Class Struggle

“I don’t believe in Class Struggle. It’s more about genetics and your ethnic group. That’s the primary value. Class is secondary, or lower. When push comes to shove, people don’t care much about those they work for, with, or against. People care about family. People care about clan. People care about tribe.”

On the contrary. People are much more willing, in general, to fight alongside work friends regardless of “ethnicity” (I guess we’re all 19th century anthropologists now…) against some, say, uncle they fucking hate.

“Genetics” and “white” are far more of a social construct, than “class” or “citizen.” It is one of the most unnatural views on life, and nothing in nature reflects this bias or method of selection.

I don’t mean I look down on sexual racism, the reason after about 10 generations there is so little mixing between black, Indian and white skinned people in the US. I mean, if we are gonna dictate who has to like who sexually, it’s over. I just mean it, like plain old racism (subtract the pejorative from racism, literally the doctrine of using so-called “race” as a method of selection and preference), is a construct. Also, that anything is a construct doesn’t itself say anything against it. I don’t discriminate against racism a priori. Some of my favourite people are racists. But we’re philosophers, neh? Let us be accurate:

Racism is a social construct.

This is blatantly false.

People are far more loyal to family than to jobs, work, and corporations. The “single-mother-working-60-hours-per-week” does so, because of her child, which is proof of my claim.

No child, no loyalty.

What if your coworker is a white man like yourself, and your half-brother is the son of a black man?

To be sure, capitalism is a lot of industriousness and intelligence, but it’s a lot of dumb luck too, being at the right place/time.
If Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg had’ve been struck by lightning before becoming billionaires, someone would’ve come along with about as good a product, perhaps even better months, maybe even just weeks later to fill that niche, but because they weren’t, Bill, Jeff and Mark are billionaires, and their former competitors, about as industrious and intelligent as they are, may only be middle or even working class.

It’s because of how modern free markets works, with intellectual property and mass production.
If something’s first, the best or one of, it spreads everywhere, and a handful of families end up controlling a sector of the economy, even tho they may only be a little better at what they do.
And they just get better and better at what they do, buying up the competition and hiring more and more people who’re good at what they do.
It’ll be next to impossible to meaningfully compete with them.
It’s a casino economy, winner takes all, losers get nothing or scraps.

Even some libertarians argue intellectual property is a violation of our rights.
Some individualists argue property that’s never been or couldn’t possibly be routinely physically occupied or used by the owner should be considered abandoned, up for grabs, even if they pay taxes on it.
Now, we don’t have to take it that far, but in exchange for permitting the existence of intellectual property, a social construct, a coercive monopolization (copying what people do is not a forceful, fraudulent or violent act), the property should partly belong to us all i.e. social corporatism.

Bill Gates may be superior to the vast majority of workers, but is he really millions of times superior?
Is he God?
No, but he’s millions of times wealthier, so wealth is not necessarily an accurate representation of value.

I’m not claiming all individuals are equal, I’m not saying all classes are equal.
It’s impossible for anyone or anything to be equal.
The working class are more beneficially productive than the underclass, the lower middle class, when taken as a whole, are probably more beneficially productive than the working class, the middle class more than the lower middle and so on, but once you become upper class, the richest 1%, or the overclass, the richest 1 10th of 1%, arguably things tend to get screwy, and wealth is no longer a reliable measure of a person’s value.

Parodites,

But really, a class can be a
mathematical concept or one that derives from a substrate of social structural underbelly, and depression as a fine gradient that can cut both ways.
That individuals struggle, and not classes is an indefinite competition between vague and clear affiliation through identification.
That the misidentified groups . consisting anywhere between 1 & up to a majority make the difference between individual and social points of view - indefinite both, probabilty wise , should . qualitatively premise any such presumption as to downplay or emphasize the relation. between Marx and Nietzche.
The idea of social contract between Hobbs and Russeau showed contradiction in the expected absolute terms. but in fact could not Jefferson’s genius prefigure both Into some kind of comfortable union ?

