Left-Wing Discussion Thread II: Behind 700,000 Bunkers

[Liriena]

tbf though Marxism is itself pretty idealistic

That's not what he means by idealism.

Idealism is philosophical stance that that the unfolding of ideas is what drives history and human society. Marxism is materialist.

Yeah. One of the things that made Marxism special in the first place is that it concerns itself a great deal with material conditions when looking at history. An idealist might see history as a succession of schools of thought or great philosophical texts/authors, but Marxists tend to look at history in terms of tangible socio-economic processes down to stuff like the everyday lifestyle and living conditions of the working class in one place and time.

[Sanctissima]

That's not what he means by idealism.

Idealism is philosophical stance that that the unfolding of ideas is what drives history and human society. Marxism is materialist.

Yeah. One of the things that made Marxism special in the first place is that it concerns itself a great deal with material conditions when looking at history. An idealist might see history as a succession of schools of thought or great philosophical texts/authors, but Marxists tend to look at history in terms of tangible socio-economic processes down to stuff like the everyday lifestyle and living conditions of the working class in one place and time.

I mean, you say that, but Marx wasn't terribly unique in that regard.

People like Adam Smith, David Hume and even John Locke were pretty materialist in outlook long before Marx came on the scene. Early Marxists tended to consider their political ideology to be some kind of revolutionary new line of thought in political and economic theory, but realistically they were just a blip on the radar, and many others had come up with similar ideas long before them.

Hell, even as early as the 6th century AD, Mazdak, the Zoroastrian priest, was advocating the abolition of private property and redistribution of wealth. Marxism didn't add all that much new, at least ideologically, to the table.

[Victoriala II]

Hath the young hegelians done nothing wrong

[Kubra]

That's not what he means by idealism.

Idealism is philosophical stance that that the unfolding of ideas is what drives history and human society. Marxism is materialist.

Oh, the other kind of idealism.
Not the "everyone can get along if we want them to hard enough" kind.

Communism organizes its material life on the basis of the confrontation and interplay of needs - which does not exclude conflicts and even some form of violence. Men will not turn into angels: why should they?

[Proctopeo]

Oh, the other kind of idealism.
Not the "everyone can get along if we want them to hard enough" kind.

Communism organizes its material life on the basis of the confrontation and interplay of needs - which does not exclude conflicts and even some form of violence. Men will not turn into angels: why should they?

[Kubra]

Yeah. One of the things that made Marxism special in the first place is that it concerns itself a great deal with material conditions when looking at history. An idealist might see history as a succession of schools of thought or great philosophical texts/authors, but Marxists tend to look at history in terms of tangible socio-economic processes down to stuff like the everyday lifestyle and living conditions of the working class in one place and time.

I mean, you say that, but Marx wasn't terribly unique in that regard.

People like Adam Smith, David Hume and even John Locke were pretty materialist in outlook long before Marx came on the scene. Early Marxists tended to consider their political ideology to be some kind of revolutionary new line of thought in political and economic theory, but realistically they were just a blip on the radar, and many others had come up with similar ideas long before them.

Hell, even as early as the 6th century AD, Mazdak, the Zoroastrian priest, was advocating the abolition of private property and redistribution of wealth. Marxism didn't add all that much new, at least ideologically, to the table.

notincing a bit of confusion here about what exactly materialism means in context, given that lockes empiricism was about the perfection of gods systems and all their ethical philosophies (hume included, to some extent) tend towards metaphysical explanations of moral sentiments.

[Kubra]

Communism organizes its material life on the basis of the confrontation and interplay of needs - which does not exclude conflicts and even some form of violence. Men will not turn into angels: why should they?

tl;dr we ain't about getting along all swell for all time, we're about communism.

[Proctopeo]

tl;dr we ain't about getting along all swell for all time, we're about communism.

The definition of "idealism" I was going for was more of the kind that contrasts cynicism or realism, although I'm not completely sure how to express it in words.
I'd try music, but I can only whistle.

[Liriena]

Yeah. One of the things that made Marxism special in the first place is that it concerns itself a great deal with material conditions when looking at history. An idealist might see history as a succession of schools of thought or great philosophical texts/authors, but Marxists tend to look at history in terms of tangible socio-economic processes down to stuff like the everyday lifestyle and living conditions of the working class in one place and time.

I mean, you say that, but Marx wasn't terribly unique in that regard.

