Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

i view it as something like an autonomous computational process over which we've lost control, similar to questions of superintelligence in AI.

I like what you said in this post. As mentioned above, these passages remind me a lot of The Political & Man by Panagiotis Kondylis, which can be found here https://www.panagiotiskondylis.com/the-political-and-man.php . It's a pretty dense book & he expects you to be familiar with a lot of 20th century philosophy & sociology concepts going in, but imo it's well worth reading. Basically he puts forward the idea that we tend to still construct theories in a way that's subconsciously informed by the conditions of early bourgeois liberalism, even though the actual movement of capital has gradually mutated every previously existing culture & class stratum. Increasingly, human action is dictated by inpersonal systemic rational, of which the individual is not entirely conscious. Kondylis attempts to make this more explicit by deconstructing the sociological models of the 20th century, demonstrating the sorts of logical/perceptual pre-suppositions they load into any decision making process

Edited by Cryptowen
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 764
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

not 100% sure why i thought of this thread when i saw this video  

Marxism is an attractive idea to teenagers who think they're overflowing with compassion for every living being, but sadly they don't have enough experience of the nature of the human. They are p

exploiting the loletariat

Posted Images

12 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

your conception of the USSR is just wrong. even the CIA admits it was democratic.

Do you think that document supports the claim that the USSR was democratic?

12 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

as for the CCP, it is also democratic but yet it is a one-party state

I already gave a lengthy (for an internet music forum) rebuttal to this which clearly shows how the CCP is not democratic, and how anti-union (i.e.  how anti-worker democracy) China is. 

 

12 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

the US and all capitalist  countries are also one-party states.  they just have many branches of the same capitalist party.  gaining power through a vanguard party and bypassing the bourgeois electoral process does not mean anti-democratic.  you are intentionally framing things from a bourgeois perspective.  marxists do not let the bourgeoisie frame the narrative in this way.  multiple capitalist parties is not a democracy

Even in the US, the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats are quite clear. There are communist parties in countries all over the world that participate in democratic elections. 

Your penultimate sentence is very instructive; it shows how unwilling you are to participate in open dialogue, but would rather stay in an ideological bubble. Unluckily for you, the narrative here is not determined by “Marxist framing of the narrative”. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Do you think that document supports the claim that the USSR was democratic?

I already gave a lengthy (for an internet music forum) rebuttal to this which clearly shows how the CCP is not democratic, and how anti-union (i.e.  how anti-worker democracy) China is. 

 

Even in the US, the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats are quite clear. There are communist parties in countries all over the world that participate in democratic elections. 

Your penultimate sentence is very instructive; it shows how unwilling you are to participate in open dialogue, but would rather stay in an ideological bubble. Unluckily for you, the narrative here is not determined by “Marxist framing of the narrative”. 

i think you will find that it's a class struggle, not a battle of wits and ideas as the liberals would have us believe and the bourgeoisie would try to force us to believe

i've yet to see anything even remotely approaching a concentrated critique of marxism, rather some attempted critiques of actually existing socialism.  instead you in particular live in a world where capitalist hegemony and bourgeois electoral representative democracy is not only the norm, but assumed to need to be the norm forever into the future, with no justification provided.  this will not be the case

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to post
Share on other sites

at this point I'm going to have to assume you know literally nothing about marxism given that every other post on that topic is a misconception that I, a fucking moron, have to correct and try to explain what you are misunderstanding on the topic.  there is in theory room for disagreement on actually existing socialism, and there is room for debate on the topic of marxism, but even the basic concepts of marxism are not only entirely lost, but blatantly misrepresented time and time again, it's embarrassing for you

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is absolutely nothing in this world more pathetic than a proletarian shilling for the political ideology of the bourgeoisie.  like a slave arguing that the living quarters his master provides are better than those of the slaves across the fence.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

>no, I don't want partial ownership of my workplace and democratic control over its proceedings, I don't want democratic control over how much housing is built, or my needs prioritized when it comes to building mass transit infrastructure rather than individualist polluting alternatives like cars.  I don't want all of the fruits of my labor, I want a percentage to go to a private owner.  I want all of these things to not be democratically controlled but instead dictatorially controlled by private owners

pathetic lmfao, utter slave mentality, liberals are the worst

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

at this point I'm going to have to assume you know literally nothing about marxism given that every other post on that topic is a misconception that I, a fucking moron, have to correct and try to explain what you are misunderstanding on the topic.  there is in theory room for disagreement on actually existing socialism, and there is room for debate on the topic of marxism, but even the basic concepts of marxism are not only entirely lost, but blatantly misrepresented time and time again, it's embarrassing for you

