ohhp, there he goes. acute aggressive sexual innuendos subconsciously generated from a discursive phenomenological transplatonic Reichean libidinal redux.
ya shood be drenken scotch
Prom… if you think that wine is filmy, it’s got nothing on Port… now that stuff is the consistency of a fruity light jus, and just as sweet.
China launched for Mars yesterday. Know what the U.S. did yesterday? Nuthin.
State capitalism moves a country forward at a much more steady pace at the expense of a few personal freedoms which you end up not noticing are missing once you’ve acclimatized to this way of life.
If you could quantify the amount of happiness, you’d find the Chinese have the most.
It cannot be stressed enough how important comrade Mao was to the future of the planet. What he seized and set into motion was the evolution of a great dragon that would lead progress forward in the expansion of the human species.
Chinaman goes to Mars… American goes to Walmart. We need not talk about small steps and giant leaps here.
Capitalism changes how it works if it reaches a certain scale.
Monopolizing, vs privately owned small business.
Competition brings down prices sometimes,
but not if there is a monopoly.
NWO is that monopoly.
The great monolithic monster conservative snow flakes fear the most is not the godless communist spectre, but the corporation so powerful that it is indistinguishable from a government in its ability to control society.
The irony is, it’s Marxism that can save them from their own Frankenstein. Somebody musta put into these idiots heads that Karl was the bad guy. Unbelievable, dan. Unbelievable. Anybody who joins a beer drinking club and ends up at the top, cant be a bad guy. Its logically impossible.
Equality is a sign of dull senses.
It’s like sayingn things have no uniqueness, when in fact, uniqueness is in everything.
In marxism, there may have been an error, considering all religion as bad.
Dull senses would say religion is all the same.
When it’s not.
On the other hand, some times culture can become so sick,
that it needs to be aborted.
The positives would outweigh the negatives to just destroy a corrupted religion.
Kay you lost me there, dan. You’re gonna have to say whatever it was you were sayin, differently… and then I’ll give it another shot.
Religions are systems of memes and humans.
Cultural entities.
Marxism is also a cultural entity.
Culture mutates a lot.
It has no master.
I see religions and philosophies as cultural entities.
And now kim defends kanye’s ‘bi-polar’ disorder as if that shit is anything more than the temper tanturing of an obnoxious mental midget who stopped maturing emotionally at 15.
In any event I shall certainly vote for him if he runs for president. I would totally like to see what would happen to this country if he got it. Fuck I’d almost pay to see something like that.
I gotta disagree I think. To me, marxism - historical materialism - is more akin to a physics or a mechanics than an anthropology. To call it cultural is to expose its truths to those ideological ambiguities that constantly change. But the premises of Marxism never change… cannot change… so long as the material universe exists.
Moreover, I could argue that culture is the product of the forces marxism identifies, and in that marxism stands above and beyond its effects.
Now look, it’s not as easy as you think to figure out what this is sayin. It is a complete rejection of any reality directed and determined by that cartesian second substance cogito, allegedly ‘free’ of the deterministic forces of the material relations it is embedded in. In shorthand the ‘monism’ of this theory must reject the notion that there can be objective things like ‘rights’ that arent conditioned by the ruling class ideas that dominate the period in which those considerations are made.
You didn’t get that the first time around so read it again. It’s a very subtle thing you’ve got to do some digging to get.
What is ‘ideal’, or thought of as ‘ideal’, is not derived directly from the facts of the material relations themselves, but from the minds of people engaged in those relations who either wish to sustain or abolish their present circumstances. That being the case, you cant trust that a notion such as a ‘right’ won’t be an idea originating in, and for, the personal bias of the subject engaged in his particular conflict.
Marxism bypasses this problem entirely and refuses even to call socialsm/communism an ‘ideal’ in a technical philosophical sense.
Not that socialism ‘should’ happen, but that it is likely to happen, or something like it anyway. People mistake a Marxist’s enthusiasm for socialism as some kind of claim to an ‘ideal’ based on some multifarious set of ‘rights’.
Hell a marxist’ll be the first one to tell you there ain’t no rights.
If and when you knuckleheads start even kinda understanding this stuff, I’ve no doubt that you will relish me with apologies for my having to endure the spectacle of your idiocy for so many years.
But I shan’t accept that apology because I cannot blame you or your cogito.
I suffer and endure this for my own atonement then.
Right there. That’s what I said/meant earlier but way better.
You gotta forget about marxism as some kind of ‘cause’ people stand for. It was made clear form the beginning that the beard was cold and hard and impervious to all that hegelian moral tomfoolery of the day.
I myself wouldn’t go so far as to compare Marxism with physics or chemistry or geology; but, socially, politically and economically, it starts in the right place: the means of production.
What do all human communities, both historically and culturally, share in common? Obviously: subsistence. We all need to access to food and water, to clothing and shelter, to defense, to a reasonably stable environment in which to reproduce.
So Marx went down through the ages and noted different renditions of this: nomadic, slash and burn, hunters and gatherers, agriculturalists. Then feudalism, mercantilism, capitalism. From customs and traditions that prevailed in smaller tribal communities, to those societies in which increasing surplus labor provided for the emergence of complex economic classes.
No Gods here, no spiritual or mystical elements, no astrologists or numerologists. Just noting as rationally as one is able how human beings actually go about the business of sustaining a means of production rooted in “political economy”.
In other words, those in power politically – the ruling class, the deep state – are going to be those who own and operate the economy. On a local or state or national or global level. Look around you. Where is that not the case?
And I will be the first to acknowledge that my own moral and political philosophy – nihilism – doesn’t make any of this go away.
Unless of course I’m wrong.
No you’re right in the assessment. But even if you do think of this battle between right and left as ‘just another conflict of powers’, each holding itself to be THE objective right power, it doesn’t make the sensibility that putting the power in power that is the power of the most, rather than the power of the much fewer, go away. This is a no brainer here and no philosophy is needed.
So if you’re forced into taking sides of one power in a fight between two, and no amount of political nihilism can stop you from having to engage existentially with the world around you, you can’t escape this engagement with skeptical quietism.
Really what I’m saying rather cryptically is that in fact the very expression of existential philosophy is a symptom of the things historical materialism has identified already in its analysis of how ‘ideology’, i.e., belief systems, cultural practices, habits and customs, etc., evolve.
For a genuine HM, the problems existential philosophers were occupied with solving were either philosophical non problems, real but arbitrary trivial problems, or very important problems generated in identifiably economic conditions that if changed, might cease to exist.
So when we generally see a skeptical nihilist make his case, what we’re paying attention to is not the existential party slogans of meaninglessness and oblivion and the epistemological groundlessness of ethical claims and all that jive… but rather the sigh of the oppressed iambiguous creature. We find these kinds of expressions are very common among the working classes as a kind of anomie that comes with the territory. It’s that territory we’re investigating. We want to know why the evolution of history has produced this very stage in the intellectual development of man. Why the existentialist. That is our question.
But since the classes identified by marx still exist, despite lacking the severity by contrast if you compare them to the classes during the industrial revolution, an identifiable conflict of power is happening and has been happening ever since surplus property and labor became available to relatively large societies.
So you gotta pick a side, biggs, and reminding a HM of the pointlessness of everything is a wasted effort. We awready know that.
lol holy shit
the chinese have the most happiness, really?
are you sure it’s not north korea?
i mean, between the too, which one is the most likely to send you to a forced labor camp if you answer “i’m not happy” on a poll?
kind of a tough match there
that’s a bit modest
don’t you think that a conflict of power began a little bit earlier than that?