People like Adam Smith, David Hume and even John Locke were pretty materialist in outlook long before Marx came on the scene. Early Marxists tended to consider their political ideology to be some kind of revolutionary new line of thought in political and economic theory, but realistically they were just a blip on the radar, and many others had come up with similar ideas long before them.

Hell, even as early as the 6th century AD, Mazdak, the Zoroastrian priest, was advocating the abolition of private property and redistribution of wealth. Marxism didn't add all that much new, at least ideologically, to the table.

I appreciate you bringing up historical precedents for Marxism, but I'd probably appreciate that a lot more if it wasn't for the rather mean-spirited intent behind it.

[Sanctissima]

I mean, you say that, but Marx wasn't terribly unique in that regard.

People like Adam Smith, David Hume and even John Locke were pretty materialist in outlook long before Marx came on the scene. Early Marxists tended to consider their political ideology to be some kind of revolutionary new line of thought in political and economic theory, but realistically they were just a blip on the radar, and many others had come up with similar ideas long before them.

Hell, even as early as the 6th century AD, Mazdak, the Zoroastrian priest, was advocating the abolition of private property and redistribution of wealth. Marxism didn't add all that much new, at least ideologically, to the table.

notincing a bit of confusion here about what exactly materialism means in context, given that lockes empiricism was about the perfection of gods systems and all their ethical philosophies (hume included, to some extent) tend towards metaphysical explanations of moral sentiments.

I mean, if we continue with that line of thought, was Marx really any different? He just substituted God with the proletariat, and when he wanted a catch-all evil force to explain all of society's woes he substituted Satan and sin with Capitalism.

Does it really matter if the former used divinity as their inspiration? Their fundamental ideas focused far more on reality and every day mundane affairs than metaphysics and the divine.

[War Gears]

in terms of tangible socio-economic processes

That's what every historian does.

And Marxism's "tangible socioeconomic processes" can be quite vague and more ideologically motivated than realistic. Such as the assertion of the Soviet encyclopedia that characterized Motoori Norinaga's thought as "laying the foundations for bourgeois monarchist nationalism," and "undermining the shogunate."

[Sanctissima]

I mean, you say that, but Marx wasn't terribly unique in that regard.

People like Adam Smith, David Hume and even John Locke were pretty materialist in outlook long before Marx came on the scene. Early Marxists tended to consider their political ideology to be some kind of revolutionary new line of thought in political and economic theory, but realistically they were just a blip on the radar, and many others had come up with similar ideas long before them.

Hell, even as early as the 6th century AD, Mazdak, the Zoroastrian priest, was advocating the abolition of private property and redistribution of wealth. Marxism didn't add all that much new, at least ideologically, to the table.

I appreciate you bringing up historical precedents for Marxism, but I'd probably appreciate that a lot more if it wasn't for the rather mean-spirited intent behind it.

Oh dear, I insulted jolly Saint Karl! Somebody call the KGB!

[Kubra]

notincing a bit of confusion here about what exactly materialism means in context, given that lockes empiricism was about the perfection of gods systems and all their ethical philosophies (hume included, to some extent) tend towards metaphysical explanations of moral sentiments.

I mean, if we continue with that line of thought, was Marx really any different? He just substituted God with the proletariat, and when he wanted a catch-all evil force to explain all of society's woes he substituted Satan and sin with Capitalism.

Does it really matter if the former used divinity as their inspiration? Their fundamental ideas focused far more on reality and every day mundane affairs than metaphysics and the divine.

>with the proletariat
a class that came into its own just in the 19th century, spending the previous ones as a basically nothing

>Does it really matter if the former used divinity as their inspiration?
Insofar as it makes it idealist as opposed to materialist, yes. Really now, does speaking of cause and effect in aristotlean or humian terms have any effect on the rising of the sun? No, but still, we ain't aristotleans.

[Kubra]

in terms of tangible socio-economic processes

That's what every historian does.

And Marxism's "tangible socioeconomic processes" can be quite vague and more ideologically motivated than realistic. Such as the assertion of the Soviet encyclopedia that characterized Motoori Norinaga's thought as "laying the foundations for bourgeois monarchist nationalism," and "undermining the shogunate."

If by "every historian" you mean every historian of the 20th and 21st century
Marx came about at a time when Carlyle was the most important historian in britain and anthropology was the study of who was most deserving of colonisation.
I mean, the old marxian analysis of the early 20th is a bit dated by todays standards, but y'know most social science writing of the time was kinda bad.

[Sanctissima]

I mean, if we continue with that line of thought, was Marx really any different? He just substituted God with the proletariat, and when he wanted a catch-all evil force to explain all of society's woes he substituted Satan and sin with Capitalism.