Do you agree or not that Marx’s basic premise for beginning the transformation to communism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeois?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Do you agree or not that Marx’s basic premise for beginning the transformation to communism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeois?

of course, though it must be noted that there would be none if they willingly gave up "their" private property and let us achieve socialism and communism.  the violence without exception comes from the bourgeoisie against people in the first place, whereas the violence inherent to socialism is limited to that of the theft, or rather the reclaiming, of the very means of production the proletariat themselves created. what does this have to do with the topic of whether there is such a thing as non-democratic socialism, of which there is not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, logakght said:

 

everything from them is always great, another good recent one

https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-131-the-essential-worker-racket-how-covid-hero-discourse-is-used-to-discipline-labor

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

of course, though it must be noted that there would be none if they willingly gave up "their" private property and let us achieve socialism and communism.  the violence without exception comes from the bourgeoisie against people in the first place, whereas the violence inherent to socialism is limited to that of the theft, or rather the reclaiming, of the very means of production the proletariat themselves created. what does this have to do with the topic of whether there is such a thing as non-democratic socialism, of which there is not?

interesting that you admit in your very question that the bourgeoisie have power.  voting alone cannot work since the voting mechanisms they give us are designed to keep them in power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The world is gonna be so peaceful once you've imprisoned and executed everyone who stands in the way of your ideology.

 

You do know, don't you, that this "communism trip" you're going through is a phase. It's a widely known, and frankly mocked, phenomenon in Western liberal cultures, that young, usually white kids, particularly if they go to art school or do a philosophy major, tend to go through this communism phase. It's practically a right of passage. 

You're gonna grow out of it eventually. You will likely think back to these threads and cringe at yourself, embarrass by your naivety and ignorance. 

Currently you think you've hit upon some radical, underground school of thought; and you probably think everyone around you is some simpleton, a drone in society, coasting through life as a pawn of 'the man'. They could never be such a visionary like you. 

I'm not saying these things to patronise you. I'm just spitting some truths. Most people on this forum have probably gone through some communist-flirtation phase at some point in their youth. It's practically a right of passage. No educated adult takes any of it seriously. Because any educated adult becomes aware of the realities and practicalities of life. 

I think you put too much faith in the power of individuals. Most people, even at high levels, don't have a fucking clue what they're doing. Everyone, bar few people with severe psychological issues, is racked with insecurity, doubt, base desires and a memory of their ignorant child-self. 

You don't state where you are located, but I can safely assume you're American. I can safely assume you're middle class and relatively well-educated. I can guess that you probably don't have a huge amount of experience of the world, professionally, socially, internationally. 

Do you little Marxist fad, but just bear in mind that you're probably gonna look back at yourself in 5/10yrs time, and think to yourself, "God, what a dick I was". Cos we all do.

Well, that is, if you do emerge from your phase. Not everyone does.

I have the worldview and my ideas about politics that I have now precisely because I've allowed myself to change my mind. I've pushed myself to interrogate my own ideas and I've swallowed my pride enough to allow myself to admit I've been wrong, and moved on with my ideas. 

It's good to change your ideas; it means you're constantly learning and growing. One should feel pride that they think differently now compared to before, not feel shame for previous ideas.

Life is fucking complex. Politics is fucking complex. People are complex. 

Cultures, ethnicities, religions, borders, crossed allegiances, the myriad of viewpoints within the political spectrum... There's so much to unpack that you could never understand it all. You certainly can't fix it all. Certainly not with a one-size-fits-all ideology.

There's an endless middle of pluralities and uncertainties in the existence of man. There's no such thing as universal peace. 

My advice to you is to allow yourself to soften a little. Let go of your ego a little and allow yourself to absorb new ideas and take constructive opposition and criticism. 

I don't have a political ideal. I'm not a leftie or a rightie. I wouldn't even call myself a centrist. You're right when you say that I am against authoritarianism. Absolutely I am. I'm critical of any idea that gives too much power to the state, whether it's capitalist or socialist. 

I'm interested in maintaining boring, non-revolutionary, slow, democrat, civil policy making. I'm interested in maintaining peaceful, constructive, mature, evidence-based reasoning between opposing ideas. I'm interested in pluralism.

Mostly, I'm interested in the nature of tribalism and culture, and how it perpetuates in-group thinking. How are individuals' ideas formed by the influence of cultural conformity affected by those around them. 

I've seen a lot of shit in my life, bro. And I'm still unpacking it all. I live with endless conflicting identifies and cultural allegiances, that all combine to create me. I spent my childhood (was nurtured, educated) in some of the world's most disparate communities; 

- a secular and progressive Netherlands

- Conservative, Christian Texas

- majority Buddhist, authoritarian, impoverished Burma

- religious, fundamentalist Pakistan

- ancient, fusty and relatively stable UK

 

I love all these places and the people within them, whilst accepting their faults. I love the all, whilst accepting that there are groups within each community who consider the other the enemy. I know the diversity of people and ideas within people of each these places.

Life is like that: huge, varied, contradictory, ancient, vague, imperfect. It's good to accept the imperfect nature of our species. You don't need to change the world; you just need to influence what positivity you can in the very, very small portion of it which you inhabit. That's all. And it's enough. 

 

My life motto is:

"In your lifetime, meet as many people who are not like you as you can"

 

By listening to and understanding others, we can better understand ourselves, and vice versa. We realize how small our worlds are. We realize we are simply part of something so enormous and so messy, there's really little value to be had trying to tame it. We should dedicate our lives to controlling our own nature, not that of others. 

There's a lovely line by Slug on a Deep Puddle Dynamics track:

"I think I’d like people more if they’d think more like me
So quietly I wait for my inner revolution"

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Thu Zaw said:

By listening to and understanding others, we can better understand ourselves, and vice versa. We realize how small our worlds are. We realize we are simply part of something so enormous and so messy, there's really little value to be had trying to tame it. We should dedicate our lives to controlling our own nature, not that of others. 

I wish I had your patience responding to the flow of insufferable ideological faux pas. I use impulsive and aggressive rhetoric way too often, which doesn't benefit anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dcom said:

I wish I had your patience responding to the flow of insufferable ideological faux pas. I use impulsive and aggressive rhetoric way too often, which doesn't benefit anyone.

I'm learning... 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

of course, though it must be noted that there would be none if they willingly gave up "their" private property and let us achieve socialism and communism.

So how is this democratic?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

imo there's an element of truth to the "you grow out of radical political positions as you get older" line of thinking, but it doesn't ultimately invalidate the radical position. for sure, young people tend to get caught up in overly simplistic "good guys vs bad guys" narratives. As they get older they hopefully become more nuanced in their thinking, and begin to recognize that many of the ostensibly rebellious acts they undertook in their youth were nothing more than commodified lifestyle packages sold to them by the very system they were trying to undermine.

But it's also overly reductionist to suggest that this typical move away from revolutionary identities is wholly the product of wisdom. i think people continuously run a cost-benefit analysis on a semi-conscious level. when you're young the world seems full of possibility. as you get old, it starts to seem less likely that the revolution will happen in your lifetime, thus the idea of trying to eke out a stable existence within the logic of the imperfect world that presents itself to you becomes appealing. but obviously revolutions do happen. Old ways of thinking get swept away and replaced with new ones. it was not even 250 years ago that the united states founding itself on notions of individual liberty would have been considered a radical act. to suggest that we're in the end stage of human social development (even in embryonic form), that it couldn't be displaced by entirely different forms of understanding within this very century - pure ideology *sniff*

imo a person of revolutionary inclination should hedge their bets. do research. try to better understand the functional limitations and psychological impositions of the system we're currently in. come to see the ways in which most people will resist your line of thinking. see the distortions playing out in your own thinking (even in your projections of what a post-revolutionary world might look like). recognize that these changes are largely unpredictable and move at a scale beyond that of a typical human lifetime. the revolution might not happen in your life, and it very well might not be the kind of revolution you'd like to see. but don't disregard that which compels you to ask - how could this be different?

Edited by Cryptowen
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...