correct" child through that disgusting Germanic method that was shown to be effective enough to run one country into the ground and prepare its ass for imperial fucking.
>>

 No.479087

As for why I say all this - I'm saying all discussion regarding even the idea of truth is tainted by the institutional authority of eugenics, and its command over what we're allowed to regard as factual or true. This is why Popper's creed was advanced - it is nothing more than violent and total recapitulation of the eugenic creed, or controlled insanity. That's where you start seeing the notion that anything could be anything, which wasn't really the point of German idealism's first formulations. Everything in the German ideology pertained to a political thought and thought regarding institutions. The Germans were so effective that to this day, they don't have a proper word for "science" as we would understand it.
>>

 No.479088

So that's why we're made to argue about angels on pinheads when talking about reality and metaphysical concepts - to make them inadmissible, to secure the eugenist hammerlock on the institutions. The idea that institutions don't have this monopoly must become inadmissible, because it were truly acted on that we must reject that particular authority from those who made it clear they want us to suffer and die, humanity would be at an impasse it cannot overcome. No struggle, no creed, no action, would change that. Something new would have to exist, and that is the horror of horrors for those who think in the aristocratic vein, because that something new would exist entirely in opposition to hitherto known humanity.
>>

 No.479089

>>479072
To get back to this:

To say reality is anything other than "deterministic" with your priors would have to give up causality. That's the only sensical interpretation. If it's not about causality, then the man in the middle is the institution which you're not allowed to acknowledge with its "natural monopoly" to dictate who wins. That was never an assumption of science, philosophy, or religion that would be made without acknowledging the monopoly's existence. Christianity makes no secret that it claimed this monopoly. The eugenists challenged this monopoly because Christian habits like "mercy" were anathema to what they wanted humans to be, even in the most terrible forms Christianity took.

For making accurate predictions - that is entirely appropriate to our concepts of accuracy, rather than reaching some final conclusion about what the world "is". We make reasonably accurate predictions about the future because we notice there are patterns. Strictly speaking, that isn't a matter of causality existing. We could presume the universe is mostly absurd but that "God has its ways of working" - it would be a shitty science, but it would make accurate predictions and to say God can make anything into anything and intervenes in every minor thing is a very spectacular claim that no religion really makes. Most religions insert God as an obvious stand-in for the ruling institutions, which typically include the priesthood and whatever long-run mission the religion has. You're not actually supposed to believe a bearded man in the sky can do unlimited magic if you clap your hands and believe. Eugenics believes in such a thing, though. It has to - they actually believe they're going to become gods.

If you accept causality is a sufficient description of the world, then "reality is deterministic" as a result. That's what causality in any interpretation is. Scientists will even argue about causality - what it is, what we can say about it, whether our models in language in philosophy are useful for scientific inquiry, regarding a world that didn't really exist to be "caused" by anything. We see causality because that is what we are - causes and effects - and this is what life must be in order to exist in any form. It is further what thought would be to be "thought" in any sense we appreciate the concept. That is a limitation of us, but we can find events to suggest that we don't know a thing about "time" or why anything should happen. We do know enough to know that there are physical objects and a concept of physics which is always consistent. We build all models on physics on the presumption that they are consistent, otherwise laws of physics would be broken and we either go back to the drawing board or give up on physics. The idea that physics and science required philosophy that gives it access to the Absolute is purely a pigheaded conceit; the idea that science is forbidden from accessing the philosophers' super-knowledge is even more pigheaded.

My own belief regarding this is that much of the world remains unknowable to humans and their faculties, and much remains unknown because humans really don't want to know about it, and don't want others to know about things that would upset what they want out of this life, which was never about "pure knowledge" or a fetish for technology. If there is anything like a "god", it has nothing to do with the thing religion speaks of, and very likely such an entity would not qualify as a "god" in any sense we would regard that as a meaningful metaphor. What humans know about knowledge itself is sometimes assembled, and then destroyed in regular culls because ignorance is indeed strength - or rather, forced ignorance and the ritual sacrifice premised on fear is a symbol of strength that humans have always regarded on some level, whether they embrace it or try to find a way out of the trap they set for themselves long, long ago.
>>

 No.479090

This unknowability is not a "hard limit". To speak of anything that can be real is to presumable it is knowable in some way. Humans have no monopoly on this knowledge. But, humans being what they are, they are unable to think outside of confines that their bodies and societies will allow, without first expanding those faculties - and in every case, faculties of knowledge are always limited. There is no knowledge independent on material things that can process it in some fashion, and so knowledge is always a local event, no matter what new technology is invented. Someone can scry nature or seek the wisdom of the ancient gods all they like and they will be no closer to "the Absolute", because it's a regressive fantasy, a wank and nothing else. The only "absolute" is that there is a world which we can speak of, and the world is not confined to physical space or what is right in front of us. It would be inclusive of any heaven or any other plane of existence. Even here, "the Absolute" isn't a thing or an essence. Such a thing doesn't exist. We see a singular world largely because we would have to if we want to speak about the same thing or suggest where any "other world" would arise. This is very much something for our convenience, to encapsulate all that exists into a single word like "universe". You can see here that language - the jabbering of noise that these demonic apes confuse with genuine dialogue - is among the greatest limits in our faculties. It's also why every new media is mystified and fetishized, before its particulars are figured out and the medium is just another thing that we have adapted to. It's also why mass media propaganda blitz understood that they must act now, before the people figure out what this abomination is and adapt to it before it can snuff out their existence.
>>

 No.479091

I'll also add that without formal physics, humans still figured out things moved and asked why. That's where physics could arise in the first place - to answer observations that were common enough that everyone could see a problem to solve, from which more problems were discovered which might not have occurred unless someone spent a lot of time looking for problems to solve. If there wasn't a theory of physics, it would be very helpful for someone to invent one, even a crude one. All of our knowledge of physics originated with naive assumptions and observations as a baseline to introduce anyone to the concept of physics. It's not some magic that was invented to move the world by thought alone. All the way up to the 1930s, physics was described to regard something that a lot of people had questions about and an interest in, especially as machine power and electricity became very useful and were going to exist even if someone didn't care about this newfangled machine or hated machines. The way physics is mystified is entirely intended to tell people they're retarded and selected to die, to occult and retard lest the working man decided he was going to hijack some nukes and fuck shit up.
>>

 No.479100

Meds. Now.
>>

 No.479101

>>479100
Fag.
>>

 No.479104

>>479076
>physicalism is really a type of metaphysical wank, and it is not hard to disprove it
try to disprove it
>>

 No.479108

>>479104
There are large parts of the world that do not reduce to any obvious physical component that could be measured. Abstractions, for example a computer program, are not literally "the code" as a material thing. You couldn't look at any assembly of circuits and say just from that "this is what the program does", because the program conceptually is premised on a context of users who interpret abstract information, who themselves are machines that would be interpreted. Eventually you have this problem of the "neutral observer" who is to adjudicate what the program does, but no such observer exists. The program is very much a real thing - we operationalize thought and deed for a purpose - but its existence is not rooted directly in physical laws and couldn't be reduced to that.

