leftcom is when you materially analyze the political economy of a nation instead of being deluded

nah, Id give him more credit then that.

that's not what I said. I think you guys are taking "grifter" too seriously of an accusation. I'm simply saying that he does what he does not because of his commitment to a communist revolution, but rather to make a living and maintain his reputation. basically all academics are grifters in this sense. it doesn't mean that their ideas are inherently invalid, it is just a limitation to be acknowledged when engaging with them.

it is true

you can talk about how he regurgitates the same ideas constantly, or critique some of his contrarian takes, but they are rather trivial and he's frankly a good intellectual by all means. most importantly, he's not interested in doing a revolution. he is content with writing books, giving lectures, etc. he has no political project that is actionable. of course, its totally understandable for a 72 year old to be in such a state.

these words say something, idk

no, you are wrong

have you looked at the responses in this thread, this is what people literally think is idealism and materialism. I hoped that the post will make people realize that they are seriously misunderstanding a foundational concept to marxism, and that they would actually go read marx. Theses On Feuerbach from The German Ideology in particular, in regards to materialism.

Im just telling you that you are wrong, Im not being condescending.

No sane human actually believes that one's ideas dictate how the world works, that if you think differently, the world will literally change due to your will. It's just a ridiculous strawman for intellectually lazy vulgar materialists to abuse. In these interpretations, idealism means focusing on "subjectivity" rather than focusing on "objectivity" like materialism, and of course, facts and logic triumph over feelings, so materialism is superior. Basically forcefully removing as much human subjectivity from the equation to obtain some "materialist" position that seems objectively correct. In the political context, this is manifested in brainworms such as economic determinism and all sorts of other essentialism and reductionism that seek to reduce history and society into a mechanical process, where the facts and logic of "the material conditions" dictate its progress, regardless of your feelings.

The materialism of Marx is not about the rejection and exclusion of human subjectivity, it is in fact the opposite. It is about embracing them and incorporating them into the equation to lead humanity to liberation.

wrong

yeah, and why dont we bring back phrenology while we are at it

nope

*Stalinism

literally wrong

yes, that was the intention. a lot of :wonder-who-thats-for: energy in this thread, unsurprisingly

nice try, but still wrong

you are overthinking it and being dogmatic. You are talking to another person and trying to get across your ideas. You dont have to exaggerate the importance of race here. Analysis based on things like race are helpful when you are looking at all of society, less so when you are talking to an individual. It is up to you to decide based on the circumstance, what points you make will resonate with who you are talking to, and which points arent worth bringing up. Dont worry too much about failing in this regard, you will improve as you accumulate more experience, reflect upon your actions, and as you learn more theory.

its just wishful thinking, that people will turn to communism naturally as conditions deteriorate

:disgost:

the dialectic