Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, dcom said:

Do you have skin in the game? What are you doing in the real, physical world to advance your ideology? Are you organizing rallies? Are you publishing samizdat? Are you seizing the means of production? What are you really doing to right the wrongs, upsetting the balance of power, toppling the capitalists, bayoneting the bourgeoisie, redistributing the wealth, sabotaging the government violence monopoly? What are you doing besides being insulting towards people you don't know on an electronic music discussion forum on the internet?

the topic is not me.  i may hypothetically be a worthless piece of trash, but at least my words are aligned with reality and spoken in defense of the working class. i don't think this thread is the "discuss cyanobacteria" thread but apparently youre incapable of staying on topic.

what do your words have to do with marxism?

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 722
  • 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

jfc why do I keep reading.

Posted Images

8 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

i may hypothetically be a worthless piece of trash, but at least my words are aligned with reality and spoken in defense of the working class.

So you're just virtually LARPing a socialist on the internet for shits and giggles, all theory, no practice. That's all I needed to know, KTHXBAI.

Edited by dcom
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, dcom said:

So you're just virtually LARPing a socialist on the internet for shits and giggles, all theory, no practice. That's all I needed to know, KTHXBAI.

firstly I never said this, and secondly why are you so obsessed with me? i may be pathetic, but what's more pathetic is a middle aged man obsessed with the personal life of someone they consider pathetic

does this have to do with the topic at hand? didn't think so lmao

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

does this have to do with the topic at hand?

This is a topic created to accommodate you; it's even tagged all Zeff all the time. This thread is nothing if not all about you and your ego orbiting around your ideological core. Yes, I'm way more interested in observing your psychopathologies than in your regurgitation of socialist dogmatic drivel, but you are an integral part of this thread being what it is - and as such on topic whether you want it or not. I'll STFU now, I've had my fill.

Edited by dcom
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dcom said:

This is a topic created to accommodate you; it's even tagged all Zeff all the time. This thread is nothing if not all about you and your ego orbiting around your ideological core. Yes, I'm way more interested in observing your psychopathologies than in your regurgitation of socialist dogmatic drivel, but you are an integral part of this thread being what it is - and as such on topic whether you want it or not. I'll STFU now, I've had my fill.

there are many posters in this thread.  the fact that its creator decided to do some trolling in the tags doesn't indicate otherwise.  and frankly if its creator and yourself and presumably others are only in this thread to psychoanalyze me, then the more strange thing occurring is that act of online anonymous psychoanalysis, moreso than whatever psychopathologies you think I have.  are you an educated psychologist or psychotherapist? if not, I suggest you don't pretend to be one, because that is in itself an indication of a lack of understanding of the topic on your part.  you may think youre digging deeply into me, but youre really revealing your true nature, which is that of a malicious person not dedicated to reality

in summary you are very weird and if i may throw back your own apparent discussion technique at you, acting quite narcissistic in your abilities to dismiss my words as psychopathologies.  i suggest you find something better to do

im very happy to know "'i'll STFU now" because your posts are horrible

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the WATMM analytics at ? Does this thread have the most sustained activity of any in the last 24 to 36  months ? Even the Collapse thread would drop off the front page but this one is a highly persistent and virulent strain 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stickfigger said:

Where are the WATMM analytics at ? Does this thread have the most sustained activity of any in the last 24 to 36  months ? Even the Collapse thread would drop off the front page but this one is a highly persistent and virulent strain 

please close this thread

  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

Marx’s “inhuman power” and “capital which is set free” is the same entity that Eric Li has in mind when he speaks of “capital itself” and its “enshrined rights.” This talk, which appealingly (to me) borders on the supernatural, stands in stark contrast with Bernie Sanders-style rhetoric that chalks the problems we are mired in up to mere “corporate greed.” Greed is the vice in question, of course. One to be cursed and curbed. But every serious theorist understands that we face a far more serious challenge than the mere assembly of policy-makers with good moral fiber.