You can pick any other reference point in the natural world rather than physics, and many other examples. "Life", for instance, doesn't correspond to any preferred physical representation, because it's not a physical thing at heart. The processes of life really are a thing apart from much of what science studies, and we really study the matter - "living corpsucles" - that life inhabits, and call that "life", even though it's really just matter and the actual "life" is the functions and abstractions regarding them.

Pretty much all of physicalism is another attempt to relitigate that the eugenic creed is real and that you can "encode in nature" in their way, which has been shown time and time again to be a fallacy.

Physics itself did not deal with "fundamnetals of the universe" asserted by diktat. All of the particles assumed by classical physics, and all particles assumed by modern physics, where hypothesized and then experiments were conducted to find them or attempt to find them. Those that couldn't be found would be quietly dropped, new theories would arise, but all of them are premised on observations of substances, and the first experiments were simple enough to be reproduced widely to confirm the expectations of models. If you're using physics to make philosophical claims, you're really dealing with metaphysical claims but claiming "there is no metaphysics". It's a charlatan's trick.

Not saying you couldn't reduce much of the natural world to physics, but that is something different from a philosophical claim, and as mentioned, many material things don't reduce entirely to "physics" in that sense. The world itself is not confined to physical matter or dependent on physics to exist in a philosophical sense. Physics is very useful for a naturalistic explanation of phenomena, but it is a very huge philosophical leap to say "this is all there is" and to posit such a reduced form of physics at that.
>>

 No.479117

>>479108
>There are large parts of the world that do not reduce to any obvious physical component that could be measured.
This is not a honest argument, while we can't measure everything, it just proves that we may lack the knowledge or the technical skill to produce a appropriate instrument.

>Abstractions, for example a computer program, are not literally "the code" as a material thing. You couldn't look at any assembly of circuits and say just from that "this is what the program does"
This is absurd, computers are predicated on the fact that information is a physical thing that can be measured and manipulated. You need to read information theory by Claude Shannon. Even if you go beyond computers abstractions is something that human brains do, it's a physical process.

>because the program conceptually is premised on a context of users who interpret abstract information, who themselves are machines that would be interpreted. Eventually you have this problem of the "neutral observer" who is to adjudicate what the program does, but no such observer exists.
You're not being clever, you are invoking a receding cascade to hide the error in your reasoning. You need neither an observer nor neutrality to quantify an abstraction. Abstract reasoning is a physical process that is happening inside of brains, and it can also happen in computers, depending on how narrow you make the definition. If you remove all the physical parts like brains and microchips, no abstract reasoning happens, ergo it's physical.

>You can pick any other reference point in the natural world rather than physics, and many other examples. "Life", for instance, doesn't correspond to any preferred physical representation, because it's not a physical thing at heart.
All life that we know of is made of matter, if you remove all the physical aspects, there's nothing left. Give me an example of non physical life.

>Not saying you couldn't reduce much of the natural world to physics, but that is something different from a philosophical claim, and as mentioned, many material things don't reduce entirely to "physics" in that sense. The world itself is not confined to physical matter or dependent on physics to exist in a philosophical sense. Physics is very useful for a naturalistic explanation of phenomena, but it is a very huge philosophical leap to say "this is all there is"
No you have to explain why there is more, than the physical world that can be measured.
You make the assertion of reality "beyond the physical realm", it's on you to prove it.
>>

 No.479118

>>479117
>This is not a honest argument, while we can't measure everything, it just proves that we may lack the knowledge or the technical skill to produce a appropriate instrument.
I'm saying those things are very clearly the result of things which are only sensical in the abstract - there's no "particle" for any particular form, like Hitler particles or pleasure particles, or any other construct that can reify any form. The particles themselves aren't ideal forms but suppositions that matter is indeed arranged in this way as the smallest unit we can say anything about and consider in a workable model.

I don't think you're understanding the concept being promoted willfully - that you're making metaphysical claims but declare unilaterally that they are "the science" and therefore you can't really challenge them. It's the same sort of thing as Heidegger's dasein faggotry.

>This is absurd, computers are predicated on the fact that information is a physical thing that can be measured and manipulated.

Turing's original machine is an abstract device to demonstrate the concept. He envisioned a human carrying out the instructions by rote to prove the mathematical arguments he made.

Computational machines are premised not on physics "allowing" them, but that something to reproduce the computer's operations could be fashioned by communication. This is where information theory arose - it didn't arise from the abstraction itself, but what would be necessary to remove noise and place communication on a useful mathematical footing. In doing so, communication as a concept is also abstracted from any particular media. You could envision communication noise in an abstract system that has nothing to do with physics, and you can imagine physical system that don't communicate information that is useful. It was a problem solving task that was blown up into a pseudoscientific religion, once again to recapitulate violently the eugenic creed.

Cybernetics and systems thought made a lot of this clear, and "information theory" as you imagine it is an attempt to pretend that cybernetics isn't real, yet is. The original communications problem was about how to filter noise over telephone wires or electrical signals generally, and what could be said about communication in general. It had a particular purview and was not a general theory of knowledge itself - and if it were, it would pertain to metaphysical claims necessarily, so your argument is based on asserting it imperiously.

>Abstract reasoning is a physical process that is happening inside of brains
You have to understand that you would be inserting an "abstract particle" for every system you describe under physicalism - that is, that metaphysical hobgoblins are reified.

