Marxism is when you only think about what Marx wrote in his lifetime. I for instance am very concerned about Prussia and it's reactionary regime.
I for instance am very concerned about Prussia and it’s reactionary regime.
Yeah, me too. :germany-cool:
I for instance am very concerned about Prussia and it’s reactionary regime.
I mean, same
i'll have you know this is anti hegelian and you have to return your dialectics badge immediately to the manager of philosophy
When Marx was talking about the king of Prussia, he really meant King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Marx never said "abolish capitalism"
Ah yes, the "I'm not touching you" of political theory
You're right, he just created a new way of conceiving of history, in which various political economies would give way to the next one when conditions were right, and then talked extensively about the political economy that would follow capitalism.
But he never said the specific words "abolish capitalism", so i guess you got us
"got you"?
No, Marx was saying that capitalism created these conditions in the 19th century, good & bad, & that capitalism itself must be utilized and driven to its extreme. Capitalism is "pregnant" with this new reality, but this new reality resembles the old in every way as it is emerging from the "womb" of capitalism. This process results from material & social relations that exist at this moment. The term "aufheben" means not to work backward from what we idealize in our heads, but to "pick up" what exists and carry it toward this higher state of reality
thats who volkvulture is, they were the one whining about vaccine mandates a few days ago
I think we should implement a genzedong style lib cringe weekend for redditor posts outside the dunk tank, I cant handle the psychic damage from posts like this on a regular basis
I leave. I'm safe. I have god to thank.
I blink just once.
Back in the_dunk_tank.
Yeah, dumbshits, Marx never said "religion is the opium of the people" he said:
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
See, he never said ittttt there were several additional even more scathing words in the middle there too!
I don't really see much criticism of atheism in the passage provided, nor in the source document, but indeed, militant atheism, especially as suggested by the new atheists is just as troublesome as religion can be.
Can't win, you get fucked coming and going.
he says he rejects the label & wants to treat with the essence & the social context of philosophy itself
In this "Contribution to the Critique of the Philosophy of Right" Marx is saying in 1843:
"Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics"
"The criticism of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest essence for man – hence, with the categoric imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable essence, relations which cannot be better described than by the cry of a Frenchman when it was planned to introduce a tax on dogs: Poor dogs! They want to treat you as human beings! "
Criticizing religion isn't ultimately the target of humanity's ire, but a way to bring us toward criticizing the institutions & conventions that do hold humanity back in a visceral way
In 1844, Marx writes about the critique of religion as contributing to the formulation of socialism, but that “Atheism, as a negation of God, has no longer any meaning, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation”
This is important because it’s still about the material bearing that any of these philosophical renderings has on social life, and on the individual
“Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions”
Dogmatic atheism for Marx in this sense is to attack humanity’s means to abstractly or at the most socially alleviate its own suffering
Further, Marx writes: “everyone should be able to relieve religious and bodily nature without the police sticking their noses in"
In Capital Marx writes this: “This antagonistic stage cannot be avoided, any more than it is possible for man to avoid the stage in which his spiritual energies are given a religious definition as powers independent of himself. What we are confronted by here is the alienation [Entfremdung] of man from his own labour”
So while Marx was under the influence of the Enlightenment & specifically of Feuerbach’s critique of theology (Feuerbach himself also rejected puerile “atheism” as such), Marx is approaching these things from a historical standpoint to reveal the very human essence at the heart of such striving
This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world
Refuse to believe he wasn't just randomly mashing the typewriter for this sentence
Marx wrote in german and did not write any of these english phrases :expert-shapiro: owned with facts and logic
crossposter is mod of the sub and a "patriotic socialism" post is stickied
someone here on hexbear has explained the difference between global south national liberation movements against colonialism and imperial core patriotism but I don't even have the energy to look for it
I mean it's as simple as national movements in oppressed countries oppose oppression. Nationalism in oppressive countries supports oppression
Yeah, there are useful parallels in the difference between white pride movements vs other ethnic pride movements, "straight pride" vs gay/ trans pride, etc.
Pride/ nationalist movements of dominant groups basically just exist to revel in and reinforce that domination, pride & nationalist groups of marginalized groups tend to focus on keeping people from feeling horrible about themselves for belonging to marginalized groups, and to try to make them less socially and politically marginalized in general.
