babyhueypnewton posted:getfiscal posted:babyhueypnewton posted:getfiscal posted:baby huey, what is the reason you want to see communism come about.
it would be totally rad. doesn't really matter though, capitalism is in a terminal crisis and i guess its a value judgement to say i would prefer a communist system to a cormac mccarthy hellscape. all those 'marxists' in the 80s/90s who either turned into liberals or nihilists didn't have the patience I guess, or were afraid of death and not seeing communism within their lifetime. feel bad for guys like hobsbawm who just seems really sad and old.
well yes it is a value judgment, as is saying it'd be rad or whatever. but like don't you think that's a bit vague? like either a social system adheres to total transparent stateless ecocommunism a long time from now when everything is great or else it's not worth thinking about moral dilemmas? i just don't like that you seem so dismissive of ethics, which underpins a rejection of liberalism i think, for reasons that seem really vague to me, mostly because i tend to believe that it's a cop out generally to say you don't need to learn about something
actually it's because someone who is unwilling to present himself on the battlefield is not worthy of a joust. i appreciate your knowledge of marxism and philosophy, which makes you the only non-derivative troll, but my beliefs are shocking enough to not need to be veiled or pitted against phantoms. i can argue against liberalism and populism in real life with anyone.
*kicks jukebox, internationale begins playing*
babyhueypnewton posted:actually it's because someone who is unwilling to present himself on the battlefield is not worthy of a joust. i appreciate your knowledge of marxism and philosophy, which makes you the only non-derivative troll, but my beliefs are shocking enough to not need to be veiled or pitted against phantoms. i can argue against liberalism and populism in real life with anyone.
yes but they are beliefs, they have a moral foundation, you just don't seem to be explicit about that foundation on the pretense that marxism is supposed to be oriented entirely to a process of social transformation where the entire focus is on the end product of unlimited good. but if it's just a plain language problem where we're talking about the sort of society we want to live in, and where our everyday problems matter a lot, then you can't freeze your life into a sort of extreme dedication to a single all-encompassing cause.
babyfinland posted:youre finnish?
nope
Crow posted:Who the fuck doesn't know what iggy pops album The Idiot looks like? Whqat the fucking fuckj?? Fuck YOU!
lol.. guitar music...
getfiscal posted:baby huey, what is the reason you want to see communism come about.
that's a ridiculous question. you see the flaws of the current system, start analysing why the current system doesn't work, then you realise marxism has the best analysis of capitalism and its flaws and then you work from there. you don't have a "reason to want to see communism come about", that's retarded. if you're a marxist you believe that some kind of socialism is literally the only way to resolve the internal contradictions of capitalism and you base that belief on a solid theoretical, materialist analysis. marxism is not a utopian project you choose to believe in because you prefer it over other utopian projects, it's an analysis that leads to certain conclusions.
catpee posted:getfiscal posted:baby huey, what is the reason you want to see communism come about.
that's a ridiculous question. you see the flaws of the current system, start analysing why the current system doesn't work, then you realise marxism has the best analysis of capitalism and its flaws and then you work from there. you don't have a "reason to want to see communism come about", that's retarded. if you're a marxist you believe that some kind of socialism is literally the only way to resolve the internal contradictions of capitalism and you base that belief on a solid theoretical, materialist analysis. marxism is not a utopian project you choose to believe in because you prefer it over other utopian projects, it's an analysis that leads to certain conclusions.
marxian critique is descriptive not prescriptive, noob
catpee posted:getfiscal posted:baby huey, what is the reason you want to see communism come about.
that's a ridiculous question. you see the flaws of the current system, start analysing why the current system doesn't work, then you realise marxism has the best analysis of capitalism and its flaws and then you work from there. you don't have a "reason to want to see communism come about", that's retarded. if you're a marxist you believe that some kind of socialism is literally the only way to resolve the internal contradictions of capitalism and you base that belief on a solid theoretical, materialist analysis. marxism is not a utopian project you choose to believe in because you prefer it over other utopian projects, it's an analysis that leads to certain conclusions.