The point is that the machine is incomplete without the thing it interfaces with - a human user. To the world, the computer seems like some strange collection of electrical signals, which do not carry the meaning of a program or communication. If you are making philosophical claims about what things are, you are going to have to qualify that instead of asserting "we're just physical signals therefore it's all just physics". Even if that were true, the very interface between two things which don't have an obvious and consistent natural physical relationship would require the insertion of some magic particles to make it sensical. This gets blown up into infinity.

This is a deliberate logic bomb and you're recapitulation of it makes it clear what you're really doing - it's either that you're insane, or you're deliberately lying about basic things.

>You make the assertion of reality "beyond the physical realm", it's on you to prove it.
I gave you the "evidence" right there - that there are aspects of systems which are not "physically determined" as a thing, or by any law of physics which suggests those things "have" to exist in any way. Nothing about physics necessitated that life exists at all, let alone that life conforms to particular ideas. This is what the eugenists always violently recapitulate, to protect their imperious command over life and all processes, rather than anything real.

The computational science by the way - which isn't really science so much as it is an application of mathematics and logic, and thus philosophy - didn't make any claims about "fundamental reality", only that you could do this and it conforms to existing logic. In some sense the 19th century precursors to computerization and operations thinking are repeating claims from Aristotle about classifications, and incorporate some sort of dialectical woo to say you can read logic into the universe - but this again is not making the political claims Germanism made as such. What is our limitation is that we in language only ever deal with definite things. Indefinite things are "noise" and have to be so if we are to hold a conversation, and they would have to either be filtered or accounted for in the ways we are able to do this.

Basically, I don't have to believe that human sense counts for anything special - only that it exists like the sense of any animal. Do you see what is at the core of this is an assumed "spirit of rationality" which is Absolute and claimed as a monopoly? That is the only explanation for the eugenic creed's ultraviolent assertions of who has "mind" and who doesn't, arguments a child could see through until they are beaten into submission or exterminated by the creed.
>>

 No.479119

Remember that it is you who have the claim "all that exists is physical matter". That is a very extraordinary claim if you include all potentially knowable things. You'd either have to develop a very different concept of physics than the one we use to understand the natural world, or you're really arrogant about the centrality of sense experience and human imperiousness for knowledge.

The very existence of abstractions which are nonsensical without abstract though relating things with a substantive basis, is enough disproof. It's where you'd have to invoke some grand total theory of physics beyond any knowledge we possess, and use that to override things about which we know quite a lot and assert that this cannot be improved upon except by diktat. You do understand where this leads - and that's why these stupid memes are promoted ad nauseum.

If you are studying the natural world alone, physical origins for all phenomena are much more plausible - but all of this is qualified by what we are and what we do as developed entities, not just regression to base components. You can always commit to endless recapitulation to block any possibility of speaking to another about any reality. "The Party's first command was to ignore what your eyes see." What you would wind up with is basically a tautological pseudo-materialism where everything is essentialized and you must "find the gene" with the first pretext. You can see why Galtonism craved such a dogma and philosophy and demanded its violent imposition. Otherwise, as with genetic material, you couldn't say much from "just the code" without invoking some existing knowledge base or assumptions, and you could use a chain of endless noise to retard anyone and say "retarded, retarded, retarded" until they break. It relies on unlimited torture to make its assertion - and this is what eugenics must do and craves to do.
>>

 No.479120

The funny thing about positivism is that, prior to scientific findings, a metaphysical framework is necessary for the first principles to allow science of any sort to be conducted for that purpose - for science to enter into philosophical claims. Science and natural evidence is helpful because it can be independently verified, whereas imposing metaphysics on reality by thought alone is always a local event and subject to intrigues.

If you are suggesting that physics explains a lot of natural phenomena at the base level, you're still going to have to assemble a thinking of how anything new - or any complexity - is possible without reducing to a morass of infinitely fungible forms. In short, you'd have to isolate every possible emergence of a new thing and make it a physical thing, including things without an obvious physical connection but with a knowable association that could be regarded as a system. You could build a very elaborate model of how physical particles acocunt for much of the observable universe, but that model would always be tested, and that's where the standard model and imperial cosmology finds so many problems - when the tests don't confirm the theory, new judge factors are created until the theory no longer refers to anything real and the real work is conducted in secret, while charlatans do the Michio Kaku thing.
>>

 No.479121

The reduction of systems to metaphysics rather than physics leads to some undesirable outcomes for imperious minds, but it is really the only shared quality of "systems" as concepts - and not all knowledge is "systemic". There's no "system" to describe vague aspersions, sentiments, or feelings that we assemble without a very good rational understanding of what they "are". Only after the sense to we ascribe to this thing a name and make of it what we will - but that is very much knowledge we act on, genuine or otherwise.

Verified knowledge is trickier because of who or what does the verifying. You wind up with a contest for who makes the best science rather than the truth - and it's very easy to turn that into who makes the best impression on others to tell them what science is, against their own sense, thus defeating any reason why science would be a spiritual authority rather than a method we use which is particular to people.
>>

 No.479122

>>479119
>Remember that it is you who have the claim "all that exists is physical matter". That is a very extraordinary claim
No it's not, there are no examples of non-physical things. Everything we know about is physical. You are trying to make a circular argument for the existence of non physical things, by putting the conclusion into the premise.
>>

 No.479126

>>479122
Everything we know about is rooted in causes and effects that regard in a world is a different claim than "all that exists is physical matter that corresponds to the LAWS of physics I have set out". I don't think you're capable of making that mental connection. I noted obvious examples of emergent traits that don't correspond to any self-evident physical connection or center around which the operate, and you just recapitulate that "there is nothing but a soup of billiard ball particles about which we can only say that they exist". Even the concept that heat exists - the basis of thermodynamics - is premised on the belief and discovery that heat itself is not a "thing" or "substance", but is the result of the motion of particles. The older theory sought some phlogiston that was the source of fire or energy, and that was never found - but heat was shown to be a quality of physical matter based on something it did. The charlatan's trick is to essentialize it, and this wasn't done to better understand heat. There were valid developments of statistics for that purpose, with the full knowledge that this applied to hypothetical particles which could be basically anything. The reasons for doing this was to grant to Galton's statistical charlantry "scienc-y" qualities, and this was a flagrant violation of science because it was never about science. It was a coup pure and simple, and they figured out that if no one had a mind to stop them - and monopolizing intelligence as a concept would choke off any opposition - they could violate reality freely and win more, while honesty was for retards and wimps in their mind.
>>

 No.479127

And once this religion takes hold, it doesn't leave. Ever. You either have the faith to fight the beast, or you don't and will inevitably do its bidding, and have no grounds to protest it. That's why you doggedly refuse to even admit a word for argument and just violently recapitulate the same imperial eugenic creed arguments to say "there is nothing but fundamental reality" - but physics itself did not concern "fundamental reality". Either you're performing a trick to say there's nothing but your preferred definition of matter and space, or you're making metaphysical claims that are incompatible with your "pure mechanism". Mechanism is making a philosophical claim knowingly, and that is not my gripe.