Does it really matter if the former used divinity as their inspiration? Their fundamental ideas focused far more on reality and every day mundane affairs than metaphysics and the divine.

>with the proletariat
a class that came into its own just in the 19th century, spending the previous ones as a basically nothing

>Does it really matter if the former used divinity as their inspiration?
Insofar as it makes it idealist as opposed to materialist, yes. Really now, does speaking of cause and effect in aristotlean or humian terms have any effect on the rising of the sun? No, but still, we ain't aristotleans.

>literally stole the name 'proletariat' from an Ancient Roman social class

It was literally just a matter of finding who was the poorest and most oppressed group in any particular historical timeframe. Minus blacks and the Jews, because Karl was both racist and an anti-semite. If you were a poor chimney sweeper living in a shitty run-down London tenement, you were Jesus. If you were a bourgeois factory owner, preferably with a top hat and twirly moustache, you were the Devil incarnate.

So no, Marx, Hume and others did not differ terribly much in terms of their philosophical idealism. Marx just thought he was unique because he considered his ideology "scientific", although I doubt he genuinely knew what that even meant, and just co-opted the term because it was what all the cool kids were doing.

[Kubra]

>with the proletariat
a class that came into its own just in the 19th century, spending the previous ones as a basically nothing

>Does it really matter if the former used divinity as their inspiration?
Insofar as it makes it idealist as opposed to materialist, yes. Really now, does speaking of cause and effect in aristotlean or humian terms have any effect on the rising of the sun? No, but still, we ain't aristotleans.

>literally stole the name 'proletariat' from an Ancient Roman social class

It was literally just a matter of finding who was the poorest and most oppressed group in any particular historical timeframe. Minus blacks and the Jews, because Karl was both racist and an anti-semite. If you were a poor chimney sweeper living in a shitty run-down London tenement, you were Jesus. If you were a bourgeois factory owner, preferably with a top hat and twirly moustache, you were the Devil incarnate.

So no, Marx, Hume and others did not differ terribly much in terms of their philosophical idealism. Marx just thought he was unique because he considered his ideology "scientific", although I doubt he genuinely knew what that even meant, and just co-opted the term because it was what all the cool kids were doing.

Oh wow a law student using latin
In any case, you'd be a bit daft to consider the roman proletarian to be a significant social force, bruv. Marx sure didn't.

>If you were a poor chimney sweeper living in a shitty run-down London tenement, you were Jesus
nah, lumpens generally got a bad rap with Marx. Illiterate chimney sweeper might have too great a penchant for little napoleons.

Oh wow get a load of this guy, he's found out that philosophy does not effect the movement of the sun and has now figured he's solved it. Look, if you don't care for philosophy in general, why puzzle over philosophical differences in the first place?

>Marx just thought he was unique because he considered his ideology "scientific"
Everyone considered their ideology science. Even Hegel. The 19th century was a weird century, the transition between the magic of alchemy to the mathematical rationality of modern chemistry.

[The Liberated Territories]

^^

Marxism is scientific, I am just a brainwashed "ideologue" yep

Marxism's biggest flaw is it is based on a fallacy: that events from the past can determine the future.

[Kubra]

^^

Marxism is scientific, I am just a brainwashed "ideologue" yep

Marxism's biggest flaw is it is based on a fallacy: that events from the past can determine the future.

Uhhh I never said it was scientific, I said that scientific was a weird term in the 19th century

>that events from the past can determine the future.
The present and future generally has its antecedent's in the past
that ain't even marxism

[Liriena]

in terms of tangible socio-economic processes

That's what every historian does.

And Marxism's "tangible socioeconomic processes" can be quite vague and more ideologically motivated than realistic. Such as the assertion of the Soviet encyclopedia that characterized Motoori Norinaga's thought as "laying the foundations for bourgeois monarchist nationalism," and "undermining the shogunate."

There was a Soviet encyclopedia?

Ooooooh, I bet is was homophobic af. :/

[Liriena]

I appreciate you bringing up historical precedents for Marxism, but I'd probably appreciate that a lot more if it wasn't for the rather mean-spirited intent behind it.

Oh dear, I insulted jolly Saint Karl! Somebody call the KGB!

Pfff, I like Gramsci more. And Kropotkin had the better beard.

[36 Camera Perspective]

^^

Marxism is scientific, I am just a brainwashed "ideologue" yep

Marxism's biggest flaw is it is based on a fallacy: that events from the past can determine the future.