the existence of contradictions doesn't necessarily mean they have to be resolved, it could just be a tension that exists indefinitely. so yes you'd have to say that one particular outcome was more consistent with your ethical viewpoint than others. the idea that some future situation will be "better" is by definition based on an idea of what's good. and the fact that if you ask two marxists what the socialist transition should look like and you get three answers should tell you that maybe it's not some smarty man scientific project that you can derive from logical precision. because if it really were obvious then it would be obvious to everyone and it would have already happened long ago.
babyfinland posted:catpee posted:getfiscal posted:baby huey, what is the reason you want to see communism come about.
that's a ridiculous question. you see the flaws of the current system, start analysing why the current system doesn't work, then you realise marxism has the best analysis of capitalism and its flaws and then you work from there. you don't have a "reason to want to see communism come about", that's retarded. if you're a marxist you believe that some kind of socialism is literally the only way to resolve the internal contradictions of capitalism and you base that belief on a solid theoretical, materialist analysis. marxism is not a utopian project you choose to believe in because you prefer it over other utopian projects, it's an analysis that leads to certain conclusions.
marxian critique is descriptive not prescriptive, noob
that doesn't really address what he said
Crow posted:babyfinland posted:catpee posted:getfiscal posted:baby huey, what is the reason you want to see communism come about.
that's a ridiculous question. you see the flaws of the current system, start analysing why the current system doesn't work, then you realise marxism has the best analysis of capitalism and its flaws and then you work from there. you don't have a "reason to want to see communism come about", that's retarded. if you're a marxist you believe that some kind of socialism is literally the only way to resolve the internal contradictions of capitalism and you base that belief on a solid theoretical, materialist analysis. marxism is not a utopian project you choose to believe in because you prefer it over other utopian projects, it's an analysis that leads to certain conclusions.
marxian critique is descriptive not prescriptive, noob
that doesn't really address what he said
in fact it does indeed.
Crow posted:how can you take analysis inspiring conclusion and twist it into prescriptivism. Thats a fail. FTL. Fail.
much like the soviet union
tpaine posted:hey iwc, how do you pronounce "aluminum"
is it
1) uh-LOOM-in-um
b) ail-oo-MIN-yum
x) alompidoodlestein
if it's 1, you're american. if it's b, you're an aussie. if it's x, you're pronunciationmanuel. i want to die.
close to (b) but it's 5 syllables
al-oo-MIN-ee-um
getfiscal posted:the existence of contradictions doesn't necessarily mean they have to be resolved, it could just be a tension that exists indefinitely. so yes you'd have to say that one particular outcome was more consistent with your ethical viewpoint than others. the idea that some future situation will be "better" is by definition based on an idea of what's good.
nonsense, there will probably always be contradictions but they don't have to be the same contradictions. thinking otherwise is ahistorical. if you follow the marxist analysis it's obvious that the current contradictions in the system are causing the entirety of human society enormous suffering and are even potentially threatening the existence of life itself. therefore you want a proper solution that actually resolves/changes the contradictions of the current system so we can head onwards towards exciting new contradictions and the horrible problems they'll pose. i guess you're right that wanting to create a more humanist society or thinking the existence of life is worth protecting implies a value judgement, but i don't see why that should matter. everything is a value judgement. what other value judgement would you make and how would you support it? (cue: "fuck this gay earth, kill all humans")
and the fact that if you ask two marxists what the socialist transition should look like and you get three answers should tell you that maybe it's not some smarty man scientific project that you can derive from logical precision. because if it really were obvious then it would be obvious to everyone and it would have already happened long ago.