My argument here is both skepticism and provable doubt that you can find a "physical source for everything" - as if political ideas and all behaviors were "encoded", which is not at all how a computer program works. I'm quite confident I know what a computer is better than you, and the way computerization was taught in the 80s and 90s was a travesty designed to make a natural slave race that would be tossed aside. They didn't want their computer programmers to be too independent, so they fed them a very degenerate lifestyle and culture. It didn't really stick - most programmers, professional or otherwise, are basically normies with wives who like sports and shit, rather than the "nerd culture" that was promoted by eugenics.
>>

 No.479128

I should say here that physics proper presumes something about metaphysics to make useful models, like any science would. The idea that you "negate metaphysics" and say you can ignore it is a very deliberate bad philosophy trick. The point would be that you wouldn't insert metaphysical claims that couldn't be substantiated, so those claims are limited - for example, the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames is a metaphysical assertion that has to be made for any of this to make sense. Usually how physicalism is presented - and this is really the only claim that can be made - omits this step and just says "it is what it is" and it is announced by diktat as a fait accompli. If not that, then it isn't saying much, because basic physics results in potentials that aren't explicable by "just physics", even where the components are physical forms we know a lot about. That's why I reference the computer program (abstraction) and life (processes which are at heart another abstraction), rather than saying "where there is carbon and hydrogen there is life". Those are two things which have been made politically very important, whereas physics itself has nothing substantive to say about political consciousness other than some self-evident facts that we exist in a seemingly physical world. Even there, "the world" properly speaking includes our abstractions and virtual spaces, and would include any "heaven" or "other plane of existence". The same people who invoke this pseudoscience are dumb enough to advance claims of a "multiverse" or other such nonsense to mystify something very basic - which is basically that quantum mechanics had a lot of explaining to do about probability, in one way or another. QM gets bowdlerized from every direction and was probably a bad idea from the outset, but it gets bashed because the eugenist charlatan shit and Nazi biopolitical quackery and mysticism.
>>

 No.479130

>>479126
Yes temperature is vibrations of matter particles, heat transfer happens either by infrared photons or kinetic. Not sure how the latter works exactly. I guess that would be interactions of the outer electron-shells of atoms maybe. It's entirely a physical process.

If you find your self confused, think about it this way: if you remove all the matter there's no temperature and no heat transfer, hence you cannot pretend that there is something extra with non-physical qualities about heat.
>>

 No.479131

>>479130
I don't think you're understanding what is said here - this idea of entropy begins as a mathematical abstraction. There's no "being hot" as a state, and if you describe the world that way, it sounds very disjointed - you describe a succession of states rather than anything moving, which can be rearranged in the imagination. Reality conforms to the model rather than the model conforming to reality. This is intended by those who know what they're doing.

I mentioned phlogiston because, by "common sense" as you describe it, such a substance was presumed to exist, and it was conjecture that there wasn't a "substance" as such to allow heat to exist. You've already essentialized heat at "photons" (photons have nothing to do with heat in physics), then say you're "not sure" but have absolute certainty to make grand philosophical claims. You don't get to confidently bark at us and insult us and then privately say "you don't know" and get away with it forever, before someone is skeptical.

That's the sort of philosophical, metaphysical claim you are making, and it's not hard to disprove that by mentioning abstraction. Where is the "substance of sadness"? Sadness is a very real concept for us, but there's no "substance of sadness", or "substance of pleasure". That has always been a philosophical and moral claim of utilitarians that has been violently imposed on reality, and they know they willfully do this. As I said, "maximize the thrill of torture". That's what utilitarianism leads to, and they revel in it. That's why they're so visibly disgusting.
>>

 No.479132

And it wasn't like phlogiston was "retarded", "pseudoscience", "idealism", or anything of the sort. Absent a describable mechanism, you would presume there is some "thing" at work. You can see how the sleight-of-hand is used to mystify the "gene", to make the definition of heredity arbitrary. That is what must be violently defended, even when evidence tells us heredity does not work in this hyper specific way eugenics must assert, and this has always been known. They lie intentionally because the thrill of lying becomes a demonstration of strength and fealty. That's why the humiliation rituals in Fabian and Germanic schooling.
>>

 No.479133

That is, the idea of temperature is premised on motion itself, rather than a thing or a particular type of motion. The types of activity to describe "chaos" are then defined based on evidence of their existence, which can be proven either by mathematics - nationality - or observation.

The statistical charlatanry of Galton isn't just disprovable, but it's a flagrant lie and a a deliberate one, whose utterance is intended as a koan of strength and imposition of will on the inferior classes.
>>

 No.479134

And the "dodge" is to invoke "dialectics" like a retard whenever it is convenient, to have a dual system to speak to the "retards" and keep them herded to their death. That's why you see this insulting statements like "think dialectically", and when they say that, they're bullshitting you and laughing at you. It's disgusting that this is allowed to go on.

I think you aren't capable of understanding this problem, or even my genuine position. My belief is that the mind is ultimately reducible to worldly phenomena, and this is hardly unique or unusual. The implications of that - that human intelligence or anything about sense is not relevant to reality at all - make clear that much of what we are made to regard as "the science" and political reality is intentionally constructed to ensure we don't say what anything is or does, what is happening to us here and now. It's why they constantly relitigate the past and tell us "there is no history".

If you describe the world as things that are "done", you're not limiting that to physics, but speaking of causality generally - what it is, our interpretations of it, and language regarding it, since all of our language relies on some linear interpretation of signals. That's what WE are and what we do to think rationally and must do, rather than a quality of the universe itself.
>>

 No.479146

>>479131
>I mentioned phlogiston
you're the only one that did
>photons have nothing to do with heat in physics
radiative heat transfer doesn't exist ?
really ?