After all the Frech Revoluion was preempted by the American, and thus born of the logic of illogic.

Class struggle need not concern the material or pure dialectic born out of confusion, nor be it a winning play of upper controlled classes.

The necessity of one can trump the contingency of.the other, Marx was important because he utilized this appearent contradiction, not that is.It was in some way inherent in ‘Man’ 's Nature in some manner.

While we are on it, isn’t one’s intrapersonal struggle foreshadow the ensuing interpersonal conflict? Isn’t.that.which brings.on solutions so called.finally, and should not be the key between the private and public understanding not in terms of.exclusive.domains of.powers to will, but, instead.the public’s innate, yet.closed.off.apprehension. of.the above.strata’s ‘understanding’?

You fit in precisely into that ‘class’ who uses the struggle to his own preference.

And how can that be argued? You tell me.

yes and in my book ‘the charade of western civlization’, chapter 47, i take this nietzschean concept and extend it to address the impossibility of a homogenous system of laws applicable to everyone in a society in which conflicting classes of bourgeois and proletariat compete over labor force. in so many words i draw the same master/slave distinction that N made, between these two economic classes, and settle on the conclusion that the bourgeois and its ‘state’ resents, in the same way the slave resents the master, the criminal activities of those enlightened anarchists who recognize the illegitimacy of a legal system that attempts to bind and obligate citizens of conflicting classes to a system of laws which does not benefit them both, equally.

for instance, the bourgeois and its state criminalizes wage earners who don’t pay taxes, while big businesses are not obligated by law to do the same. then, when the tax man comes to my door and i bust a cap in his face, the bourgeois and its state resents me, as the slave resents the master who acts capriciously and with no regard to the ethics of the slave.

anyway the essential message of the book is that a cooperative system of laws defended and enforced by a set of axiomatic principles - from which the concept of ‘intrinsic rights’ develops - cannot exist in a society in which all citizens do not share ownership of the means of production.

so i haven’t actually written this book but if i did, i’d put all this stuff in chapter 47.

If you put half the effort into political thinking that you put into Nietzsche’ dissection of the genealogy of logic,

You would actually be a decent political thinker.

Instead of this…

Ununderstanding copypaste of a pamphlet.

See you made the mistake of proving that you actually are capable of philosophy.

If I were you, I would walk down to the nearest socialist headquarters or college and demand to have my balls back.

well i’m only a derivative thinker because the stars say so. capricorns don’t usually start projects, but they finish the fuck out of em. so that’s what i gotta do. i’m am marx’s ambassador at ILP. it is my fate.

bro. i stopped doing philosophy before you made your first ‘clan of hooded philosophers’ video walking around in circles in your room. rememba that one? i do. it was pedro’s big debut.

Nia ha ha

Yes I remember.

You were less cynical back then. But the path was clear with the mindless regurgitation of anthropologist political thought.

You could barely breathe.

You walk into shitty rooms of philosophy amd then blame philosophy. Blame ypur chooce of shit to take seriously!

when i saw that video i said to myself ‘this one’s got the eye of the liger’, and i knew good things were to come.

The genealogy of democracy you laid out then was horrible. Your tiredness of it was palpable, and otself determined in part the low quality of the analysis.

But ot did, nonetheless, betray your ability.

my videos were crap, dude. the babbling meanderings of a drunk nomadic van dweller. but look, that bit about democracy is still right. when you distribute executive power more evenly among peoples and groups, the decision making process becomes much more efficient. the evolution of democracies were forced; individuals could no longer solve problems single-handedly because they became too complex. democracy had arrived before it was even conceptually invented by the geeks. just that nobody understood that yet… and even tried to hold it back because it distributed power out of the hands of autocratic entities of state.

This is my problem with you all:

“When you…”

Who is this fucking “you?”

Executive power over what? Power to execute what?

There’s too many holes man!

How about some discipline?

“When you are taking some shit, specially a lot of shit, for granted, look around for someone else’s agenda.”

Marx