Consider Engels in On Authority:

If mankind, by dint of science and its inventive genius, has bent the forces of nature to its will, the latter avenge themselves by subjecting humanity, insofar as it employs them, to a true despotism independent of all social organisation. [24]

Consider Lenin in Imperialism:

The capitalists divide the world, not out of any particular malice, but because the degree of concentration which has been reached forces them to adopt this method in order to obtain profits. [25]

It is useful to conceive of two interlocking but different struggles: that of the worker versus the capitalist, and that of humanity versus capital itself. The workers’ triumph over the capitalist (“to each according to their work”) is in a sense a precondition for humanity’s triumph over capital (“to each according to their need”).

 

(in the Hegelian account of alienation)

  1. Humans invented God.
  2. Having invented God, humans then assigned to Him their own powers of creation.
  3. Having projected thought onto a non-human and invented entity, humans then subordinate themselves to it.

(in Marx’s critique of capitalism)

  1. People make capital. Everything that counts as capital is a human creation.
  2. Having created capital, people then assign to it the powers of creation.
  3. Once the creative powers of work get misassigned to capital, actual workers are made subordinate to it. [26]

 

>This is capital as automatic subject. A technophile may call it something akin to a market-based artificial intelligence arising from game-theoretical instrumental rationality.
>Feudal lords were the masters of Feudalism. Capitalists, however, aren’t the masters of capitalism. They are merely the high priests of capitalism. The master of capitalism is Capital itself. [28]

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

Marx’s “inhuman power” and “capital which is set free” is the same entity that Eric Li has in mind when he speaks of “capital itself” and its “enshrined rights.” This talk, which appealingly (to me) borders on the supernatural, stands in stark contrast with Bernie Sanders-style rhetoric that chalks the problems we are mired in up to mere “corporate greed.” Greed is the vice in question, of course. One to be cursed and curbed. But every serious theorist understands that we face a far more serious challenge than the mere assembly of policy-makers with good moral fiber.

Consider Engels in On Authority:

If mankind, by dint of science and its inventive genius, has bent the forces of nature to its will, the latter avenge themselves by subjecting humanity, insofar as it employs them, to a true despotism independent of all social organisation. [24]

Consider Lenin in Imperialism:

The capitalists divide the world, not out of any particular malice, but because the degree of concentration which has been reached forces them to adopt this method in order to obtain profits. [25]

It is useful to conceive of two interlocking but different struggles: that of the worker versus the capitalist, and that of humanity versus capital itself. The workers’ triumph over the capitalist (“to each according to their work”) is in a sense a precondition for humanity’s triumph over capital (“to each according to their need”).

 

(in the Hegelian account of alienation)

  1. Humans invented God.
  2. Having invented God, humans then assigned to Him their own powers of creation.
  3. Having projected thought onto a non-human and invented entity, humans then subordinate themselves to it.

(in Marx’s critique of capitalism)

  1. People make capital. Everything that counts as capital is a human creation.
  2. Having created capital, people then assign to it the powers of creation.
  3. Once the creative powers of work get misassigned to capital, actual workers are made subordinate to it. [26]

 

>This is capital as automatic subject. A technophile may call it something akin to a market-based artificial intelligence arising from game-theoretical instrumental rationality.
>Feudal lords were the masters of Feudalism. Capitalists, however, aren’t the masters of capitalism. They are merely the high priests of capitalism. The master of capitalism is Capital itself. [28]

Huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just spreading some bourgeois propaganda here

MBeh9Eu.jpeg

w3E6gWG.png

71TKa8B.jpg

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zkom said:

 

71TKa8B.jpg

 

this one's great bcuz a lot of marxist theory of the last 50 years directly revolves around trying to figure out why previous revolutionary attempts went sideways or failed to spark in the first place

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Silent Member said:

When all manual labour is robotized everyone can communism all day long.

Except no one will. Robotics will make human robots obsolete, therefore becoming an unwanted surplus that will have to die off.

signed, your faithful non-trickle-down economy

Link to post
Share on other sites

the first bourgeois revolution attempts failed, and many involved mass genocide and theft of entire continents, so let's be realistic

Edited by cyanobacteria
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...