>it's not hard to disprove that by mentioning abstraction
No, abstraction doesn't disprove materialism, abstract thinking is a physical process that happens in the brain. Abstractions do not exist independent from "thinking apparatuses" or the matter those are made off.
>Where is the "substance of sadness"?
>or "substance of pleasure"
WTF? Sadness/pleasure is a mental state.
Your tearing down a straw-man argument that nobody made

You rely on sophism. We use language to describe processes as if they were objects. I guess if we wanted to be anal linguists we would have to say that "sadness" or "pleasure" can't be a noun, and should rather be used as adjectives like sad or pleasurable. But playing language police is soooo boring, and it doesn't really matter, most people are capable of understanding the actually intended meaning just fine.
>>

 No.479147

>>479146
>We use language to describe processes as if they were objects.

And this is exactly my point, which your world-system refuses to admit, because you're stuck on the eugenic creed's necessity and fundamental appeal. What we do with language is not "the world", and we are aware of that, but the institutions insist that they can dictate reality from language alone.

For one, the brain isn't a self-contained system. That's autistic thinking. Everything we think pertains to a world outside of us and consciousness. There's no law of nature granting the brain or body any sacrosanctity. Can't you see that this is pure eugenic creed shit, the essential "natural security" of the body which doesn't exist and can never be taken for granted?
>>

 No.479148

But we can go in circles forever. The eugenic creed relies on this at its core assertion - that effect precedes cause, that the "gene" that is observed after the fact is a fait accompli, and that there is no barrier between predatory will and its objective. That is what is being relitigated and only that, in this thought experiment, this trap.
>>

 No.479149

And this is why causality had to be placed at the center of the "natural world" in their models, when causality was always something relevant for us because of what we are and, more importantly, the process of thinking requiring causal relations for us to make sense of anything. It was necessary to displace concepts of time and history with a theory of causality which places the command of history wholly in institutional hands, rather than any truth that is attained from this statement. We didn't need them to tell us what history is and that there is a world and a past. Yet, we're made in this discourse to believe exactly that.
>>

 No.479150

The point being - we're made to assume that our perception of time/causality is "fundamental nature" rather than a consequence of how we have to think and how language works. Scientists can regard that causality exists while acknowledging their models of time don't say anything about "fundamental reality" or metaphysics or philosophy. But, if you tried to describe the world without causality in our language, it would look very bizarre. If you described causality properly based on our observations, you wouldn't speak of "historical progress" or this insane notion that you can arrest history altogether in this neat narrative. Causality implies potential that it could be different, implies that something new arises out of prior conditions, and there is always a problem of where this began. The imperial idea is that "contradiction" can be used to mystify this endlessly, and this becomes a super-truth, a monopoly on knowledge. The reality is that the world did not care about any such contradiction, and to the world, all it does works for its purposes - the world is not set against itself in the way that political subjects are set against themselves and the world around them.
>>

 No.479151

A naive sense is that there is a past and future we see from the present, and this makes a lot of sense. We can't deny that. It's when you get into philosophical claims about "fundamental nature" that the trap is laid.

My argument isn't that physicalism would be "wrong" in favor of some other super-truth, but that physicalism is really not dealing with physics in the sense that is scientifically useful. It's really "metaphysicalism" but stripped of the possibility that there can be anything other than the total system that commands thought by diktat.
>>

 No.479152

So, either physics is extended to describe things far removed from the bodies and fields that physics describes - and consequently ceases to describe the bodies and fields that would lead to scientifically useful claims - or you really can't say much about the world based on the belief that it originates in physical activity.

As mentioned, there is not a "physical reason" why many systems we acknowledge every day would exist as "systems". We know the causal relationship, we can make connections between physical objects which comprise life, but life is not "fundamentally" those physical actions in that sense. Life to be life doesn't have any "natural" component necessitating that it "should" exist. That's where you get abortions of reason like the "anthropic principle" where pseudoscientists believe the universe must be "fined-tuned" and "just-so" to fit their institutional conceits. It's all pigheaded faggotry.
>>

 No.479153

This problem was understood in Antiquity, and if you mention that, that's when the pseudoscientists / ideologues start invoking "dead white men" and the usual tropes to say that they have some new fad, never mind that the Romans didn't really have a concept of "whiteness" as politically relevant.
>>

 No.479167

>>479147
I don't know why you are raising the question about what level of self-contained the brain is. The brain doesn't have much IO (input-output), human senses are very limited, and human expression even more so. In that sense human brains are relatively isolated.

There is the famous neuralink project, where people are trying to stick thousands of electrodes into people's skulls, attempting to install a computer port. But the human brain doesn't have anything that would resemble a network adapter or a digital communications protocol. I doubt that it'll enable direct IO. It could yield a leap in prosthetics which could improve medical treatment options for a number of disabilities and enable some creepy "military applications".

If you wanted direct IO for the brain, you would need people to grow a biological network adapter, that is far-out scifi, requiring a combination of many fields, for example genetic manipulation as well as nano-scale bio-molecular fabrication.
>>

 No.479169

>>479167
The brain and knowledge - what "we" are - are two different things. We could see the brain as alien to ourselves, and this has come to pass - and by essentializing the brain over any other quality of knowledge or any meaning, knowledge can be essentialized, commanded, controlled, corralled, and destroyed.