what? why did you even type this. marxism is based on (a pretty good attempt at) a scientific analysis of capitalism. we can draw some conclusions from this analysis about what we should try to achieve in order to create a different system. what precise, concrete steps we should take (and in which specific context and in what specific order) to arrive at a different economic system with different contradictions is obv impossible to know without trial and error. theoretical maths often can't be proven or applied for a long time either and they don't have nearly as many variables to deal with as an attempt to analyse/transform human society. doesn't mean that the "smarty man scientific project that you can derive from logical precision" is unscientific or just a "utopia" like any other.
getfiscal i think you largely agree with this in your heart but there's a part of you that just wants to become a banker and stop caring too much about this marxism shit.
catpee posted:i guess you're right that wanting to create a more humanist society or thinking the existence of life is worth protecting implies a value judgement, but i don't see why that should matter. everything is a value judgement. what other value judgement would you make and how would you support it? (cue: "fuck this gay earth, kill all humans")
well because when you start thinking about value judgments then it turns out that metaethics is actually a really complex field of study and the last time people said fuck ethics well you end up with gulags?
Reality TV World - Jun 11, 2012
getfiscal posted:catpee posted:i guess you're right that wanting to create a more humanist society or thinking the existence of life is worth protecting implies a value judgement, but i don't see why that should matter. everything is a value judgement. what other value judgement would you make and how would you support it? (cue: "fuck this gay earth, kill all humans")
well because when you start thinking about value judgments then it turns out that metaethics is actually a really complex field of study and the last time people said fuck ethics well you end up with gulags?
Oh reallyis that what happened lol Fail.
We can now begin to understand why doxology and ceremonials are so essential to power. What is at stake is the capture and inscription in a separate sphere of the inoperativity that is central to human life. The oikonomia of power places firmly at its heart, in the form of festival and glory, what appears to its eyes as the inoperativity of man and God, which cannot be looked at. Human life is inoperative and without purpose, but precisely this argia and this absence of aim make the incomparable operativity of the human species possible. Man has dedicated himself to production and labor , because in his essence he is completely devoid of work , because he is the Sabbatical animal par excellence. And just as the machine of the theological oikonomia can function only if it writes within its core a doxological threshold in which economic trinity and immanent trinity are ceaselessly and liturgically (that is, politically) in motion, each passing into the other, so the governmental apparatus functions because it has captured in its empty center the inoperativity of the human essence. This inoperativity is the political substance of the Occident, the glorious nutrient of all power. For this reason festival and idleness return ceaselessly in the dreams and political utopias of the Occident and are equally incessantly shipwrecked there. They are the enigmatic relics that the economic-theological machine abandons on the water’s edge of civilization and that each time men question anew, nostalgically and in vain. Nostalgically because they appear to contain something that belongs to the human essence, but in vain because really they are nothing but the waste products of the immaterial and glorious fuel burnt by the motor of the machine as it turns, and that cannot be stopped.
One can therefore understand the essential function that the tradition of Western philosophy has assigned to contemplative life and to inoperativity: properly human praxis is sabbatism that, by rendering the specific functions of the living inoperative, opens them to possibility. Contemplation and inoperativity are, in this sense, the metaphysical operators of anthropogenesis, which, by liberating the living man from his biological or social destiny, assign him to that indefinable dimension that we are accustomed to call “politics.” Opposing the contemplative life to the political as “two bioi” (Aristotle, Politics, 1324a, p. 2102), Aristotle deflected politics and philosophy from their trajectory and, at the same time, delineated the paradigm on which the economy-glory apparatus would model itself. The political is neither a bios nor a zōē, but the dimension that the inoperativity of contemplation, by deactivating linguistic and corporeal, material and immaterial praxes, ceaselessly opens and assigns to the living. For this reason, from the perspective of theological oikonomia the genealogy of which we have here traced, nothing is more urgent than to incorporate inoperativity within its own apparatuses. Zōē aiōnios, eternal life, is the name of this inoperative center of the human, of this political “substance” of the Occident that the machine of the economy and of glory ceaselessly attempts to capture within itself.
I will abide by the stated terms of embedding this video and acknowledge blackgnosis.com.