Uhhh I never said it was scientific, I said that scientific was a weird term in the 19th century

>that events from the past can determine the future.
The present and future generally has its antecedent's in the past
that ain't even marxism

The past is barely even past.

[Liriena]

^^

Marxism is scientific, I am just a brainwashed "ideologue" yep

Marxism's biggest flaw is it is based on a fallacy: that events from the past can determine the future.

Umm... how is that a fallacy? Our present is a product of our history, so why not our future?

[Kubra]

Uhhh I never said it was scientific, I said that scientific was a weird term in the 19th century

>that events from the past can determine the future.
The present and future generally has its antecedent's in the past
that ain't even marxism

The past is barely even past.

a decade ago is already a weird place for those experiencing the present
Like, I still can't comprehend that fold-out phone keyboards were a thing, and I'm holding one.
let me specify, I ain't using it, I found it while cleaning.

[Sanctissima]

>literally stole the name 'proletariat' from an Ancient Roman social class

It was literally just a matter of finding who was the poorest and most oppressed group in any particular historical timeframe. Minus blacks and the Jews, because Karl was both racist and an anti-semite. If you were a poor chimney sweeper living in a shitty run-down London tenement, you were Jesus. If you were a bourgeois factory owner, preferably with a top hat and twirly moustache, you were the Devil incarnate.

So no, Marx, Hume and others did not differ terribly much in terms of their philosophical idealism. Marx just thought he was unique because he considered his ideology "scientific", although I doubt he genuinely knew what that even meant, and just co-opted the term because it was what all the cool kids were doing.

Oh wow a law student using latin
In any case, you'd be a bit daft to consider the roman proletarian to be a significant social force, bruv. Marx sure didn't.

>If you were a poor chimney sweeper living in a shitty run-down London tenement, you were Jesus
nah, lumpens generally got a bad rap with Marx. Illiterate chimney sweeper might have too great a penchant for little napoleons.

Oh wow get a load of this guy, he's found out that philosophy does not effect the movement of the sun and has now figured he's solved it. Look, if you don't care for philosophy in general, why puzzle over philosophical differences in the first place?

>Marx just thought he was unique because he considered his ideology "scientific"
Everyone considered their ideology science. Even Hegel. The 19th century was a weird century, the transition between the magic of alchemy to the mathematical rationality of modern chemistry.

Correction: Law student drop-out

True, the proles of Rome were quite the insignificant demographic. Still, didn't stop Marx from adopting them as the name-sake of his end-all be-all oppressed group which he could use as a rallying cry ad perpetuum. I guess the plebs just didn't make the cut. Far too bourgeois you see, relying on that daily bread dole.

>Everyone considered their ideology science. Even Hegel.
That's not really an excuse. Especially when "scientific Socialism" is still lauded in many modern Socialist circles. Then again modern Socialism does seem to have a bit of a problem letting go of outdated half-rate relics from the 19th century. :^)

[Liriena]

Oh wow a law student using latin
In any case, you'd be a bit daft to consider the roman proletarian to be a significant social force, bruv. Marx sure didn't.

>If you were a poor chimney sweeper living in a shitty run-down London tenement, you were Jesus
nah, lumpens generally got a bad rap with Marx. Illiterate chimney sweeper might have too great a penchant for little napoleons.

Oh wow get a load of this guy, he's found out that philosophy does not effect the movement of the sun and has now figured he's solved it. Look, if you don't care for philosophy in general, why puzzle over philosophical differences in the first place?

>Marx just thought he was unique because he considered his ideology "scientific"
Everyone considered their ideology science. Even Hegel. The 19th century was a weird century, the transition between the magic of alchemy to the mathematical rationality of modern chemistry.

Correction: Law student drop-out

True, the proles of Rome were quite the insignificant demographic. Still, didn't stop Marx from adopting them as the name-sake of his end-all be-all oppressed group which he could use as a rallying cry ad perpetuum. I guess the plebs just didn't make the cut. Far too bourgeois you see, relying on that daily bread dole.

>Everyone considered their ideology science. Even Hegel.
That's not really an excuse. Especially when "scientific Socialism" is still lauded in many modern Socialist circles. Then again modern Socialism does seem to have a bit of a problem letting go of outdated half-rate relics from the 19th century. :^)

If libertarians get to keep worshipping Adam Smith, and Americans in general get to treat the Founding Fathers like timeless geniuses, we get to give Uncle Karl some more love.