I don't believe anything I say will ever be admissible in your world system. Once you taste that blood, you never go back, and you know very well what I am saying. You refuse, absolutely refuse, in service to the eugenic creed. Always.
>>

 No.479171

If however you wanted to genuinely pursue the belief that physical phenomena are the basis for rationality - and this is entirely permissible - you would arrive at very different conclusions. My argument isn't that physical reality cannot dictate nature, but that what you're calling "physicalism" is nothing of the sort and deliberately so. You're just laundering ideology by saying it's "the science". If you were to root reality and knowledge entirely in physical phenomena, you would come away with very different conclusions of what we are, and what those phenomena mean, than if you essentialized everything and "looked for the penis" like a bad psychological inquistor, looking to latch on to the first idea that suits your preferences and reinforces itself institutionally. That is, if you really did look at the world as the result of physical activity, of forces we regard as material, you would come away with a world view skeptical of institutional science, and desirous of what science would have been if knowledge were not monopolized. That world can no longer exist politically, or be described without being "retarded" and ipso facto a wrong idea.
>>

 No.479172

That is to say, I would be classified as a "physicalist" in that sense - that the physical world precedes any of OUR knowledge, and that we are physical entities before we can be anything else. There is no metaphysical essence of "us", or any form - that's not really what metaphysics answers. If you accept that though, then there's not really much physics has to explain politics, biology, or many complex systems. It can explain their origin from prior physical conditions, but it doesn't explain what we consider life, or knowledge, which are always abstractions entailing things that arose from their priors. If we were to imagine the universe as a gigantic physical clockwork, we would either have to reduce it to empty ideas dictated, or we would be caught in a morass of details that can be disputed ad infinitum to make adjudicating facts - to make sharing science - impossible. At some point we would regard that there are things in this universe that don't correspond to a crude physical impulse, the way you have ultraviolently hectored me because you smell blood and your lizard brain thinks "i'm winning i'm winning" and must do so. That is all humans ever really were, though. The idea that it was different would be snuffed out every time it formed, as "reality" asserted itself. In the past, this only happened when it needed to, because states and institutions only reached so far, and it was both impractical and undesirable to insist on ideological conformity for such a worthless cause as torturing others and assertions of fundamental truth by imperium alone. Most people can figure out that such a thing turns on itself eventually, and carry on with science, reason, and their investigations with that in mind. Eventually, though, human knowledge reaches an impasse where something new is needed, and it has been the dominant idea that nothing new is ever possible, and to deny precisely that would would allow such a new thing to exist. This ultimately requires full enclosure of all space, all time, all reason, all potential. There is no alternative to the aristocratic program. Now we are seeing the final results of it. Some of us tried to warn you, but you'd rather feel good, and so you did.
>>

 No.479173

Basically, even if the world were rooted in physics, it clearly has little bearing on politics. It doesn't politically matter where life came from, for instance. But, it is very relevant for the claims of eugenics, which were conscious lies told to project forcibly and destroy the brain of the lower classes - to maximize the thrill of torture.
>>

 No.479219

File: 1708860598318.jpeg ( 51.98 KB , 727x519 , Gessen-PB-8.jpeg )

I know this feeling, comrade.
>>

 No.479596

File: 1709807138508-0.mp4 ( 22.87 MB , 640x360 , The Kronstadt Uprising - I….mp4 )

File: 1709807138508-1.jpg ( 107.55 KB , 797x599 , Adamantine.jpg )

File: 1709807138508-2.djvu ( 2.17 MB , 194x300 , Kronstadt 1917-1921- The ….djvu )

The Kronstadt question remains the most uncomfortable question for all the leftists.

How come the cradle of revolution needed to be put to the sword by the revolution? How come the birthplace of soviet democracy needed to be put to the sword to protect the soviet power? Very uncomfortable questions indeed..

One cannot help but to see similarities in uncomfortable relationship between Kronstadt and bolsheviks, on one hand, and the Paris Commune and Jacobins, on the other. Cyclicity of history again..

One thing is certain: one cannot possibly understand Russian Revolution without understanding Kronstadt first, just like one cannot understand the French Revolution without understanding Paris Commune.

The forgotten slogans.. "Third Revolution".. "Soviets without parties".. what was it, just a product of confused counter-revolutionary mind? or a product of a keen revolutionary instinct?

question, questions..
>>

 No.479597

>>479596
>The Kronstadt question remains the most uncomfortable question for all the leftists.
No, you have to be a history buff to even know what this is.
>>

 No.479649

im going to be honest with you, you all are and will always be shallow and twisting tongue. no matter how long your paragraph is, it will always be dogshit.
>>

 No.479670

>>479597
I'm sure leftist intelligentsia knows about it.

Finnbol made a video, so he knows. Tho he just regurgitated the official "party line" from the 21 expect for a white general Kozlovsky we now have white anarchist Petrichenko as the main villain.

The talking points are all the same that Trotsky used: the sailors of 21 were not the same revolutionary sailors of 17.

Which is a lie. At least two thirds of the sailors of both Sevastopol and Petropavlovsk where the uprising started were the sailors of 17.

The resolution may have been drafted by Petrichenko, but it was accepted by the general assembly of Petropavlovsk first and then by the general assembly of Kronstadt at the Anchor Square.
>>

 No.479673

Tho I disagree with Bookchin and his anarchist idealizations.

Kronstadt was doomed from the very beginning of the February Revolution. February-October revolution was a bourgeois revolution in two acts.

State capitalism is a meaningless category - capitalism can't exist without a state. By the end of the revolution, ie by the end of the Kronstadt uprising, Russia was on a steady course of capitalist development. The revolution was complete. What came later after the Great Depression had nothing to do with this revolution.

Leftists make the same mistake as their opponents - they are hypnotized by political and ideological abstractions.

I won't blame vanguardists for their rejection of histmat like mensheviks did. Because mensheviks rejected histmat too in not seeing in October a continuation of the February.

After all, Marx himself got frightened of his own cold method when he ditched Asiatic mode of production from his schema in later life.
>>

 No.479693

File: 1710160037314.png ( 1.76 MB , 950x934 , Where's the AMP Lebowski.png )

>>479673
>After all, Marx himself got frightened of his own cold method when he ditched Asiatic mode of production from his schema in later life.
Which is why it was such a big surprise to me when I found out that traditional three-link marxist schema (slave-feudal-capitalist) originally had a fourth link to it (asiatic).

What's more, imagine my surprise when I found out this fourth link was actually the most widespread mode of production throughout human history.

Even more, the ancient mode of production is so atypical in global historical perspective that you could call it a random social mutation by analogy with the biological world.

And if modern capitalism can be seen as an ancient mode of production on a new technological basis, then 20th century real existing socialism can be seen as an asiatic mode of production on a new technological basis too.
>>

 No.479694

>when I found out that traditional three-link marxist schema
that is, of antagonistic class societies
>>

 No.479695

Ie, we actually have a spiral of history with repeating patterns, but not because of dialectics or some other voodoo shit, but because of thermodynamics of history.