American patriots can be "other ethnic groups" and have gay/trans pride at the same time
National chauvinism can exist in big & small nations
When your country has been occupied and your people have been oppressed by foreign powers for decades, it’s okay to be patriotic. When your country does the occupation and oppression, it’s not okay to be patriotic. Simple as can be
there is a difference between proletarian patriotism & bourgeois chauvinism
imperial core patriotism doesn't recognize any nation but itself, it is a foreover monster, a cancer that gobbles all it can until it is either consumed or consuming, this is why ussr good, even if it wasn't a national liberation it didn't use patriotism to elevate one above all in a nazi paradox (the paradox being that if the enemy is weak there is no need to rise above it, if it is strong there is no reason to elevate above it), it instead helped friendly nations grow and strengthen and nations become friendly, also why so many communists fell in 1990 though unfortunately
our preferred troll, read the comment again, it was not imperialist patriotism, I explained why, I am not going into philosophy and how the ussr deterritorialized patriotism
American chauvinism & xenophobia are not the same things as patriotic socialism & proletarian internationalism in America, which by themselves are not mutually exclusive
USSR never deterritorialized patriotism, it was always tied to the reality of the land & the people of the constituent republics & fraternal relations among socialist nations
again you didn't read the first comment, as it was exactly my point, the patriotism in the ussr was as much tied to the outside friendly nations as it was to the republics, which were already a deterritorialization compared to bourgeois patriotism, and always subservient to the greater well being of the soviets
Socialist patriotism isn't bourgeois patriotism/chauvinism, the two are anathema
It was desperate measure of 30s though, to find common ground amidst class war in ussr before invasion. It should have been temporary deviation (to use, not to instill). Alas, patriotism got its wormhooks, and mutated over ussr decay period into nationalism. One shouldn’t mistake that for patriotism being desirable.
No, proletarian patriotism in USSR was a constant throughout... as it was in East Germany after WWII
Chauvinism isn't desirable, but pride in one's country & people is
Genuinely where before 30s? Movies about great man to instill pride in past where done then, church was slowly let go.
It isn’t desirable, it’s sometimes necessary evil to forge bonds between classes, but they are rotten from within. As soon as you have more solidarity with petit bourgeois fuck than with worker, cause one is from the same nation and the latter isn’t, you’ve got a problem.
National xenophobic issues in ussr give fairly illustrative example, with slow displacement into Russian chauvinism.
Soviet patriotism & the "Soviet person" was simultaneously proletarian internationalist & proud of their heritage & national identity
Yes, love of one's country & people is "socialism" at its very heart. There is no "forging bonds between classes" as such, it's about promoting socially necessary relations between & among Soviet nations. Indigenization was part of this process, but so was the "New Soviet man", these process worked in tandem
Great-Russian chauvinism always existed in those areas, and only a "patriotic socialism" could address it
But new soviet man wasn’t rooted in nation crucially, while patriotism was. Just look into output of movies before war, with nevsky and grozny pics. It’s fairly obvious what they are doing and why: they are telling kulaks and assorted declassed elements - look, at least we are russians, we can kill any invasion.
Country is garbage heap invented whole cloth after feudalism has finished dividing finite land. What is one’s country if you are born in Lorraine?
People is one thing, you can like your place of growing up (as in location and people), people like remembering childhood. but being proud of kings who fucked over all your ancestry requires truly mesmerizing leap to be considered desirable.
Class solidarity could address it, with indifference to place of birth. But alas, the germany got fucked
It's time for reading some Marx!
On the Abolition of the State and Commodity exchange forms
The "Withering of the State" quote doesn't really need a source, but Engles provides some clarification
Marx and I, ever since 1845, have held the view that one of the final results of the future proletarian revolution will be the gradual dissolution and ultimate disappearance of that political organisation called the State; an organisation the main object of which has been to secure, by armed force, the economical subjection of the working majority to the wealthy minority. At the same time we have always held that in order to arrive at this and the other, far more important ends of the social revolution of the future, the proletarian class will first have to possess itself of the organised political force of the state and with this aid stamp out the resistance of the capitalist class and re-organise society. This is already stated in the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO of 1847, end of Chapter II.
On Gender
We consider the tendency of modern industry to make children and juvenile persons of both sexes co-operate in the great work of social production, as a progressive, sound and legitimate tendency, although under capital it is distorted into an abomination
On the destruction of Capitalist Society
See "Complete works of Karl Marx, 1846-Death"
On Abolition of the Family
Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
Religion is the opium of the masses
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
Yeah he's more sympathetic than the quote seems but he then goes on to attack religion so...not sure what they're going for here.
Engles of course goes much harder on all of these. Read your Engles, it'll kill the Stupidpol in you.
So what you’re saying is that Engles is another Marxoid saying stuff that Marx never said?
We consider the tendency of modern industry to make children and juvenile persons of both sexes co-operate in the great work of social production, as a progressive, sound and legitimate tendency, although under capital it is distorted into an abomination
This seems to be more about child labor than gender. In particular, it reads a lot like it's saying that child labor is great when it's communist.
The context of the quote was I believe in a passage about the gendered separation of labour...But yeah, it doesn't sound that way. Had a better quote but when I sourced it it was actually Engles writing to Marx.
He apparently studied Deleuze and Guattari in college.
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5730762/buzzfeeds-founder-used-to-write-marxist-theory-and-it-explains
I remember reading a right wing history text that was a broad history of the 18th and 19th centuries and it at one point wrote "'religion is the opiate of the masses' a prominent 19th century philosopher sneered "
And then a chapter later it was detailing a bit about Marx and the rise of Marxian theory and Marxist political activism.
lmao who's scared of saying the name huh
lol p sure most of these are things lenin said, but expecting them to read a second thing would just be too much
Marx said all of them, Engles said them double. Lenin was in support but not nearly as firey as Engles about it.
I mean they’re basically misrepresenting Marx with all of these points, but uhhh, one of those really stands out.