The question is: can we expect another social mutation?
>>

 No.479696

>>479693
Maybe the reason Marx dropped it is because it was a bad idea with an inconsistent definition that couldn't be coherently differentiated from the others. You know what made Marx scientific? His ability to confront his own theories with evidence and refine them over time. You should follow his example.

>>479695
>thermodynamics of history
Perhaps in multi-billion-year cycles, when star systems recycle the materials of a previous generation of stars. Otherwise no, that's retarded.
>>

 No.479701

>>479696
>Maybe the reason Marx dropped it is because it was a bad idea with an inconsistent definition that couldn't be coherently differentiated from the others.
Asiatic mode of production could be differentiated no less than other modes.

Marx dropped it because Bakunin's critique hit too close to home, not because of some scientific reason.

Asiatic mode of production was so unsupported by historical data, and so theoretically unsound, that both times USSR historians had discussion about it (in the 30s and in the 60s) - it got shut down by the order from the very top and all the "asians" repressed (in the 30s killed).

>Perhaps in multi-billion-year cycles, when star systems recycle the materials of a previous generation of stars.
Laws of thermodynamics are universal for all moving matter, you uneducated idiot, not just starts.
>>

 No.479702

>>479696
>Maybe the reason Marx dropped it is because it was a bad idea with an inconsistent definition that couldn't be coherently differentiated from the others.
Also, Marx never even gave a reason for dropping it.

One day it just disappeared without any explanation lol.
>>

 No.479703

>>479693
>And if modern capitalism can be seen as an ancient mode of production on a new technological basis, then 20th century real existing socialism can be seen as an asiatic mode of production on a new technological basis too.
Also, from this point of view I think we can deduce some necessary circumstances of collapse of those modes of production.

After all, both of them have collapsed before: ancient at least once, asiatic tens of times.

Ancient is an intensive mode of production - it collapses when intensive production depletes scarce resources (intensive market-oriented ancient agriculture depleting the soil and slaves leading to collapse of the monetary economy and the ancient world).

Asiatic is an extensive mode - collapses when the sources of extensive growth are exhausted (hence the high frequency of collapse). Many ancient civilizations on multiple continents collapsed and rose again multiple times with no change in the mode of production.
>>

 No.479705

>>479703
>intensive market-oriented ancient agriculture depleting the soil and slaves leading to collapse
and I'm not talking about depletion of slaves in the meaning working them to death

I'm meaning in terms of reproduction, just like soil

slave raising children - slave not working

slave not working - less surplus product

which again brings unexpected parallels with the current world lol

same mode of production - same fundamental problems
>>

 No.479706

>>479703
>Asiatic is an extensive mode - collapses when the sources of extensive growth are exhausted
tho it can exist without external growth for hundreds of years - it usually takes an external factor, like a natural disaster, barbarian invasion etc, to trigger a collapse

another interesting thing - agrarian asiatic civilizations of old usually collapsed into primitive tribal societies, but industrial asiatic Soviet Union collapsed into peripheral capitalism
>>

 No.479707

>>479706
>tho it can exist without external growth for hundreds of years
tho only if there are no internal class formation processes inside asiatic mode, otherwise formation breaks up by itself

Soviet Union actually had one in its growing shadow capitalist economy
>>

 No.479708

>>479705
When workers were sent to the factory to work under the whip of capital, this was understood to be a slave relation. They had no rights, no legal standing except as subjects marked and tracked with a deed representing their person, and could not expect any such thing. The rights of nobles and priests did not exist just because, but because they held genuine property that could allow this assertion and had to be respected for the purposes of the state, for the ruling power. That's how it always works. You didn't get freedom for nothing or because you said "me wantee", nor was freedom a matter of justice or being nice. It is, however, free - there are no natural costs to freedom in that sense. If someone holds a knife at your throat as Heinlein insists and extracts a tribute, that is not a free society. That is a slave society, as anyone with any competence will tell you. If that situation exists, freedom is dead and no promise of privileges is relevant. Legal rights conceptually required that such a line would not be transgressed as a natural law and asserted as positively good in of itself.
>>

 No.479709

>>479706
The concept of "mode of production" is itself a problematic conflation of things, and a misunderstanding of what human societies do when they produce - what labor actually does and sets out to do if it were operating for its own interests, rather than the interest of money or property or some ruling idea. The interests of labor itself are alien to the person or entity which labors - we don't "labor for our Being" in a way that is self-evident. Labor to be labor is something we do in the world, not something that "just is". It would not be recognizably labor to say everything we do is labor - breathing for instance is not "labor" until we attach some moral deliberation to breathing, as if we could say that it is a moral obligation of someone to control their breathing and voluntarily suffocate for the greater good when commanded.
>>

 No.479713

>>479709
The mods need to seriously consider banning you for spam at this point.
>>

 No.479714

>>479713
Hehehehehe (sage because my lack of contribution)
>>

 No.479715

>>479713
Go away, fag. You're not going to keep bastardizing things to feed this piss poor pseudo-model when we're trying to have a conversation.

My point being is that human beings produce in the first place because there is some reason to do so, rather than because they have a "system" which allows that, that people are beholden to obey even when the system clearly doesn't work and isn't intended to work. So much of human productivity exists entirely in spite of the mode of production that is presumed to be operative.

For the "Asiatic mode of production", no one over there believed that was a thing or that their societies were oriented around productivity at all in that sense. Economically, village life was viewed not for the products it created or as a model to reproduce as the basic "germ", but existed because there wasn't a "system" that enclosed villages into cities, empires, slave estates, and so on as happened in the Roman Empire. The Chinese Emperors did not want the village to disappear, because that is what provided peasant labor that the Emperor and government relied on. This is something made explicit during the later Song dynasty. It appeared as if workers technologically had everything to start building industrial factories, but the government steps in to break this up precisely because it would strengthen the merchants and undermine the emperor and bureaucracy. The stable village system didn't exist in Europe, because the Romans specifically chose to displace that and abolished it among themselves. That was what the downfall of the Roman Republic was - the failure of the citizen-farmer-soldier and family, which came about because the aristocracy of Rome chose to wage war against the public. That's what the republic was, what republics always do. It's why most of the world never allowed a "republic" to exist, and saw it as some species of treason.

In a productive sense, the peasant of China was free to move within the country, was not tied to anything in particular. There was no concept that the peasant had any "rights" in the sense that liberal society understood them, but there was an understanding of money and mercantile activity, and the interests of various groups and classes in that mercantile activity. When Europeans encounter China and start trade, the Chinese state and society structure their approach specifically to impede European encroachment - Europeans can only trade in one city, and the emperor's preferred interests charged a hefty tariff on everything which was great for them. They spent much of their efforts on resisting anything foreign on purpose, and were conscious of why they did this - for perfectly understandable and rational reasons that were not about any "mode of production", but about the situation they were in. It was much the same in the preceding centuries, except instead of European encroachment, the primary threat was barbarian invasion like the various times that happened in Chinese history and the really big time the Mongols slaughtered them and took all of their stuff. At the basic level, Chinese people understood money, understood markets and commodity exchange. There were merchants who were functionally capitalists, but the political order did not grant to "capital" any consideration, and something like a stock market or trading company was exactly the thing the Chinese were fighting against - they were fighting against the East India Company and all such variants that were corporate states. That's what capitalism is, and what it exists for - it starts with the foreign trade companies, as any basic student of history should know.
>>

 No.479716

All of this is to say, a "mode of production" is based on spurious reasoning, because every such "mode" consists of people who did things that were politically reasonable at the time. The Romans understood very well why various people and institutions, various interests, wanted the Roman world to be as it was. None of that "just happened" or was an accident. The republic as it was designed could have only ended with a Caesar, and that's what many of Caesar's rivals wanted to do - to be the first man in Rome. Not all of them were doing the same strategy - Pompey for instance just wanted to be very rich and famous and sold his talents to whomever wanted the prestige his name brought. Pompey sought fame and glory not for some ulterior economic motive but because that's what the Roman society preferred men to be, and what allowed the republic to expand voraciously and devour itself from within. That's what a republic does - strips the commonwealth bare to prop up aristocracies. That's basically the ur-story of European civilization, and it was particular to them. Most of the world thought that was insane and crazy, but it worked in the European context, and if you trace their history, the European cities were strongly influenced by migration, trade, and the presence of the really ancient empires. The legend of Rome traces back to the Trojan War, rather than any "blood and soil" of Italy itself since time immemorial - that's common among the Romans and the Greeks, that they understood they were on the periphery of civilization when they rose, and expanded against tribes to drag them into domination. In the Near East, that thinking collapsed the prior arrangement of empires before the Greeks rose, and they were putting together the pieces ever since. The European cities were at their time a new thing, and you can see this in action with what the Carthaginians were doing in Spain - where Hannibal was setting himself up as basically a priest-king with the locals and running his own operation without the full blessing of Carthage.

Every empire, every operation, works out some "system" appropriate for its time and place. If not deliberately constructed by some plan, it becomes evident to enough people to work towards an understanding of what their situation is, whether they share that publicly or keep it as a secret.
>>

 No.479717

>>479714
>>479715
Stop same fagging you retard spammer with your faggot spam. Jesus, you love to jerk yourself off all day long here constantly when your infantile rehtoric has been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over…..

If you would read something other tan your own farts you would know why conflating breathing and working in a coal mine is retarded. Please stop spamming our board with your AI generated content.
>>

 No.479718

File: 1710190156401.jpg ( 13.18 KB , 160x389 , thorazine.jpg )

>>479715
>we're trying to have a conversation
Some of us indeed are, but you keep disrupting it with your deluded ravings.
>>

 No.479719

>>479717
Why is it retarded? You make an empty assumption but leave it eternally unanswered, because you know the answer - you don't want the "wrong people" breathing "your oxygen" and wish to shame them into suffocating themselves and self-terminating. That's the only explanation for why you need to shout at me for making a very basic observation about what it means to speak of "labor" as anything other than a natural phenomenon that is vague and airy. This isn't a new idea and I didn't even think this was something controversial, but apparently it is. A Satanic forum for a Satanic race, doing Satanic things.

The "controversial" part would be to disdain the concept of a mode of production - except that if you actually follow any economic thought in the past century, if you follow political, historical, and sociological thought, a "mode of production" is an inherently vague concept from the outset. This is also why Marx was abandoning such models - he is knowingly saying "you know, I am saying this to describe a situation, not a 'system' of that sort." They are useful as a way to speak of general stages of development, but the "mode of production" is itself an effort to tear apart the idea of neat "stages of development" that were common in socialist thought and sociology of the time. That is, a "mode of production" is by definition a confluence of all of these things that comprise it, rather than a wholly intended "system". No one sat down and said we are doing "capitalism" in this form Marx described, or believed that "capitalism" was an eternal or natural system in that sense.

If there is anything new with what I wrote - and it's not really "new" - it would be that I suggest there is a way we can speak of how these things did form, which was not possible in the past with the models of history, knowledge, and society that prevailed. At the time where this new exposition was possible, it became inadmissible to acknowledge anything about the nature of the society we live in, or what anything actually does. The thrill of torture has been maximized, and they just haven't claimed it all yet.
>>

 No.479720

Even there, nothing I write is "new". It has been around for a while, but either scattered or assembled by obscure people who don't see any reason to publicize anything, or believe that others would care or that others are going to survive. In the mind of most who think about anything that actually happens, they only think about the thrill of torture, and who is selected to die. Those selected to die will only be lied to. Anyone who encourages that for faggotry should hang their head in shame and stop doing this. But, they won't. They can't not do this. Eugenics won. Satan won.
>>

 No.479721

I have no reason to ever shut up. It's not like remaining silent is going to give me anything, and if they're going to torture me, kill me, humiliate me, they'll do whatever they're going to do. After all the threats and lies, why bother pretending? They wanted this to be the world, and they got it. That's all it will be now.
>>

 No.479726

I rather spend time with annoying over corrective leftoids than utter psychopathic right wing loons who cry and bitch when they see a black person in a movie
That's literally it. Never read this thread
>>

 No.479759

Eugene is a weaponized general AI. We are being targeted by the Big Three. It's over.
>>

 No.479764

>>479759
Fear Eugene.
There is no Big Three. Only AM.
>>

 No.479765

>>479764
Who or what is Eugene or AM?


AM as in "ante meridiem"?
>>

 No.479766

>>479726
Based
>>

 No.479767

>>479726
<false dichotomy of left right bourgeois politics, to divide and conquer the proles
>>479766
>Based
why ?

Unique IPs: 90
[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome