No Spiritual Beliefs At All [Archive]

View Full Version : No Spiritual Beliefs At All

uncontent_soul

7th June 2015, 22:51

Armchair Partisan

7th June 2015, 22:51

So if I become a leftist, I can't have any spiritual beliefs.

Who told you that?

RedAnarchist

7th June 2015, 22:52

Who said that you can't have such beliefs as a leftist?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

7th June 2015, 23:00

Someone can be a leftist (which, I assume, means "socialist" and not "social-demonrat or liberal") and believe all sorts of ridiculous things, from bogostroitelstvo to Lysenkoism. What one can't be is both religious or spiritual and a consistent Marxist. And people are going to note that.

Also people from groups whose oppression is ideologically justified by religion are going to be less than enthusiastic when you start talking about how wonderful spirituality is.

uncontent_soul

7th June 2015, 23:00

Who said that you can't have such beliefs as a leftist?

A lot if people totally flamed me for some things I said on a religion thread. Said religion was horrible and it does no good.

Armchair Partisan

7th June 2015, 23:16

A lot if people totally flamed me for some things I said on a religion thread. Said religion was horrible and it does no good.

Oh, that is possible, if a little exaggerated (though it only really applies to organized religion). Doesn't mean you can't hold personal spiritual beliefs, in fact, we pretty well stressed that you can. However, accept that your beliefs are going to be met with criticism, considering that the revolutionary left does not like to unconditionally accept unproven claims of absolute truth.

Carlos-Marcos

8th June 2015, 06:08

nothing wrong with a bit of Celtic-Paganism, if you ask me

Blake's Baby

8th June 2015, 08:23

So, what you're saying is a bunch of people who disagree with you told you that your ideas are wrong.

Why are you surprised by this? Xhar-xhar is right. You can believe anything you like. If you want to believe that the best way to a decent society for all is for MagicSkyBeard is to make us all nicey-feely then go ahead. Just don't expect other people to take you seriously.

Left Voice

8th June 2015, 09:31

You can have any kind of beliefs you want, spiritual or otherwise. There's no contradition there.

I would mention though that subcription to a organised religion that with an established heirarchy, enforces unquestioned belief in gospel and absolute faith in the words of religious leaders in the face of all rational contradition, and any such aspects that deprive the right of its followers to contradict the teachings and beliefs would conflict with many revolutionary socialist concepts such as the principle of egalitarianism, the abolishment of rulers and the capitalist class, etc. I suspect that most organised religons would rally around reactionary forces simply because they have a vested interest in maintaining heirarchy. Revolution would present a genuine threat to this.

So it depends. If you just have a personal belief in something or other, then that's not an issue. But if it is an organised religion, then you'll find you're going to have to square many circles and overcome many contraditions.

Comrade Jacob

8th June 2015, 09:53

You can! I am have an Earth-based spirituality and I don't find it contradictory to my leftism.
There is nothing in my spirituality that I feel contradicts Marxism at all. People who say my beliefs contradict Marxism don't know my beliefs.

willowtooth

8th June 2015, 21:28

Who told you that?

I did my bad.....

hey "uncontent soul" i didn't mean you should feel stupid or inferior for believing in some kind of religion, I just meant that organized religion is one of the worst things that has ever existed on the face of the earth, and more importantly that you're a victim of it, not that your a bad person for having one belief, or the other

I'm a bit of an amateur, novice, religious history lover, and I would be happy to discuss your spiritual/religious issues with you here, as I'm sure many other members here would be as well

You said you want to join islam in the other thread, why don't you explain what your reasons are, and I personally would be happy to help you in your time of need

uncontent_soul

15th June 2015, 02:29

I did my bad.....

hey "uncontent soul" i didn't mean you should feel stupid or inferior for believing in some kind of religion, I just meant that organized religion is one of the worst things that has ever existed on the face of the earth, and more importantly that you're a victim of it, not that your a bad person for having one belief, or the other

I'm a bit of an amateur, novice, religious history lover, and I would be happy to discuss your spiritual/religious issues with you here, as I'm sure many other members here would be as well

You said you want to join islam in the other thread, why don't you explain what your reasons are, and I personally would be happy to help you in your time of need

Well I'm not gonna join Islam, I'm sort of back and forth on what I believe really. I believe. I just honestly have an interest in Sufism specifically not a way most Muslim would want me to. I have a complicated unorganized approach to spirituality which you would probably consider New Age. I don't believe in dogma or evangelism, organized religion, church or hierarchy. I believe in a universal force that sort of makes things happen things many people would call coincidences. I have tarot cards and believe they are not a fortune telling device but a form of symbolism that can help make stronger decisions when I'm indecisive.

uncontent_soul

15th June 2015, 02:31

Comrade Njordr

15th June 2015, 02:50

He clearly doesn't take your beliefs seriously, like he just mentioned.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

15th June 2015, 02:52

Blake's Baby

15th June 2015, 08:40

Magic skybeard? Seriously...are you going to stoop to that level of immaturity.

You believe you have an invisible friend. I do not have to believe in it too.

Rafiq

15th June 2015, 17:41

People hold spiritual beliefs for a reason. Since we share the same collective space of reason, you cannot expect us to respect those beliefs. The problem is a practical one: No one actually cares about what goes on in your head as such, but the implications this might have for practice. I highly doubt a committed revolutionary can at the same time hold "spiritual beliefs".

I mean this very seriously. When push goes to shove, when cities begin to burn - there must be complete uniformity of both the mind and soul in absolute dedication to the ideas of Communism. "Spiritual beliefs", which are contingent upon capitalism's rational degeneration, serve to substantiate it and nothing more. If, hypothetically, you can "retain spiritual beliefs" and do everything a revolutionary would need to do, there would be no problem. This is something Marxists would doubt.

If you would like, you can conceive Communism (not Marxism) as occupying the space where religion might have before. There is simply no room for heretics. The ideas of Communism are irreducible to "wanting a classless society". Communism brings forth its own language, ethical standards, and conception of the world.

I'm sorry that my links are all to Christian groups - it's just who I know . . . but, point being, I don't see anything contradictory about being religious and rad.

The point is: Why do they need to distinguish themselves as Christians, if there is nothing contradictory about it? Liberation theology might have had a progressive role for the rural petty bourgeois of Latin America, but it cannot be reconciled with proletarian consciousness. If you want to think of it this way: Communism already is building upon the legacy of Christianity. To paraphrase Dosoyevsky (this may have not been him, the sin of western Christianity was that first it gave us Catholicism, then Protestantism, and it culminated in enlightenment - finally with Atheist socialism.

Comrade Jacob

16th June 2015, 15:19

You believe you have an invisible friend. I do not have to believe in it too.

True, but you don't have to be patronising. Making the religious feel stupid is not a way to win comrades.

danyboy27

17th June 2015, 03:42

A lot if people totally flamed me for some things I said on a religion thread. Said religion was horrible and it does no good.

Personally i would take anything said on an internet forum with a huuge grain of salt.

willowtooth

17th June 2015, 09:55

Well I'm not gonna join Islam, I'm sort of back and forth on what I believe really. I believe. I just honestly have an interest in Sufism specifically not a way most Muslim would want me to. I have a complicated unorganized approach to spirituality which you would probably consider New Age. I don't believe in dogma or evangelism, organized religion, church or hierarchy. I believe in a universal force that sort of makes things happen things many people would call coincidences. I have tarot cards and believe they are not a fortune telling device but a form of symbolism that can help make stronger decisions when I'm indecisive.

So, you believe in Sufism, because your attracted to the spiritualist aspect of it, correct? the whole thing of "meditating" by repeating the holy names or whatever? That's perfectly fine, just practice and experiment with it, research it, have some fun, and go and travel to visit Sufi temples, but know for a fact that it's entirely false

There's nothing wrong with researching different religions, you'll often find leftists from all around the world, will practice different cultural religions from as far away as home as possible, but still all of them are still false

If you want too go ghost hunting, or play with a Ouija board, that's fine as well, you can believe in aliens and bigfoot too and still be Marxist just don't conform too some hierarchical system like the catholic church

mushroompizza

17th June 2015, 17:40

Anti-Theism is very popular in the left, but there are some exeptions to being a leftist, some leftists are nationalists, some are religious, as long as you want to achieve anti-capitalist egalitarianism you can describe yourself as a leftist.

Rafiq

17th June 2015, 17:52

Perhaps all that demonstrates is that we ought to be more careful about identifying our aims with that of the "left in general".

Sibotic

18th June 2015, 06:03

A socialist could have vague spiritual beliefs or so, but do the spiritual beliefs have issues with you doing so? Not getting the opposition to 'organised religion' just for being such, this doesn't make it any more or less opposed to Marxism at least just because of things you might associate with it, alright. A religious organisation being hierarchical isn't the deciding characteristic, for a Marxist. If anything capital tends to undermine these hierarchies and reduce them to indeterminately passive receptors, which is all that they could have been under such a system and might have to recover from, and hence any authority or activity belonging to these is derived from opposition to such.

LuÃs Henrique

30th August 2015, 16:25

So if I become a leftist, I can't have any spiritual beliefs. My beliefs are non oppressive, and I don't believe in organized religion. I just sort of have always believed these things and I keep them to myself. So as a socialist nobody should have religious beliefs because they are oppressive and unintelligent as offensive?

As others have already pointed, you can believe in what you wish. If you talk about what you believe, however, people will probably criticise you, and such criticism may be harsh or sound undeserved. This is however unavoidable; the left relies on criticism, has always relied on it, and it isn't likely to change - and this applies not only to supernatural beliefs, but to any kind of thing we may believe or think we know. If you peruse this sight, you will see all kinds of disagreement, sometimes nasty disagreement, over non-spiritual things such as the rate of surplus value, the petty bourgeoisie, the Soviet Union, the French Revolution, or the role of political parties.

Yes, if you are a leftist, you will need to take easy on criticism. Including criticism of supernatural beliefs. If you can't take such kind of criticism easy, then you still can avoid it by not mentioning supernatural beliefs. Most religious leftists I know do exactly this; they go to the church, or whatever they feel they need to appease or nurture their spirituality, on Sundays, and when they meet with other leftists during the week they talk about the issues at hand, avoiding include supernatural explanations or solutions in their public speeches. If however you try to mix things, as in demanding spiritual rituals to be performed during leftist meetings, or giving supernatural explanations on the material problems that afflict the left, conflict will immediately ensue.

As Xhar-Xhar Binks notes, you can be religious and leftist; but among "religious", "leftist", and "coherent", you can only chose two. So what? Coherence is probably overrated, and the contradictions in your thoughts and beliefs tend to evolve and settle by themselves, without the need of someone else telling you that you should be coherent, or urging you to give up spiritual beliefs, or threatening you with the leftist equivalents of excommunication.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

30th August 2015, 16:36

Personally i would take anything said on an internet forum with a huuge grain of salt.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQW01m4I-sxVFCbLLGYZnJ5ArvNNzUC921-KPAO-5_Sf2Ba96zh

... and this is probably still far from being enough.

Luís Henrique

Decolonize The Left

30th August 2015, 18:41

PhoenixAsh

30th August 2015, 20:52

spirituality stopped being synonymous with religious believes a long time ago

Hatshepsut

31st August 2015, 12:51

Rafiq

31st August 2015, 17:35

Interesting. I don't doubt communism incompatible with traditional religion. But communists will have to examine their own beliefs as well. I have a fair degree of conviction that the tactics of 1917 will never work again. Even the win achieved by those tactics proved historically very temporary.

But again, none of this was without reason. There was virtually no question of religion among the industrial proletariat that formed the backbone of the Bolsheviks 1917 and afterwards. All problems that concerned the question of religion were again, problems unique to the countryside. The situation today is absolutely incomparable - religion is, so to speak, ripe for being completely annihilated. At an every increasing rate we see people leaving the churches, prostration before the gods of capital and superstition remain, but again, so much so to the point that this element provided by all religions is what keeps them remaining - i..e in its spiritual substance, not much separates new age spirituality from your local community church in 2015.

The phenomenon of class consciousness presents enough subtleties to challenge my understanding. Yet simply assuming that more primitive forces of personalities, power struggles, and reversion to statism will dissolve in class consciousness begs serious questions.

There is no such thing as "primitive personalities". The abstractions mentioned must be constantly and regularly reproduced in order to sustain themselves. There wouldn't have been a question of power struggles in the Soviet Union had the party not been forced to go through an intensive existential crisis about what to do following the NEP, what kind of state to build, and so on. Power struggles merely expressed the very real ambiguity that surrounded the fate of the Soviet Union - not some kind of return to "primitive personalities".

The 20th century history shows us a classless, stateless society doesn't automatically follow a revolution initiated from among the working class. As the personality cults arose within the vanguard itself, one cannot blame reactionary centers for causing the failures of communism's political implementation.

Well, of course they don't automatically follow a revolution initiated by the working class. If the working class in question happens to be a stark demographic minority, annihilated in civil war and cut off from the industrial basis of the world economy, of course talk of a stateless society free from social antagonism. I mean, just think: If the Soviet Union was isolated from the rest of the world, it by default must constitute a state that has borders it needs to defend militarily, that has a definite geopolitical interest, and so on. Regarding personality cults, these are unequivocally again a peasant-initiated phenomena. There is no however nothing 'wrong' with them as a matter of moral principle, because the cult and the actual individual in question are always separate - Stalin is never Stalin, and so on. IT is a symbol.

Hatshepsut

1st September 2015, 14:07

The situation today is absolutely incomparable - religion is, so to speak, ripe for being completely annihilated...

You should tell LDS President Thomas Monson this, down at Temple Square in Salt Lake. :laugh:

The ringing of the USSR by hostile capitalist states probably doomed it. But I can't help remembering that Lenin didn't trust Stalin and didn't want him to become General Secretary. Of course he needed Stalin, so he couldn't do much about it before his early death.

I don't know what the proper term in socialist theory for personality factors is. The issue certainly existed because individuals were criticized by name and their followings were eventually named after them by adding the suffix -ites. During the period when a state continues to exist, it does matter who's running it and what kind of constitution they adopt. I think historical materialism, like the supercooling of water in chemistry, determines when conditions will favor socialism. A seed crystal must be dropped in to make the water freeze, however.

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

1st September 2015, 16:38

There's Maoism which is basically spiritual pseudo-scientific leftist religion.

Red Red Chile

17th January 2016, 03:46

People hold spiritual beliefs for a reason. Since we share the same collective space of reason, you cannot expect us to respect those beliefs. The problem is a practical one: No one actually cares about what goes on in your head as such, but the implications this might have for practice. I highly doubt a committed revolutionary can at the same time hold "spiritual beliefs".

I mean this very seriously. When push goes to shove, when cities begin to burn - there must be complete uniformity of both the mind and soul in absolute dedication to the ideas of Communism. "Spiritual beliefs", which are contingent upon capitalism's rational degeneration, serve to substantiate it and nothing more. If, hypothetically, you can "retain spiritual beliefs" and do everything a revolutionary would need to do, there would be no problem. This is something Marxists would doubt.

If you would like, you can conceive Communism (not Marxism) as occupying the space where religion might have before. There is simply no room for heretics. The ideas of Communism are irreducible to "wanting a classless society". Communism brings forth its own language, ethical standards, and conception of the world.

The point is: Why do they need to distinguish themselves as Christians, if there is nothing contradictory about it? Liberation theology might have had a progressive role for the rural petty bourgeois of Latin America, but it cannot be reconciled with proletarian consciousness. If you want to think of it this way: Communism already is building upon the legacy of Christianity. To paraphrase Dosoyevsky (this may have not been him, the sin of western Christianity was that first it gave us Catholicism, then Protestantism, and it culminated in enlightenment - finally with Atheist socialism.

Oh riiiight. Since it's all divined from above (or is that below?) we might as well knock down all the churches and mosques and turn them into reeducation camps.

You speak the most vulgar Marxist crap.

Rafiq

17th January 2016, 19:38

Thank christ, that we have been bestowed the honor of having another user who is going to regurgitate all the same cliche's that have been covered before on this forum, several, several times over.

Use the search function.

Oh riiiight.

Let's make something clear, I'm not your friend, this isn't a cafe, leave your juvenile "oh riiights" at home, this is bellow the standards of conduct not only where it concerns serious discussion on the forum, but where it concerns this specific discussion.

"Oh riiight" he sais, as though he is in a fucking position to mock anyone. From what position do you say this, dear child? Are you that confident in your base ignorance, your intellectual poverty? "Oh riiight", you say, as though it takes a certain amount of irrational blind, righteously ignorant faith to accept what I am saying? The apologist for religion, HE tells me that. Holy shit.

we might as well knock down all the churches and mosques and turn them into reeducation camps.

We will do this, we don't need any external justification for that. We will hang the priests, we will hang the imams. You can cry about it, no one is listening to you.

"What right do we humnas have to defile such sacred places" he thinks to himself. "Wretched modernism, mercilessly destroying all that is mysterious and beautiful, defiling places of innocence, comfort, and divine legitimacy, how dare we do this?" Tell us, why SHOULDN'T we demolish, knock down, or destroy every single church and mosque? Why does this offend you? Oh, I know why it does, I just want you to admit what we all already know: You're a reactionary who possess certain sensitiviites that make you alien from the Left. You will probably say something stupid like "Oh, well people won't like this", as though we plan on destroying Mosques and Churches without having already mobilizes the majority of Christiasn and Muslims and converted them in practice to atheist Communists. You cannot make any pretense to its tactical faults, then, so what do you have left? "It's just not right man, I don't know". Well, we do know, I can very easily identify the pathological basis of your sensitivities toward religion in general, because you are not by any means unique in the expression of them. "IDK man, religion will always exist, people will always look for something" he will say, the most banal cliche we hear. He projects his own inability to overcome the superstitions, the holy worship of capital, to a general conundrum of the human species in general. Religion is a contingency. It is not inevitable, because superstition is not inevitable. Superstition literally means, belief without knowing. That humans inevitably find it necessary to practically suppress knowledge of phenomena, as some inevitability of their existence is paradoxical for the simple reason that the whole basis of superstition revolves around the righteous insistence on the lack of conscious knowledge (of, for example, class, historical processes, etc.) - if it was any way otherwise, it would not even be possible to identify superstition, criticize it, or be beyond it, because it would simply be an inevitable fact of life for everyone.

"We might as well" he sais, as though this act requires some serious pre-ordained contemplation wrought from some kind of moral dilemma on our part. We don't have to justify ourselves to the bourgeois ideologues, why we will destroy mosques and churches. We will simply do it, and the Earth will go on spinning. Your tears will overflow no oceans, or lakes, they will not flood any cities, or towns. So you can find a corner and cry about it. And the world will go on spinning. Insfoar as superstition predominates, Communism is impossible. Communism is synonymous with the destruction of every kind of superstition. Communism replaces and occupies a place of human consciousness that was previously reserved for religion. There is no reconciling the two, just as there was no reconciling superstition of natural processes, with natural science, in practical terms. WHERE RELIGION MEANS SOMETHING for people, COMMUNISM occupies this place. He who fails to understand this, is not a Communist.

This, ladies and gentlemen, encapsulates the false cynicsm of our epoch. The child Red Red Chile, HE ACTS LIKE HE is some skeptic, cynic, while Rafiq is the naive one. But nothing is more naive, and requiring of blind faith, than the sensitivity he possesses toward threshers of worldly hope, meat-grinders of the human soul, places of ignorance, backwardness, superstition and reaction. This is how the cynicism of our epoch works, it is totally false - you can receive "Oh riiight, the Earth is spherical?", this is totally possible so long as the flat shape of the Earth remains righteously, ignorantly, unquestioned. So alien from critical thought, so unable to question ruling ideology, you have individuals like "Red Red Chile" who will literally fucking act like YOU'RE the naive sucker for doing so. Sorry, you're in for a surprise, child.

You speak the most vulgar Marxist crap.

In fact never has 'vulgar Marxism' as a phrase, been used in the way in which you are using it, but since you are an infantile phrase-mongerer, we can be quite certain that throughout the course of your presence on this forum, we can expect more blatant abuse of left phraseology, general hollow and infantile phrase mongering, in order to express the most reactionary, filthy and utterly juvenile sentiments. "Vulgar Marxism" he sais, as if he knows what he's talking about. Vulgar Marxism has nothing to do with the prerogative to defile and destroy all that is sacred and holy for our bourgeois order, this predates any kind of Marxism whatsoever, it is inherent to Communism. So it is not simply that you are an anti-Marxist, you are a reactionary even by non-Marxist Left standards. But nevermind this, the fact that you use this phrase 'Vulgar Marxism' as a means of rejecting something that offends bourgeois sensitivities, while simultaneously using phraseology that (purportedly) identifies you with the Left, or 'Marxism' is amply and plainly pathetic. Sorry no, you're not going to get away with spreading such filth on this forum.

Your presence has been noted.

Armchair Partisan

17th January 2016, 19:49

Holy shit Rafiq. Maybe it's impossible to have a discussion with you without getting a headache, but if I ever become a revolutionary agitator/tinpot dictator/whatever else, can I hire you to write my speeches?

Seriously though, the way you use "dear child" as an insult of sorts... it actually reminds me of a priest calling a follower of his sect "my child". Ironic...:lol:

Thirsty Crow

17th January 2016, 22:51

Decolonize The Left

18th January 2016, 00:26

Oh riiiight. Since it's all divined from above (or is that below?) we might as well knock down all the churches and mosques and turn them into reeducation camps.

You speak the most vulgar Marxist crap.

I'm issuing you a verbal warning for trolling and spam. The post quoted here has no content and is an obvious bait. Please post more responsibly in the future.

Aslan

18th January 2016, 01:34

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p0mV_v6cSw

Heres a short video about a missionary who became Atheist after living with an Atheist tribe.

You do realize there are actually tribes in Africa and South America that literally have no religion! Seriously, god doesn't even concern them, they don't care about it!

Red Red Chile

18th January 2016, 21:32

Thank christ, that we have been bestowed the honor of having another user who is going to regurgitate all the same cliche's that have been covered before on this forum, several, several times over.

Use the search function.

Let's make something clear, I'm not your friend, this isn't a cafe, leave your juvenile "oh riiights" at home, this is bellow the standards of conduct not only where it concerns serious discussion on the forum, but where it concerns this specific discussion.

"Oh riiight" he sais, as though he is in a fucking position to mock anyone. From what position do you say this, dear child? Are you that confident in your base ignorance, your intellectual poverty? "Oh riiight", you say, as though it takes a certain amount of irrational blind, righteously ignorant faith to accept what I am saying? The apologist for religion, HE tells me that. Holy shit.

We will do this, we don't need any external justification for that. We will hang the priests, we will hang the imams. You can cry about it, no one is listening to you.

"What right do we humnas have to defile such sacred places" he thinks to himself. "Wretched modernism, mercilessly destroying all that is mysterious and beautiful, defiling places of innocence, comfort, and divine legitimacy, how dare we do this?" Tell us, why SHOULDN'T we demolish, knock down, or destroy every single church and mosque? Why does this offend you? Oh, I know why it does, I just want you to admit what we all already know: You're a reactionary who possess certain sensitiviites that make you alien from the Left. You will probably say something stupid like "Oh, well people won't like this", as though we plan on destroying Mosques and Churches without having already mobilizes the majority of Christiasn and Muslims and converted them in practice to atheist Communists. You cannot make any pretense to its tactical faults, then, so what do you have left? "It's just not right man, I don't know". Well, we do know, I can very easily identify the pathological basis of your sensitivities toward religion in general, because you are not by any means unique in the expression of them. "IDK man, religion will always exist, people will always look for something" he will say, the most banal cliche we hear. He projects his own inability to overcome the superstitions, the holy worship of capital, to a general conundrum of the human species in general. Religion is a contingency. It is not inevitable, because superstition is not inevitable. Superstition literally means, belief without knowing. That humans inevitably find it necessary to practically suppress knowledge of phenomena, as some inevitability of their existence is paradoxical for the simple reason that the whole basis of superstition revolves around the righteous insistence on the lack of conscious knowledge (of, for example, class, historical processes, etc.) - if it was any way otherwise, it would not even be possible to identify superstition, criticize it, or be beyond it, because it would simply be an inevitable fact of life for everyone.

"We might as well" he sais, as though this act requires some serious pre-ordained contemplation wrought from some kind of moral dilemma on our part. We don't have to justify ourselves to the bourgeois ideologues, why we will destroy mosques and churches. We will simply do it, and the Earth will go on spinning. Your tears will overflow no oceans, or lakes, they will not flood any cities, or towns. So you can find a corner and cry about it. And the world will go on spinning. Insfoar as superstition predominates, Communism is impossible. Communism is synonymous with the destruction of every kind of superstition. Communism replaces and occupies a place of human consciousness that was previously reserved for religion. There is no reconciling the two, just as there was no reconciling superstition of natural processes, with natural science, in practical terms. WHERE RELIGION MEANS SOMETHING for people, COMMUNISM occupies this place. He who fails to understand this, is not a Communist.

This, ladies and gentlemen, encapsulates the false cynicsm of our epoch. The child Red Red Chile, HE ACTS LIKE HE is some skeptic, cynic, while Rafiq is the naive one. But nothing is more naive, and requiring of blind faith, than the sensitivity he possesses toward threshers of worldly hope, meat-grinders of the human soul, places of ignorance, backwardness, superstition and reaction. This is how the cynicism of our epoch works, it is totally false - you can receive "Oh riiight, the Earth is spherical?", this is totally possible so long as the flat shape of the Earth remains righteously, ignorantly, unquestioned. So alien from critical thought, so unable to question ruling ideology, you have individuals like "Red Red Chile" who will literally fucking act like YOU'RE the naive sucker for doing so. Sorry, you're in for a surprise, child.

In fact never has 'vulgar Marxism' as a phrase, been used in the way in which you are using it, but since you are an infantile phrase-mongerer, we can be quite certain that throughout the course of your presence on this forum, we can expect more blatant abuse of left phraseology, general hollow and infantile phrase mongering, in order to express the most reactionary, filthy and utterly juvenile sentiments. "Vulgar Marxism" he sais, as if he knows what he's talking about. Vulgar Marxism has nothing to do with the prerogative to defile and destroy all that is sacred and holy for our bourgeois order, this predates any kind of Marxism whatsoever, it is inherent to Communism. So it is not simply that you are an anti-Marxist, you are a reactionary even by non-Marxist Left standards. But nevermind this, the fact that you use this phrase 'Vulgar Marxism' as a means of rejecting something that offends bourgeois sensitivities, while simultaneously using phraseology that (purportedly) identifies you with the Left, or 'Marxism' is amply and plainly pathetic. Sorry no, you're not going to get away with spreading such filth on this forum.

Your presence has been noted.

Um, I know exactly what vulgar Marxism is buddy – it refers to a base, overreaching application of historical materialism to complex phenomena. I was referring to your naive belief that religion would be obsolete in class conscious working class. This is odious reductionism / vulgar Marxism at its best. Religion might be the 'opiate of the masses' – but that is a historical observation, not a projection of the future. Marxism is not a deterministic philosophy so you cannot predict what the role of religion will be in future societies. Yes, doubtless it will look much different than it does now. However, humans have imaginations and since our knowledge of the universe is an infinitesimal fraction of what is out there it's likely we will compensate for our ignorance by speculation in metaphysics. Also to the argument that Religion is ipso fato antithetical to the working class is 'vulgar'. So yeah, you, at least as you represent yourself in the post I quoted, are a vulgar Marxist. By hey, don't let that stop you from wandering off on another verbose soliloquy. 'We will hang the priests'?? Oh you will? That's great. It's nice of you to reinforce every negative stereotype that keeps Communism out of mainstream thought. You just forgot the bit about how you're going to bash the middle class around the head with their white picket fences! Look, I know that you won't ever be in control of anything other than the computer in your mothers basement, so your posts are harmless, but politics is an adult business. While you are living out the glorious fantasy as as internet Bolshevik, adults have real issues to contend with. So next time you're in position to harangue us all with another attempt at rhetorical flourish ask yourself if what you’re saying is really beneficial. Want to know how I know that you're a poseur? Because ruthless, misanthropic communists, while they do exist, at least have the realpolitikal sense to keep their homicidal agendas to themselves. They don't go around, in no position of authority, announcing their intention to 'hang priests'.

Rudolf

18th January 2016, 22:21

Marxism is not a deterministic philosophy so you cannot predict what the role of religion will be in future societies. Yes, doubtless it will look much different than it does now. However, humans have imaginations and since our knowledge of the universe is an infinitesimal fraction of what is out there it's likely we will compensate for our ignorance by speculation in metaphysics.

Er, you're aware this is an anti-marxist position, right? Your understanding of religion is not rooted in materialism.

Take note of that in bold:

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.

Marx as opposed to you identified religion as a particular social phenomenon that emerges from specific social conditions. The abolition of said conditions renders religion impossible.

This differs to your view on religion which reduces it to timeless metaphysical musing like somehow the social phenomenon that is religion can be reduced to this. You're talking nonsense.

Rafiq

19th January 2016, 00:06

It's such a cute game these children play. They see a very refined, thoroughly detailed and complex post, and in order to keep up the persona of 'maintaining a distance' from the argument, so that they are not engaged enough to actually be responsible for their utter disgusting fucking bullshit, while at the same time making pretenses to actually engaging the argument, they give us a few extra lines of garbage. They want it both ways - they both want to keep up the appearance of not having to take their opponent seriously, because 'outside of his mothers basement' he will not matter, while at the same time they want to save themselves from the actual real humiliation and intellectual slaughtering they are receiving. Well you won't have it both ways, and I assure you, I am not going anywhere - I AM GOING TO MAKE YOU ACCOUTNABLE for EVERY SINGLE argument you make, EVERY SINGLE thing you say will not be received uncritically. This will not end, I promise.

Congratulations! You're so unique! It's not like I've already demolished these exact same arguments 1000 times over on this very forum already.You're not going to escape this either. You're not going to slither away. You came on this forum, you say all of this? Very well, I, and I expect others, now demand that you hold yourself accountable for what you say, you are responsible for it.

Enjoy.

Um, I know exactly what vulgar Marxism is buddy – it refers to a base, overreaching application of historical materialism to complex phenomena.

In other words, according to Red Red Chile, from his already bastardized, thoroughly juvenile and high school textbook esque notion of Historical materialism, vulgar Marxism amounts to actually taking historical materialism seriously rather than playing lip service to it in order to sustain a certain self professed identity. The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a 'partial application' of historical materialism, there is no such thing as 'some historical materialism' but 'not to much', because historical mateiralism does not refer to a set of fixed empirical claims, IT EITHER IS ABLE TO WHOLLY ACCOUNT, scientifically, for ALL social and historical (as well as psychological!) processes, human conscientiousness in its entirety, or it can account for none. The point however is that never in the history of the usage of the term 'Vulgar Marxism' has it referred to a recognition of this - on the contrary, vulgar Marxism has been used to describe certain bastardizations, simplifications of Marxism - but more generally, it referred to the formalization of Marxism insofar as dialectical materialism was transformed into a set of ossified laws that are 'applied'. The point is not that this left little room for 'imagination' or superstition, or that it made pretenses to 'da truth' where we were in no position to - on the contrary, the point of criticism of vulgar Marxism is that it ossified Marxism into a set of formalities that were translatable in bourgeois-epistemological terms. What that means, effectively, was that far from referring to 'hardline' or 'extreme' applications of historical materialism, vulgar Marxism referred to the abandonment of historical materialism in favor of idealism - the reason economic determinism was opposed was not because humans were 'too complex' to be reduced to the economy, but because abstracting something called the 'economy' and giving it positive causation over other things, is undialectical - not because it disallows for 'freeee thought', but because Marxists understand humans societies as self-sufficient unto themselves - that is to say, human societies are not reducible to the basis of human survival, but human life in its entreity and its complexity - the point of Marxism, historical materialism that is, is to scientifically understand the entire basis of human life - insofar as we are humans, engaged in human life. That is the fucking point of Communism. So saying that historical materialism is 'too overreaching' in seeking the abolition of superstition, is the high point of alienation insofar as one assumes that humans cannot be in direct control of that which they themselves constitute and are a part of. We contest the notion that superstition has its basis in anything other than specific conditions of human life, and human life is constituted by ntohing more than the very means by which humans actively perpetuate the conditions of their existence - which varies historically. Holy fucking shit, an "overreaching application of historical materialism to complex phenomena?" Oh my fucking god. Oh my fucking, fucking god. And now I have to lecture you, the child you are, as to what historical materialism actually means. Recall Marx from the German Ideology:

The fact is, therefore, that definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations. Empirical observation must in each separate instance bring out empirically, and without any mystification and speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with production. The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may appear in their own or other people’s imagination, but as they really are; i.e. as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will.

The fact is, therefore, that definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations. Empirical observation must in each separate instance bring out empirically, and without any mystification and speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with production. The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may appear in their own or other people’s imagination, but as they really are; i.e. as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will.

[...]

Its premises are men, not in any fantastic isolation and rigidity, but in their actual, empirically perceptible process of development
under definite conditions. As soon as this active life-process is described, history ceases to be a collection of dead facts as it is with the empiricists (themselves still abstract), or an imagined activity of imagined subjects, as with the idealists.

And finally, and most importnatly:

The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. [...] These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.

The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature. Of course, we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself – geological, hydrographical, climatic and so on. The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men.

Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.

The way in which men produce their means of subsistence depends first of all on the nature of the actual means of subsistence they find in existence and have to reproduce. This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the production of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part. As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.

This production only makes its appearance with the increase of population. In its turn this presupposes the intercourse [Verkehr] of individuals with one another. The form of this intercourse is again determined by production.

The notion that, insofar as it concerns these very same social and historical processes, that the method of historical materialism, which refers to nothing more than the conversion of processes otherwise accounted for by superstition, by righteous ignorance, into real knowledge, can be 'over-reached' to phenomena that is 'too complex' for its grasp, necessarily must make a pretension to the nature of this 'complex' phenomena. You claim that religion is too complex to be grasped by historocial materialism. I ridicule this claim - where are the intricacies of this 'complexity' located? Is it that we "do not yet" have a proper understanding of ghosts, goblins and ghouls, in order to scientifically understand religion? But what is religion, where is it located? Is it located in the consciousness of real men and women, a space of universal reason that which we all belong, or is religion located in some ethereal realm inaccessible to men and women who so desire to inquire about it? The fact of the matter is that THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A RIGHTEOUS INSISTENCE UPON IGNORANCE, because the BASIS OF RELIGION IS ACCESSIBLE, because there is no way to 'locate', either empirically or otherwise, recognize or understand religion outside of how it is constituted by real men and women. To say otherwise, is again, to make pretenses to superstition, it is literally to say "it can be known, but I refuse" - it is no different from any old Catholic rejection of scientific inquiry into natural processes, it is no different from the mysticism of old Asiatic societies that saw, for example, agricultural practices as occupying a sacred and holy domain. I mean, ultimately, the stupdity of thinking religion is some inevitability fails to take into account a certain particular fact: I, Red Red Chile, among many other famous Marxsits, were raised and grew up religious. I was not simply irreligious, I was devoutely religious. I was superstitious. And now, I am an atheist and a Communist. If you are saying that religion is some inevitability we "do not yet understand", how might you explain how Rafiq DOES UNDERSTAND religion, and does not have to think twice about his atheism, Rafiq who was previously religious? If religion is some inevitability, rooted in processes we do not understand, you are saying that Rafiq, among other Marxists who left their religion, were somehow outside of these processes.

According to Red Red Chile, who is not even worthy of the title of vulgar Marxist - historical materialism is some contingent empirical dogma that can be "applied" to some things, but cannot be applied to more 'complex phenomena' (a space we imagine, for Red Red Chile, is reserved for crass superstition and righteous ignorance), because in Red Red Chile's mind, the scope of historical materialism does not extend beyond some very crude, simplistic and juvenile notion of 'da economy' determining 'da superstructure'. That this is at best a broad assessment of the relationship between certain contingencies, and the underlying social relations that are responsible for them, by no means reduces ossifies this into some simplistic dogma called 'historical materialism'. Historical materialism refers to nothing more than a scientific understanding of social and historical processes, it does not refer to any positive processes of determination between 'separate' domains of life, it begins with, as Marx famously outlined in the German ideology, no empirical dogmas, simply the empirical recognition of the existence of men and women. What distinguishes historical materialism, is that it refers to a PRACTICAL PREROGATIVE to understand social processes scientifically - it disallows for each and every kind of superstition insofar as this concerns social and historical processes. What you fail to understand is that the whole point of historical materialism, was that no external empirical dogmas were necessary in order to scientifically understand social processes - quite on the contrary, understanding these social processes in and of themselves, as constituted by nothing more than men and women, in relation to both themselves and the world around them was the whole point. So saying that there is some 'complex phenomena' that is beyond the grasp of historical materialists, is to make pretenses to some empirical phenomena that we are not taking into account. You cannot do this, because there is none.

YOU made the assumption that the understanding of religion contemporary Marxists have, as though we lack a refined understanding of it in its intricacies, how it relates to people, what its existence is owed to, is reducible to some cheap argument about how it is 'determined by da economy'. Again, we are not responsible for what is basically your own stupidity and ignorance. The fact of the matter is that even if it was true that Marxists have not engaged in a refined and intricate understanding of religion (WHICH IS AMPLY NOT TRUE), this would not make a difference, because only the acceptance of the materialist conception of history, i.e .the absence of any kind of superstition, would allow for ANY assessment, ANY complex understanding of religion, whether it is 'complex' or not. This is what you amply fail to understand - your real criticism IS NOT making pretenses to any real empirically verifiable processes we Marxists aren't taking into account, your real criticism is that we would dare attempt to understand religion in Earthly, concrete, non-heavenly terms. But just to go even further in ridiculing you, just to show you how deeply you've gotten yourself in shit, from the onset Marxism began with a very refined atheism, and a criticism of religion. It is amply hilarious that you talk about some 'complexity' of religion that Marxism overlooks, when in fact Marx emerged out of the context of German idealism, out of certain offsets of HEGEL, who struck the first blow into religion by understanding it in historical terms - and then with Feuerbach, whose understanding of religion as encapsulating in heavenly terms the totality of human society and human life, who understood the notion of god as encpasulating a universality of human consciousness already predated and heavily influenced Marx. Already with Hegel, we have an understanding of the 'idea of a god' having its basis in an understanding of a world outside the proximity of the proximity of your everyday life. In Hegel's famously controversial assessment of African tribes, who he thought represented humans in their most pure form:

In Negro life the characteristic point is the fact that consciousness has not yet attained to the realization of any substantial objective existence-as for example, God, or Law-in which the interest of man's volition is involved and in which he realizes his own being. This distinction between himself as an individual and the universality of his essential being, the African in the uniform, undeveloped oneness of his existence has not yet attained; so that the Knowledge of an absolute Being, an Other and a Higher than his individual self, is entirely wanting.

Vritaully the same could be applied to every other known hunter-gatherer group, including the famous Piraha peoples (who, on a side note, stand as evidence against Chomsky's theory of UG). Instead what you had was the kind of superstition that which the individual assumes the role of being able to manipulate nature by their direct actions, i.e. magic, unable to make the distinction between yourself as an individual, and the nature of your being in universal terms. So the point was that the notion of a god, in the Hegelian tradition that gave birth to historical materialism, was the universal encapsulation of the essence of society. This we already have from Feuerbach. From then on, the point of the Communist-atheism which followed was that this was a form of alienation, and that the universality of society did not have to be conferred upon some external being, but could be expressed through socially self-conscious men and women who constitute society itself, so that one would not need a god to 'reflect back' upon themselves. Thats why Marx said that from the onset of atheism, you get Communism and vice versa. You make sweeping pretenses to 'vulgar materialism' when in fact, this kind of refined understanding of religion has been present since the very, very beginning - you simply talk to of your ass and use terms that you have amply no notion of. And laughably, this is on top of the fact that sprawling from the tradition of western Marxism we already have even more complex, theoretically sophisticated and refined understandings of religion - from the Frankfurt School, figures like Ernst Bloch, Lacanian psychoanlaysis and its influences in the domain of critical theory - and subsequently the criticism of ideology as presented by the likes of Althsuser, carried on today by Zizek - you make it as though there is some 'missing element' to our materialist conception of religion and our assertion that it has no place in the future of communism, and this is a hilarious notion for anyone who has the least bit of familiarity with any understanding of religion in materialist terms.

I was referring to your naive belief that religion would be obsolete in class conscious working class. This is odious reductionism / vulgar Marxism at its best. Religion might be the 'opiate of the masses' – but that is a historical observation, not a projection of the future.

By your qualifications for 'vulgar Materialism', I would like you to provide some historical examples of Marxists, including Marx and Engels, who were not 'vulgar Marxists'. You can't, because you talk out of your ass, and you opportunistically use Marxist-sounding phraseology to guise what is basically the most banal and overused bourgeois cliche against our tradition, that we mercilessly stomp upon their holy mysteries, but furthermore, the only criticism the bourgeois ideologues have against our tradition, your criticism included, is that we are turning insisted mysteries (and the nature of these insisted mysteries) into real knowledge - we are in effect, turning that which previously perpetuated and sustained the basis of class society, alien class society, into real scientific knowledge, equipping us the means to transform society. You claim that the notion that religion would be obsolete in a class conscious working class is reductionist. Well firstly, it is simply a matter of historical fact - every single example of a class conscious working lcass in the most meaningful sense of the term, was thoroughly atheist without exception, including what Engels called atheist in practice. But never-mind this fact, let's assume we are living in a time before we have this example. IT IS NOT REDUCTIONISM to claim this, because it derives from the very refined notion that religion would no longer have a basis of existence insofar as one becomes socially and historically conscious of themselves - this has nothing to do with 'reducing' religion to anything, if we are, by doing this, 'reducing' religion to something, then IT IS YOU whose elevation of religion into some holy mystery who is committing the error of naivety, not us.

Marxism is not a deterministic philosophy so you cannot predict what the role of religion will be in future societies.

Listen, do you know how profoundly idiotic this notion is? "Marxism is not a deterministic philosophy so you cannot predict what the role of class, money, prostitution, Mcdonalds will be in future societies'. By your logic, we cannot predict 'anything' about the future. In fact, what you amply fail to understand is that we don't even have to sustain our identity as Communists by saying "Things will be X way in 2100" - you fail to understand that this is undialectical - we Communists, nkow there is no place for rleigion in a future post capitalist society because AS COMMUNISTS, as it pertains to OUR OWN consciousness as communists, there is no room for religion. Even as it concerns the future, yes there is no place for religion, unless there is some empirical process we are are not aware of that sustains religion, which we have been unable to account for in our own abandonment of religion. Communism is nothing more than the dissemination of the SAME CONSCIOUSNESS that underlies us intellectuals, to the broad masses - it is literally a society full of a bunch of Rafiqs (or 'insert any marxist'). As a matter of fact, insofar as we are Marxists, and insofar as we can scientifically understand the basis of religion, WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WILL BE NO PLACE FOR RELIGION OR ANY OTHER KIND OF SUPERSTITION in a future society, and why? because the EXISTENCE of superstition, of believing in that which you do not know, an insistence on this not knowing, IS ITSELF JUXTAPOSED to knowing - a person is not ignorant, if this ignorance does not relate itself to real knowledge - likewise, RELIGION is not RELIGION in 2016, UNLESS IT RELATES ITSELF to 'believing in nothing', i.e. the absence of superstition, of any faith in an external guarantee outside of yourself and your own conscious actions. Thoroughly, the basis of religion would be annihilated, so saying that "we cannot predict the role of X" is just like saying we cannot predict that there will be invisible unicorns in the future. We understand that the basis of religion would be annihilated. What you fail to understand is that the basis of religion is nothing more than superstition. Superstition by definition CANNOT BE AN INEVITABILITY, there is no innate physiological structure that makes superstition inevitable, because superstition, like ignorance, MUST RELATE ITSELF to the prospect of actually knowing, there is no point in saying that certain agricultural practices are sacred, or that certain practices that relate to natural processes are sacred, if this is not juxtaposing itself to the prospect of altering these practices and processes, mastering them, and so on, it is not at all superstition, but merely the culmination epistemological extent of a society. This is why we have what is called modern science, which did not exist before the renaissance. BUT IN EVERY SINGLE society, including pre-neolithic human society, superstition has reproduced the real conditions of life. What makes Communism unique, is that it annihilates every and all kinds of superstition - Communism is LITERALLY synonymous with the destruction of superstition.

You claim that "we won't be able to tell if people will still 'believe' in a higher power' - what you fail to do, and what you fail to understand is: WHY DO PEOPLE NEED a 'higher power'? What practical use do people have, for religion, WHY WOULD THIS BE NECESSARY in a society that is socially self-conscious ,that is conscious of itself historically, conscious of where it was, where it is, and where it is going all at once? Or do you want to claim that such a society is impossible? You in effect, therefore, claim that humans cannot be conscious of the very conditions and basis of life that no one else but they themselves constitute nad form a part of. THE WHOLE POINT of Marx's understanding of ideology was that it entailed the doing of things, without the knowing of doing these things - it is to be doing it, without knowing it. THAT IS superstition, that is the very definition of superstition. So in effect, the notion that "We don't know if a god is real" is just as worthless as saying that "We don't know if a pink unicorn that is invisible is real' - in Communism neither would have any practical relevance, both statements would be worthless and meaningless because we would not have to BELIEVE these things, or even ENTERTAIN belief in these things, in order to live and constitute our existence. Their practical relevance, i.e. superstition, is only relevant for a society that must perpetuate non-consciousness of its intricacies. These intricacies still exist, however, so they must be designated, i.e. in Lacanina/Althusserian terms, they must be aimed at, but never touched upon. This is what undelries every single superstition, from a belief in a god, to anti-semitism. To designate something, without knowing it, is the definition of ideology. Communism allows us to know these things.

our knowledge of the universe is an infinitesimal fraction of what is out there it's likely we will compensate for our ignorance by speculation in metaphysics.

Time and time again, we are told by the most filthy superstitious ideologues, mystics, new age ideologues, hand in hand with the analytical and anglo-saxon philistines who are not only alien, but are rabidly hostile to the tradition of historical science, that their superstitions are supplemented by the fact that "We don't know enough about the universe" in order to in practical terms do away with superstition, religion, the notion of a god, and so on. They make pretenses to the vastness and scope of the universe, to compensate for the vastness, endless bottomless hole that defines their darkness and superstition. What they fail to understand, is that no pretenses to the universe is necessary - we in this context have fuck all to do with the universe. Instead, we are conscious beings, human beings. and that is it. Any other pretense to the external universe, is a pretense to the relationship between human beings and the world around them in practical terms. What does that mean? It is not necessary to have even an 'infintitesimial' understanding of 'the universe' in order to deal with controversies and phenomena that are unique to humans insofar as they are constituted as social and historical beings, because the empirical existence of each other, our relationship to each other, as well as ourselves, both physically and through self-conscious reflection, is uncontroversial: WE EXIST, we do not have to prove our existence. Insofar as you EVEN THINK that one day, your superstitious beliefs will be 'validated' by scientific inquiry, THIS IS A SOCIAL CONTROVERSY, NOT one that relates to the degree of, lack of knowledge we have of natural processes. Because ultimately, as Hegel understood the term - absolute knowledge - this can be attained insofar as we are socially self-conscious, and the practical relationship we have with the universe remains. What that means is, it is true that scientific discovery will never end, but the epistemological parameters that are of significance IS NOT between humans and 'da truth', but between humans and their PRACTICAL relationship to the universe around them. So the point is: THE DOMAINS OF CONSCIOUSNESSES, SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE EVEN, that underlie the BASIS of ANY practical relation to the mastery of nature, will remain unchanged, because this by definition would not be able to change, it is an affront to reason itself. What that means is that no matter how many empirical discoveries are made, no matter any of this, so long as the social antagonism is resolved in human society, the historic substance of humans will remain unaltered - no 'divine revelation' about the 'origin of life' coming out of the ass of allah, god or jehovah, is going to be wrought. Btu let's play the devil's advocate. Let's say that in some twisted fantasy land, it is discovered that Allah is a real physical entity who 'made' the universe. Again, let's ignore the fact that this is an affront to every standard of reason imaginable. Let's just presuppose this. Even if this were true, the relationship between the belief in allah by the Muslim believer, and the actual, physical existence of his god, would have no relationship whatsoever- his superstitions would still be unjustified. THE NATURE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF ITSELF MAKES NO PRETENSE TO "EVENTUAL" SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, IT CANNOT AND DOES NOT want to be 'discovered', because it cannot. It can only legitimize itself, in our 'balanced' anglo-saxon epoch of degeneracy, by saying "Well who knows bro, eventually our superstitions might be confirmed". This tendency to make a pretension to the future to justify one's superstitions, no doubt heralded by the rabid technological changes that have swept our societies in the past decades, is the latest trend in our society.

But again, the point is rather simple - because the basis of these religious beliefs is known, then they would have no basis of existence compared to any other random schizophrenic 'belief' - a flying potato monster that was responsible for the existence of potatos on Earth (but we just can't see it) - no one would have any reason to think a god is real. And yet again, unsurprisingly, you literally talk out of your ass. "Speculation in metaphysics"? WHO HERE IS MAKING ANY PRETENSE TO METAPHYSICS, HUH? You're just fucking USING WORDS that you don't fucking understand - metaphysics refers to the practice of linking up one's ideological designation of the social domain, with natural processes, attempting to find congruence between them. THIS IS NOT what we are doing by claiming religion will be annihilated through Communism, we don't have to make any pretense to the 'nature' of the universe to say this, we need only to be conscious of, scientifically assess, that which is right in front of us, that which we are a part of - our own conditions of life. This is what I'm fucking talking about with positivism and the rise of mysticism - POSITIVISM GAVE BIRTH to mysticism, because in its purported rejection of 'metaphysics', the processes that relate to the basis of human existence still exist, and still are 'felt', so people inevitably turned to mysticism. And the positivists didn't give a fuck, so long as that mysticism wasn't called 'scientific'. So this is why you have so many scientists who, upon returning home from their labs, will 'pray' and have the most anti-scientific reservations.

'We will hang the priests'?? Oh you will? That's great. It's nice of you to reinforce every negative stereotype that keeps Communism out of mainstream thought.

It's really fucking nice that you literally do EXACTLY what I predict you would argue. You're so predictable, that I literally was able to predict what you would say, and as a precaution, I already responded to this fucking argument:

You will probably say something stupid like "Oh, well people won't like this", as though we plan on destroying Mosques and Churches without having already mobilizes the majority of Christiasn and Muslims and converted them in practice to atheist Communists. You cannot make any pretense to its tactical faults, then, so what do you have left?

I have been both on this website, and in contact with self-proclaimed Leftists in general to know the popular tendency of projecting one's own fear and aversion towards Communism upon an other. This is how ideology works - you never simply assume responsibility and say "This for me reinforces the stereotype that would make me not want to identify with Communism", you have ot make pretenses to mainstream thought, or some other big other, i..e "the masses" and so on. Every single time I horrify Leftists, because they cannot justify their own aversion in conscious terms without incriminating themselves as reactionaries, they say "Hey, I'm fine, but the masses, the masses think this shit is fucked up" - you cannot make any pretense to 'mainstream thought', because sorry, COMMUNISM IS negative, even without any fucking stereotypes, as far as its place in mainstream thought goes - ruling ideology and Communism are absolutely irreconcilable, everything about Communism horrifies petty bourgeois ideologues like yourself. Thankfully, we aren't trying to reach out to the heralds and perpetrators of "mainstream thought", we want to challenge, re-define, and transform 'mainstream thought' so that the revolutionary proletariat, not the bourgeois ideologues are hegemonic. That means, we WILL NEVER lower ourselves to the ignorance of the masses in compromising with that which keeps them chained and shackled.

Indeed we are attempting to mobilize the proletariat, the class which is not even able to be a class, the class which has nothing to do lose but its chains. You speak of a moral aversion to the horrors of Communism? What horrors of Communism are present not already for the peripheral proletarian, rife with pauperism, prostitution, degradation, slavery and exploitation, THEY HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE. WE WILL hang the fucking priests, WE WILL burn down the churches, and won't simply be a marauding band of intellectuals doing this, we will, as we have done before, mobilize the proletariat themselves, the (former) Christians and Muslims themselves to kill their sheikhs, imams, burn down their mosques and churches. And if we can do this, WHAT THE FUCK are you gonna do about it, huh? Join the counter-revolution? Go ahead, no one gives a shit, we already know you are an enemy.

IT IS NOT a stereotype that Communists defile all that is sacred, kill priests and are devils straight out of hell in the minds of the religious clregyman. WE ARE. WE ARE this so-called "evil", you fucking BET we are going to bring righteous hell on Earth for these motherfuckers, you bet your fucking ass we are going to defile everything sacred and holy, you bet your ass we are the scary motherfuckers the 'stereotypes' you are so familiar with. We are, we embrace these 'stereotypes', because they are not stereotypes, they are products of how ruling ideology approximates the trauma, the all-encompassing and merciless power of Communism - by reducing it to its own demons.

adults have real issues to contend with.

If you have real issues to contend with, issues more important than this intellectual controversy, WHY ARE YOU EVEN ENGAGED IN THIS DISCUSSION? As I said before - you want one foot in the discussion, and one foot in some pretension to 'keeping your distance', you want to maintain credibility while at the same time you want to refuse the responsibility to approach this discussion in a mature and refined manner. I do not mind humiliating you whatsoever, then, because all I am humiliating the the particular expression of the general bourgeois ideologue, and I am happy to do so.

ask yourself if what you’re saying is really beneficial.

IT IS beneficial, because accentuating this controversy actually happens to help Communists who are struggling with these same questions, who might be so inclined to buy into your bullshit. YES, this is beneficial, it is even beneficial for me, because in a very DIRECT manner, I am able to exercise the strength and prowess of Marxism. As far as hanging priests goes, IT IS beneficial, because the violence of the order that which they sustain themselves, which their superstition perpetuates, must be RIPPED under their feet. Yes we will hang the clerics, those heralds of darkness and poison, just as we will hang Fascists, even if they are just intellectuals. Such is the mercilessness of revolutionary terror. Formally I can be dishonest and pretend that 'formally, we will not do this', but anyone with rudimentary familiarity with how revolutionary terror works, understands this isn't how it works - divine violence, revolutionary vengeance, justice, this is necessary to sanctify the power of the revolution over the old order.

If priests go quietly, do not actively oppose the revolution, and if the masses do not see it fit to drink their blood, then fine, no problem. I am saying this is not how it will pan out, because THEY WILL be at the forefront of the counter-revolution, just as the religious scum were the first to welcome with open arms the Fascists in Italy and Germany. Disgusting cleric motherfuckers, they'll be lucky if they are hanged in the coming revolution, they deserve infinitely worse, those sick fucks, those passive mouthpieces of superstition, darkness and reaction. Particularly and especially in the middle east and Africa, will Mosques and churches be razed to the fucking ground. And the assault wll not end there - every single superstition will be attacked, by means of propaganda and mass education. There is no room for your 'holy mysteries' in Communism, we will eradicate, consciously, every single kind of superstition. You don't like this? Stop calling yourself a socialist then.

They don't go around, in no position of authority, announcing their intention to 'hang priests'.

In fact we have been doing this since the French revolution. But just to show how wrong you are even further, off the top of my head, I can even think of a song that directly contradicts your assertion, that sung by anarchists and Communists in Spain:

Si los curas y frailes supieran,
la paliza que les van a dar,
subirían al coro cantando:

"¡Libertad, libertad, libertad!

You speak Spanish, I imagine. And they did shoot priests in Spain, just as they shot, massacred and hung priests in Russia, and just as we will do in the coming revolution. Even during the uprising in Oman, during the cold war, Communists were driving sheikhs and imams off of cliffs mercilessly. Sure, 'hanging' isn't creative, there are more creative ways to execute the disgusting mouthpieces of reaction, darkness and superstition. The revolutionaries themselves will decide this. And finally, I don't have to be in a position of authority to say that every Communist should want to hang priests. I don't, because even if I die tomorrow, the point will remain: THERE WILL BE NO COMMUNISM unless the churches are destroyed, the priests driven from the world. I don't have to decree SHIT for this assertion to remain valid.

And Red Red chile tried to worm his way out by reviving a half year old thread, that's okay, I'm bringing the matter here:

By showing evolution to be a theory Popper was trying to create a positive framework for scientific method.

You literally don't know what your talking about. This discussion had nothing to do with the validity of evolution or not, and furthermore, no one criticized Popper for saying that evolution was a theory, but because he said it was a "metaphysical research programme". This had fuck all to do with evolutionary science, that was quite the point in fact

870 wasn't trying to say that evolution "is just a theory" by making a pretense to Popper, HE WAS ATTACKING Popper and his notion of falsification, because it did not adequately apply to the biological sciences.

every bit of data we have corroborates it.

Yet this has nothing to do with the controversy at hand, absolutely nothing to fucking do with it. But just to show how silly you are being, no, evolutionary science is not sustained because 'data happens to corroborate it', because data will never contradict it - it's not as though, as Popper thinks, we don't know enough to draw the conclusion that evolutionary science is valid, it's that the baggage of bourgeois superstition prevents us from fully accepting it where we should. That is because evolution merely refers to processes of natural change - it doesn't need to justify itself with any external empirical dogma - it merely requires the practical onset of recognizing that these processes can be understood scientifically.

The unit of selection (gene? organism? meme? family? class?) is still up for debate.

Holy shit child just stop. I literally feel bad at this point. Do you even know what selection means? Red Red Chile thinks that unit of selection refers to 'da ting which determines what humans r determined by', while in reality it simply refers to the unit of natural selection, i.e. the unit by which species and their phenotypes are selected for - it has nothing to do with a controversy about what 'determines' humans. You literally are talking out of your ass - meme?. You're using fucking phraseology and terms, from an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THREAD wherein I criticize Dawkins', in agreement with Steven J. Gould, like what the are you even talking about? How is this relevant as far as the discussion is concerned,? Even as it pertains to the basis of human qualities, no, it's not up for debate, would you like to get into that too? I'd love to, just start a new thread.

Red Red Chile

19th January 2016, 02:50

Er, you're aware this is an anti-marxist position, right? Your understanding of religion is not rooted in materialism.

Take note of that in bold:

Marx as opposed to you identified religion as a particular social phenomenon that emerges from specific social conditions. The abolition of said conditions renders religion impossible.

This differs to your view on religion which reduces it to timeless metaphysical musing like somehow the social phenomenon that is religion can be reduced to this. You're talking nonsense.

Well, given that Marx, in all his greatness, was unable to see into the future
he wisely didn't venture any guesses about what men of the future would do with their freedom. What you quote there, as it is always in Marx, applies to current and previous modes of production.

I am not even a Marxist, but if you are you should at least understand him and not stoop to base determinism.

Does it really make sense to you that under communism religion would be impossible? Whichever human knowledge is finite metaphysics will exist.

Rafiq

19th January 2016, 04:05

Sorry no, you're not going to get away with your arguments. You're not, I promise, even if it takes forever I will not stop. It is so mechanically predictable how people approach mature discussions when they are not equipped with it:

First, they will make a post that appears to have nothing to do with the very post they are designating to respond to. They will passively insinuate a response in a post, which they pretend has nothing to do with the actual post in question. This is because they want to both maintain credibility, while at the same time they don't want to assume the responsibility of addressing the post.

After they're called out, they usually start responding directly, but in a half-assed manner. Sometimes they skip that part though. After this ceases to work, they muster up everything inside them to produce a post which they think will finally do the trick, and then are surprised to see it does nothing. This has happened so many times, it is literally not even amusing anymore, it's just sad.

What you quote there, as it is always in Marx, applies to current and previous modes of production.

Does it really make sense to you that under communism religion would be impossible?

Only the most profound position of ignorance on Marx, the context that which Marx emerged from, and Marx's understanding of the past, present in relation to the future could allow someone to do this. No, really, it doesn't take much to think about how amply simply, how amply ridiculous this is. Already with Hegel we arrive at the conclusion that: To be aware of a limitation is already to be beyond it. The point is NOT that Marx was some fortuen teller, or 'predicted' the future, the point is that for Marx the entire point of Communism, is the seizure of one's historical destiny, one's historical trajectory path, so that the future is congruent with the present, i.e. the basis of the future, exists in the present. What you amply, ridiculously fail to understand is that IT IS NOT as though Marx is simply making some neutrla, passive observations about the past and the present, saying, "We don't know about the future". As Marx understood, the empirical bases of human existence: Their physical constitution as well as the natural conditions in which they find themselves, remain unaltered. So Marx is saying: ONE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A FORTUNE TELLER or "predict" the future, the point is that one can SEIZE their very destiny with their own hands, through Communism. One doesn't need to make a pretension to some new empirical, natural fact to do this, because the future consists of nothing more than men and women, their relationship both to each other and to the natural world around them. But nevermind that, because I already thorouhgly discussed and went over this, which you conveniently ignored:

Listen, do you know how profoundly idiotic this notion is? "Marxism is not a deterministic philosophy so you cannot predict what the role of class, money, prostitution, Mcdonalds will be in future societies'. By your logic, we cannot predict 'anything' about the future. In fact, what you amply fail to understand is that we don't even have to sustain our identity as Communists by saying "Things will be X way in 2100" - you fail to understand that this is undialectical - we Communists, nkow there is no place for rleigion in a future post capitalist society because AS COMMUNISTS, as it pertains to OUR OWN consciousness as communists, there is no room for religion. Even as it concerns the future, yes there is no place for religion, unless there is some empirical process we are are not aware of that sustains religion, which we have been unable to account for in our own abandonment of religion. Communism is nothing more than the dissemination of the SAME CONSCIOUSNESS that underlies us intellectuals, to the broad masses - it is literally a society full of a bunch of Rafiqs (or 'insert any marxist'). As a matter of fact, insofar as we are Marxists, and insofar as we can scientifically understand the basis of religion, WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WILL BE NO PLACE FOR RELIGION OR ANY OTHER KIND OF SUPERSTITION in a future society, and why? because the EXISTENCE of superstition, of believing in that which you do not know, an insistence on this not knowing, IS ITSELF JUXTAPOSED to knowing - a person is not ignorant, if this ignorance does not relate itself to real knowledge - likewise, RELIGION is not RELIGION in 2016, UNLESS IT RELATES ITSELF to 'believing in nothing', i.e. the absence of superstition, of any faith in an external guarantee outside of yourself and your own conscious actions. Thoroughly, the basis of religion would be annihilated, so saying that "we cannot predict the role of X" is just like saying we cannot predict that there will be invisible unicorns in the future. We understand that the basis of religion would be annihilated. What you fail to understand is that the basis of religion is nothing more than superstition. Superstition by definition CANNOT BE AN INEVITABILITY, there is no innate physiological structure that makes superstition inevitable, because superstition, like ignorance, MUST RELATE ITSELF to the prospect of actually knowing, there is no point in saying that certain agricultural practices are sacred, or that certain practices that relate to natural processes are sacred, if this is not juxtaposing itself to the prospect of altering these practices and processes, mastering them, and so on, it is not at all superstition, but merely the culmination epistemological extent of a society. This is why we have what is called modern science, which did not exist before the renaissance. BUT IN EVERY SINGLE society, including pre-neolithic human society, superstition has reproduced the real conditions of life. What makes Communism unique, is that it annihilates every and all kinds of superstition - Communism is LITERALLY synonymous with the destruction of superstition.

You claim that "we won't be able to tell if people will still 'believe' in a higher power' - what you fail to do, and what you fail to understand is: WHY DO PEOPLE NEED a 'higher power'? What practical use do people have, for religion, WHY WOULD THIS BE NECESSARY in a society that is socially self-conscious ,that is conscious of itself historically, conscious of where it was, where it is, and where it is going all at once? Or do you want to claim that such a society is impossible? You in effect, therefore, claim that humans cannot be conscious of the very conditions and basis of life that no one else but they themselves constitute nad form a part of. THE WHOLE POINT of Marx's understanding of ideology was that it entailed the doing of things, without the knowing of doing these things - it is to be doing it, without knowing it. THAT IS superstition, that is the very definition of superstition. So in effect, the notion that "We don't know if a god is real" is just as worthless as saying that "We don't know if a pink unicorn that is invisible is real' - in Communism neither would have any practical relevance, both statements would be worthless and meaningless because we would not have to BELIEVE these things, or even ENTERTAIN belief in these things, in order to live and constitute our existence. Their practical relevance, i.e. superstition, is only relevant for a society that must perpetuate non-consciousness of its intricacies. These intricacies still exist, however, so they must be designated, i.e. in Lacanina/Althusserian terms, they must be aimed at, but never touched upon. This is what undelries every single superstition, from a belief in a god, to anti-semitism. To designate something, without knowing it, is the definition of ideology. Communism allows us to know these things.

Bold emphasized by me in the context of this post: WE KNOW there will be no religion in a future Communist society, because as it pertains to our consciousness IN THE HERE AND NOW, WE CAN free ourselves from religion, and this freedom is implicit in nothing more than the communist movement - which Marx himself understood as synonymous with Communism itself, as it relates to our conscisouness. In other words, if Rafiq can be without superstition, so can any person. There si nothing physiologically unique about Rafiq that allows this - in fact, his rejection of superstition is already in terms of a universal reason, one that relates to society as a whole and the consciousnesses present in society that which superstition is underlied by. To add insult to injury, Rafiq himself also used to be religious and superstitious, growing up - unless there was something 'peculiar' about his religious upbringing (which there is not), then in effect, the only proof we need that religion is not inevitable is MY EVERY EXISTENCE, AS WELL AS THE EXISTENCE OF AN INNUMERABLE WEALTH OF OTHER MARXISTS who have done the SAME THING. But nevermind this, the point is quite simple - UNLESS THERE IS AN EXTERNAL EMPIRICAL PHENOMENA which is responsible for religion, which we Marxist are not taking into account, i.e. unless there is something responsible for religion, that was separate from its basis of existence in Marx's time, or in our time, or in any time, WE ALREADY KNOW that religion would be destroyed. You have not made any pretense to this 'something', you have instead said that "We just don't know yet, bro". For all he is concerned, this something could amount to space aliens transmitting radio frequencies in our brains. It doesn't matter, because this scholasticism is of zero importance - the future is already sealed when we say, in 2016: WE WILL SMASH, FIGHT AND ATTACK EVERY KIND OF SUPERSTITION. We don't need to make pretenses to the year 2100 to do this, and insofar as men and women are historically self-conscious, they will do the same thing we are doing today, and if they are not doing this (which they likely will not be), it is because they have already destroyed the basis of religion. The basis of religious controversy, sais Marx, is IN EARTHLY controversies. Re-read the FUCKING quote:

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.

Marx is not saying "religion up until now", he is not talking about religion as some contingency, HE IS TALKING ABOUT RELIGION AS SUCH. It's even hilarious when you take into account the very basic fact that, Marx's criticism of religion is just as potent in 2016 as it was in his time - literally it is the same argument. How can you explain this? You don't understand how ILLOGICAL your argument is, for another reason, too: The fact is that religion is a social and historical controversy, when Marx writes about religion, or history in general, HE IS NOT SAYING "I don't know the future", because ALL SCIENCE IS PRACTICAL - Marx's assessment in scientific terms is a PRACTICAL assessment, IN CRITIQUING religion, HE IS ALREADY laying the foundations for the overcoming of religion. In CRITIQUING class society, he is already laying the foundations for a society that is conscious of its social basis, a society without class OR religion. For Marx, THE NOTION THAT THE FUTURE is (IN HISTORIC or SOCIAL terms) always unknowable as far as it relates to human consciousnesses, is abominably stupid as it concerns Communism, because Marx's work is congruent with the onset of a historical movement that disallows things to be 'left up in the air', a movement which is totally historically and socially conscious of itself, which literally SEIZES its historical trajectory path by the throat and masters it, i.e. so that EVEN THOUGH we cannot predict the particularities of the future, this is a nonsensical notion, because with the destruction of social antagonism, the basis of hte future is in the present. A communist movement, and then society is aware of where it was, where it is, and where it is going all at once.

Let us evaluate the practical point of this: The point is, NO PRETENSION TO THE FUTURE justifies dealing with the controversies as they exist in the here and now, because the fate of men and women, whether they are conscious or not, is up to the actions of men and women. Communism is the consciousness of these 'actions', i.e. consciousness of their social/historical basis. But even without Communism (which for this reason IS NOT inevitable: it requires WILL), the future, no matter what it is, will be the result of the relations between men and women, the natural world around them, and the reproduction of these relations. In other words, we don't need to justify eradicating religion, superstition, from human consciousness in 2016, by making pretensions to life in the year 2100, because that will be a controversy that relates to the men and women that exist in that specific time. To put it more succinctly, both our conception of the past and the future relate to controversies as they exist in the here and now. Social/historical self consciousness, is to literally take human society by the steering wheel, wherein historical movement becomes consciously ordained, only sustained - after the absence of social antagonism, by an ever-exponential mastery of nature. It is true that we will not predict what we will discover in 2016, but that is besides the point - because none of these discoveries wil justify the superstitions that exist in the here and now, NOTHING JUSTIFIES SUPERSTITION, BECAUSE IT RELATES ITSELF TO REAL KNOWLEDGE.

Let us evaluate the very nature of this 'religion' RELIGION means nothing more than superstition, so saying that superstition will cease to exist, is synonymous with Communism. This is just as 'crazy' and unreasonable as the existence of Communism itself. He who thinks it is unreasonable to say that religion cannot exist in the future, ALSO sais that it is unreasonable to think that class, the family, gender, the state, war, other 'ontological categories' for the bourgeois ideologue, will not exist in Communism. The future is up to men and women. Communism is the self-consciousness of the social basis of life constituted by nothing more than men and women. You can say that there is an invisible pink unicorn god that will be outraged if we defile the sacred, some entity outside of the existence of men and women. But we don't care, we'll fucking make the leap of faith anyway, because in practical terms WE CAN do it, WE CAN, and WE WILL. We risk all the superstitions of the bourgeois ideologues coming true, just as the bourgeois scientists risked all the superstitions coming true if they manipulated natural processes. When ignorance is hegemonic, it takes courage and faith to know where it is insisted not to. And we do this, shamelessly.

not stoop to base determinism.

After having this accusation destroyed, demolished, in every conceivable and imaginable way possible, he still talks of determinism. My god, what nerve. Thank you, however, for admitting you are not a Marxist. We already knew that.

Whichever human knowledge is finite metaphysics will exist.

And finally, the most ridiculous notion of all. First, note how he ignores the first argument against his pretension to metaphysics, does not even address or acknowledge the actual, real origin of metaphysics:

And yet again, unsurprisingly, you literally talk out of your ass. "Speculation in metaphysics"? WHO HERE IS MAKING ANY PRETENSE TO METAPHYSICS, HUH? You're just fucking USING WORDS that you don't fucking understand - metaphysics refers to the practice of linking up one's ideological designation of the social domain, with natural processes, attempting to find congruence between them. THIS IS NOT what we are doing by claiming religion will be annihilated through Communism, we don't have to make any pretense to the 'nature' of the universe to say this, we need only to be conscious of, scientifically assess, that which is right in front of us, that which we are a part of - our own conditions of life. This is what I'm fucking talking about with positivism and the rise of mysticism - POSITIVISM GAVE BIRTH to mysticism, because in its purported rejection of 'metaphysics', the processes that relate to the basis of human existence still exist, and still are 'felt', so people inevitably turned to mysticism. And the positivists didn't give a fuck, so long as that mysticism wasn't called 'scientific'. So this is why you have so many scientists who, upon returning home from their labs, will 'pray' and have the most anti-scientific reservations.

Marxists have a dialectical understanding of epistemology, which derived largely from Hegel. The notion that 'metaphysics is the result of limits in human knowledge' IS WRONG, because these are not genuine limits. Genuine limits, are truly limits, ones that cannot be encompassed simply by the absence of any real means of knowing whatsoever. But it is this controversy which encapsulates Communism: THE LIMITS that which are responsible for metaphysics ARE NOT limits as far as our empirical understanding of the natural world goes, BUT INTENTIONAL limits regarding our understanding of the social domain that which we ourselves are a part of. In other words, metaphysics arose not because people tried to 'fill gaps' where the empirical sciences could not yet already fill, it arose because it attempted to RELATE the ideological understanding of the social, i.e. the absence of knowledge of social processes, to real empirical truths, about the 'nature of being', about natural processes. The point of positivism was a rejection of this: Positivists said - "keep your superstitions to yourself, keep them out of scientific inquiry". The conundrum of positivism is that EVERY POSITIVIST had these 'superstitions' privately anyway, they just insisted on not consciously approaching, addressing or referring to them in a matter that related to purported consciously held empirical truths, because THE social processes that which they belong INEVITABLY are felt to exist, and this existence is designated at. That "feeling of awe/mystery', that "spiritual feeling" and so on - THIS is the domain of the sacred that Communism smashes through, through scientific inquiry.

So no, human knowledge of certain empirical processes can be indefinitely finite, and the basis of metaphysics still doesn't have to exist, because INSOFAR as one is SOCIALLY self-conscious, conscious of themselves as humans, and their relation to others, WHICH REQUIRES NO empirical premise that is uncontroversial, outside of their own very existence and being, one will only ever refer to the natural world, in a practical manner, insofar as it is practical for the prerogatives of human consciousness. No discovery, no finding, will ever be able to change this, because human consciousness will always be sufficient unto itself, it will always exist - for itself - of itself - by itself, it doesn't need any understanding of other galaxies, solar systems, quantic processes to constitute itself and to exist. AT THE ONSET of subjectivity, in other words, absolute knowledge in this sense becomes possible. No empirical finding will change that, because the basic empirical distinction between inside and outside, you who practically has a reason to find empirical truths, and the outside objects of your investigation, will never change insofar as human consciousness exists. Rafiq's knowledge of the universe, and our potential practical relation to it, is quite finite. And yet Rafiq does not need any metaphysics. So who are you to make pretenses to 'humans'? Am I not human? Your whole argument is that 'humans will inevitably try to find answers where there aren't any'. The whole point is that HUMANS DO THIS TODAY to supplement what they lack consciousness of OF THEMSELVES, as conscious historical beings. Otherwise, there would be no reason to be superstitious, no practical reason whatsoever would exist for people to make up bullshit about things they do not yet know. For example name me one superstition humans have, or one metaphysical doctrine, that does not directly designate at social controversy, human consciousness and human existence. THERE IS NONE!

What is ultimately disgusting is how YOU YOURSELF claim this is some inevitable limitation - you literally claim to be conscious of something, and yet INSIST on not being able to apply that conscious practically. That is - literally - not only superstition, it is scholasticism. If you have no control over your predispositions to metaphysics, how, pray tell, are you consciously aware of this limitation?

Jacob Cliff

19th January 2016, 06:29

Indeed we are attempting to mobilize the proletariat, the class which is not even able to be a class,

What do you mean by this?

Jacob Cliff

20th January 2016, 03:52

Sorry no, you're not going to get away with your arguments. You're not, I promise, even if it takes forever I will not stop. It is so mechanically predictable how people approach mature discussions when they are not equipped with it:

First, they will make a post that appears to have nothing to do with the very post they are designating to respond to. They will passively insinuate a response in a post, which they pretend has nothing to do with the actual post in question. This is because they want to both maintain credibility, while at the same time they don't want to assume the responsibility of addressing the post.

After they're called out, they usually start responding directly, but in a half-assed manner. Sometimes they skip that part though. After this ceases to work, they muster up everything inside them to produce a post which they think will finally do the trick, and then are surprised to see it does nothing. This has happened so many times, it is literally not even amusing anymore, it's just sad.

Only the most profound position of ignorance on Marx, the context that which Marx emerged from, and Marx's understanding of the past, present in relation to the future could allow someone to do this. No, really, it doesn't take much to think about how amply simply, how amply ridiculous this is. Already with Hegel we arrive at the conclusion that: To be aware of a limitation is already to be beyond it. The point is NOT that Marx was some fortuen teller, or 'predicted' the future, the point is that for Marx the entire point of Communism, is the seizure of one's historical destiny, one's historical trajectory path, so that the future is congruent with the present, i.e. the basis of the future, exists in the present. What you amply, ridiculously fail to understand is that IT IS NOT as though Marx is simply making some neutrla, passive observations about the past and the present, saying, "We don't know about the future". As Marx understood, the empirical bases of human existence: Their physical constitution as well as the natural conditions in which they find themselves, remain unaltered. So Marx is saying: ONE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A FORTUNE TELLER or "predict" the future, the point is that one can SEIZE their very destiny with their own hands, through Communism. One doesn't need to make a pretension to some new empirical, natural fact to do this, because the future consists of nothing more than men and women, their relationship both to each other and to the natural world around them. But nevermind that, because I already thorouhgly discussed and went over this, which you conveniently ignored:

Listen, do you know how profoundly idiotic this notion is? "Marxism is not a deterministic philosophy so you cannot predict what the role of class, money, prostitution, Mcdonalds will be in future societies'. By your logic, we cannot predict 'anything' about the future. In fact, what you amply fail to understand is that we don't even have to sustain our identity as Communists by saying "Things will be X way in 2100" - you fail to understand that this is undialectical - we Communists, nkow there is no place for rleigion in a future post capitalist society because AS COMMUNISTS, as it pertains to OUR OWN consciousness as communists, there is no room for religion. Even as it concerns the future, yes there is no place for religion, unless there is some empirical process we are are not aware of that sustains religion, which we have been unable to account for in our own abandonment of religion. Communism is nothing more than the dissemination of the SAME CONSCIOUSNESS that underlies us intellectuals, to the broad masses - it is literally a society full of a bunch of Rafiqs (or 'insert any marxist'). As a matter of fact, insofar as we are Marxists, and insofar as we can scientifically understand the basis of religion, WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WILL BE NO PLACE FOR RELIGION OR ANY OTHER KIND OF SUPERSTITION in a future society, and why? because the EXISTENCE of superstition, of believing in that which you do not know, an insistence on this not knowing, IS ITSELF JUXTAPOSED to knowing - a person is not ignorant, if this ignorance does not relate itself to real knowledge - likewise, RELIGION is not RELIGION in 2016, UNLESS IT RELATES ITSELF to 'believing in nothing', i.e. the absence of superstition, of any faith in an external guarantee outside of yourself and your own conscious actions. Thoroughly, the basis of religion would be annihilated, so saying that "we cannot predict the role of X" is just like saying we cannot predict that there will be invisible unicorns in the future. We understand that the basis of religion would be annihilated. What you fail to understand is that the basis of religion is nothing more than superstition. Superstition by definition CANNOT BE AN INEVITABILITY, there is no innate physiological structure that makes superstition inevitable, because superstition, like ignorance, MUST RELATE ITSELF to the prospect of actually knowing, there is no point in saying that certain agricultural practices are sacred, or that certain practices that relate to natural processes are sacred, if this is not juxtaposing itself to the prospect of altering these practices and processes, mastering them, and so on, it is not at all superstition, but merely the culmination epistemological extent of a society. This is why we have what is called modern science, which did not exist before the renaissance. BUT IN EVERY SINGLE society, including pre-neolithic human society, superstition has reproduced the real conditions of life. What makes Communism unique, is that it annihilates every and all kinds of superstition - Communism is LITERALLY synonymous with the destruction of superstition.

You claim that "we won't be able to tell if people will still 'believe' in a higher power' - what you fail to do, and what you fail to understand is: WHY DO PEOPLE NEED a 'higher power'? What practical use do people have, for religion, WHY WOULD THIS BE NECESSARY in a society that is socially self-conscious ,that is conscious of itself historically, conscious of where it was, where it is, and where it is going all at once? Or do you want to claim that such a society is impossible? You in effect, therefore, claim that humans cannot be conscious of the very conditions and basis of life that no one else but they themselves constitute nad form a part of. THE WHOLE POINT of Marx's understanding of ideology was that it entailed the doing of things, without the knowing of doing these things - it is to be doing it, without knowing it. THAT IS superstition, that is the very definition of superstition. So in effect, the notion that "We don't know if a god is real" is just as worthless as saying that "We don't know if a pink unicorn that is invisible is real' - in Communism neither would have any practical relevance, both statements would be worthless and meaningless because we would not have to BELIEVE these things, or even ENTERTAIN belief in these things, in order to live and constitute our existence. Their practical relevance, i.e. superstition, is only relevant for a society that must perpetuate non-consciousness of its intricacies. These intricacies still exist, however, so they must be designated, i.e. in Lacanina/Althusserian terms, they must be aimed at, but never touched upon. This is what undelries every single superstition, from a belief in a god, to anti-semitism. To designate something, without knowing it, is the definition of ideology. Communism allows us to know these things.

Bold emphasized by me in the context of this post: WE KNOW there will be no religion in a future Communist society, because as it pertains to our consciousness IN THE HERE AND NOW, WE CAN free ourselves from religion, and this freedom is implicit in nothing more than the communist movement - which Marx himself understood as synonymous with Communism itself, as it relates to our conscisouness. In other words, if Rafiq can be without superstition, so can any person. There si nothing physiologically unique about Rafiq that allows this - in fact, his rejection of superstition is already in terms of a universal reason, one that relates to society as a whole and the consciousnesses present in society that which superstition is underlied by. To add insult to injury, Rafiq himself also used to be religious and superstitious, growing up - unless there was something 'peculiar' about his religious upbringing (which there is not), then in effect, the only proof we need that religion is not inevitable is MY EVERY EXISTENCE, AS WELL AS THE EXISTENCE OF AN INNUMERABLE WEALTH OF OTHER MARXISTS who have done the SAME THING. But nevermind this, the point is quite simple - UNLESS THERE IS AN EXTERNAL EMPIRICAL PHENOMENA which is responsible for religion, which we Marxist are not taking into account, i.e. unless there is something responsible for religion, that was separate from its basis of existence in Marx's time, or in our time, or in any time, WE ALREADY KNOW that religion would be destroyed. You have not made any pretense to this 'something', you have instead said that "We just don't know yet, bro". For all he is concerned, this something could amount to space aliens transmitting radio frequencies in our brains. It doesn't matter, because this scholasticism is of zero importance - the future is already sealed when we say, in 2016: WE WILL SMASH, FIGHT AND ATTACK EVERY KIND OF SUPERSTITION. We don't need to make pretenses to the year 2100 to do this, and insofar as men and women are historically self-conscious, they will do the same thing we are doing today, and if they are not doing this (which they likely will not be), it is because they have already destroyed the basis of religion. The basis of religious controversy, sais Marx, is IN EARTHLY controversies. Re-read the FUCKING quote:

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.

Marx is not saying "religion up until now", he is not talking about religion as some contingency, HE IS TALKING ABOUT RELIGION AS SUCH. It's even hilarious when you take into account the very basic fact that, Marx's criticism of religion is just as potent in 2016 as it was in his time - literally it is the same argument. How can you explain this? You don't understand how ILLOGICAL your argument is, for another reason, too: The fact is that religion is a social and historical controversy, when Marx writes about religion, or history in general, HE IS NOT SAYING "I don't know the future", because ALL SCIENCE IS PRACTICAL - Marx's assessment in scientific terms is a PRACTICAL assessment, IN CRITIQUING religion, HE IS ALREADY laying the foundations for the overcoming of religion. In CRITIQUING class society, he is already laying the foundations for a society that is conscious of its social basis, a society without class OR religion. For Marx, THE NOTION THAT THE FUTURE is (IN HISTORIC or SOCIAL terms) always unknowable as far as it relates to human consciousnesses, is abominably stupid as it concerns Communism, because Marx's work is congruent with the onset of a historical movement that disallows things to be 'left up in the air', a movement which is totally historically and socially conscious of itself, which literally SEIZES its historical trajectory path by the throat and masters it, i.e. so that EVEN THOUGH we cannot predict the particularities of the future, this is a nonsensical notion, because with the destruction of social antagonism, the basis of hte future is in the present. A communist movement, and then society is aware of where it was, where it is, and where it is going all at once.

Let us evaluate the practical point of this: The point is, NO PRETENSION TO THE FUTURE justifies dealing with the controversies as they exist in the here and now, because the fate of men and women, whether they are conscious or not, is up to the actions of men and women. Communism is the consciousness of these 'actions', i.e. consciousness of their social/historical basis. But even without Communism (which for this reason IS NOT inevitable: it requires WILL), the future, no matter what it is, will be the result of the relations between men and women, the natural world around them, and the reproduction of these relations. In other words, we don't need to justify eradicating religion, superstition, from human consciousness in 2016, by making pretensions to life in the year 2100, because that will be a controversy that relates to the men and women that exist in that specific time. To put it more succinctly, both our conception of the past and the future relate to controversies as they exist in the here and now. Social/historical self consciousness, is to literally take human society by the steering wheel, wherein historical movement becomes consciously ordained, only sustained - after the absence of social antagonism, by an ever-exponential mastery of nature. It is true that we will not predict what we will discover in 2016, but that is besides the point - because none of these discoveries wil justify the superstitions that exist in the here and now, NOTHING JUSTIFIES SUPERSTITION, BECAUSE IT RELATES ITSELF TO REAL KNOWLEDGE.

Let us evaluate the very nature of this 'religion' RELIGION means nothing more than superstition, so saying that superstition will cease to exist, is synonymous with Communism. This is just as 'crazy' and unreasonable as the existence of Communism itself. He who thinks it is unreasonable to say that religion cannot exist in the future, ALSO sais that it is unreasonable to think that class, the family, gender, the state, war, other 'ontological categories' for the bourgeois ideologue, will not exist in Communism. The future is up to men and women. Communism is the self-consciousness of the social basis of life constituted by nothing more than men and women. You can say that there is an invisible pink unicorn god that will be outraged if we defile the sacred, some entity outside of the existence of men and women. But we don't care, we'll fucking make the leap of faith anyway, because in practical terms WE CAN do it, WE CAN, and WE WILL. We risk all the superstitions of the bourgeois ideologues coming true, just as the bourgeois scientists risked all the superstitions coming true if they manipulated natural processes. When ignorance is hegemonic, it takes courage and faith to know where it is insisted not to. And we do this, shamelessly.

After having this accusation destroyed, demolished, in every conceivable and imaginable way possible, he still talks of determinism. My god, what nerve. Thank you, however, for admitting you are not a Marxist. We already knew that.

And finally, the most ridiculous notion of all. First, note how he ignores the first argument against his pretension to metaphysics, does not even address or acknowledge the actual, real origin of metaphysics:

And yet again, unsurprisingly, you literally talk out of your ass. "Speculation in metaphysics"? WHO HERE IS MAKING ANY PRETENSE TO METAPHYSICS, HUH? You're just fucking USING WORDS that you don't fucking understand - metaphysics refers to the practice of linking up one's ideological designation of the social domain, with natural processes, attempting to find congruence between them. THIS IS NOT what we are doing by claiming religion will be annihilated through Communism, we don't have to make any pretense to the 'nature' of the universe to say this, we need only to be conscious of, scientifically assess, that which is right in front of us, that which we are a part of - our own conditions of life. This is what I'm fucking talking about with positivism and the rise of mysticism - POSITIVISM GAVE BIRTH to mysticism, because in its purported rejection of 'metaphysics', the processes that relate to the basis of human existence still exist, and still are 'felt', so people inevitably turned to mysticism. And the positivists didn't give a fuck, so long as that mysticism wasn't called 'scientific'. So this is why you have so many scientists who, upon returning home from their labs, will 'pray' and have the most anti-scientific reservations.

Marxists have a dialectical understanding of epistemology, which derived largely from Hegel. The notion that 'metaphysics is the result of limits in human knowledge' IS WRONG, because these are not genuine limits. Genuine limits, are truly limits, ones that cannot be encompassed simply by the absence of any real means of knowing whatsoever. But it is this controversy which encapsulates Communism: THE LIMITS that which are responsible for metaphysics ARE NOT limits as far as our empirical understanding of the natural world goes, BUT INTENTIONAL limits regarding our understanding of the social domain that which we ourselves are a part of. In other words, metaphysics arose not because people tried to 'fill gaps' where the empirical sciences could not yet already fill, it arose because it attempted to RELATE the ideological understanding of the social, i.e. the absence of knowledge of social processes, to real empirical truths, about the 'nature of being', about natural processes. The point of positivism was a rejection of this: Positivists said - "keep your superstitions to yourself, keep them out of scientific inquiry". The conundrum of positivism is that EVERY POSITIVIST had these 'superstitions' privately anyway, they just insisted on not consciously approaching, addressing or referring to them in a matter that related to purported consciously held empirical truths, because THE social processes that which they belong INEVITABLY are felt to exist, and this existence is designated at. That "feeling of awe/mystery', that "spiritual feeling" and so on - THIS is the domain of the sacred that Communism smashes through, through scientific inquiry.

So no, human knowledge of certain empirical processes can be indefinitely finite, and the basis of metaphysics still doesn't have to exist, because INSOFAR as one is SOCIALLY self-conscious, conscious of themselves as humans, and their relation to others, WHICH REQUIRES NO empirical premise that is uncontroversial, outside of their own very existence and being, one will only ever refer to the natural world, in a practical manner, insofar as it is practical for the prerogatives of human consciousness. No discovery, no finding, will ever be able to change this, because human consciousness will always be sufficient unto itself, it will always exist - for itself - of itself - by itself, it doesn't need any understanding of other galaxies, solar systems, quantic processes to constitute itself and to exist. AT THE ONSET of subjectivity, in other words, absolute knowledge in this sense becomes possible. No empirical finding will change that, because the basic empirical distinction between inside and outside, you who practically has a reason to find empirical truths, and the outside objects of your investigation, will never change insofar as human consciousness exists. Rafiq's knowledge of the universe, and our potential practical relation to it, is quite finite. And yet Rafiq does not need any metaphysics. So who are you to make pretenses to 'humans'? Am I not human? Your whole argument is that 'humans will inevitably try to find answers where there aren't any'. The whole point is that HUMANS DO THIS TODAY to supplement what they lack consciousness of OF THEMSELVES, as conscious historical beings. Otherwise, there would be no reason to be superstitious, no practical reason whatsoever would exist for people to make up bullshit about things they do not yet know. For example name me one superstition humans have, or one metaphysical doctrine, that does not directly designate at social controversy, human consciousness and human existence. THERE IS NONE!

What is ultimately disgusting is how YOU YOURSELF claim this is some inevitable limitation - you literally claim to be conscious of something, and yet INSIST on not being able to apply that conscious practically. That is - literally - not only superstition, it is scholasticism. If you have no control over your predispositions to metaphysics, how, pray tell, are you consciously aware of this limitation?
Just to make sure I have reached this conclusion correctly on my own (given my self-doubt, having a fairly newborn conception of Marxism): is the reason why superstition, metaphysics, religion, etc., is so needed and sustained by capitalism (and vise versa) because it attempts to relate that which is currently unknowable to some universal truths or pretenses – like human nature, God, etc.? Or is it more of: religion makes people passive by promising them a "pie in the sky when they die," rather than have them realize they must fight here and now for a better life?

On another note: why must we hang those with differing opinions – priests, intellectuals, etc.? I can see the practical necessity, I guess, but what would separate us from any Mao, Stalin, or Hitler? Why raze down mosques, churches and synagogues when these are pieces of history in need of at least preservation (like the Hagia Sopha – would we destroy this too?).

(I understand the stupidity of the Hitler-Stalin-Mao assertion, FYI – I just want to see a better way of responding, because my current one is weak).

Rafiq

20th January 2016, 08:04

Just to make sure I have reached this conclusion correctly on my own (given my self-doubt, having a fairly newborn conception of Marxism): is the reason why superstition, metaphysics, religion, etc., is so needed and sustained by capitalism (and vise versa) because it attempts to relate that which is currently unknowable to some universal truths or pretenses – like human nature, God, etc.?

No, if I am reading you correctly. The reason why superstition, metaphysics and religion is needed has nothing to do with any genuine unknowable, but precisely because our social order IS knowable. Religion, superstition and metaphsyics, INSIST upon non-consciosuness of that which is knowable, and - yes - as it is fashionable today, relate this insisted, intentional limitation to the real empirical limitations we have about the natural world. As we approach neuroscience and quantum physics, the two now overlap: Our understanding of natural processes is now actually HINDERED by these superstitions, our lack of historical consciousness (social consciousness).

On another note: why must we hang those with differing opinions

A priest is not a priest because he has different opinions, but because he actively spreads filth, superstition and darkness. Fascists ought to be hanged for the same reason. Even if Fascists are non-violent, can we really say that Fascists today just have 'different opinions'? No, because where active ideologues begin, 'individuals with opinion' end. I've gone over this before in previous threads, though in greater detail. Refer back to the one about 'murdering counter revolutionaries'.

what would separate us from any Mao, Stalin, or Hitler?

Because what made Mao, Stalin and Hitler distinguishable (and one of these is unlike the other, as you acknowledge) had nothing to do with their propensity to kill opposing ideologues, anymore than their erratic hair styles made them distinct.

So to answer: Plenty would, because what qualifies someone as similar to Stalin and Mao, and what qualifies someone as similar to Hitler, has nothing to do with acts of violence as some abstraction.

when these are pieces of history in need of at least preservation (like the Hagia Sopha – would we destroy this too?).

We should all be for razing mecca, that wretched idol of capital, for example, to the ground. We Communists must be like Mohommad, we must behead the heads of all pagan idols, not preserve them. Where Mohommad failed, when he beheaded the idols, is that he ended up leaving one left - allah. We destroy the world and make it anew. If we are serious about a new world, we also must be serious about renouncing the past. Of course, this doesn't mean all historical artifacts need to be destroyed, but that there is no problem with destroying ones insofar as these artifacts still have relevance to the controversies of today. We should destroy mecca, the holy sites of jerusalem, the vatican, all holy sites that still function as holy sites.

Jacob Cliff

20th January 2016, 20:38

Alright – but I must ask: how is Mecca a wretched idol of capital? I can see it representing darkness and superstition, which we would overcome – but I'm not sure how it relates to capital.

Major K.

20th January 2016, 21:01

I think the hardman approach is part and parcel with vulgar religiosity and perpetuates the problem. For me, religion is poetry, and poetry is every-day life in its ineffable thusness. The most religious books we have are the ones that contain the best poetry. And in my opinion, that place can most pertinently be found in the great hiaku poets of Japan. Basho. Issa. Buson. ... Also... Emerson. Byron. Bach. Dickenson. and many more.

Scientific materialism is a good foundation for a society to have, but it can only ever get us to a mechanical competency and complexity. If we want to truly transform society for the better, there must also be a transformation of consciousness. This can be found in large part in the relinquishing of the desire of security through understanding and total Selfishness.

We must not confuse the words we use to describe the world for the world itself. Yet, and especially bourgeois scientists, most so called scientists are engaged in activity that is over-specialized to triviality, are obsessed with analytically fragmented affairs, and only care for the truth insofar as they can control it and bend it to the maintenance and "prettyfication" of the current order.

Any sort of dogmatism dulls the mind. Vulgar religiosity is not just a matter of temples and priests, it is a matter of all ideological submissions. As long as people are lying to themselves about where authority comes from, we will never be able to significantly transform society for the better. And, to be explicit, all authority comes from you.

Major K.

P.S. In summary, we must not be so foolish as to subjugate Dionysus to Apollo so frivolously and expect a revolution to emerge therefrom. If you are serious about destroying false idols, consider your own conditioned self and ties of admiration and authority. Most everyone right now is religious -- it's just a matter of pretending they're not. And that especially includes those who call themselves atheists or materialists or whatever other abstract reactionary belief system they want to dull their minds with.

Rafiq

21st January 2016, 00:40

Alright – but I must ask: how is Mecca a wretched idol of capital? I can see it representing darkness and superstition, which we would overcome – but I'm not sure how it relates to capital.

Because Mecca's significance has exploded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajj#Number_of_pilgrims_per_year) in significance specifically in congruence with neoliberalism and globalization. It is not some ancient sight of worship - in all its theological and religious dimension, it is capital they are idolizing in mecca. That much is plainly obvious - Muslim consciousness in general has absolutely emerged as a means to accommodate to global capital, to the global capitalist totality. You see it not only with the most basic investigation of what these beliefs mean to these people in practical terms, in their ordinary lives, but even the architecture that is present in Mecca - it is not only bourgeois, it is neoliberal. Mecca IS an idol of capital, and nothing more, because what they are worshiping is - for example - their own alienation.

Saudi Arabia, which is bastion of purely speculative finance capital, let me ask you: Why do you think so many undertake the pilgrimage? As it relates to Muslim consciousness, what is the nature of the Muslim god? Being from a muslim background myself, I know this. It is the god of capital, as every other god is. It is the god that which all the superstitions of the social are projected upon, reflected upon, the wise god, superego of the present social order of things, built around the regular sacrifice of all things sacred to the hunger of capital. Mecca is ABSOLUTELY of purely MODERN significance, it is not some vestige of some older feudalism - look up photos of mecca on google, does that look like some ancient thing to you? Look at the filthy architecture surrounding it, does this (https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2009/10/15/1255630952358/Mecca-super-hotel--001.jpg?w=470&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&) look like some pre-modern arabian architecture?

I think the hardman approach is part and parcel with vulgar religiosity and perpetuates the problem

Please stop with such abominably boring, unbearably overused to the point of actual humor, bourgeois-liberal postmodern cliches. What makes religion significant for the bourgeois liberal and the postmodern reactionary, what makes fundamentalism for them scary, is the 'fanatical' dimension to it, the uncompromising willingness to be actively engaged, overly engaged that is, into worldly controversy. That they are not 'balanced enough', that they don't think with an 'open mind'. That is because for the bourgeois ideologue, the intricacies of power and social life that they themselves are already fully immersed and engaged in, do all the fanatical worshiping for them - they are allowed to be 'balanced' and 'open-minded', because they are not conscious of the nature of their own ideological engagement - which they passively assume to be 'natural', a 'given', and so on. Convesrely, Communists do not qualify their opposition to religion on grounds that it is too 'extreme' or that it entails too engaged partisanship. This has never been even any radical progressive criticism of religion since the french revolution. Instead, IT IS WE COMMUNISTS who are, who have always been, and who always will be the true 'fanatics', those truly willing to devote and sacrifice themselves to the cause of Communism, and the fact of the matter is that Fascists, islamists, and the irk - have only aesthetically maintained this appearance so as to copy our appeal to the lowest of the low, the most oppressed and marginalized of society's elements.

Scientific materialism is a good foundation for a society to have, but it can only ever get us to a mechanical competency and complexity. If we want to truly transform society for the better, there must also be a transformation of consciousness.

A transformation in consciousness, and materialist discipline, being violently opposed to every and any kind of superstition IS congruent with a radical transformation in everything that it means to be a human, including the deepest core of one's consciousness. Anyone familiar with Communism, the history of Communism, understands this - THE WHOLE POINT of a criticism of ideology is a transformation of one's consciousness, a total transformation of one's character, what makes one 'tick', and so on. The notion that SUPERSTITION in particular, is some inevitable dimension of human existence, as I stated over and over again, as I poured so much thorough detail and careful consideration into in previous posts, is not only groundless, i.e. empirically wrong, IT IS COMPLETELY impossible even by nature of the proposition. How could one be aware of a limitation, and yet still be enchained by it, in their consciousness? Because this is the highpoint of anti-democratic discourse: Projecting special characteristics upon 'man in general', but exempting yourself who claims this. This is why Hobbes is so significant as an anti-democratic figure - how can one act as a free rational agent, while at the same time purport and make pretenses to inevitability of human consciousness, that are external from this domain of universal reason?

Any sort of dogmatism dulls the mind. Vulgar religiosity is not just a matter of temples and priests, it is a matter of all ideological submissions.

Again, do not mistaken the meaning of dogmatism for 'over-identification', dedication, or self-sacrifice, having a 'closed mind'. That is not what dogmatism means. Dogmatism refers to the ossification of ideas without special consideration from their real, concrete implications. In short, dogmatism is a form of idealism, because it elevates 'ideas' themselves, rather than the real concrete things those ideas are designating, into having some concrete, essential existence of their own. That has little to do with 'ideological submissions'. Communism is an ideology - but not in the same way as other ideologies, that ideologically designate the social. Instead, the 'ideological' nature of Communism, is the uncertain horizon in front of us, it is Communism's unique juxtaposition to ideology in general. Communism, essentially, is the ideology that is not even an ideology - but is still designated as one, because of the partisan and engaged nature of renouncing ideology, in a context where ideology is necessary to reproduce the existing order. THE unknowable domain, is the Communist future - that is the 'ideological' dimension of Communism. And it s perfectly justified.

P.S. In summary, we must not be so foolish as to subjugate Dionysus to Apollo so frivolously and expect a revolution to emerge therefrom.

Please stop with the pretentious language, there is no need for it. What you are effectively saying is that the prerogative to eradicate superstition, darkness and filth, is 'foolish' because it is ontologically necessary to supplement the purported other, which is 'rationality and reason'. We don't care. We will destroy each and every superstition, WE WILL ERADICATE EACH AND EVERY holy mystery, holy, mesmerizing, 'fascinating', 'awe-inspiring', 'beautiful' mystery that the masses drunkenly guzzle up to accommodate with fantastical superstition where they lack in being able to live complete, self-sufficient, dignified and upright lives. This IS the opium of the people, it is the pretense to fantastically immersing themselves in a universe of beautiful mysteries so that the concrete nature of their reality can be diluted and ignored, softened, eased, and so on. We do not recognize such a thing called 'irrationality', we recognize consciousness and lack of consciousness of real, rationally articulatable processes. So in effect, even the superstitious religious fundamentalist is 'rational', he is simply not conscious of his rational existence, i.e. or the rationality of his engagement in superstition. In other words, as Hegel said, all that is real is rational - even non-consciousness and superstition is 'rational', because its basis of existence is not some 'irrationality'. The point is, that is different from CONSCIOUS rationality.

You prattle of "Dionysus" and "apollo", as though the phenomena you so poetically seek to have them represent, are just as ontologically inevitable as the purported existence of the gods themselves. It is like someone saying, "you seek to foolishly do away with Aries, in favor of aphrodite". Only he who elevates these CONTINGENCIES into ontological categories, ossified inevitabilities etched into the universe, follows this wisdom. But frankly, major, we spit on wisdom. We DESPISE 'wisdom', wisdom is reactionary, it is even disgusting in judeo-christian terms. Wisdom is PAGAN. Wise men will face the sword of the revolution just as the priests and imams will. The whole point of 'wisdom' is the ossification of all things into a cosmic inevitability, it is pagan, it is the uncritical acceptance of phenomena as inevitable, and furthermore, teaches you how to traverse and 'properly approach' this PURPORTEDLY inevitable phenomena.

If you are serious about destroying false idols, consider your own conditioned self and ties of admiration and authority.

God, how cute with these insufferable platitudes. In destroying false idols, WE ARE considering ourselves in this practice, we are doing so as fully socially, ideologically self-conscious individuals. We do not need idols, we do not need any external sense of guarantee to justify our actions or give us a sense of certainty - we only have ourselves and each other as comrades. But even if there was an equivalent to their idols - our red star- yes we defend it, fight in its name, because it encapsulates the whole of our struggle and our movement. So horrified are the bourgeois ideologues at this notion: YES we have 'partisan' beliefs, and we are willing to eradicate all those against it. In effect, yes, our 'gods' ARE superior, are 'true', the difference is that we do not need gods, we do not nee some external reflection to guide us - we act as though every god is dead.

Most everyone right now is religious -- it's just a matter of pretending they're not.

I am religious, in your mind? Well I don't care, because the qualification for religion by the bourgeois liberal, themselves unexceptionally immersed in the cult of capital like anyone else, is some kind of 'organized belief system' and whatever, that 'destroys the individuals capacity to tink 4 demselves'. We spit on, reject and thoroughly have no respect for this qualification - but if it suits you, fine, call us religious. That does not for one second change the fact that each and every superstition will be attacked and eradicated by the Communists, whether it concerns the natural or the social. Every kind of 'spiritual' belief, every kind if superstitiously concrete idealism, we will trample on and mercilessly destroy. We will desecrate each and every single idol, stomp them under the foot of the new and sole emerging source of meaning and existence: The new revolutionary community, and society, its means of organization, and so on. This is atheism in practice, and we are not to the least bit ashamed of it.

Aslan

21st January 2016, 00:54

Because Mecca's significance has exploded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajj#Number_of_pilgrims_per_year) in significance specifically in congruence with neoliberalism and globalization. It is not some ancient sight of worship - in all its theological and religious dimension, it is capital they are idolizing in mecca. That much is plainly obvious - Muslim consciousness in general has absolutely emerged as a means to accommodate to global capital, to the global capitalist totality. You see it not only with the most basic investigation of what these beliefs mean to these people in practical terms, in their ordinary lives, but even the architecture that is present in Mecca - it is not only bourgeois, it is neoliberal. Mecca IS an idol of capital, and nothing more, because what they are worshiping is - for example - their own alienation.

Saudi Arabia, which is bastion of purely speculative finance capital, let me ask you: Why do you think so many undertake the pilgrimage? As it relates to Muslim consciousness, what is the nature of the Muslim god? Being from a muslim background myself, I know this. It is the god of capital, as every other god is. It is the god that which all the superstitions of the social are projected upon, reflected upon, the wise god, superego of the present social order of things, built around the regular sacrifice of all things sacred to the hunger of capital. Mecca is ABSOLUTELY of purely MODERN significance, it is not some vestige of some older feudalism - look up photos of mecca on google, does that look like some ancient thing to you? Look at the filthy architecture surrounding it, does this (https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2009/10/15/1255630952358/Mecca-super-hotel--001.jpg?w=470&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&) look like some pre-modern arabian architecture?

Please stop with such abominably boring, unbearably overused to the point of actual humor, bourgeois-liberal postmodern cliches. What makes religion significant for the bourgeois liberal and the postmodern reactionary, what makes fundamentalism for them scary, is the 'fanatical' dimension to it, the uncompromising willingness to be actively engaged, overly engaged that is, into worldly controversy. That they are not 'balanced enough', that they don't think with an 'open mind'. That is because for the bourgeois ideologue, the intricacies of power and social life that they themselves are already fully immersed and engaged in, do all the fanatical worshiping for them - they are allowed to be 'balanced' and 'open-minded', because they are not conscious of the nature of their own ideological engagement - which they passively assume to be 'natural', a 'given', and so on. Convesrely, Communists do not qualify their opposition to religion on grounds that it is too 'extreme' or that it entails too engaged partisanship. This has never been even any radical progressive criticism of religion since the french revolution. Instead, IT IS WE COMMUNISTS who are, who have always been, and who always will be the true 'fanatics', those truly willing to devote and sacrifice themselves to the cause of Communism, and the fact of the matter is that Fascists, islamists, and the irk - have only aesthetically maintained this appearance so as to copy our appeal to the lowest of the low, the most oppressed and marginalized of society's elements.

A transformation in consciousness, and materialist discipline, being violently opposed to every and any kind of superstition IS congruent with a radical transformation in everything that it means to be a human, including the deepest core of one's consciousness. Anyone familiar with Communism, the history of Communism, understands this - THE WHOLE POINT of a criticism of ideology is a transformation of one's consciousness, a total transformation of one's character, what makes one 'tick', and so on. The notion that SUPERSTITION in particular, is some inevitable dimension of human existence, as I stated over and over again, as I poured so much thorough detail and careful consideration into in previous posts, is not only groundless, i.e. empirically wrong, IT IS COMPLETELY impossible even by nature of the proposition. How could one be aware of a limitation, and yet still be enchained by it, in their consciousness? Because this is the highpoint of anti-democratic discourse: Projecting special characteristics upon 'man in general', but exempting yourself who claims this. This is why Hobbes is so significant as an anti-democratic figure - how can one act as a free rational agent, while at the same time purport and make pretenses to inevitability of human consciousness, that are external from this domain of universal reason?

Again, do not mistaken the meaning of dogmatism for 'over-identification', dedication, or self-sacrifice, having a 'closed mind'. That is not what dogmatism means. Dogmatism refers to the ossification of ideas without special consideration from their real, concrete implications. In short, dogmatism is a form of idealism, because it elevates 'ideas' themselves, rather than the real concrete things those ideas are designating, into having some concrete, essential existence of their own. That has little to do with 'ideological submissions'. Communism is an ideology - but not in the same way as other ideologies, that ideologically designate the social. Instead, the 'ideological' nature of Communism, is the uncertain horizon in front of us, it is Communism's unique juxtaposition to ideology in general. Communism, essentially, is the ideology that is not even an ideology - but is still designated as one, because of the partisan and engaged nature of renouncing ideology, in a context where ideology is necessary to reproduce the existing order. THE unknowable domain, is the Communist future - that is the 'ideological' dimension of Communism. And it s perfectly justified.

Please stop with the pretentious language, there is no need for it. What you are effectively saying is that the prerogative to eradicate superstition, darkness and filth, is 'foolish' because it is ontologically necessary to supplement the purported other, which is 'rationality and reason'. We don't care. We will destroy each and every superstition, WE WILL ERADICATE EACH AND EVERY holy mystery, holy, mesmerizing, 'fascinating', 'awe-inspiring', 'beautiful' mystery that the masses drunkenly guzzle up to accommodate with fantastical superstition where they lack in being able to live complete, self-sufficient, dignified and upright lives. This IS the opium of the people, it is the pretense to fantastically immersing themselves in a universe of beautiful mysteries so that the concrete nature of their reality can be diluted and ignored, softened, eased, and so on. We do not recognize such a thing called 'irrationality', we recognize consciousness and lack of consciousness of real, rationally articulatable processes. So in effect, even the superstitious religious fundamentalist is 'rational', he is simply not conscious of his rational existence, i.e. or the rationality of his engagement in superstition. In other words, as Hegel said, all that is real is rational - even non-consciousness and superstition is 'rational', because its basis of existence is not some 'irrationality'. The point is, that is different from CONSCIOUS rationality.

You prattle of "Dionysus" and "apollo", as though the phenomena you so poetically seek to have them represent, are just as ontologically inevitable as the purported existence of the gods themselves. It is like someone saying, "you seek to foolishly do away with Aries, in favor of aphrodite". Only he who elevates these CONTINGENCIES into ontological categories, ossified inevitabilities etched into the universe, follows this wisdom. But frankly, major, we spit on wisdom. We DESPISE 'wisdom', wisdom is reactionary, it is even disgusting in judeo-christian terms. Wisdom is PAGAN. Wise men will face the sword of the revolution just as the priests and imams will. The whole point of 'wisdom' is the ossification of all things into a cosmic inevitability, it is pagan, it is the uncritical acceptance of phenomena as inevitable, and furthermore, teaches you how to traverse and 'properly approach' this PURPORTEDLY inevitable phenomena.

God, how cute with these insufferable platitudes. In destroying false idols, WE ARE considering ourselves in this practice, we are doing so as fully socially, ideologically self-conscious individuals. We do not need idols, we do not need any external sense of guarantee to justify our actions or give us a sense of certainty - we only have ourselves and each other as comrades. But even if there was an equivalent to their idols - our red star- yes we defend it, fight in its name, because it encapsulates the whole of our struggle and our movement. So horrified are the bourgeois ideologues at this notion: YES we have 'partisan' beliefs, and we are willing to eradicate all those against it. In effect, yes, our 'gods' ARE superior, are 'true', the difference is that we do not need gods, we do not nee some external reflection to guide us - we act as though every god is dead.

I am religious, in your mind? Well I don't care, because the qualification for religion by the bourgeois liberal, themselves unexceptionally immersed in the cult of capital like anyone else, is some kind of 'organized belief system' and whatever, that 'destroys the individuals capacity to tink 4 demselves'. We spit on, reject and thoroughly have no respect for this qualification - but if it suits you, fine, call us religious. That does not for one second change the fact that each and every superstition will be attacked and eradicated by the Communists, whether it concerns the natural or the social. Every kind of 'spiritual' belief, every kind if superstitiously concrete idealism, we will trample on and mercilessly destroy. We will desecrate each and every single idol, stomp them under the foot of the new and sole emerging source of meaning and existence: The new revolutionary community, and society, its means of organization, and so on. This is atheism in practice, and we are not to the least bit ashamed of it.

I'm sorry Rafiq, as a fanatic of history and its study. I must personally object what you're saying, this sort of iconoclasm has just thrown you into the opposite end of the spectrum. I can't agree, no, I will not because art is art. And humanity's previous arts must be preserved as a testament to our predecessors, tools of education to remind our children and our children's children about earth's past.

Rafiq

21st January 2016, 01:11

I can't agree, no, I will not because art is art. And humanity's previous arts must be preserved as a testament to our predecessors, tools of education to remind our children and our children's children about earth's past.

It's all very well that you disagree, but because you cannot even rationally articulate the basis of your disagreement, why be open about it? If by some instinctual, uncritical impulse you are offended by what I am saying, why not criticize this impulse and understand it, rather than blindly cling to it, if you want to respond? What is in genuine about this sentiment is the fact that: If this refers to merely the form, technological or even aesthetic nature of the art, why not make a 'plastic' replication of it in some museum? Why not in a detailed manner, write down in the history books about how these things were constructed, why they were constructed, and so on?

It cannot be justified that they have some sacred significance. That is because the basis of one's sensitivities has nothing to do with anything that can be articulated as practical in a rational, conscious manner. Instead, the basis of one's sensitivities is ideological and purely ideological at that - it reflects the inability to renounce the past, to renounce any sense of external guarantee, to say "Shit has gotten real, this REALLY IS just up to us". People are horrified by the destruction of 'heritage', because IT TOUCHES UPON THE REAL, in "lacanian" terms, it is traumatic because these are elevated to the status of representing the domain of the real in capitalism, an underlying dimension one derives everyday confidence, faith from. Besides, I quite shamelessly reject your sentiment on actual empirical grounds. Saudi Arabia has done so much to renovate, change, completely restructure a place like mecca that it has all but lost its status as some ancient landmark. Saudi Arabia alone is destroying its own 'islamic' artifacts, landmarks en masse, I mean it's already doing this, only it is propping up new ones. Just as the Soviets destroyed a 'heritage of humanity', that pompous cathedral, we will destroy places like mecca, holy sites in Jerusalem and the Vatican, and so on.

You claim "art is art". Sorry, what? Indeed art is art. I do not see how that is controversial, art is not non-art, it is art. Or are you trying to insinuate something else? That is what I mean about not being able to consciously articulate the source of your aversion, I am not 'on the same page' as you when you say 'art is art' - the notion that all art, by merit of being art, deserves some sacred status is quite laughable. Do anti-Semitic cartoons that circulate 4chan, does that also count? If it doesn't, why not? Who are you to decide what is and isn't this "art"? The fact of the matter is that there is nothing so sacred or fantastical about 'art', it merely refers to means of representation. Churches, mosques, have no basis of existence, and if the intricacies of these buildings has some practical significance, then these can be detailed and recorded in books, in photographs, or in replicas. There is no reason as to why the 'authentic', and original buildings HAVE to remain, in fact, most of them will be probably be demolished eventually (i.e. circa 100s of years) to make way for, for example, geo engineering).

"Testament" to our predecessors. Surely, an understanding of life before Communism is possible without superstitiously respecting the idols of the past. I very much find insincere and in-genuine the notion that these are kept for reasons of 'heritage'. The past is a thresher. History is a blank page. There is nothing sacred about it. Was it wrong to demolish Fascist statues, iconography, symbols in Germany? Why or why not?

Aslan

21st January 2016, 01:30

It's all very well that you disagree, but because you cannot even rationally articulate the basis of your disagreement, why be open about it? If by some instinctual, uncritical impulse you are offended by what I am saying, why not criticize this impulse and understand it, rather than blindly cling to it, if you want to respond? What is in genuine about this sentiment is the fact that: If this refers to merely the form, technological or even aesthetic nature of the art, why not make a 'plastic' replication of it in some museum? Why not in a detailed manner, write down in the history books about how these things were constructed, why they were constructed, and so on?

It cannot be justified that they have some sacred significance. That is because the basis of one's sensitivities has nothing to do with anything that can be articulated as practical in a rational, conscious manner. Instead, the basis of one's sensitivities is ideological and purely ideological at that - it reflects the inability to renounce the past, to renounce any sense of external guarantee, to say "Shit has gotten real, this REALLY IS just up to us". People are horrified by the destruction of 'heritage', because IT TOUCHES UPON THE REAL, in "lacanian" terms, it is traumatic because these are elevated to the status of representing the domain of the real in capitalism, an underlying dimension one derives everyday confidence, faith from. Besides, I quite shamelessly reject your sentiment on actual empirical grounds. Saudi Arabia has done so much to renovate, change, completely restructure a place like mecca that it has all but lost its status as some ancient landmark. Saudi Arabia alone is destroying its own 'islamic' artifacts, landmarks en masse, I mean it's already doing this, only it is propping up new ones. Just as the Soviets destroyed a 'heritage of humanity', that pompous cathedral, we will destroy places like mecca, holy sites in Jerusalem and the Vatican, and so on.

You claim "art is art". Sorry, what? Indeed art is art. I do not see how that is controversial, art is not non-art, it is art. Or are you trying to insinuate something else? That is what I mean about not being able to consciously articulate the source of your aversion, I am not 'on the same page' as you when you say 'art is art' - the notion that all art, by merit of being art, deserves some sacred status is quite laughable. Do anti-Semitic cartoons that circulate 4chan, does that also count? If it doesn't, why not? Who are you to decide what is and isn't this "art"? The fact of the matter is that there is nothing so sacred or fantastical about 'art', it merely refers to means of representation. Churches, mosques, have no basis of existence, and if the intricacies of these buildings has some practical significance, then these can be detailed and recorded in books, in photographs, or in replicas. There is no reason as to why the 'authentic', and original buildings HAVE to remain, in fact, most of them will be probably be demolished eventually (i.e. circa 100s of years) to make way for, for example, geo engineering).

"Testament" to our predecessors. Surely, an understanding of life before Communism is possible without superstitiously respecting the idols of the past. I very much find insincere and in-genuine the notion that these are kept for reasons of 'heritage'. The past is a thresher. History is a blank page. There is nothing sacred about it. Was it wrong to demolish Fascist statues, iconography, symbols in Germany? Why or why not?

Art is subjective, and just like art being subjective I find some art beautiful. Whether it is Nubian masks or Michelangelo's statue of David. If something is pleasing to my eye, why would I destroy something just to make a plastic version of it? All the original artist's work is for naught, so I'd much prefer to keep it.

Even Dada ''anti''-art has value in it. Even Fountain by Marcel Duchamp has some intrinsic value in it, as it shows dada's rejection of humanity's bloody nature during WWI.

I am not worshiping art, neither do I think of Nazi German art or 4chan's art as trash. I think of it more as graffiti, something similar to graffiti in the Roman colosseum. It is a tool of education, something that future archaeologists can look at in order to understand what life was like in 2016. Even a small piece of a child's tin foil hat can mean something, a tool used in reconstructing the lives of past peoples.

Rafiq

21st January 2016, 01:52

Art is subjective, and just like art being subjective I find some art beautiful.

This is quite a nonsensical cliche that is popular - but no, art is not 'subjective' as people use the term - it has a real, rationally conceivable meaning to it - it is IDEOLOGICAL in nature. The notion that 'art is subjective', as this cliche is used today, insinuates that the basis of subjectivity is in 'individual preference' or 'individual opinion'. Not only is this bourgeois, it is unique to our consumerist epoch were a thoroughly false emphasis on 'individualism' is necessary because of capitals tendency to need to, for example, diversify consumer goods and products. Art is NOT subjective, it has a real and definite meaning to it, only in our degenerate epoch do we say 'art is subjective'. What is it supposed to mean that art is subjective, as this is commonly used? It is supposed to mean that in effect, the meaning of art is totally arbitrary and cannot be a matter of controversy. It is postmodern in that it assumes history is over - that is to say, it assumes that the age of art with partisan meaning is over, because real partisanship is purported to be dead. That's why these liberals are so horrified by the likes of ISIS - not because of its atrocities, but because it makes itself look like it is thoroughly engaged, fanatically and shamelessly, in partisanship. The same goes for cliche liberal criticism of the westboro baptist church or in general evangelicism. Must I go into detail about why this is ridiculous? It is ridiculous because the artist making a painting, that is never a matter of arbitrariness - there is an ideological dimension to all art whether the author is aware of this or not. To say otherwise, is to assume the artist can abstract himself from his context and make art in some vacuum. That is silly.

So no, art is not 'subjective', the reason why art might appeal to this or that taste, is grounded in real, rationally conceivable processes. This is no more 'subjective' than the color of a cup - if you want to insist the color of a cup is red, when it is really blue, you are free to do that, but where meaning begins, arbitrariness ends. The point is not 'what is the truth' of art, the point is, WHAT IS THE ARTIST trying to say, either subconsciously or consciously, in what historical context, what is the MEANING of this art, in relation to the context that which it was wrought? That is the question Marxists ask, and for that reason, proletarian culture in the Soviet Union was thoroughly formalist - it was no arbitrary and just random, it was the supersession of 'art' as we know it and its sophistication through historical consciousness. In a Communist society, that's why, the dissonance between 'art' and 'non-art' will probably disappear - everything, from architecture to the smallest consumer good, will have an 'artistic' dimension to it, consciously, that reproduces the conditions of a Communist society. Even in our society art is everywhere, your toliet is a work of art, your computer is, your can of coca cola is. We are simply alien from this artistic dimension - but in Communism, or even in a proletarian dictatorship, this is no longer alien (hence why soviet avant garde was actually often times practical - architectural, for example, for constructing real things like dams, and so on).

Whether it is Nubian masks or Michelangelo's statue of David. If something is pleasing to my eye, why would I destroy something just to make a plastic version of it? All the original artist's work is for naught, so I'd much prefer to keep it.

All the work is 'for naught' anyway, because the artist is dead and can't weep over his destroyed work. But the notion that what you find pleasing in either of these works is somehow related to some arbitrary, unknowable standard of pleasure is wrong. Why you find these things pleasurable, ultimately, has a real rational basis. But, so to speak, this is not the controversy - you ask, why would you destroy the statue of david. Well, you probably wouldn't have a reason to, because the statue of david is not a source of superstition, real worldly worship and has no real partisan, controversial status today. Jerusalem, ancient temples in the east, mecca, the vatican, these do.

So I ask again, even if they are not destroyed for reasons of propganda (and they would be, frankly. If there is Communism in the near east, then the near easterners themselves will destroy it) if it is decided that these would be replaced with some factory, or some practical allotted space of land, WHY NOT destroy them, if one can perfectly understand how they were made, in all their architectural intricacies, through recorded data, or that they could be remade plastically? You cannot justify it, again, because this is an IDEOLOGICAL dimension. It was the same thing with nature, in a previous thread. People kept trying to throw in purportedly practical reasons, and it never worked, because the basis of one's sensitivity in either 'heritages' or nature, has nothing to do with anything that is consciously justifiable as rational.

I am not worshiping art, neither do I think of Nazi German art or 4chan's art as trash. I think of it more as graffiti, something similar to graffiti in the Roman colosseum

And that is quite a disgusting attitude, and it emanates an ungrounded self-transcendence from our worldly controversies. As if Nazi or Fascist art has no significance today, like the graffiti in a Roman Colosseum. Sorry, Communists DO hate certain kinds of art, we DO think certain art is trash. We have since the time of Marx (who DESPISED Martin Tupper). Certain art IS trash, IS disgusting, because it effectively STILL RELATES to real artistic even, controversies of today. There is a real Communist art, how can this communist art justify itself, if it is not juxtaposed to older, previous or antagonistic forms of art, like that DISGUSTING pseudo-classicist Fascist art, piece of shit neoliberal political cartoons, the disgusting abominations you see in Dubai, 'natural' art, new age art, romantic art, and I can go on? All of this art is disgusting, and the notion that it is comparable to some ossified historical artifact assumes that you yourself are already beyond all of these controversies in calling yourself a Communist. You aren't. In saying "art is art", you thoroughly disrespect the real worldly nature of art. Art is not some external thing, some sacred domain outside of human controversy. Art IS political, art IS ideological and always has been. He who rejects this, rejects Communism, and is immersed in postmodernist mystifications. To be a Communist you must be willing to accept that a REAL, GENUINE communist art, that is DISTINCT and hostile towards bourgeois art, is possible, insofar as a real Communism, against bourgeois ideology, is possible.

There is nothing innocent or neutral about what you are saying. It is totally ideological, this elevation of 'art' into the domain of the real. The same kind of sensitivity that commands outrage to the notion of, for example, destroying Fascists, not tolerating other political parties in a proletarian dictatorship, is the same kind of sensivity that 'values all art as equal'. This is the postmodern OSSIFICATION of art, its deprivation of real IMPASSIONED and PARTISAN meaning, into a harmless, unesco-esque world heritage. It is no wonder you mention certain tribal masks - that perfectly underlies how our sick postmodern epoch approaches art. But art remains, it simply remains in places we do not consider art - that is quite the point of what the Frankfrut Marxists called 'mass culture', desublimation, and so on. High culture, where art used to be, is dead. So in effect, a TV commercial, or advertisement, is more 'artistic' than the postmodern vomit you find in art galleries, which is effectively disgusting not because it is meaningless, but because its haughty and arrogant meaning - which uncannily combines counter-enlightenment romantic style with pseudo-modern art styles, is nothing more than the same post counter-culture pseudo-consumerist individualism of our present order, combining both an emphasis on 'emotion' and an insistence on the irrational, with purportedly 'avant-garde' forms. It is so ingeuine, disgusting that it perfectly encapsulates the spirit of our existing order, which does the same thing ideologically (i.e. the grossest superstition is packed off and sold as 'subversive', 'revolutionary', etc.).

Saying all art is sacred, is like saying all ideas are sacred, it is in effect, like saying "anti-semitism is not disgusting/trash". But how does one justify the absence of their own agreement with these ideas, if they make pretenses to being 'above' them all? They cannot - consciously - that is, one must presuppose an ideological substrate which they deem as natural, as a given. Nazi art IS trash, just as we rabidly despise Fascists themselves. We hate them, and we hate the ideas they spout. We should be unashamed of this.

Major K.

21st January 2016, 02:15

Please stop with such abominably boring, unbearably overused to the point of actual humor, bourgeois-liberal postmodern cliches. What makes religion significant for the bourgeois liberal and the postmodern reactionary, what makes fundamentalism for them scary, is the 'fanatical' dimension to it, the uncompromising willingness to be actively engaged, overly engaged that is, into worldly controversy. That they are not 'balanced enough', that they don't think with an 'open mind'. That is because for the bourgeois ideologue, the intricacies of power and social life that they themselves are already fully immersed and engaged in, do all the fanatical worshiping for them - they are allowed to be 'balanced' and 'open-minded', because they are not conscious of the nature of their own ideological engagement - which they passively assume to be 'natural', a 'given', and so on. Convesrely, Communists do not qualify their opposition to religion on grounds that it is too 'extreme' or that it entails too engaged partisanship. This has never been even any radical progressive criticism of religion since the french revolution. Instead, IT IS WE COMMUNISTS who are, who have always been, and who always will be the true 'fanatics', those truly willing to devote and sacrifice themselves to the cause of Communism, and the fact of the matter is that Fascists, islamists, and the irk - have only aesthetically maintained this appearance so as to copy our appeal to the lowest of the low, the most oppressed and marginalized of society's elements.

A transformation in consciousness, and materialist discipline, being violently opposed to every and any kind of superstition IS congruent with a radical transformation in everything that it means to be a human, including the deepest core of one's consciousness. Anyone familiar with Communism, the history of Communism, understands this - THE WHOLE POINT of a criticism of ideology is a transformation of one's consciousness, a total transformation of one's character, what makes one 'tick', and so on. The notion that SUPERSTITION in particular, is some inevitable dimension of human existence, as I stated over and over again, as I poured so much thorough detail and careful consideration into in previous posts, is not only groundless, i.e. empirically wrong, IT IS COMPLETELY impossible even by nature of the proposition. How could one be aware of a limitation, and yet still be enchained by it, in their consciousness? Because this is the highpoint of anti-democratic discourse: Projecting special characteristics upon 'man in general', but exempting yourself who claims this. This is why Hobbes is so significant as an anti-democratic figure - how can one act as a free rational agent, while at the same time purport and make pretenses to inevitability of human consciousness, that are external from this domain of universal reason?

Again, do not mistaken the meaning of dogmatism for 'over-identification', dedication, or self-sacrifice, having a 'closed mind'. That is not what dogmatism means. Dogmatism refers to the ossification of ideas without special consideration from their real, concrete implications. In short, dogmatism is a form of idealism, because it elevates 'ideas' themselves, rather than the real concrete things those ideas are designating, into having some concrete, essential existence of their own. That has little to do with 'ideological submissions'. Communism is an ideology - but not in the same way as other ideologies, that ideologically designate the social. Instead, the 'ideological' nature of Communism, is the uncertain horizon in front of us, it is Communism's unique juxtaposition to ideology in general. Communism, essentially, is the ideology that is not even an ideology - but is still designated as one, because of the partisan and engaged nature of renouncing ideology, in a context where ideology is necessary to reproduce the existing order. THE unknowable domain, is the Communist future - that is the 'ideological' dimension of Communism. And it s perfectly justified.

Please stop with the pretentious language, there is no need for it. What you are effectively saying is that the prerogative to eradicate superstition, darkness and filth, is 'foolish' because it is ontologically necessary to supplement the purported other, which is 'rationality and reason'. We don't care. We will destroy each and every superstition, WE WILL ERADICATE EACH AND EVERY holy mystery, holy, mesmerizing, 'fascinating', 'awe-inspiring', 'beautiful' mystery that the masses drunkenly guzzle up to accommodate with fantastical superstition where they lack in being able to live complete, self-sufficient, dignified and upright lives. This IS the opium of the people, it is the pretense to fantastically immersing themselves in a universe of beautiful mysteries so that the concrete nature of their reality can be diluted and ignored, softened, eased, and so on. We do not recognize such a thing called 'irrationality', we recognize consciousness and lack of consciousness of real, rationally articulatable processes. So in effect, even the superstitious religious fundamentalist is 'rational', he is simply not conscious of his rational existence, i.e. or the rationality of his engagement in superstition. In other words, as Hegel said, all that is real is rational - even non-consciousness and superstition is 'rational', because its basis of existence is not some 'irrationality'. The point is, that is different from CONSCIOUS rationality.

You prattle of "Dionysus" and "apollo", as though the phenomena you so poetically seek to have them represent, are just as ontologically inevitable as the purported existence of the gods themselves. It is like someone saying, "you seek to foolishly do away with Aries, in favor of aphrodite". Only he who elevates these CONTINGENCIES into ontological categories, ossified inevitabilities etched into the universe, follows this wisdom. But frankly, major, we spit on wisdom. We DESPISE 'wisdom', wisdom is reactionary, it is even disgusting in judeo-christian terms. Wisdom is PAGAN. Wise men will face the sword of the revolution just as the priests and imams will. The whole point of 'wisdom' is the ossification of all things into a cosmic inevitability, it is pagan, it is the uncritical acceptance of phenomena as inevitable, and furthermore, teaches you how to traverse and 'properly approach' this PURPORTEDLY inevitable phenomena.

God, how cute with these insufferable platitudes. In destroying false idols, WE ARE considering ourselves in this practice, we are doing so as fully socially, ideologically self-conscious individuals. We do not need idols, we do not need any external sense of guarantee to justify our actions or give us a sense of certainty - we only have ourselves and each other as comrades. But even if there was an equivalent to their idols - our red star- yes we defend it, fight in its name, because it encapsulates the whole of our struggle and our movement. So horrified are the bourgeois ideologues at this notion: YES we have 'partisan' beliefs, and we are willing to eradicate all those against it. In effect, yes, our 'gods' ARE superior, are 'true', the difference is that we do not need gods, we do not nee some external reflection to guide us - we act as though every god is dead.

I am religious, in your mind? Well I don't care, because the qualification for religion by the bourgeois liberal, themselves unexceptionally immersed in the cult of capital like anyone else, is some kind of 'organized belief system' and whatever, that 'destroys the individuals capacity to tink 4 demselves'. We spit on, reject and thoroughly have no respect for this qualification - but if it suits you, fine, call us religious. That does not for one second change the fact that each and every superstition will be attacked and eradicated by the Communists, whether it concerns the natural or the social. Every kind of 'spiritual' belief, every kind if superstitiously concrete idealism, we will trample on and mercilessly destroy. We will desecrate each and every single idol, stomp them under the foot of the new and sole emerging source of meaning and existence: The new revolutionary community, and society, its means of organization, and so on. This is atheism in practice, and we are not to the least bit ashamed of it.

You start out by associating me with bourgeois-liberal postmodern cliches, which you then dismiss as obviously polarized to your opinion and the ideology you seem to think you represent.

Then you say something somewhat reasonable, though entirely irrelevant, about bourgeois attitudes towards 'fanatacism'.

You continue with something consistently irrelevant and then a glimmer of sensibility crops up when you turn to a transformation in consciousness.

You however seem to identify "materialism" -- a philosophical movement -- with reality. To you, only things that can be put into boxes seem to be real. Are experiences subject to your selected tradition more than intellectual categories though? I don't think so.

This is something you share with your arch-enemy the reactionary post-modern etc. etc...

You move on to put up a straw-man about how I'm saying superstitions are inevitable (I'm not. Obviously that's not the case.).

Later you put up an important but unnecessary distinction between dogmatism and 'over-identification', then go on to masturbate for a bit about how gloriously devoted you are to Communism. It's certainly got some fine qualities -- yep.

You're treating it like a surrogate mother though.... Suckle the teet of divine retribution, Romulus!

Next you scold me for being pretentious (alright Mr. R...), then you put some words in my mouth which you quickly tear apart in a comedic, self-defeating rampage of poetic language about the necessary eradication of poetry.

Also quite funny is that this is what the Analytics and Utilitarians think too -- that point alone should probably give a good Marxist pause.

You then prattle on about me prattling, miss my point entirely, then more strawman...

My "platitudes" (notice how I am ironically being called dogmatic now) are then dismissed as "cute", followed by some more adamant stawman waltzing (alright Dorothy!).

I am then asked if I think Rafiq is religious, then told that he doesn't care about my answer. He's most certainly heard such drivel before, after all ;)

"Dear Lord Marx, blessed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth, as it is around the post-big bang universe.

Give us this day our daily bread, and forget all debts, as we shall slay our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from God.

Amen."

The funny thing is is that if we were talking the same language we would agree almost completely.

The only splitting point seems to be that you don't agree with my assessment that religion isn't destroyed by opposing it (that seems mostly to just strengthen it), but by understanding it as poetry, and understanding poetry to be every-day life; by reframing it as something apolitical and unspeakable -- something mystics (especially in Taoism and Early Chinese Zen Buddhism) throughout the ages have tried to do to varying degrees. This is materialism beyond Materialism.

Aslan

21st January 2016, 02:49

This is quite a nonsensical cliche that is popular - but no, art is not 'subjective' as people use the term - it has a real, rationally conceivable meaning to it - it is IDEOLOGICAL in nature. The notion that 'art is subjective', as this cliche is used today, insinuates that the basis of subjectivity is in 'individual preference' or 'individual opinion'. Not only is this bourgeois, it is unique to our consumerist epoch were a thoroughly false emphasis on 'individualism' is necessary because of capitals tendency to need to, for example, diversify consumer goods and products. Art is NOT subjective, it has a real and definite meaning to it, only in our degenerate epoch do we say 'art is subjective'. What is it supposed to mean that art is subjective, as this is commonly used? It is supposed to mean that in effect, the meaning of art is totally arbitrary and cannot be a matter of controversy. It is postmodern in that it assumes history is over - that is to say, it assumes that the age of art with partisan meaning is over, because real partisanship is purported to be dead. That's why these liberals are so horrified by the likes of ISIS - not because of its atrocities, but because it makes itself look like it is thoroughly engaged, fanatically and shamelessly, in partisanship. The same goes for cliche liberal criticism of the westboro baptist church or in general evangelicism. Must I go into detail about why this is ridiculous? It is ridiculous because the artist making a painting, that is never a matter of arbitrariness - there is an ideological dimension to all art whether the author is aware of this or not. To say otherwise, is to assume the artist can abstract himself from his context and make art in some vacuum. That is silly.

So no, art is not 'subjective', the reason why art might appeal to this or that taste, is grounded in real, rationally conceivable processes. This is no more 'subjective' than the color of a cup - if you want to insist the color of a cup is red, when it is really blue, you are free to do that, but where meaning begins, arbitrariness ends. The point is not 'what is the truth' of art, the point is, WHAT IS THE ARTIST trying to say, either subconsciously or consciously, in what historical context, what is the MEANING of this art, in relation to the context that which it was wrought? That is the question Marxists ask, and for that reason, proletarian culture in the Soviet Union was thoroughly formalist - it was no arbitrary and just random, it was the supersession of 'art' as we know it and its sophistication through historical consciousness. In a Communist society, that's why, the dissonance between 'art' and 'non-art' will probably disappear - everything, from architecture to the smallest consumer good, will have an 'artistic' dimension to it, consciously, that reproduces the conditions of a Communist society. Even in our society art is everywhere, your toliet is a work of art, your computer is, your can of coca cola is. We are simply alien from this artistic dimension - but in Communism, or even in a proletarian dictatorship, this is no longer alien (hence why soviet avant garde was actually often times practical - architectural, for example, for constructing real things like dams, and so on).

All the work is 'for naught' anyway, because the artist is dead and can't weep over his destroyed work. But the notion that what you find pleasing in either of these works is somehow related to some arbitrary, unknowable standard of pleasure is wrong. Why you find these things pleasurable, ultimately, has a real rational basis. But, so to speak, this is not the controversy - you ask, why would you destroy the statue of david. Well, you probably wouldn't have a reason to, because the statue of david is not a source of superstition, real worldly worship and has no real partisan, controversial status today. Jerusalem, ancient temples in the east, mecca, the vatican, these do.

So I ask again, even if they are not destroyed for reasons of propganda (and they would be, frankly. If there is Communism in the near east, then the near easterners themselves will destroy it) if it is decided that these would be replaced with some factory, or some practical allotted space of land, WHY NOT destroy them, if one can perfectly understand how they were made, in all their architectural intricacies, through recorded data, or that they could be remade plastically? You cannot justify it, again, because this is an IDEOLOGICAL dimension. It was the same thing with nature, in a previous thread. People kept trying to throw in purportedly practical reasons, and it never worked, because the basis of one's sensitivity in either 'heritages' or nature, has nothing to do with anything that is consciously justifiable as rational.

And that is quite a disgusting attitude, and it emanates an ungrounded self-transcendence from our worldly controversies. As if Nazi or Fascist art has no significance today, like the graffiti in a Roman Colosseum. Sorry, Communists DO hate certain kinds of art, we DO think certain art is trash. We have since the time of Marx (who DESPISED Martin Tupper). Certain art IS trash, IS disgusting, because it effectively STILL RELATES to real artistic even, controversies of today. There is a real Communist art, how can this communist art justify itself, if it is not juxtaposed to older, previous or antagonistic forms of art, like that DISGUSTING pseudo-classicist Fascist art, piece of shit neoliberal political cartoons, the disgusting abominations you see in Dubai, 'natural' art, new age art, romantic art, and I can go on? All of this art is disgusting, and the notion that it is comparable to some ossified historical artifact assumes that you yourself are already beyond all of these controversies in calling yourself a Communist. You aren't. In saying "art is art", you thoroughly disrespect the real worldly nature of art. Art is not some external thing, some sacred domain outside of human controversy. Art IS political, art IS ideological and always has been. He who rejects this, rejects Communism, and is immersed in postmodernist mystifications. To be a Communist you must be willing to accept that a REAL, GENUINE communist art, that is DISTINCT and hostile towards bourgeois art, is possible, insofar as a real Communism, against bourgeois ideology, is possible.

There is nothing innocent or neutral about what you are saying. It is totally ideological, this elevation of 'art' into the domain of the real. The same kind of sensitivity that commands outrage to the notion of, for example, destroying Fascists, not tolerating other political parties in a proletarian dictatorship, is the same kind of sensivity that 'values all art as equal'. This is the postmodern OSSIFICATION of art, its deprivation of real IMPASSIONED and PARTISAN meaning, into a harmless, unesco-esque world heritage. It is no wonder you mention certain tribal masks - that perfectly underlies how our sick postmodern epoch approaches art. But art remains, it simply remains in places we do not consider art - that is quite the point of what the Frankfrut Marxists called 'mass culture', desublimation, and so on. High culture, where art used to be, is dead. So in effect, a TV commercial, or advertisement, is more 'artistic' than the postmodern vomit you find in art galleries, which is effectively disgusting not because it is meaningless, but because its haughty and arrogant meaning - which uncannily combines counter-enlightenment romantic style with pseudo-modern art styles, is nothing more than the same post counter-culture pseudo-consumerist individualism of our present order, combining both an emphasis on 'emotion' and an insistence on the irrational, with purportedly 'avant-garde' forms. It is so ingeuine, disgusting that it perfectly encapsulates the spirit of our existing order, which does the same thing ideologically (i.e. the grossest superstition is packed off and sold as 'subversive', 'revolutionary', etc.).

Rafiq, you make good points, and your critique of me was good. I definitely need to read more into ''culture industry'' in order to understand where you're coming from. But in general, I see where you're coming from.

However, I don't support your tangents of iconoclasm. And I for sure think that ''trash'' in your eyes can be used for something, which is education. You don't seem to oppose education of people, just bourgeois manipulation and mass-marketing tactics in order to subdue the masses. Something I AM opposed to as well. However my point of deviation is that it is necessary to inform future scholars of capitalistic and pre-communistic methods of these tools of tyranny.

ckaihatsu

21st January 2016, 03:00

I'm surprised no one has brought up the role of language in this whole discussion. Often times, when leftists say that you can't be spiritual and communist/marxist/anarchist they are saying that you can't hold non-material beliefs and be consistent with a historical materialist conception of society. This is to say that god (as a non-material figure) is inconsistent with the idea of history being the development of class struggle precisely because class struggle is the struggle over material reality.

On the other hand, I could easily rephrase the alienation of the worker as the loss of spirituality in the individual, and, for the most part, it is consistent. Alienation is a form of loss of spirituality if one conceives of the spirit as the totality of existence/experience. But notice that when I do this the focus go from the worker as she relates to society and her labor to some abstract conception of "totality." I bring this example up because it is true that capitalism kills the spirit, but this is a poetic phrasing for what is happening on the ground, in material reality, whereby the worker is alienation and her labor commodified.

These terms (religion/communism) are often not set in stone but they demonstrate the real power of communism: it involves, as Rafiq noted, a new conception of the world. Another way to say this is that

communism will necessitate an evolution in human thought which cannot be completely understood from our present standpoint. Another way to think of this is that communism is the freeing of the human spirit, or, for the religious among us, communism is god's work... without god.

I've always found this part of theory to be virtually *mystical* -- sure we can't make a blueprint for the future, but my position is that many fundamental elements / aspects of political economy will continue to exist in some form or another indefinitely, even through massively qualitative changes in social relations. So if we know that, for example, people will continue to 'labor' in some kinds of ways, as for the provisioning of goods and services, then we can at least talk about 'labor for goods and services in a post-commodity society'.

Interesting. I don't doubt communism incompatible with traditional religion. But communists will have to examine their own beliefs as well. I have a fair degree of conviction that the tactics of 1917 will never work again. Even the win achieved by those tactics proved historically very temporary. While I think a leading or vanguard party and an element of force or violence both remain necessary in the course of a revolution, something has to change next time around if the ascendancy of the working class is really to occur.

The phenomenon of class consciousness presents enough subtleties to challenge my understanding. Yet simply assuming that more primitive forces of personalities, power struggles, and reversion to statism will dissolve in class consciousness begs serious questions. The 20th century history shows us a classless, stateless society doesn't automatically follow a revolution initiated from among the working class. As the personality cults arose within the vanguard itself, one cannot blame reactionary centers for causing the

failures of communism's political implementation. The Communist Parties themselves failed their own movements. I regard these problems as unsolved—Nor do I have solutions to them given that better minds than mine have confronted them without success. Discipline indeed, and subordination of powerful individual to so far unempowered collective, even to recognize such problems exist.

I don't think we can see post-Bolshevik 'communism' -- in whatever country or variant -- as being a 'failure', but more as a 'holding pattern' at least, and, at best, as being the worldwide struggle against imperialism that was the postwar ('Cold War') era.

Should we be surprised that the nominally 'collectivized' country of the USSR played a more active role politically on the world stage (geopolitically) than it did in any sense of advancing the interests of the proletariat -- ? I would say that its geopolitical identity in that era and *defense* of any revolutionary gains was the source of its *cohesion* as a political / national / social entity -- also meaning that such is *too passive* to be more proactive, as for revolutionary *gains*.

Rafiq

21st January 2016, 03:32

Let's get one thing clear, Major K. - you want to participate in this discussion? THEN PARTICIPATE, you are in no position to abstract yourself and give us some fucking narrative, summary of my posts - like you want to respond to my post? Then don't be a coward AND DO IT. Again, I am so god damned fucking sick of this, I am so god damned sick of people who want to get their fucking last word in, but at the same time don't want to put in any effort. Like no, sorry, this isn't going to work again, I will literally take very little thing you say and hold you accountable for it, and I will not stop, I absolutely promise you. You can either stop this bullshit, or you can maturely engage the discussion at hand - which means acknowledging - in the context of this discussion, the PARTISAN nature of your views. In tune with what can only be said to be completely predictable, in our postmodern context, you absolutely and rabidly despise, are completely aversed toward the notion of partisanship - so you ingenuinely attempt to assume the position of some fucking third person, external narrator who is simply giving us an 'objective', neutral assessment of my post. BUT I WAS RESPONDING TO YOU, Major, I was targeting YOU, and ONLY YOU, you are in no fucking position to 'summarize' my post like this, because you didn't fucking make my post. But because you need your last word, you redirect this discussion into a controversy, a debate about WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY. It is amply so unbearable, so juvenile and absolutely toxic. Like WE GET IT, you don't understand my post, you don't want to seriously confront it for what it is - this is what you do? You attempt to give us a summary of MY OWN POST, WHICH ANYONE CAN READ? WHY? WHAT'S THE POINT IN DOING THIS?

But everyone, ladies and gentlemen, I now introduce you to another total shit thread that has been totally fucked up merely by Major K.'s participation in it. In this thread, I will give thorough, detailed and considerate responses, and Major K. will continue with this half assed, vomit inducing 'wisdom-soaked' posts and this will go on for probably weeks until he decides he's had enough. Literally, the only other person I can think of whose behavior was as insufferable, in their posting style, to the point where it is trolling, was Kolakowski's discipline (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=195036), who did the exact same thing. Like it is not enough that I can just fucking post and we can have a discussion about it. This whole thread has been re-directed into a scholastic debate about what Rafiq was trying to say in his post, because you haven't offered any fucking counter-arguments, you have given us a completely ridiculous description of my post which has its basis in your inability and reluctance to address my post. You aren't conquering my post by giving a half-assed description of it, you aren't proving to anybody that you understand it or are in a position to oppose it, by giving us a fucking SUMMARY of it.

In addition, WHY do you post this way? WHY? Are you posting a song? But again, my complaint is always universal: I put so much effort and consideration of the other's argument in my post, in every post, and the reason this gets dragged along is because they, lazily, will give us a few lines of nonsense, and they'll just sit back and relax until I rip it apart so they can give us a new one. Sorry, that IS trolling, that IS tantamount to trolling. There is a PACE to this discussion, and you need to keep up with it. If you don't want to keep up with it, then don't post, don't SAY things that are indirect or that merely designate things. Fuck.

I responded to this:

I think the hardman approach is part and parcel with vulgar religiosity and perpetuates the problem

In effect, I DID attack this as a stupid postmodern cliche, because it is - and I justified why. It is a postmodern cliche because it is the same boring old fucking platitude about how 'well, you're being just as extreme and unreasonable as they are', the same stupid postmodern cliche which insinuates one should be 'balanced' and take the middle route. This notion of drawing false equivalency, underlies liberal stupidity that is commonly expressed through garbage like the horseshoe theory of politics. The underlying point, which I thoroughly developed with utmost care and consideration, was that this is anti-Communist and reactionary, because it qualifies religion on the basis of some unpolitical abstraction - having a 'hardman' approach, being too 'extreme', being too 'overt' with one's beliefs, and so on. It is no different than saying "If you use violence, you are no better than those in power". It abstracts phenomena like violence, and qualifies this phenomena as the essential basis of real controversies. This perpetuates the legitimacy of ruling ideology, in 'making its stake' in inevitable phenomena, i.e. in abstractions, no different than the phenomena of 'making art', having sex, or some other abstraction which by itself and alone means very little. In presupposing these have an essential existence of their own as abstractions, one SUBSUMES this phenomena by ruling ideology.

[QUOTE]Then you say something somewhat reasonable, though entirely irrelevant, about bourgeois attitudes towards 'fanatacism'

K, I call you out, here and now, and I demand YOU ACTUALLY JUSTIFY why this was 'entirely irrelavent'. You literally don't know a thing about what you're talking about - in fact, the whole point of your post was to qualify religion in terms of 'dogmatism' and being overly engaged with one's beliefs, which is literally EXACTLY what encapsulates every single bourgeois cliche regarding the nature of belief, which I have thoroughly allotted so much time and effort into detailing that it is disgusting you now come here and talk about how it is 'irrelevant'. No, I am striking EXACTLY what forms the basis of your indirect criticism of my posts in this thread, which relates to "oh, you oppose religion, but what if you yourself are immersed in a religion" - and my point was quite simple - how bourgeois ideologues qualify religion, relates to its 'fanatical' dimension, they think that the ESSENTIAL BASIS of religion, is in fact, its partisan, 'fanatical', engaged, 'untolerating' and organized nature, when in reality, when in fact, this is not the case - the actual essential basis of religion, for Communists at least, is the superstition which underlies it. Bourgeois ideologues who speak of not having an 'open mind' of being 'too immersed' in a religion, do not strike at the essential basis of religion, what makes a religion a religion, they merely express their discomfort with the outward active display of engagement with one's beliefs, because it threatens THEIR OWN beliefs and comfort, which they take for granted. The fact of the matter is that the reason the 'organized' nature of religion bothers bourgeois ideologues, is because it provides a space of discourse and thought, that is purportedly outside of the legitimate state apparatus.

You however seem to identify "materialism" -- a philosophical movement -- with reality. To you, only things that can be put into boxes is real? Are experiences subject to your selected traditional intellectual categories, then?

Oh, perfect, just what we need, another totally fucking worthless and pointless thread about more pseudo-philosophical "What is truth?" garbage. Very well, let's go then. You claim that I seem to identify materialism with reality. WHERE DID I DO THIS? WHERE DID I FUCKING SAY, 'materialism', WHICH IS NOTHING MORE than a conception of reality without superstition, is synonymous with the reality that it refers to? Where did I equate these things? Again, you talk of out of your fucking ass, but more specifically, the reasoning behind this purported equivilency on your part, is because you are horrified by the fact that I am leaving no room for idealism, for superstition and for filth. You claim that I mistaken 'materialism' with reality. What you fail to understand is that THE ONSET OF EVEN TALKING ABOUT REALITY, you ARE qualifying it and making pretenses to it. So it literally means nothing that materialism is a philosophical movement, in relation to the 'true nature' of reality, BECAUSE IN TALKING ABOUT THE "TRUE NATURE" OF REALITY, YOU ARE ENGAGING ALREADY in philosophic controversy. How does Major K. imagine to make pretenses to reality, outside of consciousness of reality? And where materialism, science begins, disgusting mysticism, pseudo-philosophical mystification, ontological crutches end. That is because, quite amply, ALL TRUTH MEANS is PRACTICAL truth. Truth, IS PRACTICAL, it refers to the PRACTICAL relationship between human consciousness and the external world around it. ANY OTHER pretense to 'the true reality' or 'the real reality', is engaging in a scholasticism. The 'true nature of reality' refers to the practical relationship between real humans and the reality around them, otherwise, there is no fucking point in talking about the 'true nature' of reality for Communists. "Are experiences subject to your selected traditional intellectual categories" - the utter nonsense of this statement, especially for someone who talks about not being a postmodernist, lies in the fact that you are ALREADY TALKING about experiences in a controversial manner. Are you saying experiences cannot be consciously understood, then? From what BASIS do you say this, from what BASIS do you justify the assertion that human experience cannot be qualified by the same humans who are- in effect- experiencing in a conscious and scientific manner? The rule is quite simple: Until you can show me some special physiological ability you have that I do not have, what you can experience in consciousness, so too can I experience, in consciousness, so that in effect, EXPERIENCE IS a social question, not an individual one. That is on top of the fact that the very framework of individual experience is in a social manner - one articulates their experiences in a manner that is subservient to their social context, in a manner that relates to a sense of self and identity, which was wrought from its juxtaposition to others.

That materialism is not, for example, synonymous with a rock, has nothing to do with the fact that HOW WE SEEK TO APPROACH THE WORLD AROUND US IS in a materialist manner. You clearly don't HAVE to be a materialist, you don't have to agree with heliocentrism, either, but this lack of materialism perpetuates the conditions of the existing order we seek to destroy, just as astrological mysticism perpetuated the feudal order. It is not about a battle of 'narratives' of the world, but about what these narratives mean in the context of a world we are already a part of - I don't have to prove to you my existence, or my relationship to the existing order, or the social antagonism we are all immersed in. You take a side, or you don't. Rejecting the existence of social antagonism, is already effectively taking a side, and why? Because the future, CAN be in the hands of the Communists.

Your argument is so abominably cliche'd, that it is appalling you say:

This is something you share with your arch-enemy the reactionary post-modern etc. etc...

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, he claims that my argument is postmodern. The guy who is saying that experiences are too varied, too 'mysterious' apparently, to be qualified in a conscious, over-reaching manner, he is identifying my argument with postmodernism. Do I need to elaborate on how ironic this is? The person who said: Are experiences subject to your selected traditional intellectual categories, then? is saying that MY argument is postmodern, because 'experiences are not subjected to over-reaching narratives that do not relate to particular experience' and so on. In effect you don't know what you're talking about. You don't even relate to the concrete nature of my argument, you instead seek to dismissively qualify it by reducing it to some known cliche - you don't address my argument by its merits, but by what you think it SOUNDS like, what place, in your framework of society's varied ideas, it has.

Later you put up an important but unnecessary distinction between dogmatism and 'over-identification', you're treating it like a surrogate mother though.... Suckle the teet of divine retribution, Romulus!

Unnecessary, HOW? I LITERALLY CHALLENGED and ATTACKED YOUR qualification of 'dogmatism' in relation to religion. This is what I was criticizing, so how is it irrelevant? YOUR notion of dogmatism IS synonymous with over-identification, and over-engagement, and this is precisely why I elaborated regarding the dedication that is necessary to be a Communist - because WE ARE in the minds of liberals crazy fanatics, or in your mind, 'dogmatist', I was merely adding that we don't give a shit about this, and that outside of ruling ideological discourse, there is no equivalency with the religious dimension we seek to destroy.

self-defeating rampage of poetic language about the necessary eradication of poetry, also quite funny is that this is what the Analytics and Utilitarians think too -- that point alone should probably give a good Marxist pause.

No, analytical philistines have no problem with mysticism and nonsense expressed through poetry, they just don't like it when this is conflated with what they qualify as 'scientific'. In fact, there is nothing uniquely anglo-saxon about seeking clarity in language, or opposing disgusting kinds of poetry that are meant to excuse rational inquiry and thought. In addition, I didn't say anything about eradicating poetry, but eradicating WISDOM, whether or not that 'wisdom' was expressed through poetry. I said wisdom was disgusting and reactionary. Communists violently oppose mysticism and deliberate obfuscation, there is nothing philistine about this, anymore than there is no philistinism in being rabidly opposed to scum like Julius Evola, the righteous irrationalism, anti-intellectualism and mysticism of both German and Italian fascism, and HIDING otherwise rational speak, through the medium of poetry. The difference is that when I type in a 'poetic' way, I am not hiding anything that could not be otherwise said in a soberly direct manner, I merely speak this way because the use of 'poetic' styles in writing, often times, can make the point easier to understand. We oppose wisdom and wisdom through poetic means. It's that simple. We also violently oppose every and all kinds of superstition, whether expressed poetically or not. That is Rafiq's position. I did not attack you by saying it is meaningless to bring in dionysus and apollo, I UNDERSTOOD the meaning behind this, and I OPPOSED you on those grounds. That is the true meaning of a critique, one must justify their dismissal, not simply do it because 'whatever'. So in opposing superstition, I CAN justify this opposition in a way that is CONSIDERATE of superstition. That has nothing to do with your typical anglo-saxon criticism, and I can really go into pages and pages of detail as to why if you can't get it at this point.

followed by some more adamant stawman waltzing.

And this is exactly what I'm fucking talking about, in Major's mind, we just ought to take his fucking word for it - I'm employing a 'straw man', but how? Well, because Major said so of course. I address SPECIFICALLY your 'poetic' usage of the words 'apollo' and 'dionysus', and claim that in your attempt to illustrate a wisdom, you are wrong because you are ossifying the phenomena that which both of these gods were made to represent, into something that is just as inevitable, or ontologically based, as the purported existence of the gods themselves by the Greeks. There is nothing about this argument, which does not directly address and which does not directly take into deep consideration the nature of your argument. Otherwise, WHY THE FUCK would you use the terms 'apollo' and 'dionysus', because in using these terms, you are in effect making the phenomena they are meant to represent LEGITIMATE, i.e. in giving them some kind of external representation, even if it is poetic, you are ossifying them into phenomena that is anything but contingent. HOW IS THIS a 'straw man' argument, mind you?

He's most certainly heard such drivel before, after all ;)

For someone who claims that they are outside bourgeois cliche's, that this argument is 'irrelavent', tell me, WHY EXACTLY IS YOUR CRITICISM OF MARXISM, or Rafiq's engagement in it, EXACTLY, TOTALLY AND COMPLETLEY IDENTICAL to the typical bourgeois cliche regarding Marxism - that it is 'just another religion', with its own prophet, sacred texts, structure, and so on. Do you think you're original? You're not, because this cliche is literally so common, so god damned fucking common, that not only does your little poem not invoke any humor, the fact that you THOUGHT you were being creative, witty, original or even substnatial is alone frustrating - like DO YOU ACTUALLY think that this is somehow intellectually provoking? Do you actually think you are making a point, which has not been addressed and dealt with over and over again for any Marxist with an iota of familiarity of the nature of the anti-Marxist drivel that is typical of the partisans of the ruling order? But nevermind this - becasue the fact of the matter, what is particularly stupid about this comparison is that YOU CANNOT BE OUTSIDE its 'humorous' character- because it doesn't even work, and why? Despite attempts to draw any 'parraleles', THERE IS NOTHING superstitious about Marxism, so in effect, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is saying:

Give us this day our daily bread, and forget all debts, as we shall slay our debtors.

You fail in drawing any basis of equivalency here, because the basis of our loyalty and dedication to the legacy of Marx has nothing to do with some superstitious reservation about being rewarded by some external power - ON THE CONTRARY, the point is that WE WILL TAKE THE BREAD ourselves, we will ABSOLVE THE DEBTS ourselves, with our own swords, we don't need to pray to anyone, we don't need any sense of external guarantee, we don't need to pray, or look upon anything beyond ourselves, and the faith necessary to simply take control of that which we are already a part of. This is what makes comparisons to a religion so fucking stupid - what you fail to understand is that the BASIS OF COMPARISON ITSELF is religious, and why? For the simple reason that in attributing to blind faith the justification for one's Communism, i.e. in attributing to religious-like faith one's insistence that they CAN do something, that THERE IS no god, renouncing superstitions, you only reaffirm your own religious-like devotion to your own superstitions. So strong and potent is this religious-like devotion, that you are unable to question it. The only thing that separates you from Rafiq, is that Rafiq is honest and open about the partisan nature of his position, you, conversely, see yourself as a 'rational, balanced and open minded' person who is not even aware of the extent in which he is immersed in ideology. Your RELIGIOUS beliefs are so strong, that you can't even identify them so you can question them.

The only splitting point seems to be that you don't agree with my assessment that religion isn't destroyed by opposing it, but by understanding it as poetry, and understanding poetry to be every-day life.

It is not poetry, however, this is what you fail to understand. Already with Feuerbach we understand this basic philosophic cliche - that religion is merely a metaphor for real life. But religion does not OCCUPY the role of some kind of poetry in society, it occupies the space of belief and superstition. In other words, the religious believer DOES NOT have any conscious understanding of the society his religion 'poetically' describes, his only understanding of the world around him, is through his religion and through his superstitions. So Major K., in effect, wants to sit back and enjoy the poetry while the broad masses of people do not enjoy this right, and instead reproduce their chains in a 'poetic' way, in Major K.'s mind. This is thoroughly anti-democratic, simply because it does not evaluate how religion relates to the consciousness of the religious adherent, which isn't in terms of 'poetically describing society'. If I poetically describe a tree, I still have this basic distinction between my understanding of the tree in scientific terms, and how I poetically describe it. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE do not HAVE this distinction. But even to go as far as possible, EVEN IF IT WAS some kind of 'poetry' of society, this poetry is still disgusting and is to be opposed, because this is a poetry which, rather than criticizing society (in the actual sense of the word, not merely 'oh, the poor need our help'), reproduces it.

By reframing it as something apolitical and unspeakable -- something mystics throughout the ages have tried to do to varying degrees.

This is materialism beyond Materialism.

No, it's quite not materialism even unto materialism, it is simply just bullshit. You cannot reframe religion as apolitical, because it is political. If you're merely trying to say that religion is merely fantastical reflection of the real world, congrats, you're not being original, we have known this since Feuerbach, or even Hegel. We who seek to UNDERSTAND and subsequently CHANGE the world, violently oppose the fantastical mystification of it in the same way that someone who wants to manipulate some natural process, opposes attempts to obfuscate and mystify the nature of such processes.

Major K.

21st January 2016, 04:23

We oppose wisdom and wisdom through poetic means. It's that simple. We also violently oppose every and all kinds of superstition, whether expressed poetically or not. That is Rafiq's position.

Despite all the jokes and confusion with language we're having, I think we are in practically total accord on the vital matters here (thus why I'm not defending the things you think I'm saying, which I'm not)! The main difference is linguistic. I find that a lot of these types of discussions totally dissipate into mutual agreement after everyone agrees on the appropriate terminology to use. What you seem to be doing is trying to force me to submit to your idiosyncratic definitions without me even knowing what they are. This I will not do.

On that level we could argue, however, about the appropriate attitude to have towards vulgar idealism (i.e., I say transform it and tolerate it to a degree like a good teacher tolerates the fantasies of children, you say destroy it) -- or any specific ideology for that matter. We can continue in more detail over PMs if you want, but I'd like to avoid derailing this discussion with such a line of dialogue.

And to answer your question about my over-the-top presumptuous rhetorical strategy... yeah... like you're one to complain...

Red Red Chile

21st January 2016, 05:04

It's such a cute game these children play. They see a very refined, thoroughly detailed and complex post, and in order to keep up the persona of 'maintaining a distance' from the argument, so that they are not engaged enough to actually be responsible for their utter disgusting fucking bullshit, while at the same time making pretenses to actually engaging the argument, they give us a few extra lines of garbage. They want it both ways - they both want to keep up the appearance of not having to take their opponent seriously, because 'outside of his mothers basement' he will not matter, while at the same time they want to save themselves from the actual real humiliation and intellectual slaughtering they are receiving. Well you won't have it both ways, and I assure you, I am not going anywhere - I AM GOING TO MAKE YOU ACCOUTNABLE for EVERY SINGLE argument you make, EVERY SINGLE thing you say will not be received uncritically. This will not end, I promise.

Congratulations! You're so unique! It's not like I've already demolished these exact same arguments 1000 times over on this very forum already.You're not going to escape this either. You're not going to slither away. You came on this forum, you say all of this? Very well, I, and I expect others, now demand that you hold yourself accountable for what you say, you are responsible for it.

Enjoy.

Ok Rafiq.

IT EITHER IS ABLE TO WHOLLY ACCOUNT, scientifically, for ALL social and historical (as well as psychological!) processes, human conscientiousness in its entirety, or it can account for none.

No rafiq. HM will not account for the behaviour of every atom in the universe. Nor should it be expected to. In fact not even science's most qualified theories can do that. When scientists run tests in highly controlled environments they encounter things they cannot explain. HM is like a road map: It's a guide: It will tell you where the important things are - the roads, the traffic lights, the churches!! , but it won't be an exact guide to what you wind if you drive along that road.

vulgar Marxism has been used to describe certain bastardizations, simplifications of Marxism

Which is exactly what you offer.

the point of Marxism, historical materialism that is, is to scientifically understand the entire basis of human life - insofar as we are humans, engaged in human life.

The fact is, therefore, that definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations. Empirical observation must in each separate instance bring out empirically, and without any mystification and speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with production. The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may appear in their own or other people’s imagination, but as they really are; i.e. as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will.

The fact is, therefore, that definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations. Empirical observation must in each separate instance bring out empirically, and without any mystification and speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with production. The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may appear in their own or other people’s imagination, but as they really are; i.e. as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will.

[...]

Its premises are men, not in any fantastic isolation and rigidity, but in their actual, empirically perceptible process of development
under definite conditions. As soon as this active life-process is described, history ceases to be a collection of dead facts as it is with the empiricists (themselves still abstract), or an imagined activity of imagined subjects, as with the idealists.

And finally, and most importnatly:

The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. [...] These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.

The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature. Of course, we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself – geological, hydrographical, climatic and so on. The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men.

Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.

The way in which men produce their means of subsistence depends first of all on the nature of the actual means of subsistence they find in existence and have to reproduce. This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the production of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part. As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.

This production only makes its appearance with the increase of population. In its turn this presupposes the intercourse [Verkehr] of individuals with one another. The form of this intercourse is again determined by production.

None of what you quote, absolutely none, postulates nor mandates absolute reductionism. Engels warned very clearly against this:

" ..The materialist conception of history has a lot of [dangerous friends] nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history. Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the French "Marxists" of the late 70s: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist." (...) In general, the word "materialistic" serves many of the younger writers in Germany as a mere phrase with which anything and everything is labeled without further study, that is, they stick on this label and then consider the question disposed of. But our conception of history is above all a guide to study, not a lever for construction after the manner of the Hegelian. All history must be studied afresh, the conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined individually before the attempt is made to deduce them from the political, civil law, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc., views corresponding to them. Up to now but little has been done here because only a few people have got down to it seriously. In this field we can utilize heaps of help, it is immensely big, anyone who will work seriously can achieve much and distinguish himself. But instead of this too many of the younger Germans simply make use of the phrase historical materialism (and everything can be turned into a phrase) only in order to get their own relatively scanty historical knowledge — for economic history is still in its swaddling clothes! — constructed into a neat system as quickly as possible, and they then deem themselves something very tremendous. And after that a Barth can come along and attack the thing itself, which in his circle has indeed been degraded to a mere phrase."

"...there is only one other point lacking, which, however, Marx and I always failed to stress enough in our writings and in regard to which we are all equally guilty. That is to say, we all laid, and were bound to lay, the main emphasis, in the first place, on the derivation of political, juridical and other ideological notions, and of actions arising through the medium of these notions, from basic economic facts. But in so doing we neglected the formal side — the ways and means by which these notions, etc., come about — for the sake of the content. This has given our adversaries a welcome opportunity for misunderstandings, of which Paul Barth is a striking example."

The notion that, insofar as it concerns these very same social and historical processes, that the method of historical materialism, which refers to nothing more than the conversion of processes otherwise accounted for by superstition, by righteous ignorance, into real knowledge, can be 'over-reached' to phenomena that is 'too complex' for its grasp, necessarily must make a pretension to the nature of this 'complex' phenomena. You claim that religion is too complex to be grasped by historocial materialism. I ridicule this claim - where are the intricacies of this 'complexity' located? Is it that we "do not yet" have a proper understanding of ghosts, goblins and ghouls, in order to scientifically understand religion?

No. As I've already said - I'm not a Marxist, so it's not my agenda to spread the gospel of Marxism. However, insofar as Marxism is being misused is a way that makes communism look bad I will point it out. Historical materialism can be used to explain current religious institutions. There's a Marxist analysis that religion, Christian epistemology, whatever, can be explained as illusory 'superstructure' and will vanish when when men are free from all forms of slavery. But as far as religion in the future goes, the same cannot be said. I expect religion in the future to look very different, and be much less theistic, but it will not become obsolete just because class exploitation is. To say that religion will be obsolete or impossible is to say that metaphysics will be obsolete or impossible. There is no rational reason to think this.

But what is religion, where is it located? Is it located in the consciousness of real men and women, a space of universal reason that which we all belong, or is religion located in some ethereal realm inaccessible to men and women who so desire to inquire about it?

Mind of men and women. Obviously.

the BASIS OF RELIGION IS ACCESSIBLE, because there is no way to 'locate', either empirically or otherwise, recognize or understand religion outside of how it is constituted by real men and women.

Yes. And?

To say otherwise, is again, to make pretenses to superstition, it is literally to say "it can be known, but I refuse"

No it's not. It's to acknowledge the limits of knowledge.

- it is no different from any old Catholic rejection of scientific inquiry into natural processes, it is no different from the mysticism of old Asiatic societies that saw, for example, agricultural practices as occupying a sacred and holy domain[/B]. I mean, ultimately, the stupdity of thinking religion is some inevitability fails to take into account a certain particular fact: I, Red Red Chile, among many other famous Marxsits, were raised and grew up religious. I was not simply irreligious, I was devoutely religious. I was superstitious. And now, I am an atheist and a Communist. If you are saying that religion is some inevitability we "do not yet understand", how might you explain how Rafiq DOES UNDERSTAND religion, and does not have to think twice about his atheism, Rafiq who was previously religious? If religion is some inevitability, rooted in processes we do not understand, you are saying that Rafiq, among other Marxists who left their religion, were somehow outside of these processes.

The human mind is a very complex thing, Rafiq. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. It contains the seed of our potential liberation. There are many things you will not account for in your theory. Why do bourgeois men, contrary to their class, fight on behalf of the proletariat?

According to Red Red Chile, who is not even worthy of the title of vulgar Marxist - historical materialism is some contingent empirical dogma that can be "applied" to some things, but cannot be applied to more 'complex phenomena' (a space we imagine, for Red Red Chile, is reserved for crass superstition and righteous ignorance), because in Red Red Chile's mind, the scope of historical materialism does not extend beyond some very crude, simplistic and juvenile notion of 'da economy' determining 'da superstructure'.

I think it can be used to explain quite broadly, the religions of the past and present. But it does not guarantee that metaphysics will become irrelevant.

That this is at best a broad assessment of the relationship between certain contingencies, and the underlying social relations that are responsible for them, by no means reduces ossifies this into some simplistic dogma called 'historical materialism'. Historical materialism refers to nothing more than a scientific understanding of social and historical processes, it does not refer to any positive processes of determination between 'separate' domains of life, it begins with, as Marx famously outlined in the German ideology, no empirical dogmas, simply the empirical recognition of the existence of men and women.

Scientific theories cannot explain everything. That is not how science works.

What distinguishes historical materialism, is that it refers to a PRACTICAL PREROGATIVE to understand social processes scientifically - it disallows for each and every kind of superstition insofar as this concerns social and historical processes. What you fail to understand is that the whole point of historical materialism, was that no external empirical dogmas were necessary in order to scientifically understand social processes - quite on the contrary, understanding these social processes in and of themselves, as constituted by nothing more than men and women, in relation to both themselves and the world around them was the whole point. So saying that there is some 'complex phenomena' that is beyond the grasp of historical materialists, is to make pretenses to some empirical phenomena that we are not taking into account. You cannot do this, because there is none.

What on earth are you talking about - 'empirical dogmas'?

By your qualifications for 'vulgar Materialism', I would like you to provide some historical examples of Marxists, including Marx and Engels, who were not 'vulgar Marxists'.

See the Engels quote I offered you earlier.

IT IS NOT REDUCTIONISM to claim this, because it derives from the very refined notion that religion would no longer have a basis of existence insofar as one becomes socially and historically conscious of themselves.

Lol. People can only become sociology and historically conscious of themselves within their the realm of their own reality. Kant's old noumenal phenomenal distinction is useful to consider here. To argue that religion might be impossible is to argue that metaphysics might be impossible. There is no reason to think this will ever be so, because human knowledge is finite. It's really as simple as that. Myself, I'm happy to reject metaphysics, as I have no use for it. But there is nothing in Maxian analysis that makes it impossible. Scientists are mostly happy to ignore metaphysics as irrelevant.

By your logic, we cannot predict 'anything' about the future.

My logic is correct.

In fact, what you amply fail to understand is that we don't even have to sustain our identity as Communists by saying "Things will be X way in 2100" - you fail to understand that this is undialectical - we Communists, nkow there is no place for rleigion in a future post capitalist society because AS COMMUNISTS, as it pertains to OUR OWN consciousness as communists, there is no room for religion.

Please stop saying 'we'. if you haven't noticed, there are hundreds of tendencies on the group page. Speak only for yourself.

You claim that "we won't be able to tell if people will still 'believe' in a higher power' - what you fail to do, and what you fail to understand is: WHY DO PEOPLE NEED a 'higher power'?

Fear of death is one. Does communism have a solution for that?

Or do you want to claim that such a society is impossible? You in effect, therefore, claim that humans cannot be conscious of the very conditions and basis of life that no one else but they themselves constitute nad form a part of.

The door to metaphysics is part of these 'very conditions of existence' you speak of. HM shows how men under current and previous social relations used that door to improve their reality. It does not know if or how men under future relations will use that door.

THE WHOLE POINT of Marx's understanding of ideology was that it entailed the doing of things, without the knowing of doing these things - it is to be doing it, without knowing it. THAT IS superstition, that is the very definition of superstition. So in effect, the notion that "We don't know if a god is real" is just as worthless as saying that "We don't know if a pink unicorn that is invisible is real' - in Communism neither would have any practical relevance, both statements would be worthless and meaningless because we would not have to BELIEVE these things, or even ENTERTAIN belief in these things, in order to live and constitute our existence. Their practical relevance, i.e. superstition, is only relevant for a society that must perpetuate non-consciousness of its intricacies. These intricacies still exist, however, so they must be designated, i.e. in Lacanina/Althusserian terms, they must be aimed at, but never touched upon. This is what undelries every single superstition, from a belief in a god, to anti-semitism. To designate something, without knowing it, is the definition of ideology. Communism allows us to know these things.

You act like communism will be some utopian panacea that will solve all the problems of the human condition. This is the rank idealism Liberls and reactionaries associate will commnism. It's a faith as divorced from reality as the religion you criticie. Even in a communist society, people will die, people will grieve, people will hope that life is not pointless and statistical.

Time and time again, we are told by the most filthy superstitious ideologues, mystics, new age ideologues, hand in hand with the analytical and anglo-saxon philistines who are not only alien, but are rabidly hostile to the tradition of historical science, that their superstitions are supplemented by the fact that "We don't know enough about the universe" in order to in practical terms do away with superstition, religion, the notion of a god, and so on. They make pretenses to the vastness and scope of the universe

These people are telling you the right thing. You should listen more eagerly and take their elevated wisdom into your heart.

What they fail to understand, is that no pretenses to the universe is necessary - we in this context have fuck all to do with the universe. Instead, we are conscious beings, human beings. and that is it. Any other pretense to the external universe, is a pretense to the relationship between human beings and the world around them in practical terms. What does that mean? It is not necessary to have even an 'infintitesimial' understanding of 'the universe' in order to deal with controversies and phenomena that are unique to humans insofar as they are constituted as social and historical beings, because the empirical existence of each other, our relationship to each other, as well as ourselves, both physically and through self-conscious reflection, is uncontroversial: WE EXIST, we do not have to prove our existence. Insofar as you EVEN THINK that one day, your superstitious beliefs will be 'validated' by scientific inquiry, THIS IS A SOCIAL CONTROVERSY, NOT one that relates to the degree of, lack of knowledge we have of natural processes. Because ultimately, as Hegel understood the term - absolute knowledge - this can be attained insofar as we are socially self-conscious, and the practical relationship we have with the universe remains. What that means is, it is true that scientific discovery will never end, but the epistemological parameters that are of significance IS NOT between humans and 'da truth', but between humans and their PRACTICAL relationship to the universe around them. So the point is: THE DOMAINS OF CONSCIOUSNESSES, SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE EVEN, that underlie the BASIS of ANY practical relation to the mastery of nature, will remain unchanged, because this by definition would not be able to change, it is an affront to reason itself. What that means is that no matter how many empirical discoveries are made, no matter any of this, so long as the social antagonism is resolved in human society, the historic substance of humans will remain unaltered - no 'divine revelation' about the 'origin of life' coming out of the ass of allah, god or jehovah, is going to be wrought. Btu let's play the devil's advocate. Let's say that in some twisted fantasy land, it is discovered that Allah is a real physical entity who 'made' the universe. Again, let's ignore the fact that this is an affront to every standard of reason imaginable. Let's just presuppose this. Even if this were true, the relationship between the belief in allah by the Muslim believer, and the actual, physical existence of his god, would have no relationship whatsoever- his superstitions would still be unjustified. THE NATURE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF ITSELF MAKES NO PRETENSE TO "EVENTUAL" SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, IT CANNOT AND DOES NOT want to be 'discovered', because it cannot. It can only legitimize itself, in our 'balanced' anglo-saxon epoch of degeneracy, by saying "Well who knows bro, eventually our superstitions might be confirmed". This tendency to make a pretension to the future to justify one's superstitions, no doubt heralded by the rabid technological changes that have swept our societies in the past decades, is the latest trend in our society.

Noone is telling you that religion is rational. The very fact that religion has been the 'sigh of the oppressed' for millennia shows how eagerly men substitute the brute facts of existence for fantasy.

But again, the point is rather simple - because the basis of these religious beliefs is known, then they would have no basis of existence compared to any other random schizophrenic 'belief' - a flying potato monster that was responsible for the existence of potatos on Earth (but we just can't see it) - no one would have any reason to think a god is real. And yet again, unsurprisingly, you literally talk out of your ass. "Speculation in metaphysics"? WHO HERE IS MAKING ANY PRETENSE TO METAPHYSICS, HUH? You're just fucking USING WORDS that you don't fucking understand - metaphysics refers to the practice of linking up one's ideological designation of the social domain, with natural processes, attempting to find congruence between them.

Metaphysics is exactly what it sounds like - 'metá from the Greek "beyond", "upon" or "after and "physics" from the Greek physiká.

THIS IS NOT what we are doing by claiming religion will be annihilated through Communism, we don't have to make any pretense to the 'nature' of the universe to say this, we need only to be conscious of, scientifically assess, that which is right in front of us, that which we are a part of - our own conditions of life. This is what I'm fucking talking about with positivism and the rise of mysticism - POSITIVISM GAVE BIRTH to mysticism, because in its purported rejection of 'metaphysics', the processes that relate to the basis of human existence still exist, and still are 'felt', so people inevitably turned to mysticism. And the positivists didn't give a fuck, so long as that mysticism wasn't called 'scientific'. So this is why you have so many scientists who, upon returning home from their labs, will 'pray' and have the most anti-scientific reservations.

Positivism does not give birth to mysticism. It does however limit what we can speculate about to the point where we are theoretically impotent. For that reason it is not particularly useful, in the political sphere anyway.

It's really fucking nice that you literally do EXACTLY what I predict you would argue. You're so predictable, that I literally was able to predict what you would say, and as a precaution, I already responded to this fucking argument:

The reason you can predict some of my responses is because you are self-conscious about your arguments being absurd. Yet, addicted to your own controversy, you continue anyway - as I predicted you would.

I have been both on this website, and in contact with self-proclaimed Leftists in general to know the popular tendency of projecting one's own fear and aversion towards Communism upon an other. This is how ideology works - you never simply assume responsibility and say "This for me reinforces the stereotype that would make me not want to identify with Communism", you have ot make pretenses to mainstream thought, or some other big other, i..e "the masses" and so on. Every single time I horrify Leftists, because they cannot justify their own aversion in conscious terms without incriminating themselves as reactionaries, they say "Hey, I'm fine, but the masses, the masses think this shit is fucked up" - you cannot make any pretense to 'mainstream thought', because sorry, COMMUNISM IS negative, even without any fucking stereotypes, as far as its place in mainstream thought goes - ruling ideology and Communism are absolutely irreconcilable, everything about Communism horrifies petty bourgeois ideologues like yourself. Thankfully, we aren't trying to reach out to the heralds and perpetrators of "mainstream thought", we want to challenge, re-define, and transform 'mainstream thought' so that the revolutionary proletariat, not the bourgeois ideologues are hegemonic. That means, we WILL NEVER lower ourselves to the ignorance of the masses in compromising with that which keeps them chained and shackled.

*yawn*

WE WILL hang the fucking priests, WE WILL burn down the churches
... WE ARE this so-called "evil", you fucking BET we are going to bring righteous hell on Earth for these motherfuckers, you bet your fucking ass we are going to defile everything sacred and holy

No, YOU are, in your daydreams. Please stop presenting your power fantasies as is they are representative of all communists.

In fact we have been doing this since the French revolution. But just to show how wrong you are even further, off the top of my head, I can even think of a song that directly contradicts your assertion, that sung by anarchists and Communists in Spain:

Si los curas y frailes supieran,
la paliza que les van a dar,
subirían al coro cantando:

"¡Libertad, libertad, libertad!

You speak Spanish, I imagine. And they did shoot priests in Spain, just as they shot, massacred and hung priests in Russia, and just as we will do in the coming revolution. Even during the uprising in Oman, during the cold war, Communists were driving sheikhs and imams off of cliffs mercilessly. Sure, 'hanging' isn't creative, there are more creative ways to execute the disgusting mouthpieces of reaction, darkness and superstition. The revolutionaries themselves will decide this. And finally, I don't have to be in a position of authority to say that every Communist should want to hang priests. I don't, because even if I die tomorrow, the point will remain: THERE WILL BE NO COMMUNISM unless the churches are destroyed, the priests driven from the world. I don't have to decree SHIT for this assertion to remain valid.

Those kinds of orgiastic displays of idealogicaly justified violence will never lead to communism anyway. They lead to state dictatorships, just like the USSR. Russia, North Korea and China are now further away from communism than they have ever bee. A communist revolution will only succeed when the majority working class becomes class conscious and acts in its own self interest. In such conditions there is no need to hang priests. There's no need for this because, in such conditions, social gravity is on their side. You seem to fancy yourself as an uncompromising Marxist, but you are not even a good Marxists. You have just extrapolated from some vulgar readings of Marxism some bloody notions to feed your childish need for attention. You must wonder why Marx and Engels, in the annals or their writings and correspondence, never deigned to say such things.

And Red Red chile tried to worm his way out by reviving a half year old thread, that's okay, I'm bringing the matter here:

You literally don't know what your talking about. This discussion had nothing to do with the validity of evolution or not, and furthermore, no one criticized Popper for saying that evolution was a theory, but because he said it was a "metaphysical research programme". This had fuck all to do with evolutionary science, that was quite the point in fact

870 wasn't trying to say that evolution "is just a theory" by making a pretense to Popper, HE WAS ATTACKING Popper and his notion of falsification, because it did not adequately apply to the biological sciences.

Yet this has nothing to do with the controversy at hand, absolutely nothing to fucking do with it. But just to show how silly you are being, no, evolutionary science is not sustained because 'data happens to corroborate it', because data will never contradict it - it's not as though, as Popper thinks, we don't know enough to draw the conclusion that evolutionary science is valid, it's that the baggage of bourgeois superstition prevents us from fully accepting it where we should. That is because evolution merely refers to processes of natural change - it doesn't need to justify itself with any external empirical dogma - it merely requires the practical onset of recognizing that these processes can be understood scientifically.

Holy shit child just stop. I literally feel bad at this point. Do you even know what selection means? Red Red Chile thinks that unit of selection refers to 'da ting which determines what humans r determined by', while in reality it simply refers to the unit of natural selection, i.e. the unit by which species and their phenotypes are selected for - it has nothing to do with a controversy about what 'determines' humans. You literally are talking out of your ass - meme?. You're using fucking phraseology and terms, from an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THREAD wherein I criticize Dawkins', in agreement with Steven J. Gould, like what the are you even talking about? How is this relevant as far as the discussion is concerned,? Even as it pertains to the basis of human qualities, no, it's not up for debate, would you like to get into that too? I'd love to, just start a new thread.

Why are you dragging that thread into this one? I haven't even checked that thread since I posted, nor did I have any idea how old it was, but please reply to any posts in that thread, in that thread.

Rafiq

21st January 2016, 10:30

And it turns out, my prediction was spot on. Thank you for confirming that:

After they're called out, they usually start responding directly, but in a half-assed manner. Sometimes they skip that part though. After this ceases to work, they muster up everything inside them to produce a post which they think will finally do the trick, and then are surprised to see it does nothing. This has happened so many times, it is literally not even amusing anymore, it's just sad.

But as promised, I will not stop, this will go on for weeks, months or even years if it has to, Red Red Chile. You can keep giving your single-sentence responses all you like, if that makes you feel better about being utterly demolished. Or, you can muster up the courage to try and make a substantive response. It does not matter, because I will not stop this, so long as I have access to a computer, internet, and this website. I promise you, I guarantee you that. It seems like you haven't even come close to touching upon my arguments here, so thanks for essentially conceding them to me.

It's like, for the record, the hilariously groundlessly dismissive nature of your posts suggests that you attempt to get your last word in. But really, do you really tell yourself, Chile, that you'll do this? Do you literally think to yourself "Oh, that oughtta show Rafiq, I finally got rid of him". Do you actually think that? You clearly are trying to get rid of me, becuase you don't put any substantive, critical or considerate work into your posts, you think that somehow you're conquering my posts, getting the anxiety they instill in the back of your mind off your chest, in referring to them, but you're not. There is an ocean of wealth that has yet to even be acknowledged.

HM will not account for the behaviour of every atom in the universe. Nor should it be expected to.

Just to give everyone context regarding the little snip he is trying to respond to:

IT EITHER IS ABLE TO WHOLLY ACCOUNT, scientifically, for ALL social and historical (as well as psychological!) processes, human conscientiousness in its entirety, or it can account for none.

Of course, Red Red Chile conveniently abstractions this assertion - WHICH IS CLEARLY a provocative and controversial one, from its real context, so that it would appear like I am just saying this without even fucking justifying myself. Such is the nature of his intellectual dishonesty. But nevermind, let us assume that I simply said this, without further elaboration. What is abominably hilarious, especially in the context of my post itself, is the simple fact that: I NEVER MADE PRETENSES TO THE NOTION THAT HISTORICAL MATERIALISM IS SOME SET OF EMPIRICAL TRUTHS WHICH ACCOUNT FOR ALL NATURAL AND PHYSICAL PHENOMENA. Attempting to ground the ability to scientifically account for all social and historical phenomena, in necessarily presuming an understanding of "the behavior of every atom in the universe", is an assumption on your part which is totally and wholly unjustified. In other words, total and complete scientific social and historical self-consciousness, does not presume the necessity of total empirical knowledge regarding natural or purely physical processes, it simply requires an empirical presupposition of the existence of real men and women, i.e. OURSELVES, we who have been, and ARE ALREADY ENGAGED in a social and historical context. This is what you laughably fail to understand, and moreover, what is actually hilarious about your rejection of my notion of metaphysics, is that it is precisely you who - in insinuating that social and historical consciousness must be predicated on empirical knowledge of all natural processes in every possible way, even including biological ones, you are precisely engaging in metaphysics and directly conforming to my own assertion for the basis of metaphysics' existence, which was precisely relating false, intentionally imposed epistemological limits of social and historical phenomena, to real empirical limits regarding our practical relation to nature.

What you amply fail to understand, which is why the only difficult and frustrating part in responding to you is the sheer physical burden of having to express my thoughts through this real limitation, this wretched keyboard, with hands that can tire - is that no real empirical knowledge of biological processes, or natural ones even, is necessary to have total historical and social consciousnesses, to be able to totally account for social and historical processes scientifically. Effectively, one doesn't have to take into account possibilities that, for example, a god, or an invisible banana man is 'secretly behind' and is the causal basis of historical phenomena, because this is pure superstition. The point of superstition is an insistence upon not knowing, so we Communists basically say: We risk your invisible banana man, we risk your god, we risk your 'unknown empirical truths' that account for the basis of human existence and behavior, just as the first natural scientists risked all sorts of superstitions in engaging in science - WE DO risk it, and we do it anyway, because we ask the simple question: THE BASIS of your superstition, on your insistence that "there could be" an invisible pink unicorn behind social processes that we aren't taking into account, is a thoroughly ingenuine and false one. For example, if you wake up tomorrow, "you could" incur the wrath of an evil spirit, demon that will kill you. Yet the plethora of possibility as it concerns engaging and living in capitalism, does not have much of an effect on one's propensity to live and engage in modern life, because one would say "I have no reason to think this is true, I have no empirical evidence even suggesting this, so in effect, I have no reason to believe this'. In fact the phenomena of premodern, backward conditions giving people the idea that modern life is going to incur the end of the world, such as what the peasants thought during Stalin's collectivization, was quite common in history, and nothing happened, because the basis of their superstition was groundless, empirically speaking. Likewise the same goes for historical materialism/Communism: That means, not only does historical materialism not have to necessarily presuppose empirical knowledge about the nature of atoms in their entirety, it doesn't even have to presuppose empirical knowledge about the existence of atoms in the first place, because historical materialism refers to a scientific understanding of human consciousness, the social/historical dimension of human life that which we are already a part of. So the only thing we need to 'prove', is the existence of ourselves, and the existence of others before us. ANY POSITIVE EMPIRICAL CLAIM which might contradict this, we refer already to standards of natural science - in other words, no empirical understanding of natural processes can ever contradict historical materialism in any way, and the only ones people attempt to use are again superstitions - evolutionary psychology, abuses of quantum physics to sustain superstition, in other words, THE RELATING of empirical processes, to social ones, to substitute for them. But this is, as I have demonstrated numerous times over, is nothing more than pure superstition. To understand the character of something, one only needs to ask the question: What practical purpose does this 'truth' serve? That is the point.

So you laughably bring the nature of 'atoms', literally as a natural knee jerk response to the notion that humans can be qualified totally and completely through historical materialism, and prove that my assertion of the basis of metaphysics is in fact perfectly justified. When one sais that historical materialism can account, scientifically, for ALL social and historical phenomena, all this simply means is that one can, scientifically, totally account for themselves, one can be self-conscious insofar as one is a living being with consciousness. The point isn't that historical materialism is some magical empirical truth, historical materialism IS NOT an empirical claim, as I said numerous and numerous fucking times before, it really isn't - the point is that historical materialism OPENS UP the basis that which one can qualify history on empirical terms. So the example I always use is Marx's understanding of asiatic production. If this assessment was incorrect, then taht does not entail the invalidity of historical materialism, it merely requires a different materialist assessment of the societies Marx qualified as asiatic. So in that sense, Marxism IS unfalsifiable, just like all INSISTENCES of sciences are unfalsifiable. Biology, as a science, is not falsifiable. Astronomy, as a science, compared to astrology, is not falsifiable either. The point is quite simple: One does not need any external empirical justification for engaging the historical or social domain scientifically, just like the first scientists didn't have to 'prove' that they can understand astronomical processes scientifically, they simply did it, because in practical terms THEY COULD do it. Likewise, the same goes for historical materialism - we don't have to 'prove' it empirically, we merely stress that we are approaching a dimension of life, which we already engage in, which we already constitute and are a part of, in a scientific, rather than superstitious manner. You can say "aliens are behind it" or that "no, god is behind humans" and it won't make a difference unless you can show us A) Where we can locate these empirical claims B) Their relevance, in practical terms, to what we should and shouldn't do. Any pretense to human biology and "not knowing enough" about that either is stupid as well, because: WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS, from what basis does a fucking human impose upon themselves limitations that are purportedly inside of them, that relate to the very consciousness that allows them to 'understand' them in the first place? \

In fact not even science's most qualified theories can do that. When scientists run tests in highly controlled environments they encounter things they cannot explain.

Ah yes, more of this. That we have an 'infinitesimally small' understanding of the universe. Notice, ladies and gentlemen, that he did not even address my response to this, he did not even fucking respond beyond a single sentence, which I am sure any honest person can agree DID NOT EVEN COME CLOSE to addressing the argument. But we'll get to that part later further down this pile of fucking shit you call a post. The fact of the matter si that the inability for scientists to explain certain natural phenomena properly, has nothing to do with this inability as some kind of inevitability, some kind of inevitability of existence. In fact, as Hegel understood, to be aware of a limitation is already to be beyond it - what that means is that THE VERY FACT that there is phenomena scientists are unable to explain (like, say, dark matter), means that the possibility, epistemologically speaking, of explaining it is there, they simply lack the necessary empirical data. But I touched upon, without too much detail, how developments in neuroscience and quantum mechanics respectively have put a halt to scientific discovery in these domains - effectively, the superstition of the social order, has now bled into the domain of the natural sciences, and metaphysics is making such a great return because of this. Our inability to solve natural mysteries, in other words, is increasingly related to society's insistence on non-consciousness of its own inner logic, of ruling ideology's insistence on not scientifically knowing the social and historical dimension. This is obviously for multiple reasons: Neuroscience, especially, which is supposed to relate human existence and consciousness to its physical basis, cannot properly do this without an adequate understanding of the nature of consciousness itself. This is why mysticism is so prevalent in this field, with neuroscientists literally turning to Buddhism to solve certain dilemma. You literally have FALSE paradoxes, such as the sapient paradox, which is not a paradox at all for someone who approaches the domain it finds so mysterious in a scientific manner. So it is quite stupid for you to claim that "Oh scientists sometimes encounter things they cannot explain", because effectively, their inability to explain the thing in question has nothing to do with the inability for them to KNOW the thing in question, inevitably, but from real empirical limitations. There are a plethora of things we know today, which if you ran in a 'highly controlled experiment' 100 years ago, would be mysterious, which is no longer mysterious. That's how fucking science works: EVERY SINGLE THING, must be qualified in a scientific manner - insofar as human knowledge exists, insofar as it has a practical basis of existence, i.e. insofar as one seeks practical knowledge of a thing, science begins.

Scientists encounter things 'they cannot explain', but they juxtapose this inability to explain it with a potential ability to explain it. Without an insistence that given the right conditions, they would be able to explain this thing. The example which comes to my head, besides the obvious - dark matter - is the origin of our solar system for astronomers. The present model we have for the origin of the solar system, is known to be inconsistent and incomplete, because we cannot account for the existence of super-jupiter planets, that are far closer to their respective suns, than what was thought possible in solar-system formation. Now, this conundrum, far from being some inevitability of human limitation, is owed to the fact that we lack further adequate knowledge regarding how planets are formed in relation to how stars are, and so on. But few people will say otherwise - the minute we hone down on a SINGLE EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING WHICH SCIENTISTS CANNOT EXPLAIN, your argument falls to bits - so you instead must rely on creating some ontological abstraction, i.e. "scientists encounter things they cannot explain". Well that they encounter things they are not yet able to explain, does not justify any superstitions, it does not justify the discarding of every and any kind of superstition, any god, because we simply ask: What is the practical basis of your god's existence? And people will respond with superstition, where science - Communism - could otherwise be. All of this relates to the basis of truth, which in our degenerate society, has come to be identical with 'understanding the truth of the universe'. But this is not what truth means - truth is simply a matter of practical truth, and all other pretenses to truth, as Marx understood, are purely a form of scholasticism, i.e. there is no reason we ought to take them seriously, because we don't have to. It's somehow beyond you that Communism truly IS a new society, of self-conscious individuals, who renounce any kind of big other - because they can. This process is also hindered in an alien society rifer with superstition, in addition to real - even direct limitations of capitalism, like how incredibly expensive it is to run experiments like the one that confirms the existence of the higgs boson particle, but the basis of society in Communism, will be the exponential and relentless conquest of nature, which means, INSOFAR as society is not able to explain everything, it will concentrate itself and its power to understanding that thing, and this process will be infinite, it will be the basis of society moving - as Engels understood as the final contradiction between man's mind and the world around him, where the social antagonism is superseded, the one between the mind and the world outside it remains.

But most disgustingly of you to overlook, is that scientists encounter things they cannot explain, first and foremost, has nothing to do with the inability for the social and historical domain to be fully understood scientifically, because a materialist understanding of history and humans is not predicated upon 'disproving' superstitions that never had any basis of empirical proof to begin with, like reptilians, or invisible men controlling history. A materialist conception of history is not predicated upon any empirical premise which is controversial, IT ONLY discards PURPORTEDLY 'empirical' claims, all of which are superstitions, and this accounts for its controversial nature: WHAT IT REFUSES to entertain as 'possibilities'. We risk it, yes, we risk incurring the wrath of an angry sky demon, because the basis of the existence of the angry sky demon had nothing to do with any empirical reason for believing in one, but for its functional, practical necessity in reproducing the social order. People don't believe in gods, or have superstitions, or are inclined to be superstitious because they have any kind of empirical reason to do so, but because these things REFLECT THEIR REAL, WORLDLY consciousness - these superstitions RELATE to their conditions of life, in a practical way. The way in which it does this, of course, is through REPRODUCING those real conditions of life - more specifically, giving man a sense of meaning, DESIGNATING processes he is already a part of, where he is unable to know them: NOT BECAUSE he is irrationally insistent on not accepting 'cold hard facts', but because the means of knowing his real conditions of life, was either unavailable to him throughout history, or is presently unavailable. The point of Communism in fact is the dissemination of historical consciousness among the broad masses. We'll get to more of that later, however.

HM is like a road map: It's a guide: It will tell you where the important things are - the roads, the traffic lights, the churches!! , but it won't be an exact guide to what you wind if you drive along that road.

No, you are quite full of shit. Historical materialism, as I stated, is not an empirical claim: It alone does not tell you anything, as Marx understood, the only premises of historical materialism are:

The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.

The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature. Of course, we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself – geological, hydrographical, climatic and so on. The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men.

Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.

So no, historical materialism is not a guide, it is, as Althusser understood, the onset of the opening of a 'new continent' of scientific inquiry, just as the Greeks did with mathematics, against mythology, and just as the bourgeois scientists did, against feudal superstition. What you fail to understand is that the very act of approaching something scientifically, is not a given - the act of converting things that are designated, but not known, is revolutionary throughout history. Ideology, religion and superstition designate something, but do not provide the means to actually knowing that something. So historical materialism is infinitely more modest - it merely states - THESE THINGS CAN BE CONSCIOUSLY KNOWN, and that's it - it doesn't entail any empirical truth about the nature of the things in question, it simply does away with designations made about the nature of the things in question, by the religious, by bourgeois ideologues, and today, by pseudoscientific evolutionary psychology bullshit notions. The point is, historical materialism is whole, as Lenin understood, because it does not allow for any kind of superstition whatsoever, it is the assertion that history can be qualified in a scientific manner. This 'assertion' does not have to be proven by any external empirical proof, one merely needs to have the practical inclination to do so, which the bourgeoisie and their ideologues clearly do not (because the basis of their existence, is owed to the absence of historical consciousness even among themselves). You are not even close to being familiar with Marxism, or historical materialism for that matter, the fact that the very way in which you describe historical materialism is not only juvenile, it is almost blasphemous. HOW is it a guide? A guide that entails what? A map has things on it. What does 'historical materialism' have on it, the abused notion of 'primitive - slave- feudal- capitalist stages', which are empirical claims, not ossified dogmas which distinguish historical materialism as such? But to add, icing to this cake, the very tendency to approach historical materialism in the manner which you are, is typical among pseudo-Marxsits throughout the cold war, who for purely strategic reasons had to pay lip service to Marxism without actually, thoroughly taking it seriously. No historical materialism is not a guide, it is a blank page that which a guide can be written upon, through purely empirical means of inquiry. We don't have to justify or 'prove' the page, we merely have to have a practical reason for having one, which means in effect, we are lost - and this act of being lost, is equivalent to our opposition to the existing order, which can degrade either into fascism, reaction, or a scientific understanding of that which we are able to criticize scientifically by merit of opposing. Again, you don't know what you're talking about, as expected. yet you continue to confidently engage in this discussion, and argue, because you think that somehow, you're going to get your last word here. You won't get your last word in this thread or in any thread, I promise you. It doesn't matter how long it takes. I will not stop. I promise.

Which is exactly what you offer.

So after I thoroughly go into detail about your blatant misuse of Marxist-sounding phraseology so as to at the very least identify yourself with the Left, or, alternatively, opportunistically attempt to relate your own blatant idealism to something inherent in Marxism. The fact of the matter is that in no way, in no sense is it justifiable to claim that my conception of Marxism is anything but sophiticated, refined and thoroughly considerate. You claim that the Marxism I offer is a 'simplification' of Marxism. Should we take your word for it? But moreover, just to show everyone how dishonest you are, here is the context that which I said this:

The point however is that never in the history of the usage of the term 'Vulgar Marxism' has it referred to a recognition of this - on the contrary, vulgar Marxism has been used to describe certain bastardizations, simplifications of Marxism - but more generally, it referred to the formalization of Marxism insofar as dialectical materialism was transformed into a set of ossified laws that are 'applied'. The point is not that this left little room for 'imagination' or superstition, or that it made pretenses to 'da truth' where we were in no position to - on the contrary, the point of criticism of vulgar Marxism is that it ossified Marxism into a set of formalities that were translatable in bourgeois-epistemological terms. What that means, effectively, was that far from referring to 'hardline' or 'extreme' applications of historical materialism, vulgar Marxism referred to the abandonment of historical materialism in favor of idealism - the reason economic determinism was opposed was not because humans were 'too complex' to be reduced to the economy, but because abstracting something called the 'economy' and giving it positive causation over other things, is undialectical - not because it disallows for 'freeee thought', but because Marxists understand humans societies as self-sufficient unto themselves - that is to say, human societies are not reducible to the basis of human survival, but human life in its entreity and its complexity - the point of Marxism, historical materialism that is, is to scientifically understand the entire basis of human life - insofar as we are humans, engaged in human life.

And hilariously enough, you quote Engels in an entirely different context arguing and saying the exact same thing, somehow thinking that this has something to do with Engels saying "Guys, we're materialists, but c'mon, we also gotta be a bit idealist too, otherwise we're DOGMATISTS!!!111". I'll get to that quite soon, so don't you worry, child.

None of what you quote, absolutely none, postulates nor mandates absolute reductionism.

Well, perhaps if you actually KEPT UP WITH THE FUCKING ARGUMENT AT HAND, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO RELATE IT TO THE UNDERLYING POINT WHICH I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IN DIRECT REFERENCE TO THAT: Your ACCUSATION OF REDUCTIONISM is UNFOUNDED to begin with, and I quited Marx here, not because I thought Marx was responding to Red Red Chile, but because Marx was quite clearly pointing out that historical materialism DOES NOT BEGIN at the onset of some empirical dogma referring to reduction. I am saying that YOUR ACCUSATION that I am "reducing" religion to ANYTHING is UNFOUNDED. That is the FUCKING point, NO ONE has said that religious belief correlates with fluctuations in the stock market. That doesn't make religion any less a fantastical reflection of real conditions of life, of humans, on Earth. That is not fucking reductionism, or, moreover, it is only reductionism if you put religion on a higher pedestal than is justifiable in scientific terms. Instead, I have thoroughly gone into detail abotu how religion relates to the real consciousness of man in approximating his real conditions of life, I did not say it was "determined" by anything in some simplistic formula of causation, i was saying that superstition and religion in general, IS A RESULT of man's alienation from his real conditions of life. You have failed to demonstrate how this is reductionism, you instead are appalled at the notion that religion has a basis of existence, a real basis of existence, that is explainable and rationally knowable. That the basis of religion's existence CAN BE KNOWN, scientifically and rationally, has nothing to do with 'reducing' it to anything, because the word 'reduction' is a muddied fucking word. We are not underestimating the significance of religion as it relates to man's consciousness, we merely, in a materialist fashion, give man's consciousness itself a real concrete social context: His consciousness did not arise out of thin air, it arose as a reflection, conditioned by his physical organization, of his real conditions of life, it had a practical basis. You are conflating the abandonment of religious superstition, and moreover, the abandonment of an idealist understanding of the basis of religion's existence with "absolute reductionism", and the insufferably fucking cringe-worthy way in which you phrase this: "absolute" (INSTEAD OF FUCKING WHAT, 'balanced' reductionism?) reductionism, because the very basis that which you elevate religion to some ethereal plane that cannot be known by the humans WHO CARRY THE ONLY EXPRESSIONS OF RELIGION'S EXISTENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE, is UNJUSTIFIED and THIS is what we mateiralists attack. What is even more blatantly unforgivable, is how you opportunistically attempt to twist and misuse, decontextualize Engels' arguments to support your own filth:

Engels warned very clearly against this

Let's evaluate what Engels said, for each quote, in context:

The materialist conception of history has a lot of [dangerous friends] nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history. Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the French "Marxists" of the late 70s: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist." (...) In general, the word "materialistic" serves many of the younger writers in Germany as a mere phrase with which anything and everything is labeled without further study, that is, they stick on this label and then consider the question disposed of. But our conception of history is above all a guide to study, not a lever for construction after the manner of the Hegelian. All history must be studied afresh, the conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined individually before the attempt is made to deduce them from the political, civil law, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc., views corresponding to them. Up to now but little has been done here because only a few people have got down to it seriously. In this field we can utilize heaps of help, it is immensely big, anyone who will work seriously can achieve much and distinguish himself. But instead of this too many of the younger Germans simply make use of the phrase historical materialism (and everything can be turned into a phrase) only in order to get their own relatively scanty historical knowledge — for economic history is still in its swaddling clothes! — constructed into a neat system as quickly as possible, and they then deem themselves something very tremendous. And after that a Barth can come along and attack the thing itself, which in his circle has indeed been degraded to a mere phrase.

Is Engels saying that historical materialism is being misused, because it is 'too opposed' to idealism? No, he is in fact attacking phrase-mongerers (THE SPECIFIC employment of this term, phrase-monger, is present in Marx and Engels' vocabulary quite often, and what it means is essentially using words as a substitution for a thorough understanding of what those words actually mean, i.e. giving beautiful phrases and words a mind of their own - exactly what you are doing) who substitute the materialist assessment of history, with a theoretical panacea, a 'guide' that they see fit as substitution for real critical analysis. This is exactly what you insinuate doing, with your pretense to historical materialism being some empirical set of claims, of stages in history. Notice carefully what Engels is saying:

All history must be studied afresh, the conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined individually before the attempt is made to deduce them from the political, civil law, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc., views corresponding to them.

Engels IS NOT saying that the basis of religion, cannot be fully understood or 'reduced' to real worldly processes, quite on the contrary, what Engels' is saying is that people have a tendency not to examine certain social formations UNTO THEMSELVES, critically and thoroughly, but instead extrapolate their qualities from certain on the surface features to them. What you fail to grasp, what you ultimately fail to understand here, is the fact that the only means by which Engels recognizes this can be done, is through historical materialism, through the materialist conception of history. Nowhere here is he saying that people are giving historical materialism 'over-reaching' significance, quite on the contrary, he is accusing people of not properly engaging in a materialist assessment of certain societies in a manner that is deserving of what is necessary to properly understand the essential nature of those societies. What you fail to understand is that because historical materialism is not an empirical claim, the assessment of social formations, historical formations, for either Marx or Engels IS NOT some investigation that will either 'confirm' or 'deconfirm' historical materialism. As I have shown from the quotes by Marx, quite on the contrary the point is that for them, any scientific assessment of historical or social processes, is already under the substrate of what is called historical materialism, which is not, as you insinuate, an economic determinism as such, but merely refers to the conditions of human life as requiring no external basis of existence - the real existence of men and women, human lives in general, their constitution into social formations which literally determine the basis of their existence, determines the course of their reproduction as humans, is all that is necessary at the onset of any materialist assessment. FROM THERE do empirical controversies emerge about the nature of this or that social formation, but WITHIN this materialist framework: None of these controversies refer to, for example, whether or not 'religion' or 'the economy' formed the basis of this or that human society, this question for Marx and Engels is a false one, because the physical existence of men and women predate the particularities of their consciousness, and furthermore, the particularities of their consciousnesses are determined by their social being, their social relations. What constitutes social relations and their social being does not simply refer to "da economy" as some source of positive causation, it refers to the particularities of their conditions of life in general, WHAT DEFINES their mode of activity in general, their social organization, which often times before more complex social formations arose, made synonymous the economic with the political. This is what you fail to understand, the point for Marx and Engels is that man's consciousness does not come from nowhere, it is a reflection of his real conditions of life. Man's consciousness, did not predate man's physical existence, which is why Max said that Darwin's origin of species gave a basis in the natural sciences, historical materialism.

there is only one other point lacking, which, however, Marx and I always failed to stress enough in our writings and in regard to which we are all equally guilty. That is to say, we all laid, and were bound to lay, the main emphasis, in the first place, on the derivation of political, juridical and other ideological notions, and of actions arising through the medium of these notions, from basic economic facts. But in so doing we neglected the formal side — the ways and means by which these notions, etc., come about — for the sake of the content. This has given our adversaries a welcome opportunity for misunderstandings, of which Paul Barth is a striking example.

What is hilariously ironic about quoting Engels here, is not only that Engels does not contradict me in any way, but that my argument was literally SPECIFICALLY drawn from, this specific notion, as well as Engels' other well known statement, which is blasphemized by idealist pseudo-Marxists all too often: According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. The point is that man's consciousness is not simply 'determined' by his economic basis, all of the conditions of life, exist congruently with each other - the point is, as I stressed, that THE PRODUCTION and REPRODUCTION of human life, the course of this production, defines the basis of what we call existence, which is congruent with all other domains of both life and consciousness. To speak of positive causation from either of these, is totally nonsensical, because at the onset of a scientific assessment of these things, the recognition that ideas have a concrete basis of existence is a given - ideas do not move history, they do not have a sphere of existence outside of the heads of men and women, and how these ideas are related to their real conditions of life. That does not mean some formula of the 'economy' determining the 'religious' sphere is justified, as some simplistic formula, this is quite besides the point: They exist congruent with each other, the religious sphere reproduces the economic, and vice versa, but the religious sphere has its basis of existence in man's consciousness, not in anything external from the conditions of human life. That is ultimately the fucking point Engels is making here, when he is attacking the economic determinists, just as I have consistently not only in this very instance, but several times on this forum. More specifically, regarding this quote in question, I love that you have drawn attention to it, because let us evaluate a certain part in particular that must be embarrassing for you:

But in so doing we neglected the formal side — the ways and means by which these notions, etc., come about — for the sake of the content. This has given our adversaries a welcome opportunity for misunderstandings

In other words, Engels here is chillingly giving us a prelude to the western Marxism, in all its complexity, including cultural Marxism, Lacanian psychoanalysis, the school of critical theory, ideological criticism, Althusser, and now Zizek, that would come about bent on doing precisely this: Assessing scientifically "the ways and means by which these notions, etc., come about - for the sake of the content". If you actually put in the fucking effort to READ Engels in context, HE IS NOT SAYING THAT HE AND MARX WERE UNABLE TO DO THESE THINGS because the basis of how these notions, etc. come about was some unknowable mystery, but because he outright claims THEY NEGLECTED this 'micro' aspect, because they had to focus on other areas. The point is quite simple: Engels is saying that the very specific means by which ideology, religion, or ideas in general are facilitated in relation to society as it pertains to consciousness, was not fleshed out enough by him and Marx - NOT because they couldn't, or didn't understand these things, but because they were clearly focused on fleshing out in entirety the domain of the 'macro' with historical materialism. Engels' point had nothing to do with him not taking into account some superstitions, but on the contrary, he is saying that he and Marx did not stress enough HOW "OVER-REACHING" MATERIALISM IS IN ITS APPLICATION TO ALL DOMAINS OF HUMAN LIFE. The only real evidence we need for this, is that Engels directly follows this up by saying something which is literally EXACTLY what, for example, Althusser expanded and detailed upon, which all ideological criticism today, especially as employed by Zizek, deals with:

Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, indeed, but with a false consciousness. The real motives impelling him remain unknown to him, otherwise it would not be an ideological process at all. Hence he imagines false or apparent motives. Because it is a process of thought he derives both its form and its content from pure thought, either his own or that of his predecessors. He works with mere thought material which he accepts without examination as the product of thought, he does not investigate further for a more remote process independent of thought; indeed its origin seems obvious to him, because as all action is produced through the medium of thought it also appears to him to be ultimately based upon thought. The ideologist who deals with history (history is here simply meant to comprise all the spheres – political, juridical, philosophical, theological – belonging to society and not only to nature), the ideologist dealing with history then, possesses in every sphere of science material which has formed itself independently out of the thought of previous generations and has gone through an independent series of developments in the brains of these successive generations. True, external facts belonging to its own or other spheres may have exercised a co-determining influence on this development, but the tacit pre-supposition is that these facts themselves are also only the fruits of a process of thought, and so we still remain within that realm of pure thought which has successfully digested the hardest facts.

It is above all this appearance of an independent history of state constitutions, of systems of law, of ideological conceptions in every separate domain, which dazzles most people. If Luther and Calvin “overcome” the official Catholic religion, or Hegel “overcomes” Fichte and Kant, or if the constitutional Montesquieu is indirectly “overcome” by Rousseau with his “Social Contract,” each of these events remains within the sphere of theology, philosophy or political science, represents a stage in the history of these particular spheres of thought and never passes outside the sphere of thought. And since the bourgeois illusion of the eternity and the finality of capitalist production has been added as well, even the victory of the physiocrats and Adam Smith over the mercantilists is accounted as a sheer victory of thought; not as the reflection in thought of changed economic facts but as the finally achieved correct understanding of actual conditions subsisting always and everywhere – in fact if Richard Coeur-de-Lion and Philip Augustus had introduced free trade instead of getting mixed up in the crusades we should have been spared five hundred years of misery and stupidity.

This side of the matter, which I can only indicate here, we have all, I think, neglected more than it deserves. It is the old story: form is always neglected at first for content. As I say, I have done that too, and the mistake has always only struck me later. So I am not only far from reproaching you with this in any way, but as the older of the guilty parties I have no right to do so, on the contrary; but I would like all the same to draw your attention to this point for the future.

And precisely this 'form' is what was dealt with by the tradition that is today called Western Marxism, which deals precisely with these dimensions in all their complexity (i.e. Lacanian psychoanalysis). Nowhere is Engels affirming your argument, that recognizing the worldly basis of religion is somehow 'reductionism', nowhere is Engels affirming your argument, even, regadring how I am engaging in a 'vulgar Marxist' discourse, quite on the contrary, each and every thing that Engels is saying in the above quoted, exactly compliments and is in complete agreement with every single claim I have made thus far. The materialism I have espoused is no different from that of Engels, in fact it is even dangerously similar, to the point that sometimes even surprises me. So clearly Engels is not saying what you insinuate, that 'ideas' have essences of their own, quite on the contrary Engels sais the exact opposite in the above passage - ideas can only exist insofar as they relate to real conditions of human life, and vice versa. Ideas do not predate human existence, as Engels and Marx already acknowledge. So far from Engels somehow arguing against the 'over-reaching' use of historical materialism, Engels is actually on the contrary quite shamelessly stressing that a DETAILED APPLICATION of the materialist method in understanding the intricacies of the phenomena, how it is facilitated, how it comes about exactly, and so on, is something that little enough attention is payed to - and precisely this application would come decades and decades later. You talk straight out of your ass, make assumptions where you have no right to, in thinking that the understanding of religion we have is somehow not refined enough. I LITERALLY ALREADY FUCKING WENT OVER THIS, TOO, strangely FUCKING enough, child.

No. As I've already said

Let's be fucking clear, you are in no position to use the phrase "As i've already said", for literally virtually EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ARGUMENT YOU ARE BRINGING FORTH HERE, HAS IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ALREADY BEEN THOROUGHLY ADDRESSED. Repeating yourself, doesn't make you any less immune from my criticism, it doesn't allow you to, somehow, avoid having already been completely fucking demolished here.

However, insofar as Marxism is being misused is a way that makes communism look bad I will point it out.

You have both demonstrated that you are neither qualified to assess the proper use of Marxism, or to be taken seriously regarding the standards of how communism should look. That Communism is looking bad to you, means nothing to us, you are in no position to define the standards of 'how communism looks', because you are a bourgeois ideologue, your specific demographic is not exactly who we care about, and furthermore, as I already FUCKING stated, Communism ALREADY looks bad (which you responded with *yawn*, the great intellectual you are):

You cannot make any pretense to 'mainstream thought', because sorry, COMMUNISM IS negative, even without any fucking stereotypes, as far as its place in mainstream thought goes - ruling ideology and Communism are absolutely irreconcilable, everything about Communism horrifies petty bourgeois ideologues like yourself. Thankfully, we aren't trying to reach out to the heralds and perpetrators of "mainstream thought", we want to challenge, re-define, and transform 'mainstream thought' so that the revolutionary proletariat, not the bourgeois ideologues are hegemonic. That means, we WILL NEVER lower ourselves to the ignorance of the masses in compromising with that which keeps them chained and shackled.

Indeed we are attempting to mobilize the proletariat, the class which is not even able to be a class, the class which has nothing to do lose but its chains. You speak of a moral aversion to the horrors of Communism? What horrors of Communism are present not already for the peripheral proletarian, rife with pauperism, prostitution, degradation, slavery and exploitation, THEY HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE.

We will never lie to the masses about the nature of Communism so as to appeal to them, we will transform the conditions of ideological discourse, through the course of real political struggle, so that the very standards of what makes something look 'bad' or 'good' are transformed. As Lenin understood, the basis of Communism arises not out of appealing to 'mainstream thought', but to employing a concrete analysis of real concrete conditions, of accentuating the social antagonism in a conscious way as it already exists. Through the course of this antagonism, where one demand leads to another, this has transformative implications as it relates to human consciousnesses. Furthermore, WHY communism 'looks bad', the exact nature of why this is, specifically, to working people, can already be critically and thoroughly understood. We know exactly why we look bad in relation to the present political, social predicament we find ourselves in.

can be explained as illusory 'superstructure' and will vanish when when men are free from all forms of slavery.

And yet again, Red Red Chile proves only his propensity to talk out of his ass in the most creative and yet at the same time cliche'd ways imaginable. YOU ARE talking out of your ass, you have no notion of the Marxist understanding of religion if you think this, because only the most juvenile and vulgar conception of materialism would lead one to this conclusion. Conveniently, Red Red Chile who claims he is "not a Marxist", in fact has no notion of Marxism whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the notion that a caste of enlightened intellectuals can somehow wish away the social base of society, as a presupposition alone, before any talk of the superstructure, is a remnant of Stalinism and all its offshoots, where intellectuals found themselves in backward conditions that the proletariat were unable to preside and lead over - where changing the social base of life, really was a precondition for eliminating social backwardness. This is why Stalinism even existed - changes in the Soviet superstructure were congruent with real social changes in the countryside, which represented a romantic bourgeois revolution. That is irrelevant for now, however. The point, ultimately is this: There will be no transformation in the 'economic base' of life, to come, until the dissemination of scientific consciousness among the broad masses occurs. The Communist MOVEMENT is a pre-requisite to actual Communism, and why? Because as I thoroughly explained before, the base and the superstructure are simplistic and in this context improper assessments of how they relate to communism. Allow me to phrase this in anther way: Because historical materialism entails consciousness of these processes, it necessarily also entails the mastery of human consciousness over real conditions of life, and if knowledge of social processes and conditions did not entail this, then knowledge of social processes and conditions of life properly would be impossible - otherwise, what position is the observer in, to talk about historical materialism, if that does not entail the mastery of social processes by human consciousness. And when I say mastery, so to speak, it is a reciprocal, perfectly congruent process, whereon it is not simply that one uses their conscious ens 'over' social phenomena, but that ONE SEIZES their own historical destiny, one becomes conscious of the social dimension they are immersed in, by being conscious of the very social nature of their actions, conditions of life, very being, and so on. Communism = social/historical consciousness and NOTHING MORE. This consciousness, class consciousness as it is called, is a necessary pre-requisite to being free from all forms of slavery, first and foremost, and that entails the renunciation of religion, atheism in practice, so that it is not simply that as you ridiculously put it, some 'illusory superstructure' vanishes, but that the very practical use of religion for people disappears: People no longer need religion, where they are socially conscious. This has occurred in in-numerous times in history, most specifically if we take Russia as an example, where religion was really only a problem for the peasantry in the countryside, not the militant proletariat - which was atheist. Engels himself remarked, regarding on the English workers, about how they had become 'atheists in practice' in their concentrated union struggles with the system, they had lost any practical use for a god, and had realized that the notion of a god had actually become a hindrance to their struggle. And that's quite the point: it comes a point in time in the course of the struggle, that which superstition and religion become the last and final obstacle, become no longer 'sighs of the oppressed creature', represent the class enemy and the old order, and so on.

But Red Red Chile, owing to ignorance alone, has assumed that his own botched understanding of historical materialism is the only kind possible, and has therefore made it seem like we are for the most ridiculous arguments, i.e. that "an illusory superstructure will vanish when men are free from all forms of slavery'. That is the dumbest shit, by far, I have heard yet. The simple question would be: HOW would men be free from all forms of slavery in the first place, without a transformation in their consciousness? Furthermore, the superstructure is not illusory. You are mistaking the superstructure, which was only ever meant to refer to non-essential formations in societies which have no causal power of their own - hospitals, laws, and finally yes, religion and ideas, for the domain of ideology, which is what religion is concerned with as far as we Marxists are concerned. The base-superstructure relationship is never as you insinuate it is - one cannot change the base without also altering the superstructure somehow, and vice versa. For Marxists, class consciousness and Communism become a material force on its own, because it is consciousness of the 'base' itself, congruent with the superstructure. THE WHOLE POINT of a criticism of ideology, religion, etc, is that it encapsulates man doing things, without knowing the true nature of what he is doing. Superstition, mediated often times by religion (Keep in mind religion today is quite dead - there is no more religion, religion today is almost purely cultural. All that remains is the superstition that is common to all religion, which is in quality identical)

But as far as religion in the future goes, the same cannot be said.

ONLY IF the future is conceived in alien terms, can someone say this. ONLY If one makes pretenses to the notion that religion would somehow remerge, because the basis of religion's existence is somehow grounded in something other than real conditions of human life, in other words, to say that religion will re-emerge, is to say too much - because while this sounds innocent enough, RELIGION IS SYNONYMOUS with superstition. There is no reason superstition would re-emerge in the future, no reason it could, so long as the future is constituted by socially self-conscious men and women, because superstition, far from having its basis in empirical limits, has its basis in insisted limitations that relate to what it even means to be a human being. That is why every superstition, one way or another, relates to the social dimension, relates to human meaning and human consciousnesses. Thanks for making this so easy, because I LITERALLY FUCKING ADDRESSED THIS ALREADY:

Only the most profound position of ignorance on Marx, the context that which Marx emerged from, and Marx's understanding of the past, present in relation to the future could allow someone to do this. No, really, it doesn't take much
to think about how amply simply, how amply ridiculous this is. Already with Hegel we arrive at the conclusion that: To be aware of a limitation is already to be beyond it. The point is NOT that Marx was some fortuen teller, or 'predicted' the future, the point is that for Marx the entire point of Communism, is the seizure of one's historical destiny, one's historical trajectory path, so that the future is congruent with the present, i.e. the basis of the future, exists in the present. What you amply, ridiculously fail to understand is that IT IS NOT as though Marx is simply making some neutrla, passive observations about the past and the present, saying, "We don't know about the future". As Marx understood, the empirical bases of human existence: Their physical constitution as well as the natural conditions in which they find themselves, remain unaltered. So Marx is saying: ONE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A FORTUNE TELLER or "predict" the future, the point is that one can SEIZE their very destiny with their own hands, through Communism. One doesn't need to make a pretension to some new empirical, natural fact to do this, because the future consists of nothing more than men and women, their relationship both to each other and to the natural world around them. But nevermind that, because I already thorouhgly discussed and went over this, which you conveniently ignored:

[...] what you amply fail to understand is that we don't even have to sustain our identity as Communists by saying "Things will be X way in 2100" - you fail to understand that this is undialectical - we Communists, nkow there is no place for rleigion in a future post capitalist society because AS COMMUNISTS, as it pertains to OUR OWN consciousness as communists, there is no room for religion. Even as it concerns the future, yes there is no place for religion, unless there is some empirical process we are are not aware of that sustains religion, which we have been unable to account for in our own abandonment of religion ...

Bold emphasized by me in the context of this post: WE KNOW there will be no religion in a future Communist society, because as it pertains to our consciousness IN THE HERE AND NOW, WE CAN free ourselves from religion, and this freedom is implicit in nothing more than the communist movement - which Marx himself understood as synonymous with Communism itself, as it relates to our conscisouness. In other words, if Rafiq can be without superstition, so can any person. There si nothing physiologically unique about Rafiq that allows this - in fact, his rejection of superstition is already in terms of a universal reason, one that relates to society as a whole and the consciousnesses present in society that which superstition is underlied by. To add insult to injury, Rafiq himself also used to be religious and superstitious, growing up - unless there was something 'peculiar' about his religious upbringing (which there is not), then in effect, the only proof we need that religion is not inevitable is MY EVERY EXISTENCE, AS WELL AS THE EXISTENCE OF AN INNUMERABLE WEALTH OF OTHER MARXISTS who have done the SAME THING. But nevermind this, the point is quite simple - UNLESS THERE IS AN EXTERNAL EMPIRICAL PHENOMENA which is responsible for religion, which we Marxist are not taking into account, i.e. unless there is something responsible for religion, that was separate from its basis of existence in Marx's time, or in our time, or in any time, WE ALREADY KNOW that religion would be destroyed. You have not made any pretense to this 'something', you have instead said that "We just don't know yet, bro". For all he is concerned, this something could amount to space aliens transmitting radio frequencies in our brains. It doesn't matter, because this scholasticism is of zero importance - the future is already sealed when we say, in 2016: WE WILL SMASH, FIGHT AND ATTACK EVERY KIND OF SUPERSTITION. We don't need to make pretenses to the year 2100 to do this, and insofar as men and women are historically self-conscious, they will do the same thing we are doing today, and if they are not doing this (which they likely will not be), it is because they have already destroyed the basis of religion. The basis of religious controversy, sais Marx, is IN EARTHLY controversies. Re-read the FUCKING quote:

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.

Marx is not saying "religion up until now", he is not talking about religion as some contingency, HE IS TALKING ABOUT RELIGION AS SUCH. It's even hilarious when you take into account the very basic fact that, Marx's criticism of religion is just as potent in 2016 as it was in his time - literally it is the same argument. How can you explain this? You don't understand how ILLOGICAL your argument is, for another reason, too: The fact is that religion is a social and historical controversy, when Marx writes about religion, or history in general, HE IS NOT SAYING "I don't know the future", because ALL SCIENCE IS PRACTICAL - Marx's assessment in scientific terms is a PRACTICAL assessment, IN CRITIQUING religion, HE IS ALREADY laying the foundations for the overcoming of religion. In CRITIQUING class society, he is already laying the foundations for a society that is conscious of its social basis, a society without class OR religion. For Marx, THE NOTION THAT THE FUTURE is (IN HISTORIC or SOCIAL terms) always unknowable as far as it relates to human consciousnesses, is abominably stupid as it concerns Communism, because Marx's work is congruent with the onset of a historical movement that disallows things to be 'left up in the air', a movement which is totally historically and socially conscious of itself, which literally SEIZES its historical trajectory path by the throat and masters it, i.e. so that EVEN THOUGH we cannot predict the particularities of the future, this is a nonsensical notion, because with the destruction of social antagonism, the basis of hte future is in the present. A communist movement, and then society is aware of where it was, where it is, and where it is going all at once.

Let us evaluate the practical point of this: The point is, NO PRETENSION TO THE FUTURE justifies dealing with the controversies as they exist in the here and now, because the fate of men and women, whether they are conscious or not, is up to the actions of men and women. Communism is the consciousness of these 'actions', i.e. consciousness of their social/historical basis. But even without Communism (which for this reason IS NOT inevitable: it requires WILL), the future, no matter what it is, will be the result of the relations between men and women, the natural world around them, and the reproduction of these relations. In other words, we don't need to justify eradicating religion, superstition, from human consciousness in 2016, by making pretensions to life in the year 2100, because that will be a controversy that relates to the men and women that exist in that specific time. To put it more succinctly, both our conception of the past and the future relate to controversies as they exist in the here and now. Social/historical self consciousness, is to literally take human society by the steering wheel, wherein historical movement becomes consciously ordained, only sustained - after the absence of social antagonism, by an ever-exponential mastery of nature. It is true that we will not predict what we will discover in 2016, but that is besides the point - because none of these discoveries wil justify the superstitions that exist in the here and now, NOTHING JUSTIFIES SUPERSTITION, BECAUSE IT RELATES ITSELF TO REAL KNOWLEDGE.

Let us evaluate the very nature of this 'religion' RELIGION means nothing more than superstition, so saying that superstition will cease to exist, is synonymous with Communism. This is just as 'crazy' and unreasonable as the existence of Communism itself. He who thinks it is unreasonable to say that religion cannot exist in the future, ALSO sais that it is unreasonable to think that class, the family, gender, the state, war, other 'ontological categories' for the bourgeois ideologue, will not exist in Communism. The future is up to men and women. Communism is the self-consciousness of the social basis of life constituted by nothing more than men and women. You can say that there is an invisible pink unicorn god that will be outraged if we defile the sacred, some entity outside of the existence of men and women. But we don't care, we'll fucking make the leap of faith anyway, because in practical terms WE CAN do it, WE CAN, and WE WILL. We risk all the superstitions of the bourgeois ideologues coming true, just as the bourgeois scientists risked all the superstitions coming true if they manipulated natural processes. When ignorance is hegemonic, it takes courage and faith to know where it is insisted not to. And we do this, shamelessly.

be much less theistic, but it will not become obsolete just because class exploitation is.

With superstition eradicated, how in any meaningful sense could 'religion' exist, in your mind, in other words - if there is nothing to be superstitious about, WHAT THEN underlies the basis of the existence of religion? Furthermore, I attack and ridicule this argument merely by asking: What makes you think class exploitation can be obsolete? "Just because class exploitation as it exists now will be eradicated, doesn't mean newer ones will not pop up" - HOW, LOGICALLY SPEAKING, is this argument different from yours? How do you justify not adhering to that argument, but the one regarding religion? You say the notion that superstition can have no place in the future is ridiculous. I say, why not say the same thing about ANYTHING else, war, class, rape, and so on? YOU CANNOT consistently pick and choose. This is literally where I have you by the balls. You can't get out of this, there is nothing you can say that can get you out of this, I promise, you're literally fucked. If you think these are inevitabilities, what are you doing on this website, child?

To say that religion will be obsolete or impossible is to say that metaphysics will be obsolete or impossible. There is no rational reason to think this.

Well, I have poured so many hours into this, thanks for making this easy for me:

And finally, the most ridiculous notion of all. First, note how he ignores the first argument against his pretension to metaphysics, does not even address or acknowledge the actual, real origin of metaphysics:

And yet again, unsurprisingly, you literally talk out of your ass. "Speculation in metaphysics"? WHO HERE IS MAKING ANY PRETENSE TO METAPHYSICS, HUH? You're just fucking USING WORDS that you don't fucking understand - metaphysics refers to the practice of linking up one's ideological designation of the social domain, with natural processes, attempting to find congruence between them. THIS IS NOT what we are doing by claiming religion will be annihilated through Communism, we don't have to make any pretense to the 'nature' of the universe to say this, we need only to be conscious of, scientifically assess, that which is right in front of us, that which we are a part of - our own conditions of life. This is what I'm fucking talking about with positivism and the rise of mysticism - POSITIVISM GAVE BIRTH to mysticism, because in its purported rejection of 'metaphysics', the processes that relate to the basis of human existence still exist, and still are 'felt', so people inevitably turned to mysticism. And the positivists didn't give a fuck, so long as that mysticism wasn't called 'scientific'. So this is why you have so many scientists who, upon returning home from their labs, will 'pray' and have the most anti-scientific reservations.

Marxists have a dialectical understanding of epistemology, which derived largely from Hegel. The notion that 'metaphysics is the result of limits in human knowledge' IS WRONG, because these are not genuine limits. Genuine limits, are truly limits, ones that cannot be encompassed simply by the absence of any real means of knowing whatsoever. But it is this controversy which encapsulates Communism: THE LIMITS that which are responsible for metaphysics ARE NOT limits as far as our empirical understanding of the natural world goes, BUT INTENTIONAL limits regarding our understanding of the social domain that which we ourselves are a part of. In other words, metaphysics arose not because people tried to 'fill gaps' where the empirical sciences could not yet already fill, it arose because it attempted to RELATE the ideological understanding of the social, i.e. the absence of knowledge of social processes, to real empirical truths, about the 'nature of being', about natural processes. The point of positivism was a rejection of this: Positivists said - "keep your superstitions to yourself, keep them out of scientific inquiry". The conundrum of positivism is that EVERY POSITIVIST had these 'superstitions' privately anyway, they just insisted on not consciously approaching, addressing or referring to them in a matter that related to purported consciously held empirical truths, because THE social processes that which they belong INEVITABLY are felt to exist, and this existence is designated at. That "feeling of awe/mystery', that "spiritual feeling" and so on - THIS is the domain of the sacred that Communism smashes through, through scientific inquiry.

So no, human knowledge of certain empirical processes can be indefinitely finite, and the basis of metaphysics still doesn't have to exist, because INSOFAR as one is SOCIALLY self-conscious, conscious of themselves as humans, and their relation to others, WHICH REQUIRES NO empirical premise that is uncontroversial, outside of their own very existence and being, one will only ever refer to the natural world, in a practical manner, insofar as it is practical for the prerogatives of human consciousness. No discovery, no finding, will ever be able to change this, because human consciousness will always be sufficient unto itself, it will always exist - for itself - of itself - by itself, it doesn't need any understanding of other galaxies, solar systems, quantic processes to constitute itself and to exist. AT THE ONSET of subjectivity, in other words, absolute knowledge in this sense becomes possible. No empirical finding will change that, because the basic empirical distinction between inside and outside, you who practically has a reason to find empirical truths, and the outside objects of your investigation, will never change insofar as human consciousness exists. Rafiq's knowledge of the universe, and our potential practical relation to it, is quite finite. And yet Rafiq does not need any metaphysics. So who are you to make pretenses to 'humans'? Am I not human? Your whole argument is that 'humans will inevitably try to find answers where there aren't any'. The whole point is that HUMANS DO THIS TODAY to supplement what they lack consciousness of OF THEMSELVES, as conscious historical beings. Otherwise, there would be no reason to be superstitious, no practical reason whatsoever would exist for people to make up bullshit about things they do not yet know. For example name me one superstition humans have, or one metaphysical doctrine, that does not directly designate at social controversy, human consciousness and human existence. THERE IS NONE!

What is ultimately disgusting is how YOU YOURSELF claim this is some inevitable limitation - you literally claim to be conscious of something, and yet INSIST on not being able to apply that conscious practically. That is - literally - not only superstition, it is scholasticism. If you have no control over your predispositions to metaphysics, how, pray tell, are you consciously aware of this limitation? And furthermore, IF YOU CAN BE CONSCIOUS of this limitation, if YOU can exempt yourself from metaphysics, WHY CAN THE MASSES, why can OTHERS not do this? What makes the particularities of YOUR consciousness so special? This is what I mean when I refer to anti-democratic ideology, it is Hobbsean, the notion that you engage in universal reason, and yet exempt the periphreal 'human' from this space of universal reason you are involved in. That is literally counter-enlightenment ideology.

Rafiq

21st January 2016, 10:31

Mind of men and women. Obviously.

Yes. And?

No clearly this is not obvious to you. In context, the point was that:

You claim that religion is too complex to be grasped by historocial materialism. I ridicule this claim - where are the intricacies of this 'complexity' located? Is it that we "do not yet" have a proper understanding of ghosts, goblins and ghouls, in order to scientifically understand religion? But what is religion, where is it located? Is it located in the consciousness of real men and women, a space of universal reason that which we all belong, or is religion located in some ethereal realm inaccessible to men and women who so desire to inquire about it? The fact of the matter is that THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A RIGHTEOUS INSISTENCE UPON IGNORANCE, because the BASIS OF RELIGION IS ACCESSIBLE, because there is no way to 'locate', either empirically or otherwise, recognize or understand religion outside of how it is constituted by real men and women

IF religion has no basis of existence outside of the consciousness of men and women, how, pray tell, is it 'too complex' to be scientifically assessed, by none other than conscious men and women themselves? This is what you fail to understand - if religion has its basis in the minds of men and women, HOW ARE THEY UNABLE TO KNOW THAT WHICH THEY CAN ONLY ENCOUNTER SOLELY THROUGH THEIR MINDS? This is where you fall flat on your fucking face here, that you don't understand the point reflects the fact that you simply don't know how to properly assess arguments. It's so pathetic. My point is quite simple, my dear child, it is that: WHY IS SCIENTIFICALLY UNDERSTANDING RELIGION, its BASIS of existence in relation to real conditions of life, INACCESSIBLE TO MEN AND WOMEN, if the ONLY BASIS of religion's existence, as you yourself are forced to acknowledge, is in the consciousness of men and women?

No it's not. It's to acknowledge the limits of knowledge.

You can spin it however you like, child, the point remains - you are INSISTING upon the non-knowledge of phenomena that there can clearly be knowledge of merely by the nature of its very existence and expression. You claim that this represents a 'limitation' of knowledge. For you who has no practical reason to consciously know these processes, sure, it is a real limitation of knowledge, because for you knowledge does not extend beyond that which is practically useful in reproducing the existing order.

Why do bourgeois men, contrary to their class, fight on behalf of the proletariat?

For the same reason that the proletariat themselves, contrary to their interests, will join reaction and Fascism often times. There is nothing positively affirmative in the nature of the proletariat that makes it susceptible to Communism, as I have pointed out - the significance is that this is the class which is not even able to be a class as such - it is the class that has NOTHING TO LOSE, its only significance is the utter universality, societally speaking, of its predicament. It does not matter if men are bourgeois or if they are proletarian to this end individually, any person who has any reason to oppose the existing order, is potentially capable of being a Communist. The notion that "my theory" does not take this into account, rests upon a series of straw men on your part, regarding the specific nature of "my theory" as it relates to the relationship between class background and ideas. One's class doesn't exist in a vacuum, and the fact of the matter is that members of the bourgeoisie can become Communists - BUT NOT AS members of the bourgeoisie, but as people, who happen to be a part of the bourgeoisie, who are willing to renounce their social position for reasons that are hardly mysterious - they are reasons that relate to perhaps, deeply personal suffering, the antagonisms of capitalism as they endure upon the individual. Ultimately ,the bourgeoisie are not even conscious of their class existence, either. You clearly have no notion of class as it relates to Marxists, when we say social being determines consciousness, we recognize the universality of social being as it relates to ruling ideology as a whole - that's why the proletariat can also have petty bourgeois, or even bourgeois consciousness. One ONLY has proletarian consciousness, when they are ready to abolish themselves, be free of themselves as a class - for the proletariat represents the universality that is the supersession of class society. But regarding individual members of the bourgeoisie, as Moses Hess put it:

There is no point in talking to you about the intellectual, moral and physical misery of today’s society. Any man with a heart, however favourable his position, will agree with me, when he looks at this world of misery, that our life is not happy. I just want to draw to your attention that the basic cause of all the ills of present-day society, which is normally attributed to the imperfection of human nature, is in fact the lack of organisation of human society. I have already also often heard it said that the idea of communism, fine and true in itself, is unfortunately unrealisable. If I am not mistaken, it is these two points, concerning the possibility of realising communism and the fundamental cause of human miseries, which most need to be spelt out. In order to make the best use of the short time which has been given us to deal with our subject, I think I will limit myself to elucidating a little further these two themes.

The idea of communism, gentlemen, with which everyone says he agrees, is the life-law of love applied to social life. The law of love is innate in man, as in all life; but attempts to apply this law to social life will only be made when men’s consciousness of their life has begun to mature in them, when they come to see more and more clearly their own existence, when they understand more and more clearly that it is precisely and solely in love that energy, the energy of life, creative energy lies. When men compare their own inner understanding of life with, on the one hand, the life of nature they find that here their life-consciousness is everywhere confirmed, that love, which they recognise as their life, is equally the real life of nature; but when, on the other hand, they compare their conception of life, now confirmed and enriched by the natural sciences, with social life, they find with horror that here, in their own world, nothing conforms to this law of life and that everything contradicts it – in a word, they discover that they are living in a perverted world! After the first stupefaction and the terror produced by this sad discovery has gone, men think they must look for the cause of this perversion of their own world only in the consciousness which men have had of life up till now being perverted; thus, they think, how could human society, this product of human understanding and will, be reasonable while this same understanding and will are not yet so? But, gentlemen, this is manifestly not the ultimate cause. We must therefore ask again: what is the origin of the perverted life-consciousness? We will now try to answer you on this point.

Every person, bourgeois or otherwise, has to recognize and face this 'misery' and universal suffering of society. The bourgeoisie, affirmatively reproduces this suffering, because their interests as defined in capitalist society, are least susceptible to be affronted by the conditions of capitalism, and where they are affronted, the nature of the assault on their interests by society at large is articulated in terms that relate to their real conditions of life - where they do not get beyond in life, they do not get beyond in their consciousness. But as individuals, they become intellectuals who can be conscious of their predicament. So can proletarians, but they are all the same - insofar as one is an intellectual, one is not necessarily an intellectual because of their class background - one can be a petty bourgeois ideologue, as Marx already pointed out in the 18th brumaire, without being themselves bourgeois, so long as they do not get beyond in thought, what certain social formations do not get beyond in life. A bourgeois intellectual, i.e. who is bourgeois, CAN get beyond in thought what he cannot get beyond in his means of life - it's just that this is often times unlikely, unless some accident happens. The reason why intellectuals become Communists are arbitrary ones, the basis of their opposition to the existing order is rooted in a kind of madness, i.e. 'freakness' which is irreducible to their class background, always. But only the proletariat embodies this universality, because the bourgeoisie, by nature of their existence, have much to lose - not simply cynically, their consciousness, basis of life, is built around the notion that this suffering is necessarily inevitable. They are not cynical, or class conscious of themselves. Only the proletariat has nothing to lose at all to the point where it could engage in the transformation of society in socially and historically self-conscious terms.

But it does not guarantee that metaphysics will become irrelevant.

It does not guarantee anything, that is up to men and women themselves, as everything else is. You are the one who claims metaphysics is some inevitability of human existence. Did you forget?

Scientific theories cannot explain everything. That is not how science works.

Your qualification for what constitutes science is different from ours, to be as kind as possible. INSOFAR as one relates to an 'everything' in a practical way, SCIENCE CAN explain this 'everything'. Science merely refers to a systemic process of making that which was otherwise designated, but not known, knowable. That's all it means. It is a contradiction to talk about a 'something', but then say it is impossible to scientifically know that 'something'. In even uttering and acknowledging that 'something', you affirm it is possible to know it, SIMPLY by designating it. That's not how positivist science works, but that's how human consciousness works. How could you be conscious of the presence of something, but then go and claim you can't know this very thing? What are you conscious of then, and why CAN'T you know it? You can sense it somehow, but you can't know it in your head, EVER, at all? Why? We ridicule this ridiculous notion.

See the Engels quote I offered you earlier.

So as demonstrated, you can't.

People can only become sociology and historically conscious of themselves within their the realm of their own reality.

No they cannot, because the very rudimentary and simple question this begets here is: What defines the contours of an individual's "own reality"? The very nature by which one constructs their own reality, understands their own reality, IS SOCIAL, is facilitated THROUGH LANGUAGE, language, which obviously is SOCIAL. You do not have some individual, autonomous means of articulating your life, you do not do this naturally, you latch on to a social/symbolic order, and through this you articulate your very own particular conditions of existence. This is basically common sense, anyway. What you say is totally ridiculous. You CANNOT be socially and historically conscious of yourself 'in your own reality', because being socially and historically conscious, necessarily means relating your own conditions of existence, to a realm of reality that is acknowledged to be beyond you and your particular experiences.

Myself, I'm happy to reject metaphysics, as I have no use for it.

And this is where you fall flat on your fucking face: In claiming that metaphysics is an inevitability of human existence, you exempt yourself. We are to assume Red Red Chile, then, is himself not human, himself capable of discarding metaphysics, because of some special, unknowable ability inherent to his existence that is not present for other humans. *Shrugs*, "I don't know man, it's just how people are, bro, I'm not a person I just refer to people as some external thing". The high point of anti-democratic discourse. The point though is that the claim is tautological: One cannot qualify humans, because THE VERY CONSCIOUSNESS you use to qualify them, is human. In other words, WHO ARE YOU to say that metaphysics is inevitable by merit of human existence, when you make yourself seem like you are - at least in the domain of consciousnesses - totally free from metaphysics? Why are you free from them, so as to be able to say this, where others are not? What is this domain of thinking rationality, consciousnesses, that has you say "metaphysics is inevitable where our knowledge is limited"? From what standpoint of human existence do you say this, Red red Chile? No doubt in your mind one that distinguishes you from "other people".

My logic is correct.

Keep telling yourself that, sport. Great argument, 10/10. The fact of the matter is that you are making pretenses to the future merely by fucking typing on your keyboard - you know, the time that which it takes for your brain to process information to your hands, for your keyboard, no matter how small, can actually be measured in terms of real time. The fact of the matter is that, one can predict the future by their actions - through their actions. Otherwise, one couldn't live, they wouldn't be able to do anything that relates to the future in any way. In effect, in Communism, there is no "the future", there is only the present and how the future relates to the present. The future as you put it, is alien. But again, by your same reasoning, why call yourself a socialist, even? What are you doing on Revleft, if you don't think socialism is possible, in the same way you don't think the absence of metaphsyics is possible? You fail to justify your distinction.

Please stop saying 'we'. if you haven't noticed, there are hundreds of tendencies on the group page

None of which matter. I speak not for those users, I speak for the tradition of Marxism IRREDUCIBLE to "me" and Marxists before me, Marx, Engels, Lenin, among others. I speak for them.

Fear of death is one. Does communism have a solution for that?

So according to Red Red Chile, the origin of superstition, a belief in a god, is grounded in a fear of death, its purported uncertainties, and so on. The reason this is totally fucking tautological, is the fact that the so-called 'fear of death' as you put it, uncertainty about life after death, is itself congruent with the same superstitions you attribute this causal power for. What is particularly nonsensical about this notion, is the fact that any rudimentary understanding of the nature of this 'fear of death', is thoroughly grounded in the same alienation that is responsible for any other kind of superstition. The very means by which someone consciously articulates their fear of death, goes as following: They do not want to miss out on life's opportunities, they do not want their purported mistakes in life, to haunt them after life, etc. - the fear of death, as it exists and is associated with superstition in our society, is absolutely not some 'natural', inevitable approach to death itself, for the simple reason that Epicurus so succinctly pointed out: When death is here, I am not. When I am here, death is not. Why should I concern myself, then, with death? The point is quite simple, the 'fear of death' people have, relates to their fear of life, the fears they have that relate solely to controversies of life, that is to say, they do not want to 'miss out' on life's opportunities, because the very basis of their consciousness and existence is predicated upon the notion that their place in the existing order, is leading to something that is going to make everything justified, their whole life fulfilled, and so on. One cannot truly be afraid of death, because one never tastes death, and those who come close to truly tasting death, I promise you, cannot and do not fear it. To be afraid of death is to be afraid of life. The basis of which in a society that is socially self-conscious, is destroyed - the fear of death disappears, and even to play the devil's advocate, even magically if it remained, the goal of this society would be eternal life through scientific means, somehow. This was a common reoccurring theme in Russian cosmism, too. But yes, Communism has a solution for that, the only evidence I need is the heroic self-sacrifices of the Red Army during the Russian civil war, the militant Russian proletariat, ready to die without second thought for the cause. Communists do not fear death, or should not, because death does not concern us. Death is literally the absence of our existence.

HM shows how men under current and previous social relations used that door to improve their reality.

And you hit the nail precisely on why you abominably fail in understanding historical materialism. The point of historical materialism is that THERE IS NO FIXED STANDARD of what constitutes 'improving' one's reality, the very contours, framework of what defines 'improving' one's condition, is not conditioned by your biological or physical existence, it is the product of the very means of your life, which is nothing more than the social dimension of life. That is how history works, for historical materialism - history moves, because society sets standards it itself cannot fulfill, and this leads to class antagonism. This has nothing to do with some standard of 'improvement'. One accommodates in consciousnesses what one experiences in real life - these are congruent with each other. In Communism, this alienation disappears - one can be perfectly conscious of what they are doing, they do not need an ideological supplement to their real conditions of life, because they are CONSCIOUS of these real conditions, i.e. their relation to them- and by real conditions, I refer to nothing more than the very basis of existence, the very even physical reproduction of society and life. But nevermind this, what is particularly stupid is the context of your argument: You claim that 'metaphysics' is an inevitable real condition of life. But for men and women to be conscious of this functional, inevitability necessity of metaphysics, means they are beyond it already. At this point you're literally just playing and throwing around fucking words with no notion of what they mean - if metaphysics LITERALLY has its basis in a lack of historical/social self consciousness, HOW THEN could it still exist, if one is fully consicous of their own conditions of life? This is what you just don't get. You have no notion of Communism, because you still refer to "men and women" in an external fashion, as though you are some fucking zoologist qualifying the human species.

You act like communism will be some utopian panacea that will solve all the problems of the human condition.

Communism is a movement, it is a force, not an idea as such. It is the force that recognizes the non-inevitable nature of social problems, and eventually, the non-inevitable nature of certain natural ones (i.e. like weather, natural obstructions to human will). It does not guarantee ANY problem is solved, it is merely the basis that which problems are dealt with without any pretense to their inevitability. A problem is not a problem, if it does not relate itself to the possibility of its absence. That is basic fucking logic.

people will hope that life is not pointless and statistical.

And as Marx said, the very way in which you pose this is an abstraction, "the point" of life, is an abstraction. The puraha peoples, hunter-gatherers, do not have a 'point of life', they just live. But let's discard that. Why should there be a 'point' to life, and why should 'people hope' there is one? Why is this necessary to live, an EXTERNAL sense of guarantee that it is justified in being able to live YOUR OWN life? How can Communism EVEN EXIST if this is not already overcome? You will never properly answer this. But nevermind this, people will hope that life is not 'pointless and statistical'. The standards of what constitutes a fulfilling life, a dignified life, and a life worth living for you, is bellow the standards for a Communist. You say "people will hope". Well there is no reason to believe this is true. It's that simple, unless you can ground, empirically, the processes that make this inevitable.

The very fact that religion has been the 'sigh of the oppressed' for millennia shows how eagerly men substitute the brute facts of existence for fantasy.

This is not true, religion has not been the sigh of the oppressed for millenia. In fact religion has only ever been the sigh of the oppressed, in capitalist society. Before then, there was no real distinction between the religious and the secular, the highest technical/scientific achievement of society and its religious predisposition. What you fail to understand is the UNIQUE nature of religion in capitalist society - religion relates itself, to the fact that it does not necessarily have to exist. In the middle ages, no one was relating religion to atheism. Atheism, outside of a hollow abstraction, was totally unthinkable and ridiculous. ONLY IN CAPITALISM does superstition occupy the role of the heart of a heartless world, because the nature of all religion is a sham, almost cynically, all religions are the same in capitalism, they are all sustained by the same dimension of superstition. All other significance is purely 'cultural' (Catholicism) or 'national' (ditto, but in Ireland), or in some cases, political (islamism). This superstition, ultimately, is universal, insofar as capitalism is universal: The superstition that designates social processes, rather than providing the means to know them. But let's ignore that fact. "How eagerly men" you say, who are you juxtaposing men to, kangaroos? The fact that social consciousness, or 'brute facts' is not a given of living in capitalism, relates to the fact that there is no reason people would be given access, en masse, social consciousness else capitalism could not exist. You are therefore saying "the fact that capitalism exists means it is natural and that men are 'naturally' eager to reproduce it. Like you make it as though social-consciousness, Communism, is a fucking option, at birth, and that men are 'eager' to substitute this with fantasy. What you say is literally so god damned fucking stupid. If men have no practical access to these so-called 'brute facts', in the course of their everyday life, if these are not easily accessible or even purported to be on the table, why is it significant that they do not 'choose' them? WHEN PEOPLE HAVE NO CONFIDENCE in their own strength and power, which is facilitated ideologically, what do you expect? In addition, the very way in which you posit how this works - as though religion constitutes 'substituting reality for fantasy' is wrong, because THEY ARE NOT simply in some fantasy, they are, through religion, DESIGNATING the real, but not knowing it. That has nothing to do with facts, but mere consciousness and the absence-of. I don't have to go any further in this fucking shit, however.

Positivism does not give birth to mysticism. It does however limit what we can speculate about

You claim positivism does not give birth to mysticism, and then in the following sentence prove exactly why it does. THIS IS WHY it does - it imposes a limitation, on understanding the social domain, the non-natural in any way scientifically, so it 'limits' what mystics and superstitious individuals like you can speculate about. Hence why mysticism becomes popular, mysticism is NOTHING MORE than an attempt to supplement, naturally, where positivism imposes 'limitation' to.

The reason you can predict some of my responses is because you are self-conscious about your arguments being absurd.

In other words, I don't talk shit unless I am 100% certain I am justified in doing so.

Yet, addicted to your own controversy, you continue anyway - as I predicted you would.

So you predicted something which I literally promised I would do. Congrats. If you fucking think you'll get your last word in this thread, or in any other thread, just wait, Red Red. Just wait. I'm going to change your whole life, my word on it.

Please stop presenting your power fantasies as is they are representative of all communists.

Are these "just my fantasies"? Why are they so common in every description of red terror, both in Spain and in Russia? They aren't "just my fantasies", they are the logical conclusion of any Communist movement, any proletarian revolution. They will be hanged, killed. Even if this does not happen, the kind of 'horror' this invokes, THAT WILL be invoked. You bet yourself your idols will be destroyed.

Those kinds of orgiastic displays of idealogicaly justified violence will never lead to communism anyway. They lead to state dictatorships, just like the USSR.

Never in the context of their use, was it purported that this would 'immediately' lead to communism. A number of other factors are important, only prevalent to the conditions of Russia, which was the only actual proletarian revolution, i.e. led by the proletariat themselves, not the peasantry or some other peripheral embodiment of the bourgeoisie. Instead, these were necessary to defend the survival of the revolution, which they were quite successful in, in context. The only relevant example of mass anti-religious campaigns, was Russia (and to a much lesser extent China). Your claim is pure fucking nonsense either way, because you don't actually make an argument supporting this pretense to causality, you simply say "Oh, all of these revolutions entailed violence, and none led to Communism". They also entailed a number of other things, like everyone wearing pants. Is the absence of a post-capitalist society today, owed to the fact that they all wore pants? This is just how fucking illogical your pseudo-arguments are, and it's actually funny at this point. Yes, we know the cliche about how "violence is responsible" for the failure of the October revolution, which is quite stupid considering violence was the only thing which sustained it far beyond what conditions would allow. But I guess you're right: Had they not used violence, and had they surrendered to the counter-revolution, this would have led to a post-capitalist society. You're right bro, never thought of it like that. I refer you to numerous threads where I go into detail about why exactly this specific claim is wrong, is nonsensical - such violence IS Communism, child, this is what you don't understand - Communism, by merit of its existence, IS violent. IN a soical order predicated upon violence, opposing it is a violent act, because you unleash this violence. "Ideologically justified" he sais, as opposed to what, divinely ordained violence? Violence is violence, it is used by humans and justified by humans alone.

A communist revolution will only succeed when the majority working class becomes class conscious and acts in its own self interest. In such conditions there is no need to hang priests. There's no need for this because, in such conditions, social gravity is on their side.

In fact, even if 30%, or even 15% of the population is still against the working class, this makes such terror necessary. My point is quite simple: The nature of revolutionary terror itself, is to be merciless to all remnants of the old order, everywhere. And as stated:

Sure, 'hanging' isn't creative, there are more creative ways to execute the disgusting mouthpieces of reaction, darkness and superstition. The revolutionaries themselves will decide this. And finally, I don't have to be in a position of authority to say that every Communist should want to hang priests. I don't, because even if I die tomorrow, the point will remain: THERE WILL BE NO COMMUNISM unless the churches are destroyed, the priests driven from the world. I don't have to decree SHIT for this assertion to remain valid.

The priests, imams will be attacked, where priests and imams are relevant and significant. Especially in the context of the middle east, where it is actually necessary for reasons of propaganda. Terror must be instilled in the heart of the enemy, or the enemy will devour you. It is common sense.

never deigned to say such things.

I literally feel bad for you at this point:

We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable. - Marx

And "the terror" in the context of the 19th century clearly meant hanging priests, attacking them, as it did in the French revolution that which the notion itself is relevant to begin with.

in that thread.

Well considering it is closed, for good reason, we're going to deal with those posts in THIS thread, child.

Now get to work. You have a lot to do, and I'm waiting.

Decolonize The Left

21st January 2016, 19:29

I've always found this part of theory to be virtually *mystical* -- sure we can't make a blueprint for the future, but my position is that many fundamental elements / aspects of political economy will continue to exist in some form or another indefinitely, even through massively qualitative changes in social relations. So if we know that, for example, people will continue to 'labor' in some kinds of ways, as for the provisioning of goods and services, then we can at least talk about 'labor for goods and services in a post-commodity society'.

I assume you're referring to my claim that we cannot fully conceive of what a communist society would look like, as it would necessitate a completely different social context. I think that this claim is less "mystical" than it is skeptical. If, as we Marxists believe, (1) the human being is conditioned by their material context, and, (2) this material context will exhaustively change under communism, then the conclusion of claims 1 and 2 is 3: that we cannot adequately conceptualize what such a human condition would entail.

I agree wholeheartedly that humans will labor and that goods and services will be provisioned, but I disagree that we can talk about "labor for goods and services in a post-commodity society." For the word "labor" has changed under communism, has it not? The human being is alienated, divorced, from themself under capitalism; their labor segregated from their life. Under communism, this is abolished and can we say that we can know what this abolition, this liberation, feels like? If not, how can we establish it as a base for theory?

Furthermore, how can we understand what "post-commodity" feels like when our very selves are currently hacked to pieces and commodified on the daily? It is like a shard of glass looking at others and conceptualizing a mason jar; the jar cannot be until the shards are no longer.

ckaihatsu

21st January 2016, 20:07

I assume you're referring to my claim that we cannot fully conceive of what a communist society would look like, as it would necessitate a completely different social context. I think that this claim is less "mystical" than it is skeptical. If, as we Marxists believe, (1) the human being is conditioned by their material context, and, (2) this material context will exhaustively change under communism, then the conclusion of claims 1 and 2 is 3: that we cannot adequately conceptualize what such a human condition would entail.

I guess what I'm saying is that there's no reason to get all vague and 'mystical' about *even the context itself* -- certainly I have no differences with the *premise* as you're describing, but what *aspect* of a post-capitalist society would we want to 'be in', to begin with, for the sake of reasoned estimations -- ?

I agree wholeheartedly that humans will labor and that goods and services will be provisioned, but I disagree that we can talk about "labor for goods and services in a post-commodity society." For the word "labor" has changed under communism, has it not? The human being is alienated, divorced, from themself under capitalism; their labor segregated from their life. Under communism, this is abolished and can we say that we can know what this abolition, this liberation, feels like? If not, how can we establish it as a base for theory?

My answer is that there's *subjective* efforts, for oneself, and then there are socially *objective* efforts that would be instantly / inherently 'collectivized', for the common good.

For the sake of argument / illustration we can conceive of a post-capitalist world where there is no more private ownership and everything from nature and pre-existing labor has all become part of the world's commons, for anyone to take from and benefit from -- a 'd.i.y.' world, if you will. But in such a world there might not *ever* have to be further *social*, 'collective' efforts, as on a mass-planned basis.

This is just an abstraction, of course, but a more likely scenario would be *some* kind of coordination over common resources and implements, for whatever socially aspirational projects may enjoy popular support and participation.

Such would be 'labor for goods and services in a post-commodity society'.

Furthermore, how can we understand what "post-commodity" feels like when our very selves are currently hacked to pieces and commodified on the daily? It is like a shard of glass looking at others and conceptualizing a mason jar; the jar cannot be until the shards are no longer.

See, this is a decidedly 'experiential' frame of reference, or context, for any description / discussion of the subject matter.

Red Red Chile

22nd January 2016, 06:35

as promised, I will not stop, this will go on for weeks, months or even years if it has to, Red Red Chile. You can keep giving your single-sentence responses all you like, if that makes you feel better about being utterly demolished. Or, you can muster up the courage to try and make a substantive response. It does not matter, because I will not stop this, so long as I have access to a computer, internet, and this website. I promise you, I guarantee you that.

Oh bravo comrade! It's comforting to know that, in this day of frauds and pseudo-leftist bohemians, we can count on rafiq to return an argument every time, with more force, more text, more bluster, more caps lock, more gratuitous bolding, more commitment to his own zealotry.

To use your favorite term, 'what you fail to see', is that is doesn't matter how high you build your walls of text, nothing will make your claim that Marxism, or historical materialism more specifically, necessitates revolutionary violence valid. I won't be matching you word for word because a) I can express myself succinctly and b) once your posts are stripped of all their rhetorical padding, bombast and bravado, the arguments are quite simple anyway. I'm not going to jump down your rabbit hole where Althusser, Lacan, Marcuse and Zizek play in their toxic coterie of anti-thought. I can simply ignore this because we're not arguing about 'neo-marxism' or 'freudo-marxism' or whatever that garbage is called. You need to justify your claims about what Marxism is in Marxist terms. Some of it might be relevant to the arguments on atheism so I'll deal with it only as necessary to historical materialism(a lot will be ignored :) )

I'll reply to your arguments as they relate to hm and revolutionary violence (I'll ignore the rest for now :) )

We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable. - Marx

You will find justification for revolutionary violence in Marx, especially the early Marx. But it's important to pay attention to the context here.

This was written under conditions of revolutionary fever. Indeed it would have been impossible for any peaceful revolution, against those antagonists, at that time. Noone is suggesting that Marxism forbids violence. But this is not the same thing as saying it is inevitable.

When I googled for 'Marx violent revolution ' one of the first page links led me right back to revleft where this topic was discussed. A user called robbo203 quoted the following:

But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are*
everywhere the same.*

You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various*
countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that*
there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more*
familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland --*
where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being*
the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the*
Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to*
which we must someday appeal in order to erect the rule of labor.
-Karl Marx

Engels 1895
Introduction to Karl Marx’s
The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850

In France, where for more than a hundred years the ground has been undermined by one revolution after another, where there is not a single party which has not done its share in conspiracies, insurrections and all other revolutionary actions; in France, where, as a result, the government is by no means sure of the army and where the conditions for an insurrectionary coup de main are altogether far more favourable than in Germany — even in France the Socialists are realising more and more that no lasting victory is possible for them unless they first win over the great mass of the people, i.e. the peasants in this instance. Slow propaganda work and parliamentary activity are recognised here, too, as the immediate tasks of the party. ....

The irony of world history turns everything upside down. We, the "revolutionaries", the "overthrowers" — we are thriving far better on legal methods than on illegal methods and overthrow. The parties of order, as they call themselves, are perishing under the legal conditions created by themselves....

The franchise has been, in the words of the French Marxist programme, transformé de moyen de duperie qu'il a été jusquici en instrument d'emancipation — transformed by them from a means of deception, which it was before, into an instrument of emancipation.[458]*And if universal suffrage had offered no other advantage than that it allowed us to count our numbers every three years; that by the regularly established, unexpectedly rapid rise in our vote it increased in equal measure the workers’ certainty of victory and the dismay of their opponents, and so became our best means of propaganda; that it accurately informed us of our own strength and that of all opposing parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion second to none for our actions, safeguarding us from untimely timidity as much as from untimely foolhardiness — if this had been the only advantage we gained from the suffrage, it would still have been much more than enough....

Does the reader now understand, why the ruling classes decidedly want to bring us to where the guns shoot and the sabers slash? Why they accuse us today of cowardice, because we do not betake ourselves without more ado into the street, where we are certain of defeat in advance? Why they so earnestly implore us to play for once the part of cannon fodder?
The gentlemen pour out their prayers and their challenges for nothing, for nothing at all. We are not so stupid. They might just as well demand from their enemy in the next war that he should take up his position in the line formation of old Fritz, or in the columns of whole divisions a la Wagram and Waterloo, and with the flintlock in his hands at that. If the conditions have changed in the case of war between nations, this is no less true in the case of the class struggle. The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.

Robo203 made this point- which I think covers it well:

Its not that he is saying violence must be rejected - although you can hardly deny he is saying we must try to avoid violence. Im not saying either that "violence miust rejected" . It*may*be necessary to use limited violence under certain circumstances and we must allow for that possibility. But that is*not*the point is it? The point is that you should fundamentally base your strategy on peaceful means and that*you should not advocate violence as a means of bringing about a social revolution. To do so would be totally counter-productive and a recipe for authoriitarianism as well as the emergence a new ruling class if it were ever remotely possible for violence to succeed. There is one certain way to ensure that status quo remains firmly intact and that is to go about advocating its violent overthrow

*cannot post link

Given that Marx made conceived of peaceful revolution, what point does promising to hang ideologically incorrect people serve, other than satiating your attention deficit?

Are these "just my fantasies"? Why are they so common in every description of red terror, both in Spain and in Russia? They aren't "just my fantasies", they are the logical conclusion of any Communist movement, any proletarian revolution. They will be hanged, killed. Even if this does not happen, the kind of 'horror' this invokes, THAT WILL be invoked. You bet yourself your idols will be destroyed.

Because communism has sadly always been corrupted by power-seeking scumbags?

I will return later to your other points (communism is atheist determinism and 'rafiq is not a reductionist') soon. We have years after all!. Oh as for the unit of selection argument you brought in here I'll happily argue that with you in another thread if you want.

Looking forward to your next bloviating text wall.

Armchair Partisan

22nd January 2016, 09:33

Бай Ганьо

22nd January 2016, 11:44

Art is subjective, and just like art being subjective I find some art beautiful.
The aesthetic experience has a cognitive basis, i.e. it requires the mastery of symbolic systems. The more this mastery is developed, the more “profound” your experience. F.e. if I make you listen to the 2nd Symphony of Beethoven, I’m pretty sure the only comment I’ll get from you is that you (don’t) like it. Now imagine that someone gives you a crash course in music theory (harmony and formal functions) and make you listen to this symphony again with the score in hand. What do you think would happen? Maybe you would still dislike it, but your aesthetic experience would have changed, because the necessary tools to form arguments would be at your disposal. You’d be able to actually say something meaningful about that work. That’s what scholars in arts are concerned with. They don’t give a shit about your personal taste, they want to know what you can tell about an artwork by using philosophical logic. That’s what the aesthetic experience is about and this is not subjective.

Red Red Chile

22nd January 2016, 12:38

Chile, in no way did Marx want "peaceful revolution". The Engels text you quoted advises not against violent revolution, but rather, against violent insurrection by a small minority, without the support of the proletariat as a whole. It would be ridiculous to say that the communists themselves wanted a peaceful revolution - that is why the soc-dems broke from the Second International, after all! (Or rather, the non-soc-dems broke from it, however you wish to phrase it.) And while Marx, Engels and the rest of the 19th century Marxists may not have had the opportunity to see why the idea of peaceful revolutionary organization through parliamentary methods is utterly bankrupt: the social-patriotism of social democrats in WWI and the way they started shooting revolutionaries right after the war, becoming the most dangerous members of the counterrevolution, the way how communist movements always withered and died, or were jailed, while in cooperation with bourgeois movements - the Cold War makes this even more clear (Lumumba, Allende, even non-revolutionary non/anti-communists like Mosaddegh and Chavez were utterly unable to organize within the system, despite their much more modest goals of reform).

With that said, are you a social democrat? Because if yes, you are a part of the reaction; if not, your stances are inconsistent. There is absolutely no way that we can win without violence, though how much we may need will vary; never, in any circumstance, will the bourgeoisie capitulate peacefully. We must, thus, seek to break the ideological conditioning in people that "violence bad, peaceful good", and make it clear that "if you want peace, prepare for war". Unlike Rafiq, I do not think "violence" here means "gratuitous and ritualistic displays of revolutionary zeal" (though hey, I really couldn't care less if Spanish anarchists symbolically shoot a Jesus statue or execute a fascist priest who snitches on a revolutionary cell), rather just the fact that we will have to come into clash with police, soldiers, and counter-revolutionary paramilitaries and saboteurs in any truly revolutionary situation. And instead of pretending we just want peace and the nasty bourgeoisie are being unusually naughty if they order a police crackdown (that is just deluding ourselves and others), we should make it clear for the working class from the start what opposition they will have to face. If people are afraid of that, they can suffer under capitalism forever, waiting for the social-democratic utopia they will never have.

Well the first quote is by Marx as well it's from the La Liberte speech [1972]. Sorry I would have posted the link but my post count was too low.

I'm not equating 'peaceful revolution' with 'parliamentary revolution'. There has never been a conscious working class sizable enough to have any sort of power real power - thus the need for terror and 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. But when there is, I think a state would have a lot of difficulty justifying it's legitimacy. An actually conscious working class is requirement of communism anyway anyway - A coup imposed from above by a self-appointed 'vanguard' merely forms another state.

As for being a social democrat - I support parliamentary and revolutionary communism. I don't see why either can't work.

When you say that there is no way you can win without violence - I'm inclined to think the exact opposite; How are working people going to defeat the might of the state? What weapons are they going to use? The state has gotten so strong it would be suicidal to take it on (I'm talking notionally about America). But what makes it large makes it weak, as capitalists depend on the working class to run it. We really just need to take over what we already run. This scenario I'm describing is the only one with any potential. These are just my views, not necessarily 'applied Marxism.'

Armchair Partisan

22nd January 2016, 17:10

When you say that there is no way you can win without violence - I'm inclined to think the exact opposite; How are working people going to defeat the might of the state? What weapons are they going to use?

Their own indispensability to the capitalist system. They go on strike and simply refuse to work for the capitalists anymore. This will no doubt lead to the collapse of the state in a short time. The thing is, you describe exactly this process in the second part of this paragraph, you simply don't consider the obvious part that the capitalists will not allow this to happen, and will use extreme force to coerce the strikers back into their workplaces (or to roll back socialist reforms, as far as parliamentarism goes). Defected military units and workers' militias can help defend the revolution; the latter may be useless against a tank or helicopter division alone but may still be useful with professional soldiers as a force multiplier, or to suppress civilian resistance.

When you say that there is no way you can win without violence - I'm inclined to think the exact opposite; How are working people going to defeat the might of the state? What weapons are they going to use? The state has gotten so strong it would be suicidal to take it on (I'm talking notionally about America). But what makes it large makes it weak, as capitalists depend on the working class to run it. We really just need to take over what we already run. This scenario I'm describing is the only one with any potential.

Yes, well, I can repeat myself: ask Allende how that whole part about using parliamentary methods to advance socialism worked out. But military coups aren't the only obstacle to working within the system. In the modern, globalized era, any revolutionary measures in a single country, or a small handful of countries will quickly lead to coordinated capital flight, which is a pretty big setback. You can't simply defeat the capitalists at their own game, can you? Besides, parliament is a talkshop. As we all know if we are not idealists, real power rests in the hands of those who control the means of production - the bourgeoisie. They usually get their way no matter which face is elected. And you want to turn their own parliament against them? The bourgeoisie can only pray that the working class movement commits this foolishness again and again.

You can't circumvent the issue of having to fight the state militarily.

Rafiq

22nd January 2016, 18:36

More and more with these half assed posts. So far my prediction remains correct, wow. I'm now waiting until he musters up the courage to pour everything he can, spending hours and hours into one large post. Clearly Red Red, who has so much anxiety, who NEEDS to get his last word because the substance of my posts weigh on the back of his mind, their existence tortures him, he feels humiliated, who is not even equipped for this discussion on intellectual terms, is crossing his fingers every time hoping I've finally left. Child, I'm not going anywhere: Every night around the same time, for a few hours, I wait for you, and then in the morning I wake up and the first thing I do is respond to you. This is going to go on each and every single day, for as long as it needs to. I am being totally direct, frank and serious about this. If at this point you think I'm bluffing, or 'just saying this', you're in for a fucking surprise, end of story.

Now, I am no longer allowed to flame on this website. I have gotten in trouble for that various times. But I hope people can see why I used to flame - read Red Red Chile, and tell me what he is doing is not tantamount to provocative trolling, what he is FUCKING doing here. That's okay, because as I've promised, I'm going to make this Red Red Chile's new profession. I might not be able to flame you,, but I am going to slowly torture you for months, years on end. Enjoy your new life, and let's not forget in retrospect just how consistent he is:

While you are living out the glorious fantasy as as internet Bolshevik, adults have real issues to contend with

Red Red Chile began at the onset thiking that he's so "unengaged" and so "above" such a petty argument, he has 'real issues to contend with'. I at the onset frankly and honestly proclaimed that I am not going to allow him to get away with anything, that no matter what, I won't allow Red Red Chile to get away with what he sais. Who has been honest here? Who has been consistent throughout this thread, Rafiq, or Red Red Chile?

Oh bravo comrade! It's comforting to know that, in this day of frauds and pseudo-leftist bohemians, we can count on rafiq to return an argument every time,

Wait a moment... Are we being led to believe that Red Red Chile was actually surprised to see that he received such a response? Do you think I am fucking JOKING when I say you're not going to get away with anything? Do you think I'm somehow BLUFFING? Let's make something clear, Red Red Chile. Every time you log on to this website, and check your recent posts, there is going to be one waiting for you by Rafiq. You are going to do this every day for sometime, and it doesn't matter how long, or even how half-assed your post is - you're not going to get away with it, and you're not going to get your last word. That at this point you are surprised that I have thus far kept my promise, suggests that you are poorly equipped with assessing information and qualifying it. Look where your pseudo-cynicism has landed you dear child. "Oh, he's just saying that" you probably thought to yourself. Use the search button and tell me I'm someone to give up. I'm not, I will never give this up, ever, unless I am literally physically not capable of. So you can try to get me banned, but being that there is some potential you may be a sockpuppet, and are in possession of views that violate the forum rules, you're not really in a position to do that either.

To use your favorite term, 'what you fail to see', is that is doesn't matter how high you build your walls of text, nothing will make your claim
that Marxism, or historical materialism more specifically, necessitates revolutionary violence valid.

Ladies and gentlmen, this PHILISTINE, this DISGUSTING reactionary, speaks of "anti-thought", HE IS LITERALLY OPENLY, RIGHTEOUSLY ASSERTING HIS IGNORANCE. HE IS LITERALLY, he is LITERALLY FUCKING SAYING THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE TO, USING REASON, JUSTIFY HIS POSITIONS. If NOTHING I FUCKING SAY MATTERS CHILD, WHY, PRAY TELL ARE YOU EVEN ENGAGED IN THIS DISCUSSION? IF YOU ARE, AND THINK YOU CAN CONVINCE OTHERS, THAT NOTHING I SAY WILL MATTER, WHY DO YOU FIND IT NECESSARY TO TALK SHIT? You think you can PICK AND FUCKING CHOOSE what you feel like responding to you, decontextualizing my arguments and bastardizing them to your level of ignorance? EVEN IF you continue to do this, I will chase you to the end of it all.

I won't be matching you word for word because a) I can express myself succinctly

No, you won't be matching me word for word yet, because I haven't driven you to the point where you are so humiliated, degraded and embarrassed, worn out and tired of seeing my posts every single aching fucking day, where your groundless pseudo-cynicism has led you to the point where "Okay, I'm going to stop playing around and I'm going to actually try and get him to shut up". I'm WAITING for that moment, where you muster up everything inside you, because THIS is when I'm going to crush you. You won't be matching me, not only 'word for word', but ARGUMENT BY ARGUMENT because ADMIT IT, this is ALL QUITE BEYOND YOU, and ANY SANE PERSON keeping up with this FUCKING thread can see that - you simply DON'T KNOW what you're talking about, because all of this is uncharted territory for you, your CONCEPTION of Marxism is, and has always been juvenile and totally fucking botched, and even when reduced to classical Marxism, rife with mis-interpretation, deliberate or otherwise, obfuscation and bastardization of Marx's work. You pretend you are in a position to fucking set the record straight on what actually constitutes Marxism, philistine? You have NO NOTION of Marxism, your familiarity with Marxism, EXTENDS ONLY AS FAR as your SUPERSTITION, BASE IGNORANCE and PHILISTINISM extends you, to the point where you don't have to get on your fucking knees and embrace it. The so-called "Marxism" you are familiar with is a harmless Marxism, one that is dead, hollow and absolutely fucking meaningless, the kind that allows disgusting fucking philistines to, nose held high, pretend like they have superseded the tradition of Marxism. Whether they are Fascists, Islamists, or "democratic socialists", they do this, and Rafiq will die before he allows this FILTH to be freely propagated ON ONE OF THE ONLY SPACES that which is meant to reach out, and educate people on the matter.

As for "expressing yourself succinctly", oh, of being able to express yourself in a simple manner is not a controversy, the fucking point is that the MATTER THAT WHICH you express yourself IS NOT ONLY BELLOW THE STANDARDS OF DEBATE as they have been established in this discussion, they do not even come CLOSE to fucking designating ANY of my posts. I HIGHLY FUCKING DOUBT you have even READ the entreity of my post, because this would be for you a traumatic experience. You talk about how I am "bloviating nonsense", when in reality, the minute you take any of these walls of texts and read them carefully, you feel overwhelmed and, almost TOO intricately torn apart. Admit it, we all know it.

b) once your posts are stripped of all their rhetorical padding, bombast and bravado, the arguments are quite simple anyway.

Except ACCUSING MY POSTS OF RHETORICAL PADDING, REQUIRES ACTUALLY CONFRONTING AND ADDRESSING THEM SO YOU CAN JUSTIFY THIS. In fact, you are in NO FUCKING POSITION TO ACCUSE MY POSTS OF RHETORICAL PADDING IF YOU CANNOT THOROUGHLY JUSTIFY AND DEMONSTRATE THIS USING THE VERY SAME ARGUMENTS THEMSELVES. IF YOU ARE FUCKING ACCUSING MY POSTS OF NOT MEANING ANYTHING, YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY FORMULATE AN ARGUMENT for EACH AND EVERY SINGLE FUCKING PHRASE, ARGUMENT, TEXT YOU ACCUSE OF HAVING NO MEANING, and THEN WE WILL PROCEED FROM THERE TO SEE JUST HOW FULL OF FUCKING SHIT YOU ARE. You CAN'T FUCKING DO THIS, beause not only are you a COWARD, you are not even INTELLECTUALLY equipped to deal with the subject matter at hand, this is literally ALL FUCKING BEYOND YOU, and that you cannot properly understand it, means that you are BASTARDIZING my fucking posts, CHOPPING THEM UP to a level that conforms to your standards of UTTER FUCKING STUPIDITY. They are "quite simple anyway", he sais, "quite simple anyway" as though this child is in a position to casually fucking sit back and talk about "Oh, they're so simple" - LOOK AT THIS THREAD, CHILD, YOU'VE ALREADY FUCKING LOST, THE IDEA THAT YOU ARE IN A POSITION TO SIT FUCKING BACK CASUALLY AND TALK ABOUT HOW MY POSTS ARE "SIMPLE" IS THOROUGHLY UNCORROBORATED BY YOUR POST HISTORY NOT ONLY IN THIS THREAD, BUT IN EVERY SINGLE THREAD YOU HAVE ENCOUNTERED ME. You TALK SHIT, but NOTHING you say is backed up by the evidence you make pretenses to. NOTHING. "Rhetorical padding, bombast and bravado" YOU ARE IN NO POSITION, YOU DISGUSTING PHILISTINE, (ANTI) INTELLECTUAL BARBARIAN TO QUALIFY ANYTHING AS "PADDING, BOMBAST OR BRAVADO", YOU AREN'T, you SIMPLY aren't, you're just TALKING SHIT without fucking BACKING IT UP THROUGH ACTUALLY ARGUING. The accusation that my posts are meaningless, IS AN ACCUSATION THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL AND NEEDS TO BE BACKED UP IN THIS VERY SAME DISCUSSION. If you cannot do this, BIT BY BIT, ARGUMENT BY ARGUMENT, then you basically ADMIT, outwardly, that your accusation is GROUNDLESS.

THE ONLY WAY we are communicating IS THROUGH MY POSTS and THROUGH THIS FORUM. The idea that, somehow, you're in a FUCKING position to accuse the substance of my posts of "rhetorical bombast, bravado" and nothing more, without COMPLETELY being able to demonstrate this, and I mean COMPLETELY, not simply abstracting a phrase or two out of context, is so beyond stupid one questions whether Red Red Chile is literally just trolling.

play in their toxic coterie of anti-thought.

Red Red Chile speaks of "anti-thought", which is a MEANINGLESS accusation, and an ironic one too: There is no fucking such thing as anti-thought, outside of an INSISTENCE on not thinking in the first place, so in effect, the only FUCKING person who is curtailing the ability to not only think critically, but to think in the FIRST FUCKING PLACE, is YOU, who basically OPENLY FUCKING ADMITS that he doesn't want to engage with the substance of my post because he is an anti-intellectual who doesn't feel like he has the responsibility of dealing with complex arguments that extend beyond your juvenile standard of 'dur hur' common sense philistinism. The fact of the matter is that the ISSUES that you are bringing up, are being approached in a critical manner - that my criticism is far more complex than the simplistic, thoughtless, uncritical stupidity that which it is attacking, is not my problem, RRC, it's YOUR fucking problem.

You are in NO FUCKING POSITION to speak of "anti-thought", you DISGUSTING philistine, when the whole FUCKING POINT is that YOU RIGHTEOUSLY REFUSE to ENGAGE "Althusser, Lacan and Zizek" as their theoretical worth is relavent in my post. The point is quite fucking simple: WHEN I ARGUE HERE, I MEAN SOMETHING. That you ADMIT, that not only do you refuse to confront this meaning, but that you are unable to decipher any whatsoever, means you NOT ONLY CONCEDE THE FUCKING ARGUMENTS TO ME, YOU ADMIT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TO BEGIN WITH. You MAKE A BUNCH OF FUCKING GARBAGE ARGUMENTS, and then, WHEN I DIRECTLY ADDRESS AND RESPOND TO THESE ARGUMENTS IN THE MOST THOROUGH AND CONSIDERAT manner possible, what do you do? You fucking RUN THE FUCK AWAY, talk about "Althusser, Lacan and Zizek" as if the fact that the Anglo-Saxon philistines at large groundlessly accuse these names of obscurity and meaningless, means that in mentioning these names, you are already conferring meaninglessness - NO, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS A GIVEN, YOU EITHER FUCKING SHUT THE FUCK UP, OR YOU BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY WITH A REAL ARGUMENT.

Ladies and gentlemen, the CHILD is LITERALLY FUCKING SAYING:

"I'm going to say really juvenile things that I know are controversial and subject to criticism, but I'm going to presuppose at the onset that they cannot be subject to critical evaluation, and furthermore, if they are within the framework of a discourse I'm too fucking stupid and ignorant to engage in, I don't have to respond, because I'm groundlessly content with my STUPID FUCKING views and positions that the idea that they can be questioned is one that I cannot articulate."

If you can't TAKE what you dish out, then SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH. The idea that my arguments can be dismissed, because they have a level of theoretical sophistication that is beyond conventional, philistine "common sense' logic, is so amply fucking disgusting, it just shows how RIGHTEOUSLY IGNORANT he is, how CONFIDENT he is in his non-knowing. You PROVE, first and foremost, that I was COMPLETELY fucking corect regarding my assessment of ideology - the INSISTENCE on NOT knowing. It is like how Lacan recalled, his patients NEVER wanted to know anything about themselves or their psyche, they were scared to know, they ACTIVELY suppressed knowledge of their self, they did not want to be self-conscious. He PATHOLOGICALLY insists on not-knowing the true reality of his arguments, of his ideological constitution, because he is SCARED.

He literally begins, AT THE ONSET with the presupposition, that he is indeed correct. Tell me child, IF YOU'RE SO FUCKING CONFIDENT THAT YOU ARE CORRECT, why continue posting? because YOU ARE NOT confident you are correct, YOU KNOW what I say, in its entirety GETS TO YOU, it fucking WEIGHS on the back of your mind at EVERY ACHING FUCKING MOMENT you are even on your computer. If you're so FUCKING content you're ALREADY immune to criticism, and are correct, then you wouldn't feel it is necessary to confront me, because YOU KNOW i'm fucking DEMOLISHING your arguments and posts, I am TEARING THEM TO FUCKING SHREDS.

I can simply ignore this because we're not arguing about 'neo-marxism' or 'freudo-marxism' or whatever that garbage is called. You need to justify your claims about what Marxism is in Marxist terms.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "MARXIST" TERMS, ALL of the thinkers you mention, have cumulatively formed the BASIS of what can properly called the Marxist tradition in the 21st century. The philistine speaks of vulgar-Marxism, he speaks of dogmatism, and yet according to him, Marxism in the 21st century amounts to ossifying classical Marxism into some theoretical vacuum so that any talk of Marxism simply becomes an argument about the individual views of Marx and Engels. Sorry no, Marxism is a tradition, it is not reducible to the conventional philistine pseudo-Marxist garbage you are used to, which by the looks of it clearly gave you a bastardized, worst of all formalized notion of historical materialism that is bellow even what you would expect in an American middle school text book. You have no notion of Marxism, plain and simple, because if you did, you would know that Marxism must be regularly transformed in approximation to not only new developments in the social field which occur, but in approximation to new developments in the philosophic, scientific, aesthetic, ETC. fields of controversy. You keep throwing around fucking words and talking out of your ass with "neo-marxism" and "freudo-Marxism", and it's plainly pathetic. We all know you want to handicap Marxism in such a way, because being a reactionary yourself, reducing Marxism to the cumulative works, letters of both Marx and Engels transforms Marxism into a dead theory with little relevance to our present epoch. Throughout the previous post I was responding to you, you regularly kept saying "WHAAA? I'm a fucking moron who has no notion of what constitutes an empirical dogma" and THIS IS WHY I SAY YOU ARE UNEQUIPPED WITH APPROACHING THE TOPIC AT HAND, because the fact of the matter is that Marxism CONTAINS NO EMPIRICAL DOGMAS, it contains NO pretense to a set of empirical truths - Marxism is a tradition, which must be regularly enriched, re-approximated to the condition of life as they present themselves in each according generation, epoch of capitalism, and the list goes on. Taking Marxism to its most logical conclusion in various different domains of thought, has nothing to do with any revision or even disavowal of the core essential basis of Marxism. You are amply in no position to speak.

Finally, let's begin with the botched, incomplete and simplified discussion at hand:

But it's important to pay attention to the context here.

No child, we were never making any pretenses to the context at hand, because what you SPECIFICALLY FUCKING SAID:

You must wonder why Marx and Engels, in the annals or their writings and correspondence, never deigned to say such things.

What you said, DID NOT EMENATE ANY RESPECT for the specific context that which either Marx, or Engels spoke regarding violence. You simply said that they "never deigned to say such things", which in effect, you were proven PLAINLY fucking wrong about. The controversy about whether Marx and Engels thought revolutionary violence was unquestionably (and, for the record, they recognized that at that point in time it was unclear) necessary in more advanced capitalist states, that is another controversy, but one that is not relevant to this SPECIFIC one - whether or not Marx has any problem with revolutionary terror. He doesn't. Since you bring it up to work your fucking way out of the argument, we'll go into that too.

This was written under conditions of revolutionary fever.

What constitutes "conditions of revolutionary fervor", pray tell, is not unique to Marx's position, which was during an epoch and a time wherein premodern remnants of the ancien regime remained in Germany. But what you fail to understand is that the key point Marx was making, had nothing to do with being "swept up" in his time, but the fact that revolutionary terror for Marx had to be reserved for societies that were not bourgeois liberal democracies - which perfectly fit the description of the Prussian state at the time. In Marx's view, AT THE TIME, it is POSSIBLE (but it is not known) as to whether a peaceful revolution would have been allowed in the societies with formal democracy. The reasons for this, are quite simple: The repressive apparatuses of the state, in places like the United Kingdom, the US, etc., where nowhere near as refined or sophisticated as the absolutist monarchies of his time, the Prussian, Tsarist, ETC. states - in other words, revolutionary terror was thought to not be so necessary in the United Kingdom, United States, among other places, as it was in places like Germany - for the simple reason that it was thought that bourgeois democracy laid the framework for a revolution, which mind you was STILL going to be a revolution, that could be in nature peaceful.

Case in point:

When I googled for 'Marx violent revolution

LISTEN to what Marx is saying here:

You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various*
countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that*
there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more*
familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland --*
where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being*
the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the*
Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to*
which we must someday appeal in order to erect the rule of labor.
-Karl Marx

We are going to explain the the significant of the bold words later. But first, I should add that Robbo, or Red Red Chile, are not the first reactionaries to try and white-wash Marx by referring specifically to this quote. Many a philistine attempted to say this in the context of the early 20th century. The context is quite simple: OSSIFYING Marx's words that only refer to specific concrete, tactically considerable phenomena (rather than something theoretically over-reaching like the state, class and religion, whose basis of existence can only ever remain the same) into dogma that has timeless application, even if the qualitative, tactical circumstances are entirely different. But the specific qualifications Marx made, for the necessity of violence in continental Europe, specifically France, were quite clear - in other words, the BASIS of Marx, DURING HIS TIME PERIOD (which he did correctly) distinguishing the necessity of violence in France, owing to certain considerations, to the prospect of peace in England and the US, owing to THEIR specific institutions, and the lack of certain state-formations that are present in continental Europe. What are these? Marx states:

If you look up the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire [*1], you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it [Marx's italics--the original is zerbrechen], and this is the precondition for every real people's revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting."

For Marx, the "bureaucratic-military machine" CLEARLY refers to what he calls the new basis of the French state as a whole. In Marx's mind, at this time, which he was correct in assessing - this same 'machine', or an equivalent, was not present in the United States, or England, there were real democratic institutions that workers could use to see their ends through, or so it seemed. But much has changed not only over a hundred years after this, but after mere decades - there were transformative, qualitative changes in the character of these states, which a certain someone took note of. Of course, I am referring to Imperialism, AS DEFINED by Lenin, who I have been alluding to all this time, WHO RESPONDED TO THE SAME ACCUSATION which is just as relevant today to the abuse of Marx's statements out of context as it ever was:

It is interesting to note, in particular, two points in the above-quoted argument of Marx. First, he restricts his conclusion to the Continent. This was understandable in 1871, when Britain was still the model of a purely capitalist country, but without a militarist clique and, to a considerable degree, without a bureaucracy. Marx therefore excluded Britain, where a revolution, even a people's revolution, then seemed possible, and indeed was possible, without the precondition of destroying "ready-made state machinery".

Today, in 1917, at the time of the first great imperialist war, this restriction made by Marx is no longer valid. Both Britain and America, the biggest and the last representatives — in the whole world — of Anglo-Saxon “liberty”, in the sense that they had no militarist cliques and bureaucracy, have completely sunk into the all-European filthy, bloody morass of bureaucratic-military institutions which subordinate everything to themselves, and suppress everything. Today, in Britain and America, too, "the precondition for every real people's revolution" is the smashing, the destruction of the "ready-made state machinery" (made and brought up to the “European”, general imperialist, perfection in those countries in the years 1914-17)

But it's not simply only that the repressive institutions of the state apparatus disallow for any peaceful revolution today. Lenin is certainly true in that regard. But in speaking, Lenin particularly states that Britain was a "purely capitalist country", or close to one, in 1871, which was true - Britain was largely a 'purely capitalist country', without either any modern social formations alongside with it, or any kind of mutation into what at his time would be equivalent to Imperialism. But take particular note of what Lenin sais regarding a "pure capitalist country" responding to critics that Russia had to be a 'purely capitalist country' to be ready for socialism (Which Lenin thought was unnecessary IF the revolution spread to Europe, which it did not, but he recognized seizing the opportunity was important anyway):

All this, which is common knowledge, has been unblushingly distorted by Kautsky to justify the opportunists. There are no “pure” phenomena, nor can there be, either in Nature or in society—that is what Marxist dialectics teaches us, for dialectics shows that the very concept of purity indicates a certain narrowness, a one-sidedness of human cognition, which cannot embrace an object in all its totality and complexity. There is no “pure” capitalism in the world, nor can there be; what we always find is admixtures either of feudalism, philistinism, or of something else.

What Lenin states here must be EMPHASIZED, because it emanates a certain truth about the nature of the state in continental Europe during Marx's time: It is not as if, as traditionally thought, Prussia, etc. were pre-capitalist states. This was not the point, the point is qualitatively the KIND of capitalism they represented necessiated violence. So rather than this pseudo-Marxist logic of all the absolutist states of the ancien regime gradually 'becoming' bourgeois democracies naturally, having a 'pure capitalism', the point is quite simple: IT IS NOT America and Britain who, in 1871 with their institutions who were the standard that others would inevitably "evolve" into, it is that AMERICA AND BRITAIN WERE EXCEPTIONAL, they were UNIQUE insofar as the people of those countries were able to fight mercilessly for democratic reform, for building institutions that gave them real power. I speak solely in the context of the 21st century: Democracy and capitalism DO NOT go hand in hand, the former needs to be FOUGHT for, it is not the logical conclusion of capitalism, not any longer at least, and today, as I speak about so often, our democratic standards are waning and eroding, as of neoliberalism/globalization. In other words, the Hapsburg empire, is and was just as much a 'pure capitalist' state, as Britain was, because there are no 'pure capitalist' states, and where there are, this is a slither, a window of opportunity that will either inevitably culminate in a proletarian dictatorship, or lose its 'pure' character through monopoly, and therefore imperialism, etc.

So what Marx was referring to, vis a vis England and the US, was a SLITHER of opportunity, which has long since passed as of WWI. But things have tremendously changed since then to the point where conditions now make it that a revolution in the 21st century would have to be even more bloody than the French revolution, as a result of certain qualitative changes in capitalism I have gone over. First, the rise of a kind of neo-feudalism, for a lack of a better term for it, that has sprouted out, out of the carcass of imperialist society, to the point where today, it can no longer be said that finance capitalism will reign supreme as the last stage of capitalism, instead, today you have the rise of increasingly NEW FORMS OF RENT, not only in the financial sense, but surrounding the phenomena of intellectual property. In other words, the rise of Silicon Valley, the rise of another 'industrial revolution' is leading to the creation of things which cannot properly be called commodities as such, containing and holding no value as such, but RENT-BASED basis's of profit: So-called "digital" commodities and rent, which are leading us into a neo-feudalism, which is responsible for emerging pseudoscientific discourses like evolutionary psychology, new kinds of mysticism, superstition and spiritualism, a fascination with pre-Christian paganism, eastern spiritualism, and so on, coupled with the rise of private militaries, increasingly PRIVATIZED repressive apparatus's of the state, I went over this in a previous thread:

Information technology sustains even the means by which a capitalist is able to invest, buy and manage stocks, and whatever you want. We don't question the underlying substrate of this - this information technology is monopolized privately, which means that today to a certain extent even the bankers, capitalists are subsumed by these new post-modern barons of technological capital. The differences between other dependencies that which capitalists rely on, i.e. "Couldn't you also make the same argument for oil companies, because they are equally relient on them?", are not sustained by relations of rent. Oil is a tangible commodity that can be bought and sold - the same cannot be said for the digital world, for the internet, for software, these are rented out - and furthermore, the hardware used to access them is merely the means by which one accesses it. The digital sphere is IRREDUCIBLE to tangible commodities like iphones, computer hardware, for these are merely the instruments of accessing them.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/wall-street-vs-t194712/index.html?t=194712

In another thread I started, I also explored this:

Assange goes on to mention how not only in terms of the power of the Silicon valley companies in particular, but the aggressive ideology that pervades Silicon Valley, which IS INDEED one of 'dark enlightenment', i.e. replacing democratic institutions with the efficiency, competency of a tech-corporation, and so on. You see this practically everywhere - all the time new blind spots are opened up which traditional political institutions simply cannot account for.

Take 'Uber'. Over night, and arguably on a global scale, the means by which so many people travel was transformed, and there's simply no regulations on it - it has transformed people's lives, but it is not recognized as part of our political-formal sphere of life. The same goes for ALL new technologies in general, a problem that encompasses the basis of present controversies regarding 'intellectual property'. Amidst everything, amidst all cheap pop-politics that pervades the internet, it is this technological sphere which is our blind alley: We tacitly designate it, we do not even acknowledge it at the level of engaged partisanship - to say nothing of even being able to comprehend it critically. These technologies, not simply devices themselves, but their relationship to our society, the conditions of their production, usage, ETC. for us are just as seamless and apolitical as nature - they are the cushioned restraints we fall back on when we shrug our arms, and say "that's it". They are the political leviathan that underpins all of our cheap, pop pseudo-politics. For an analogy, think about that horrible place, Reddit: There are various "sub-forums" for peoples of all kinds of different political persuasions, but there is a tacit acknowledgement of a virtual space that underlies them all - embodied by the website itself, it gives one the impression of a tacit spirit of "Though we have our disagreements, we are all subjects immersed in a common virtual space".
http://www.revleft.com/vb/europe-kaput-long-t194668/index.html?t=194668

So we are seeing an emerging rise of a kind of neo-aristocratic caste of tech giants, who are not even 'productive' (i.e. produce commiodites) but parasitically make money off of what is essentially rent, i.e. the privatization of TECHNOLOGY and INFORMATION that would otherwise be commons, for rent (Which is why I use the term 'neo-feudalism'). We see the concentration of power in the repressive apparatus of the state NOT ONLY sustained by the armies of the state themselves, which are now voluntary and require less industry, but also the increased militarization of the police, as well as ad-hoc fascist barbarism, the kind you see in Lebanon with hezbollah, in Ukraine with the separatists, and in the US, the militia movement. Amidst all of this, Red Red Chile tells us that terror is not inevitable and is unnecessary, in his mind, ALL OF THESE organs of power can merely be dissuaded into being destroyed. But even if we ignore all of those direct organs of power, THE VIOLENCE which sustains our society, is so rabidly implicit, you see it practically EVERYWHERE, in the very psyche, of your average, for example, 4chan dweller. Communism will POLARIZE society, it will lead to civil war and likely a global war. Like he literally cannot even fathom: A PEACEFUL REVOLUTION on DEMOCRATIC, BOURGEOIS Terms, as seen by the Arab spring is not even possible, AND YOU THINK that a proletarian revolution, a Communist revolution that... Wait for it... Doesn't necessitate mass violence IS POSSIBLE? Is this a fucking JOKE?

1*Marx's passage from the 18th brumaire that refers to the necessity of smashing, rather than peacefully subsuming the state apparatus:

Finally the parliamentary republic, in its struggle against the revolution, found itself compelled to strengthen the means and the centralization of governmental power with repressive measures. All revolutions perfected this machine instead of breaking it. The parties, which alternately contended for domination, regarded the possession of this huge state structure as the chief spoils of the victor.

But under the absolute monarchy, during the first Revolution, and under Napoleon the bureaucracy was only the means of preparing the class rule of the bourgeoisie. Under the Restoration, under Louis Philippe, under the parliamentary republic, it was the instrument of the ruling class, however much it strove for power of its own.

Only under the second Bonaparte does the state seem to have made itself completely independent. The state machinery has so strengthened itself vis-à-vis civil society that the Chief of the Society of December 10 suffices for its head – an adventurer dropped in from abroad, raised on the shoulders of a drunken soldiery which he bought with whisky and sausages and to which he has to keep throwing more sausages. Hence the low-spirited despair, the feeling of monstrous humiliation and degradation that oppresses the breast of France and makes her gasp. She feels dishonored.

what point does promising to hang ideologically incorrect people serve, other than satiating your attention deficit?

YOU are the one who FUCKING came here and practically begged for an intellectual beating, child, I simply point out what is necessary - revolutionary terror is the only means that which the present order can be permanently overthrown, and the reason is quite simple: The phenomnea of INSTITUTIONALIZED counter-revolution AS FASCISM, i.e. "alternate-modernity" WAS NOT present not even in Lenin's time. So the point is quite simple: A revolution today, means inevitably a CIVIL WAR, there is no getting around this, IT WILL be a civil war, there are reactionary elements in all of our societies, that will not be dissuaded, in the same way that paramilitary groups like the white banditries, Czech legionnaires, i.e. were predominate in the Russian civil war, we will have an even greater problem with the rise of private militiary corporations, and so on. People will oppose the revolution who even happen to be workers, who cling to their faith in the existing order, whether they are of the ruling national group who do not want to cede their previous standing, and so on. COUNTER-REVOLUTION is inevitable, THAT is why revolutionary terror is inevitable, you fool. Finally, when I say "we will hang priests", my point is that THE EQUIVALENT of doing this, as it OFFENDS your sensitivities will be done. What that means is, we might not hang any priest, but what we will do will be JUST AS SCARY, just as HORRIFYING and pathologically unbearable IN THE MIND of reactionaries like you, when we do this. We will do things similar to this, for reasons of propaganda in the spirit of revolutionary terror. A revolution is not a dinner party - a revolution is not some formal affair, a revolution is the VENGEANCE of the damned, exploited, it is the RIPPING APART of the violence which repressed them, it is VIOLENCE against all that which sustained the previous order, INCLUDING the priests. There can be no revolution otherwise - like do you even KNOW what a revolution is? Do you even know what the FAR REACHING implications of TRANSFORMING society, overthrowing the state, and TURNING SOCIETY ON ITS FUCKING HEAD are? You think this is some formal affair that will be live on Youtube? You think everyone will dress up, sign some fucking new constitution and then we will have a proletarian dictatorship? Or, more hilariously, you think that by parliamentary means it will be possible?

This PHILISTINE tells us a peaceful revolution is possible, WHOSE OWN NAME DISPROVES THAT. Allende's rise to power WAS fucking peaceful, child, THERE WAS no terror or forceful seizure of state power. AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED, ELEMENTS WITHIN SOCIETY OVERTHREW HIM and ALL of the gains he made. And Chile wasn't just some bourgeois-democratic revolution either like Cuba was, there were real prospects there that were genuine - like project cybersyn. It is so fucking ironic that you speak of Communism by parliamentary means, when CHILE is the best example of how this is NOT possible. You ACTUALLY FUCKING THINK that a revolution will be peacefully tolerated by ALL of society? And even if it is, you ACTUALLY think other states, and other powers will not attack like wolves the FIRST country that does this, as they did to Russia? And you don't think this instability will lead to some kind of counter-revolution, as it did in both France AND Russia, by elements that have faith invading powers will restore the previous status quo? Do you THINK with your FUCKING ass, or what?

How are working people going to defeat the might of the state? What weapons are they going to use? The state has gotten so strong it would be suicidal to take it on (I'm talking notionally about America).

This is EXACTLY why revolutionary violence is necessary. I have spoken about this problem, which is a real problem, in a thread where I propose talking about the implications of re-introducing the draft (http://www.revleft.com/vb/abolition-draft-and-t194863/index.html?t=194863).

What you ask is a tactical question, and nothing more. How we are to defeat the might of the state is a tactical question, the QUESTION of whether we need to do this is not up for debate for any Communist. End of story.

An actually conscious working class is requirement of communism anyway anyway - A coup imposed from above by a self-appointed 'vanguard' merely forms another state

Then you either are not familiar with the events of the October revolution, or you have no notion of what constitutes the working class. In fact, the October revolution WAS led by a class conscious working class, the overwhelming majority of the militant proletariat supported the Bolsheviks. The peasantry were the class that were 'presided' over, but even they supported the Bolsheviks in large numbers (by the end of the civil war, the majority did). They were for the Left SR's, who after/during the October revolution aligned themselves with the Bolsheviks. You literally don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Because communism has sadly always been corrupted by power-seeking scumbags?

There was never a SINGLE INSTANCE in history where this is true, because there is no such thing as a "power seeking scumbag", NOBODY Wants power for the sake of it. Communism was never 'corrupted' in Russia, it simply was destroyed, as a result of the inability for the proletarian dictatorship to sustain itself not only as an isolated state, but in a society that was predominantly backward and rife with a non-proletarian demographic. This made the building of proletarian institutions an impossibility, the idea that someone gained from "taking power", in any personal way, is laughable. Stalin worked so tirelessly, that there are absolutely no benefits whatsoever from his 'power' other than selflessly serving the survival of the state (which he did, by the way, there is no doubt about that). The fact that so much needs to be said SIMPLY to address the context in a refined and sophisticated manner just goes to show how fucking juvenile and shallow your conception of the events is. The idea that the shooting of priests was somehow synonymous with the "corrupting" of Communism by "power seeking scumbags" is so profoundly stupid it boggles the mind how you say this shit while upholding a semblance of intellectual dignity. The fact of the matter is that the hostility and hatred towards the Russian orthodox church in Russia, not only for its past crimes but because of what is inevitably its complicity in counter-revolution (and the same holds true for Spain) was present long before any talk of communism "corrupting" is even close to being appropriate. What is so beyond you is the fact that at the onset of any proletarian revolution, all the previous vestiges of superstition, most certainly the churches, the clergy, will be the first to oppose it. Your fear specifically of priests being hung, is what is of concern here, because this fear is pathological - for you have FAITH in what this priest represents, the superstition that reproduces our social order - you latch onto this, and the degree that which you identify with socialism, only goes as far as how able you are to reconcile this identity with ruling ideology. This is why your antisemitism is obvious. Red Red Chile, who is not involved whatsoever in the struggles of the Palestinians or Israelis, speaks of "Zionism" so keenly. You are not simply a liberal, you are a reactionary ideologue, and whatever identification with 'socialism' you may have is reactionary.

But nevermind this. The fact of the matter is that YOU STATED what Rafiq was saying was "solely" a reflection of "his own fantasies", that this kind of sentiment is alien from the Left. And once you are shown to be wrong, what do you do? You go on about how "Well, this is just cuz dey corrupted, da power corrupted". Because in Chile's mind, each individual wants "power", we imagine, because it's "in their nature bro", and that at the expense of what defines them, at the expense of all worldly considerations, once put in a position of power, they will abuse this. What is painfully stupid about this assertion is the fact that the Spanish anarchists, there was never a story of their power 'corrupting', so much was done to build participatory institutions of power both in administration and in the economy in Catalonia that this was even at the expense of the war effort (a similar problem that occurred in the Paris Commune). And yet these Spanish anarchists shot priests all the same, without having substantially altered their character. In fact what is literally hilarious is the fact that, the peripheral example of "power corrupting" (a false characterization) in the Soviet Union, Stalinism, actually worked against the tendency of the revolution which was anti-religious. Stalinism's logical conclusion was the reintroduction of religion and the church, because of Stalinism's bourgeois romantic character. So it is hilarious that you talk about anti-religious action as synonymous with 'power corrupting' when your piss poor example of this, Stalinism, was inversely proportional to the degrees of rabid anti-religiosity that pervaded the Bolsheviks. The fact of the matter is that there has never been, and never will be a revolution that does not assault the spiritual substance of the society they are deposing, there will never be a revolution that does not entail the desecration of all that is sacred and holy (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/SpanishLeftistsShootStatueOfChrist.jpg) of the order which they triumph over, for revolutions don't exist in a fucking vacuum. The idea that one can simply have a 'worker's revolution' in a vacuum, and that this has no other implications for every other domain of society, is pure juvenile stupidity. The pathology derives, essentially, from the same pathological fear of smashing the state - the pseudo-cynicism that is faithful towards the ontological characterization of man by ruling ideas, necessarily means that, in destroying churches and priests, one is horrified and left with a sense of anxiety, because the sheer absence of guarantee, is dispensed with - there is nothing left but the revolutionaries themselves, answerable to no higher power - neither the legitimate state apparatus, any external superstition, and so on. If one has faith in the existing order and its idols, then one necessarily cannot imagine life beyond these things. Red Red Chile, effectively, has faith in the churches and the bourgeois state, and when you destroy these things, he has no faith whatsoever and in his mind all is permitted.

He, like every other pseudo-left opportunist, except in a much more juvenile way, wants to play the leftist but doesn't want to answer to its consequences. You want socialism without socialism. You want to call yourself a Leftist without assuming responsibility for what this actually means taken to its highest conclusion. That is why when push comes to shove, you will be against the wall with the rest of the scum.

communism is atheist determinism and 'rafiq is not a reductionist')

Communism IS DETERMINISM? IS this what I FUCKING SAID? IS THIS WHAT I FUCKING SAID? On the contrary, I DESTROYED YOUR NOTION that I was a determinist, or that materialism's conclusion is determinism, because this UNDIALECTICAL you child. You're literally just SPEWING FUCKING SHIT at this point THAT YOU KNOW is wrong, probably because you think, somehow, trolling me gives you a sense of power 'over' me. It doesn't, you look like a stupid fuck, a clown, and anyone keeping up with this in an honest manner can corroborate that. You aren't "repelling" me, in other words, you are just fucking trolling, you're like a hysteric asking for a beating. I'm not your master, child, I'm not your father, so have some fucking dignity and MAKE ARGUMENTS that can STAND ON THEIR TWO FEET, ones that aren't already implicitly begging for being destroyed.

So not only do you have to respond to those, you have to respond to THIS post, as well. You have a lot of work to do, so instead of this half-assed shit talking, why don't you just save us the effort, and actually give us that big large thorough response you think is your last card against Rafiq. THE MINUTE you post it, I will respond. THERE IS NO WAY OUT OF THIS. THIS is your new life. End of story.

Looking forward to your next bloviating text wall.

Red Red Chile admits he can't even read arguments properly, and instead makes objects that which real sentences, arguments constitute. "Huh, your post kinda looks like a dragon" he thinks to himself. This is the kind of philistinism we are dealing with - he speaks of "walls of text", BUT EVERY SINGLE WALL OF TEXT is SUBSTANTIAL, has actual CONTENT in it, unlike the half-assed posts you are giving us. Nothing I am saying, is for naught - EVERY SINGLE word in that wall of text, CONTEXTUALLY has a definite meaning, contains a definite argument within it.

Decolonize The Left

22nd January 2016, 22:15

I guess what I'm saying is that there's no reason to get all vague and 'mystical' about *even the context itself* -- certainly I have no differences with the *premise* as you're describing, but what *aspect* of a post-capitalist society would we want to 'be in', to begin with, for the sake of reasoned estimations -- ?

I reject that we can know/understand/theorize "aspects" of post-capitalist society at all--at least, do so adequately. To speculate labor credits, as an example, is to attempt to move from within bourgeois ideology outside, and then look back and take it into account. I do not see how this is possible.

My answer is that there's *subjective* efforts, for oneself, and then there are socially *objective* efforts that would be instantly / inherently 'collectivized', for the common good.

[...]

This is just an abstraction, of course, but a more likely scenario would be *some* kind of coordination over common resources and implements, for whatever socially aspirational projects may enjoy popular support and participation.

Such would be 'labor for goods and services in a post-commodity society'.

I agree with this speculation, but I want to stress that communism entails the liberation of human beings from the conditions that divorce them from themselves. To speculate beyond this is to carry forward the ideology that we seek to overcome.

Consider this abstraction in response: we are post-capital and the commons are truly that. Humans no longer perceive socially as they did under the restraints of capital. How can we account for this new decision-making matrix? Furthermore, the sheer number of individuals involve in socio-economic decision-making has exponentially increased--can we account for these new possibilities?

See, this is a decidedly 'experiential' frame of reference, or context, for any description / discussion of the subject matter.

It is phenomenological, yes. I'm not sure I want to move beyond this frame.

ckaihatsu

22nd January 2016, 22:38

I reject that we can know/understand/theorize "aspects" of post-capitalist society at all--at least, do so adequately. To speculate labor credits, as an example, is to attempt to move from within bourgeois ideology outside, and then look back and take it into account. I do not see how this is possible.

Okay, you're using 'labor credits' as an example -- even though I *developed* and even *advocate* a particular labor-hour credits approach as a possibility for a gift-economy-type post-capitalist economics, I certainly don't *speculate* ('predict') that such would necessarily have to be used or would be used. (Specifically, one only has to 'ask' if people would be willing to do socially necessary work for *zero* labor credits per hour.)

I agree with this speculation,

I prefer 'estimation'.

but I want to stress that communism entails the liberation of human beings from the conditions that divorce them from themselves. To speculate beyond this is to carry forward the ideology that we seek to overcome.

Consider this abstraction in response: we are post-capital and the commons are truly that. Humans no longer perceive socially as they did under the restraints of capital. How can we account for this new decision-making matrix? Furthermore, the sheer number of individuals involve in socio-economic decision-making has exponentially increased--can we account for these new possibilities?

No prob, got this one -- here are relevant excerpts from my model, and a visual 'layout' (for conceptualization purposes only) follows....

communist administration -- Assets and resources have no quantifiable value -- are considered as attachments to the production process

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

communist administration -- Assets and resources may be created and sourced from projects and production runs

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimg.org/cp6z6ed81/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimg.org/image/ccfl07uy5/full/)

---

It is phenomenological, yes. I'm not sure I want to move beyond this frame.

My position is that it's logistically *impossible* to predict or estimate anything as specific as 'daily life experience' after some kind of paradigm shift (revolution) in social relations.

Knowing the persistence of *general* biological / social practices, though, like efforts for oneself and others, using tools, allows us to 'safely' posit a general scenario like that of '[liberated] labor for goods and services in a post-commodity society'.

Red Red Chile

24th January 2016, 03:48

Their own indispensability to the capitalist system. They go on strike and simply refuse to work for the capitalists anymore. This will no doubt lead to the collapse of the state in a short time. The thing is, you describe exactly this process in the second part of this paragraph, you simply don't consider the obvious part that the capitalists will not allow this to happen, and will use extreme force to coerce the strikers back into their workplaces

What do you mean by 'extreme force'? What kind of weaponry? If capitalists are going to have control of the nuclear arsenal they already control, there is no point fighting anyway. During the Cold War they devised the strategy of "mutually assured destruction". Is it your idea that we fight a nuclear war with capitalists to liberate the proletariat? No? Ok, so focus must then be on how do we can control of the military industrial complex.

Defected military units and workers' militias can help defend the revolution; the latter may be useless against a tank or helicopter division alone but may still be useful with professional soldiers as a force multiplier, or to suppress civilian resistance.

Merely relying on "defected" revolutionary units, in a first world country for instance, is a hopeless cause. I am happy to be in disagreement with the majority of the revolutionary left on this. But that is fine. We are not living in 1948 when the working class could simply engage in a gun fight with the bourgeois. Things have changed. It's axiomatic to communism that the circumstance of revolution must be applied to the society we live in.

Yes, well, I can repeat myself: ask Allende how that whole part about using parliamentary methods to advance socialism worked out.

His legitimacy was half measured anyway. Whether evolutionary, revolutionary or parliamentary - a transition from capitalism to communism will not succeed when it is like this. I assume you take from him the lesson that the bourgeois must fully be destroyed before revolution is possible?

But military coups aren't the only obstacle to working within the system. In the modern, globalized era, any revolutionary measures in a single country, or a small handful of countries will quickly lead to coordinated capital flight, which is a pretty big setback.

True! This is why America is the ground 0 for revolution, in my view - especially because it on the verge of collapse anyway.

Rafiq

24th January 2016, 03:55

Red Red Chile (or is that Mr. Carlos-Marcos (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=194738)?), who took 2 hours to craft this.

His legitimacy was half measured anyway. Whether evolutionary, revolutionary or parliamentary - a transition from capitalism to communism will not succeed when it is like this.

Actually no, if you were even remotely familiar with the situation regarding Allende, everything was done to de-legitimize him and prevent him from winning to begin with. It was actually very difficult for him and his party to maneuver the Chilean political system which, in a global context actually worked against them as far as his electability was concerned. The fact that he was able to be elected in the first place, is nothing short of a political miracle. His "legitimacy "was half measured, solely because Allende resorted to legal and legitimate means for the seizure of state power, i.e. "running" the state themselves. So what you say is tautological - Allende's "half measured" legitimacy among the population, was owed because he was confined to electoral politics as it concerned the seizure of state power. The seizure of state power, under a mass movement, military or otherwise (i.e. China) will always have more support among the population at large, i.e. make one more 'legitimate'.

And we're not even taking about a transition to Communism. We are talking about sustaining what was an alternative to the bourgeois dictatorship in Chile, which was not necessarily going to necessarily culminate in Communism even (but a democratic state, in the Aristotlean use of the word, i.e. rule by the poor) - but again, there were seriously authentic prospects in Chile which could have distinguished it (i.e. project cybersyn), it was the first example of a movement, society, that superseded neoliberalism. Chile effectively was an alternative to neoliberalism not simply a pre-neoliberal model fo society, and it could not even sustain itself to this end. We don't even have to be fucking talking about communism, simply a modest democratic seizure of power, in most circumstances is impossible without violence and terror. Even a liberal-democratic reform in a place like Iran for example, would entail a blood letting. There is no way of getting around this.

True! This is why America is the ground 0 for revolution, in my view

Which completely contradicts what was being insinuated by Armchair - the fact of the matter is that as far as fears of capital flight are concerned, the United States would actually be the best country for a proletarian dictatorship that would potentially, for tactical reasons still be immersed in the global market. That is because there is capital that is inherently native to the United States, and secondly, because of the pivotal role of the United States in the global market in the first place (i.e. the level of dependency upon it). So how is America "ground zero" for revolution, if the problem concerns having a revolution in a globalized world? As of now, despite its waning power the United States is still the world hegemon, spear heading globalization, and so on.

Ok, so focus must then be on how do we can control of the military industrial complex.

To put it plainly, even if we assume this level of control, this will not negate the necessity of violence and of ultimately smashing this state one is in control of, it does not change the inevitability of a civil war. That is because seizing control of state power, does not seize control over its repressive apparatuses as such or all of the violent organs of power in society - one merely has to take into account the phenomena of private military corporations, and so on. But yes, a world revolution, will entail death en masse. It is not ridiculous to think that the destructive powers of each state would be unleashed upon the world. And this makes little difference for the Communist.

Red Red Chile

24th January 2016, 05:15

who basically OPENLY FUCKING ADMITS that he doesn't want to engage with the substance of my post because he is an anti-intellectual who doesn't feel like he has the responsibility of dealing with complex arguments that extend beyond your juvenile standard of 'dur hur' common sense philistinism.

So you wrote about 2000 words before you diverged from insulting me personally and alluded to something I said in my previous post. A lot of typing isn't it? If it makes you happy. I read it all, so give me some praise too.

I don't want to engage in Lacan's Freudian theory of the universe. Maybe I would, but the posts are already getting too long here. I want to know why Historical Materialism requires hanging priests in the current political climate. This is a simple question. Can you answer it???

The fact of the matter is that the ISSUES that you are bringing up, are being approached in a critical manner - that my criticism is far more complex than the simplistic, thoughtless, uncritical stupidity that which it is attacking, is not my problem, RRC, it's YOUR fucking problem

Not really. If it's more complex, explain why it's more complex. If your answer is going to deploy convoluted Freudo-Marxist reasoning, then admit it. There is nothing wrong with being a Freudo-Marxist. Just admit that's what you are and I will argue with you.

You are in NO FUCKING POSITION to speak of "anti-thought", you DISGUSTING philistine, when the whole FUCKING POINT is that YOU RIGHTEOUSLY REFUSE to ENGAGE "Althusser, Lacan and Zizek" as their theoretical worth is relavent in my post.

Yes I do. We were talking about "vulgar Marxism" to begin with. I accused you of being a "vulgar Marxist". I will will discuss post-structuralist philosophy with you, as I said.

The point is quite fucking simple: WHEN I ARGUE HERE, I MEAN SOMETHING. That you ADMIT, that not only do you refuse to confront this meaning, but that you are unable to decipher any whatsoever, means you NOT ONLY CONCEDE THE FUCKING ARGUMENTS TO ME, YOU ADMIT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TO BEGIN WITH. You MAKE A BUNCH OF FUCKING GARBAGE ARGUMENTS, and then, WHEN I DIRECTLY ADDRESS AND RESPOND TO THESE ARGUMENTS IN THE MOST THOROUGH AND CONSIDERAT manner possible, what do you do? You fucking RUN THE FUCK AWAY, talk about "Althusser, Lacan and Zizek" as if the fact that the Anglo-Saxon philistines at large groundlessly accuse these names of obscurity and meaningless, means that in mentioning these names, you are already conferring meaninglessness - NO, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS A GIVEN, YOU EITHER FUCKING SHUT THE FUCK UP, OR YOU BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY WITH A REAL ARGUMENT.

I'm happy to discuss these names with you. As long as we can agree they were not Marxists.

"I'm going to say really juvenile things that I know are controversial and subject to criticism, but I'm going to presuppose at the onset that they cannot be subject to critical evaluation, and furthermore, if they are within the framework of a discourse I'm too fucking stupid and ignorant to engage in, I don't have to respond, because I'm groundlessly content with my STUPID FUCKING views and positions that the idea that they can be questioned is one that I cannot articulate."

No I just want to have some terms defined. That is what made you upset in the first place, don't forget.

If you can't TAKE what you dish out, then SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH. The idea that my arguments can be dismissed, because they have a level of theoretical sophistication that is beyond conventional, philistine "common sense' logic, is so amply fucking disgusting, it just shows how RIGHTEOUSLY IGNORANT he is, how CONFIDENT he is in his non-knowing. You PROVE, first and foremost, that I was COMPLETELY fucking corect regarding my assessment of ideology - the INSISTENCE on NOT knowing. It is like how Lacan recalled, his patients NEVER wanted to know anything about themselves or their psyche, they were scared to know, they ACTIVELY suppressed knowledge of their self, they did not want to be self-conscious. He PATHOLOGICALLY insists on not-knowing the true reality of his arguments, of his ideological constitution, because he is SCARED.

Just like you, I will not shut up. I don't need t type so many words, because what I am saying is quite simple. But you diverge from the point in favour of Lacanian vapour so I keep trying to pull you back. So your arguments (obviously ) start with Lacan. Explain to me then - no need to type 200 words - how Lacan, inspired by Sigmund Freud, represents a logical continuation of Marx??

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "MARXIST" TERMS, ALL of the thinkers you mention, have cumulatively formed the BASIS of what can properly called the Marxist tradition in the 21st century.

Explain how?

The philistine speaks of vulgar-Marxism, he speaks of dogmatism, and yet according to him, Marxism in the 21st century amounts to ossifying classical Marxism into some theoretical vacuum so that any talk of Marxism simply becomes an argument about the individual views of Marx and Engels. Sorry no, Marxism is a tradition, it is not reducible to the conventional philistine pseudo-Marxist garbage you are used to, which by the looks of it clearly gave you a bastardized, worst of all formalized notion of historical materialism that is bellow even what you would expect in an American middle school text book. You have no notion of Marxism, plain and simple, because if you did, you would know that Marxism must be regularly transformed in approximation to not only new developments in the social field which occur, but in approximation to new developments in the philosophic, scientific, aesthetic, ETC. fields of controversy. You keep throwing around fucking words and talking out of your ass with "neo-marxism" and "freudo-Marxism", and it's plainly pathetic. We all know you want to handicap Marxism in such a way, because being a reactionary yourself, reducing Marxism to the cumulative works, letters of both Marx and Engels transforms Marxism into a dead theory with little relevance to our present epoch. Throughout the previous post I was responding to you, you regularly kept saying "WHAAA? I'm a fucking moron who has no notion of what constitutes an empirical dogma" and THIS IS WHY I SAY YOU ARE UNEQUIPPED WITH APPROACHING THE TOPIC AT HAND, because the fact of the matter is that Marxism CONTAINS NO EMPIRICAL DOGMAS, it contains NO pretense to a set of empirical truths - Marxism is a tradition, which must be regularly enriched, re-approximated to the condition of life as they present themselves in each according generation, epoch of capitalism, and the list goes on. Taking Marxism to its most logical conclusion in various different domains of thought, has nothing to do with any revision or even disavowal of the core essential basis of Marxism. You are amply in no position to speak.

It is true that Marxism must be analysed afresh according to current circumstances. I want to know how or why Lacan represents the logical continuation. You like using a lot of words, please expend as may words as you have available to answer this question. Using the word "ossifying' over and over does not give you reign to represent Marx in this post post modern fashion.

What you said, DID NOT EMENATE ANY RESPECT for the specific context that which either Marx, or Engels spoke regarding violence. You simply said that they "never deigned to say such things", which in effect, you were proven PLAINLY fucking wrong about.

No, if Marx or Engels ever said that 'we shall hang priests' and such garbage i will admit that I am wrong. But I am not.

The controversy about whether Marx and Engels thought revolutionary violence was unquestionably (and, for the record, they recognized that at that point in time it was unclear) necessary in more advanced capitalist states, that is another controversy, but one that is not relevant to this SPECIFIC one - whether or not Marx has any problem with revolutionary terror. He doesn't. Since you bring it up to work your fucking way out of the argument, we'll go into that too.

Marx had no problem with revolutionary terror in 1948. He was referring to the revolutions of 1948. Whether he would have had problems with revolutionary terror now is something nobody knows. Your promises on behalf of an imagined 'we' imply that this is what it must mean now. Would you like to argue about that?

We are going to explain the the significant of the bold words later. But first, I should add that Robbo, or Red Red Chile, are not the first reactionaries to try and white-wash Marx by referring specifically to this quote. Many a philistine attempted to say this in the context of the early 20th century. The context is quite simple: OSSIFYING Marx's words that only refer to specific concrete, tactically considerable phenomena (rather than something theoretically over-reaching like the state, class and religion, whose basis of existence can only ever remain the same) into dogma that has timeless application, even if the qualitative, tactical circumstances are entirely different. But the specific qualifications Marx made, for the necessity of violence in continental Europe, specifically France, were quite clear - in other words, the BASIS of Marx, DURING HIS TIME PERIOD (which he did correctly) distinguishing the necessity of violence in France, owing to certain considerations, to the prospect of peace in England and the US, owing to THEIR specific institutions, and the lack of certain state-formations that are present in continental Europe.

I am a reactionary because I don't support idealogical cleansing? That's interesting. It is axiomatic that social relations must be analysed afresh every time. Which I think is what we are both saying? Your belief seems to be that THIS age, is some context, (what country are you talking about?) requires idealogical cleansing. Where and when?? (I have a grasp on "why" at this point).

What are these? Marx states:

If you look up the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire [[B]*1], you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it [Marx's italics--the original is zerbrechen], and this is the precondition for every real people's revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting."

Yep. Is your argument that violence is always necessary according to Marx or that it is contextual? Because if it the latter the you are arguing pointlessly. I have interpreted you arguments that priests must be hanged as vulgar Marxism because you say it is so.

For Marx, the "bureaucratic-military machine" CLEARLY refers to what he calls the new basis of the French state as a whole. In Marx's mind, at this time, which he was correct in assessing - this same 'machine', or an equivalent, was not present in the United States, or England, there were real democratic institutions that workers could use to see their ends through, or so it seemed. But much has changed not only over a hundred years after this, but after mere decades - there were transformative, qualitative changes in the character of these states, which a certain someone took note of. Of course, I am referring to Imperialism, AS DEFINED by Lenin, who I have been alluding to all this time, WHO RESPONDED TO THE SAME ACCUSATION which is just as relevant today to the abuse of Marx's statements out of context as it ever was:

Is your argument that Leninism is a logical continuation of Marxism? You could have just said so instead of arguing that you are a Marxist. Just say so and I will address it. easy :)

Also let me make sure I understand your other arguments as well:

The second one (after revolutionary violence is inevitable) is that atheism is inevitable? Is that correct? Just a yes or no will suffice! I haven't forgot about our dispute about vulgar Marxism / you being a reductionist, I just want to get to the bottom of this first.

Aslan

24th January 2016, 05:18

Anyone else think this conversation has been extremely drawn out?

Come on Rafiq, it's 12:30, go to bed.

Jacob Cliff

24th January 2016, 06:42

I've been casually watching this thread and from an observer's standpoint, I'd like to thank Red Red for being so despicably, willfully ignorant to allow explanations by other users that assist my understanding. Kudos to you, comrade.
But on a relevant note, and this is not meant to be critical: Rafiq, how do you have the time to write this much all the time? I certainly am not complaining, but I'm curious how much time is spent on this website.

Rafiq

24th January 2016, 07:26

So you wrote about 2000 words before you diverged from insulting me personally and alluded to something I said in my previous post. A lot of typing isn't it?

It doesn't matter that this is a lot of typing - because at the expense of everything else, Red Red Chile, I will continue this on for as long as I need to, but most importantly, I will defend the standards of discussion as they have, here, been established. What that means is that I WILL NOT allow the arguments at hand to be degraded to your level of stupidity, I will not allow arguments that are critically engaging, complex, and theoretical sophisticated to be dumbed the fuck down just because you insist on your ignorance. Your presence is poisonous on this forum, because you encourage and insist upon ignorance, thoughtlessness and uncritical "So, what's the problem bro?". So long as I am on this forum, I will first and foremost not let it be dumbed down intellectually, and secondly, I will not allow your disgusting filth to be passed off here as acceptable. This is a forum for radical leftists, your irk are not welcome. Until you are banned, you're going to have a hard time here, count on that.

If you were simply uninformed, but still practically inclined to be a Communist, who actually wanted to enrich their mind (which we were all at, at a point) then Rafiq would have gladly helped you (in a respectful, non-condescending and comradely manner). But you jumped on this forum, already quite content with your rabid philistinism and reactionary predispositions, clinging to them uncritically, and righteously insisting upon them . That is precisely what makes you a reactionary, and that's all there really is to the matter. This is why there will be no mercy for you.

This is a simple question. Can you answer it???

No, it's NOT a fucking simple question, because you are deliberatly abusing the use of certain - what is essentially now - phrases, in order to make it seem like it's ridiculous. "Does historical materialism say we have ot hang the priests" - this is how a philistine thinks, they have no notion of totality, and furthermore, you in particular are approaching the phrase in the wrong way. "Historical materialism" does not require anyone do any such certain, particular tactical measure, because historical materialism is not a set of tactical rules, you are simply mis-using words because in your mind you need to find equivalents to the philistinism of bourgeois ideology in Marxism. The fact that you think in such a juvenile way, ultimately demonstrates that you are either deliberately trolling, or you are insisting on your ignorance. The question is not whether "historical materialism requires" you to do anything, but whether destroying religion and subsequently killing priests (i.e. things like this) is a logical conclusion of Communism (as a real movement, not as some fantasy), necessarily inherent in the tradition of the radical Left. I claim it is, and I have expounded upon why in a very refined and sophisticated manner. I have also gone into detail about how REFUSING to acknowledge this, is of course anti-materialist. What have you given us?

"YES OR NO BRO? DOES HISTORICAL MATERIALISM CALL YOU ON THE PHONE AND TELL YOU TO HANG PRIESTS? YES OR NO, ITS SO SIMPLE BRO, ANSWER".

No, sorry, that's not how this works.

If your answer is going to deploy convoluted Freudo-Marxist reasoning, then admit it

Whether my arguments are informed by psychoanalysis is quite irrelevant to your responsibility to address them, you simply don't understand what such characterizations mean. INCIDENTALLY, yes, I belong to the tradition of western Marxism, heavily informed by Lacanian psychoanalysis, but this fact is not grounds for qualifying the content of my post BEFORE the use of reason, before actually addressing this content in a critical and thorough manner. What you fail to understand is that I recognize you are a reactionary philistine, an idealist, and quite potentially a Fascist. Yet, I don't have to absolve myself from critically engaging your arguments, because your 'reasoning' is different from mine.

We were talking about "vulgar Marxism" to begin with. I accused you of being a "vulgar Marxist".

And the fact that you accuse me of being a vulgar Marxist, IS SUPPOSED TO MEAN WHAT as far as the arguments are FUCKING concerned? I accuse you of first, having no notion of what vulgar Marxism actually means and the context that which it was used by Marxists in the past - but what you fail to even understand, because you are a formalist, an idealist and a bourgeois ideologue, is how an argument works - one notion leads to an other, every single argument I have presented is related to the other. There are no fucking parameters that define the contours of this debate, certainly not set or decided by Carlos-Marcos. And the fact of the matter, plainly, is that these are matters that are more complex than you may be comfortable with. Again, not my problem.

I will will discuss post-structuralist philosophy with you, as I said

Unless this is a typo, then no, you quite clearly fucking said you aren't going to go down the "rabbit hole" and confront the tradition that which Rafiq happens to belong to. You quite amply think like an anti-intellectual barbarian, who does not feel like it's necessary to justify his posts. And I quote:

I'm not going to jump down your rabbit hole where Althusser, Lacan, Marcuse and Zizek play in their toxic coterie of anti-thought

I'm happy to discuss these names with you. As long as we can agree they were not Marxists.

The qualifications for what constitutes being a Marxist are here unjustified. No, we don't fucking agree that they weren't Marxists - not only were they Marxists, THEY are pushing the very threshold of Marxism. The fact of the matter is that it is not a given that these were Marxists - the burden of you is to provide what qualifications you have for claiming these were not Marxists, I don't have to 'prove' shit, because all of these figures identify with Marxism, and I am fully capable of defending their grounding in Marxism. I can't simply do this, without any context of an accusation of their non-Marxism, because accusations that these individuals are not Marxists stem from accusations of idealism, to their allegedly 'creative' use of Marxism which strayed from the tradition. I can address every single one of these, but I will not waste time doing this, unless I am properly given the context of the assertion that these are not Marxists. What you fail to understand is what being a Marxist actually means. The Marxism you know of, is a bastardization of Orthodox Marxism - before then, there was no 'ironed out', clear and coherent tradition called Marxism, you simply had the views of Marx and Engels immersed in the context of 19th century Communism. This camp would not be sophisticated, 'ironed out' and given Orthodoxy until the second international, and subsequently from there, relating to the schisms that developed from it - which culminated into the Zimmerwald Left, which split into Leninism, to the Marxism-Leninsm with Stalinism, and then Western Marxism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Marxism), which was distinguished from Stalinism in that it was a successor to Marxism in that it was non-formalized (i.e. Lukacs), did not have to fit the particular private needs of the Soviet state which was undergoing a radical bourgeois revolution in the countryside, etc. - this "split" occurred, in clearer terms in the 1930's. The fact that these individuals were Marxists, is not controversial (perhaps besides Lacan, but he was thoroughly immersed in that context, i.e. even if he was not politically engaged, he was a Marxist in his specialized domain) - they were simply not the same kind of Marxists as others. Like the idea that Marxism since the time of Marx and Engels has remained static and confined to some cliche'd notion of a "base and superstructure", i.e. has not been elaborated beyond this, is so atrociously ignorant it is vomit worthy. The fact that you were unable to recognize an insistence on the necessity of destroying churches, outside of some simplistic 'base and superstructure' formula, resulted from your own ignorance, and nothing else. Not our problem, in other words, it's YOUR fucking problem.

Just like you, I will not shut up. I don't need t type so many words, because what I am saying is quite simple.

No, not just like me, because you attempt to get your last fucking word in for the sake of it - I do this, solely because I will not allow your filth to be tolerated on this forum, I put care, consideration and thought into my posts, you on the contrary give us half assed fucking sentences, and the minute the argument extends beyond the conventional philistinism of everyday "common sense", you run the fuck away, because you INSIST upon your ignorance, righteously. This is why, child, I've already picked up on the game which you so cleverly think is going to wear me down or repel me, you think that because your posts don't match mine, because I am regularly forced to make posts that are substantive and thorough, while you respond with a conglomeration of juvenile one-liners that I am eventually either going to give up, or make my posts shorter to the point where it is less tiring for me. But your'e simply wrong, I'm going to keep posting in the exact same way that I have been posting, I'm going to keep tearing each and every fucking word you use to fucking shreds, and this is simply not going to stop until you give up. The fact of the matter is that if you decide to do this, you need to put on some fucking big boy pants and start actually engaging the substance of my posts, which probably entails typing more words, which entails expressing yourself in a manner which is not simple, insofar as the topic of concern is not so simple. Like the notion that these processes are complex is beyond you, but what is particularly hilarious is the fact that YOU AT THE ONSET ACCUSE ME OF VULGAR MARXISM FOR ALLEGEDLY "SIMPLIFYING" "COMPLEX" THINGS (Which I DID NOT do, which was YOUR assumption stemming from your juvenile and simplistic conception of the 'base' and the 'superstructure'). The fact that your knee-jerk response, to my expounding upon these complex things in a very intricate and thorough manner shows just how full of shit you are - what you called 'complexity' was just another word for insisted mystery, something you do not actually think is knowable whatsoever. Your accusation of "vulgar Marxism" turned out to be totally fucking unjustified, ADMIT IT.

I want to ask you, though: do you think that you're longing to get your last word here? I mean by all means, respond to this, post away, but do you think, ultimately, I will not respond back no matter what?

But you diverge from the point in favour of Lacanian vapour so I keep trying to pull you back.

PULL ME BACK TO WHAT EXACTLY, IN YOUR MIND? What gives you the fucking RIGHT to this limitation, Marocs? Absolutely fucking nothing. The fact of the matter is that nowhere in the course of this discussion have I gotten off-topic, and the fact that Lacan (who influences every post I make on this forum) informs my posts, is no excuse for refusing to confront them in a substantive and appropriate manner. You accuse me of diverging from the point, and yet, you expect us to take your word for this. NOWHERE HAVE I FUCKING DIVERGED FROM THE POINT, that you are totally UNABLE to recognize that the implications of the 'points' you are trying to bring up extend far beyond what you are comfortable with knowing, is a problem that relates to your own ignorance, it is not mine. Effectively if you can't keep up with this, then you are in no position to even engage this discussion in the first place. That's okay though, because even though you have no right to this discussion whatsoever

how Lacan, inspired by Sigmund Freud, represents a logical continuation of Marx??

For the same FUCKING reason that I expounded upon when you abused a quote in particular by Engels, who basically said that not enough detail was poured into how ideology, how the reproduction of society is facilitated at a more detailed and 'micro' level. The point of Lacan, who was entirely faithful to Marx, was the elaboration of historical materialism into the psychological domain, continuing from Freud, who at the onset began the scientific discourse of the psychological, as this psychological pertained to the historical dimension. Lacan was not simply 'inspired' by Freud, he was a discipline of Freud, but because Freud was a bourgeois ideologue, he was never able to correctly articulate the implications of his findings, relate them to a wider paradigm of thought, and so on. One example of this is Freud's notion of death drive, and upon his discovery of death drive, he fell back into mysticism and nonsense, with "Eros" and "Thanatos". Another key point of difference was how Freud actually interpreted the psychological processes he was dealing with, which aside from the obvious mysticism, was often times articulated in terms of the biological - for Freud, for example, the phallus was literally the human, biological phallus, i.e. the category of the phallus for Freud was a logical conclusion of the existence of the human penis. For Lacan this was nonsense, the phallus was only significant as it pertained to the reproduction of sexuality under our present order, i.e. it was symbolic, it had nothing to do with the actual human penis. What you do not see, is the fact that the Marxist conception of ideology, before Lacan, is incomplete, because it refers to a set of processes that it does not go into detail expounding upon. Lacan did this. Lacan provided us the psychological discourse which provided the platform, for example, for the critique of ideology as was later employed by Althusser, etc. - so the point was taking Marxism to its most logical conclusion, because EVERY SINGLE domain that pertains to the social, that pertains to consciousness even, is a controversy that concerns Marxism. As Lenin said, Marxism is omnipotent because it is true, it is all encompassing, it is irreconcilable with any superstition, and finally, it is irreducible to the individual positions of Marxists as these are formalized, and yes - ossified and turned into dogmas. One basic example of this stupidty is how the context of Bolshevism, the positions of Lenin and Trotsky on a number of matters is totally ignored, so today, you have Leninists who claim that political struggle is obsolete, the minimal program, obsolete, and now the only thing left is revolution. This is a disastrously stupid notion. But we'll get to that later. Lacan was the application of Marx (and with him Hegel) to the psychological dimension. Lacan is important, because no one can properly make pretenses to the social without the psychological, as every Marxist recognized.

Ultimately, the point is I don't need to give you a lecture on Lacan, or anyone else. If you do not understand my posts, you're in no fucking position to qualify them in any way, to respond to them in a 'simplistic' manner or say 'blah, that's all garbage that is meaningless'. You simply admit your fucking ignorance and move on, end of story.

Using the word "ossifying' over and over does not give you reign to represent Marx in this post post modern fashion.

What is hilariously ironic about qualifying my "representation of Marx" in a "post post modern" fashion is the fact the only postmodern ideologue here, is you, Carlos-Marcos, you are patently and thoroughly a postmodern ideologue in every meaningful sense of the word, simply from your etiquette. This non-engagement with the controversy, this half-assedness, this insistence tacitly on being 'balanced' and not 'too engaged' like Rafiq isis totally a postmodern phenomena, it represents the logic of Western buddhism. Lacan was not a postmodernist, only Anglo-Saxon philistines blindly throw around this fucking term to designate anything that elaborates beyond the parameters of their 'common sense' philistinism as it pertains to the social domain. The fact of the matter is that postmodernism is above all a societal phenomena - it is an ideological phenomena, where postmodernism has a formal, theoretical basis, it is not really postmodernism as such, but a 'theoretical' postmodernism. But it doesn't matter, because Lacan does not fit either qualification. It's just, the way you use words like this just goes to show how fucking ignorant you are of the controversies as they pertain to Lacan - like what, Lacan, Althsuser, and get this - Marcuse (who only YOU have mentioned) are all postmodernists? HOW? Do you even know what postmodernism is, or do you talk out of your ass? It's like calling Frederic Jameson a postmodernist, it's literally so stupid it's almost funny. And what is so cute of you, is how you isolate the specific use of words, i.e. 'ossifying'. The fact that this phrase sounds erratic to you, means it must have some essential significance in how I justify 'representing' Marx. You don't care about what this word means in its specific context of course, it's just that "ossifying" sounds kinda funky, and that's all there needs to be on the mater. You talk about me going off topic, but what is hilariously ironic is that Rafiq giving Red Red Chile a fucking lecture on 100 years of Marxism would be getting off topic. That you are not familiar with this is irrelevant. If you can't even step up to CONFRONT these ideas, again, you have no reason to be here in the first place.

No, if Marx or Engels ever said that 'we shall hang priests' and such garbage i will admit that I am wrong.

As stated in the very same post, which you claim to have succinctly responded to:

Finally, when I say "we will hang priests", my point is that THE EQUIVALENT of doing this, as it OFFENDS your sensitivities will be done. What that means is, we might not hang any priest, but what we will do will be JUST AS SCARY, just as HORRIFYING and pathologically unbearable IN THE MIND of reactionaries like you, when we do this. We will do things similar to this, for reasons of propaganda in the spirit of revolutionary terror. A revolution is not a dinner party - a revolution is not some formal affair, a revolution is the VENGEANCE of the damned, exploited, it is the RIPPING APART of the violence which repressed them, it is VIOLENCE against all that which sustained the previous order, INCLUDING the priests. There can be no revolution otherwise - like do you even KNOW what a revolution is? Do you even know what the FAR REACHING implications of TRANSFORMING society, overthrowing the state, and TURNING SOCIETY ON ITS FUCKING HEAD are? You think this is some formal affair that will be live on Youtube? You think everyone will dress up, sign some fucking new constitution and then we will have a proletarian dictatorship? Or, more hilariously, you think that by parliamentary means it will be possible?

[...]

What is so beyond you is the fact that at the onset of any proletarian revolution, all the previous vestiges of superstition, most certainly the churches, the clergy, will be the first to oppose it. Your fear specifically of priests being hung, is what is of concern here, because this fear is pathological - for you have FAITH in what this priest represents, the superstition that reproduces our social order - you latch onto this, and the degree that which you identify with socialism, only goes as far as how able you are to reconcile this identity with ruling ideology.

Etc. etc.

But beyond that, the specific stupidity of your assertion revolves around two qualities: First, the fact of the matter is that qualifying what is true to the tradition of Marxism, has nothing to do with the direct words of Marx and Engels as such as the basis of Marxism - the point is the tradition they built and were immersed in through these words. Effectively, the reason why Marx and Engels did not say "we will hang the priests and such", has nothing to do with the fact that a recognition of this necessity was lacking, but because contextually they had no reason to say this - they weren't arguing with a petty bourgeois philistine like Red Red Chile who was defending the holy priests, they didn't have to say "We will hang the priests". This was simply a logical conclusion of any revolution, as far as what this term meant, at the time, from the actual context of the French revolution. The difference was that the connontations of the word "revolution" during this period, were quite different from today, where it is loosely thrown around to describe every yearly Iphone. A revolution was by nature already known to be such a bloody and 'scary' affair. Recall Engels who said "Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution?" - the point being, a revolution already implicitly means the killing of priests, or the pathological equivalent as this is 'scary' to you. It entails violence that is like that. I don't need to have direct quotations from Marx and Engels, to defend the notion that 'hanging priests' (the equivalent) is a logical conclusion of any Communist revolution, becasue the qualifications for arguing this point, are far more complex than a simple "yes or no", or a "sshow me where Marx and Engels stated this". Finally even if Marx and Engels did directly say this, you would opportunistically respond by saying "No one knows what they would think about the matter today".

Marx had no problem with revolutionary terror in 1948. He was referring to the revolutions of 1948.

This is why calling you a philistine is justified, because you insist on the notion that WE CAN'T KNOW why Marx thought this was necessary in 1848. WHAT were the qualifications for the necessity of terror at this period? They were quite clearly bound up with strong authoritarian states, states that lacked institutions which made peaceful transition possible. I went into great detail explaining why these institutions no longer exist today, and furthermore, explaining why on the contrary new ones have emerged which make any hope of the seizure of state power impossible. It is also owed to the fact that US society in particular, for example, is rife for polarization. That is because, as a result of technical advances, specialized work has become increasingly predominant to the point where there is room for polarization: The engineers of America, may be divided 50/50, the professors, 50/50, and so on, all sorts of proportions to this end owing to a number of factors. Class relations have remained capitalist, but their form is different in numerous ways: A very small proportion of the population actually produces value, and this population is actually quite 'privileged' in some ways compared to other workers (though this is not entirely true - for example, precarious workers in California who produce value), i.e. has things to lose. The class situation has always been quite different and complex. But the underlying point is: Society will be divided, and even if 80% of society is with us, that 20% is enough to beget revolutionary terror, even if there are only 1 million active combatants. Terror is necessary for the same reason a proletarian dictatorship, which entails the suppression of one class over the other, is necessary: This cannot be sustained without resistance that is also subsequently terror. All terror means is the instilling of mass fear. If the enemy does not fear you, they will attempt to devour you. That's it.

Whether he would have had problems with revolutionary terror now is something nobody knows

Whether Marx would have lost faith in Communism, whether Marx would have become a heroin addict, whether Marx would have done anything today is something no one knows, because that's totally arbitrary and completely fucking irrelevant. The point is to be the equivalent of what Marx was FOR HIS TIME, what we are FOR OUR time. Marx's significance does not belong to himself as an individual, but to his contribution to the tradition beyond us all. So in saying that "nobody knows this", you are speaking pure nonsense, because of course "nobody knows". But if Marx remained consistent, remained a Communist, YES, he WOULD have recognized it was necessary today, because it is sheer inconsistency in thinking that terror was necessary in 1848 alone, but not otherwise. Marx had an epistemological break, but nothing about this break indicated a difference in morality - on the contrary, Marx and Engels became even more sharply anti-moralistic. When someone confronted Marx in his very late years with the question of "what about morality", Marx roared in laughter. Nothing about our present predicimant suggests that revolutionary terror is unnecessary, and it's that simple. I've already explained why.

Your belief seems to be that THIS age, is some context, (what country are you talking about?) requires idealogical cleansing. Where and when?? (I have a grasp on "why" at this point).

This age, just as the age of imperialism, IS a new context that needs to be qualified. There is no such thing as an "ideological cleansing" - the ideas of Communism and Marxism need to 'keep up' with changes, they don't need to be 'cleansed' as such, they need to be in motion insofar as concrete circumstances are in motion, and they always are. Not 'changing' ones analysis is incidental, all it means is that conditions have not properly changed. The age of the Communist manifesto, and the age of the late 19th century were also different contexts, which is why there is a difference between young and older Marx. The notion of '"ideological cleansing" is totally ridiculous - what are you even talking about? Communism doesn't come from your ass, it comes from the contradictions of each new epoch as they need to be accentuated. Communism is only relevant, as it is relevant for the social antagonisms of 2016, and with it Marxism. That is why it is a TRADITION, one that is altered and changed - but there is an essential substance which remains, which endures and lives on, which is the consistency in how it is approximated to each according epoch of capitalism. What country? in an age of an even more globalized world, what are YOU talking about, "what country"? EVERY country, my god.

Yep. Is your argument that violence is always necessary according to Marx or that it is contextual?

Violence is always necessary, not because it is written in the cosmos, but because INCIDENTALLY it is always necessary in a revolutionary situation. Perhaps in Britain in 1871, it may have not been necessary, it could have been peaceful owing to specific institutions in place. Those institutions can no longer be vehicles for revolutionary change, if they even exist in any meaningful sense, the point you are missing is that: The kings of europe did not represent feudalism as such, but as Lenin noted, capitalism - just in a different form. Capitalism had been present for hundreds of years, and industrial capitalism was simply a qualitative kind of capitalism. Even the serfdom in pre-revolutionary france was in nature capitalist, it simply was an impediment to capitalist growth. I claim that capitalism does not inherently need democracy to survive, and that this is the trend of society today, to revert to counter-enlightenment state formation. So if violence was necessary in continental Europe at that time, it is also necessary today (increased centralization, sophistication of power, ESPECIALLY in response to reform movements). Society today is sustained by violence. Insofar as society is sustained by violence, it must be violently uprooted. It is basic logic.

Is your argument that Leninism is a logical continuation of Marxism? You could have just said so instead of arguing that you are a Marxist.

And this is precisely what is meant by your basic stupidity, the fact that you uncritically assume, as a given, that Leninism and Lenin are synonymous. This is why it staggers beyond belief why you have the confidence to even post in the first place - if only you knew how STUPID you look. But nevermind this. The fact of the matter is that your hollow phrase-mongering dodges the fucking argument - it is irrelevant that Lenin is the one saying this, for it could be anyone saying this and the argument at hand is just as true: namely, qualitative changes in the nature of the American and British states disallow for the same peaceful transition Marx talked about, for very clear reasons - Marx recognized that because of the growth of a strong military-bureaucracy in France, the state had to be crushed, rather than assumed by revolutionaries. This same type of bureaucratic formation occurred in Britain and the United States. And I didn't even stop at Lenin - I went into minor detail about why certain developments beyond this make the use of revolutionary terror necessary, which relate to an emerging kind of neo-feudalism and emerging counter-enlightenment tendency in capitalism for reasons that I grounded very thoroughly in specific material developments. This is why terror is ESPECIALLY necessary in the 21st century, the re-assertion of modernism must make use of both the guillotine as well as the leather-claden Bolsheviks with revolvers all the same. A proletarian revolution, would simultaneously be the re-assertion of the enlightenment, of modernism as WELL as its supersession.

You ignored this though, because your 'succinct" one-liners were in your mind enough to assess the substance of my post.

Just say so and I will address it. easy :)

You're free to think that, what will you do, talk about the 'revisions' Lenin made, or the fact that Lenin may have disagreed with Marx on a certain number of points? The whole point of the fucking dialectic is that the only way for something to survive, is for it to change. In effect, changing Marxism by re-approximating it to new circumstances, is the only way to keep the spirit of Marxism alive. But even then, no one is talking about the infallibility of anyone - Lenin was faulty in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, and someone could have pointed that out even when they were both alive. This is a basic Hegelian logic, one that is not even particularly difficult to grasp for Marxists. The world is not static, it is always in motion. That doesn't mean "Oh, you never know, let's just be agnostics", it simply means that the basis of our assertion that, for example, we will permanently destroy all superstition, is regularly reproduced and not simply some static dogma. The point of dialectical reasoning is simple: Nothing 'exists' to itself, everything exists only because, for arbitrary reasons, it is able to reproduce itself. When something is unable to reproduce itself, we have a word for that - catastrophe (i.e. such as a mutation that changes a species). This is why your logic, for something who pretends to know how Marxists think, is quite bafflingly juvenile.

Just a yes or no will suffice!

No child, we aren't in a 4th grade classroom, a yes or no will not suffice, because I am critically evaluating what these answers potentially mean to you in the first place. You don't get to make that a given. I have thoroughly already gone into detial about the relationship between atheism and Communism, their synonymy, I have done this so thoroughly and intricately that the idea that I need to repeat myself in 4th grade terms, means you're not equipped to actually address the topics of concern, not with Rafiq at least. What you are attempting to do, with your filthy idealism, is yes - OSSIFY a set of 'rules', dogmas, that posses the same formal level of meaning as a mathematics equation. I'm not going to give you a set of ontological rules written in the cosmos, what I have already done is explain to you a number of things, in terms that can be rationally explainable, thoroughly elaborated and explained. "Why is violence inevitable" is an irrelevant question to this end, because it's not because it's written in the cosmos that violence is inevitable, for example, as I stated, it is because of the nature of violence in our present, existing order and what this means for its overthrow.

Red Red Chile

26th January 2016, 04:30

It doesn't matter that this is a lot of typing - because at the expense of everything else, Red Red Chile, I will continue this on for as long as I need to, but most importantly, I will defend the standards of discussion as they have, here, been established. What that means is that I WILL NOT allow the arguments at hand to be degraded to your level of stupidity, I will not allow arguments that are critically engaging, complex, and theoretical sophisticated to be dumbed the fuck down just because you insist on your ignorance. Your presence is poisonous on this forum, because you encourage and insist upon ignorance, thoughtlessness and uncritical

PULL ME BACK TO WHAT EXACTLY, IN YOUR MIND? What gives you the fucking RIGHT to this limitation, Marocs? Absolutely fucking nothing. The fact of the matter is that nowhere in the course of this discussion have I gotten off-topic, and the fact that Lacan (who influences every post I make on this forum) informs my posts, is no excuse for refusing to confront them in a substantive and appropriate manner. You accuse me of diverging from the point, and yet, you expect us to take your word for this. NOWHERE HAVE I FUCKING DIVERGED FROM THE POINT, that you are totally UNABLE to recognize that the implications of the 'points' you are trying to bring up extend far beyond what you are comfortable with knowing, is a problem that relates to your own ignorance, it is not mine. Effectively if you can't keep up with this, then you are in no position to even engage this discussion in the first place. That's okay though, because even though you have no right to this discussion whatsoever

For the same FUCKING reason that I expounded upon when you abused a quote in particular by Engels, who basically said that not enough detail was poured into how ideology, how the reproduction of society is facilitated at a more detailed and 'micro' level. The point of Lacan, who was entirely faithful to Marx, was the elaboration of historical materialism into the psychological domain, continuing from Freud, who at the onset began the scientific discourse of the psychological, as this psychological pertained to the historical dimension. Lacan was not simply 'inspired' by Freud, he was a discipline of Freud, but because Freud was a bourgeois ideologue, he was never able to correctly articulate the implications of his findings, relate them to a wider paradigm of thought, and so on. One example of this is Freud's notion of death drive, and upon his discovery of death drive, he fell back into mysticism and nonsense, with "Eros" and "Thanatos". Another key point of difference was how Freud actually interpreted the psychological processes he was dealing with, which aside from the obvious mysticism, was often times articulated in terms of the biological - for Freud, for example, the phallus was literally the human, biological phallus, i.e. the category of the phallus for Freud was a logical conclusion of the existence of the human penis. For Lacan this was nonsense, the phallus was only significant as it pertained to the reproduction of sexuality under our present order, i.e. it was symbolic, it had nothing to do with the actual human penis. What you do not see, is the fact that the Marxist conception of ideology, before Lacan, is incomplete, because it refers to a set of processes that it does not go into detail expounding upon. Lacan did this. Lacan provided us the psychological discourse which provided the platform, for example, for the critique of ideology as was later employed by Althusser, etc. - so the point was taking Marxism to its most logical conclusion, because EVERY SINGLE domain that pertains to the social, that pertains to consciousness even, is a controversy that concerns Marxism. As Lenin said, Marxism is omnipotent because it is true, it is all encompassing, it is irreconcilable with any superstition, and finally, it is irreducible to the individual positions of Marxists as these are formalized, and yes - ossified and turned into dogmas. One basic example of this stupidty is how the context of Bolshevism, the positions of Lenin and Trotsky on a number of matters is totally ignored, so today, you have Leninists who claim that political struggle is obsolete, the minimal program, obsolete, and now the only thing left is revolution. This is a disastrously stupid notion. But we'll get to that later. Lacan was the application of Marx (and with him Hegel) to the psychological dimension. Lacan is important, because no one can properly make pretenses to the social without the psychological, as every Marxist recognized.

Ultimately, the point is I don't need to give you a lecture on Lacan, or anyone else. If you do not understand my posts, you're in no fucking position to qualify them in any way, to respond to them in a 'simplistic' manner or say 'blah, that's all garbage that is meaningless'. You simply admit your fucking ignorance and move on, end of story.

What is hilariously ironic about qualifying my "representation of Marx" in a "post post modern" fashion is the fact the only postmodern ideologue here, is you, Carlos-Marcos, you are patently and thoroughly a postmodern ideologue in every meaningful sense of the word, simply from your etiquette. This non-engagement with the controversy, this half-assedness, this insistence tacitly on being 'balanced' and not 'too engaged' like Rafiq isis totally a postmodern phenomena, it represents the logic of Western buddhism. Lacan was not a postmodernist, only Anglo-Saxon philistines blindly throw around this fucking term to designate anything that elaborates beyond the parameters of their 'common sense' philistinism as it pertains to the social domain. The fact of the matter is that postmodernism is above all a societal phenomena - it is an ideological phenomena, where postmodernism has a formal, theoretical basis, it is not really postmodernism as such, but a 'theoretical' postmodernism. But it doesn't matter, because Lacan does not fit either qualification. It's just, the way you use words like this just goes to show how fucking ignorant you are of the controversies as they pertain to Lacan - like what, Lacan, Althsuser, and get this - Marcuse (who only YOU have mentioned) are all postmodernists? HOW? Do you even know what postmodernism is, or do you talk out of your ass? It's like calling Frederic Jameson a postmodernist, it's literally so stupid it's almost funny. And what is so cute of you, is how you isolate the specific use of words, i.e. 'ossifying'. The fact that this phrase sounds erratic to you, means it must have some essential significance in how I justify 'representing' Marx. You don't care about what this word means in its specific context of course, it's just that "ossifying" sounds kinda funky, and that's all there needs to be on the mater. You talk about me going off topic, but what is hilariously ironic is that Rafiq giving Red Red Chile a fucking lecture on 100 years of Marxism would be getting off topic. That you are not familiar with this is irrelevant. If you can't even step up to CONFRONT these ideas, again, you have no reason to be here in the first place.

As stated in the very same post, which you claim to have succinctly responded to:

Finally, when I say "we will hang priests", my point is that THE EQUIVALENT of doing this, as it OFFENDS your sensitivities will be done. What that means is, we might not hang any priest, but what we will do will be JUST AS SCARY, just as HORRIFYING and pathologically unbearable IN THE MIND of reactionaries like you, when we do this. We will do things similar to this, for reasons of propaganda in the spirit of revolutionary terror. A revolution is not a dinner party - a revolution is not some formal affair, a revolution is the VENGEANCE of the damned, exploited, it is the RIPPING APART of the violence which repressed them, it is VIOLENCE against all that which sustained the previous order, INCLUDING the priests. There can be no revolution otherwise - like do you even KNOW what a revolution is? Do you even know what the FAR REACHING implications of TRANSFORMING society, overthrowing the state, and TURNING SOCIETY ON ITS FUCKING HEAD are? You think this is some formal affair that will be live on Youtube? You think everyone will dress up, sign some fucking new constitution and then we will have a proletarian dictatorship? Or, more hilariously, you think that by parliamentary means it will be possible?

[...]

What is so beyond you is the fact that at the onset of any proletarian revolution, all the previous vestiges of superstition, most certainly the churches, the clergy, will be the first to oppose it. Your fear specifically of priests being hung, is what is of concern here, because this fear is pathological - for you have FAITH in what this priest represents, the superstition that reproduces our social order - you latch onto this, and the degree that which you identify with socialism, only goes as far as how able you are to reconcile this identity with ruling ideology.

Etc. etc.

But beyond that, the specific stupidity of your assertion revolves around two qualities: First, the fact of the matter is that qualifying what is true to the tradition of Marxism, has nothing to do with the direct words of Marx and Engels as such as the basis of Marxism - the point is the tradition they built and were immersed in through these words. Effectively, the reason why Marx and Engels did not say "we will hang the priests and such", has nothing to do with the fact that a recognition of this necessity was lacking, but because contextually they had no reason to say this - they weren't arguing with a petty bourgeois philistine like Red Red Chile who was defending the holy priests, they didn't have to say "We will hang the priests". This was simply a logical conclusion of any revolution, as far as what this term meant, at the time, from the actual context of the French revolution. The difference was that the connontations of the word "revolution" during this period, were quite different from today, where it is loosely thrown around to describe every yearly Iphone. A revolution was by nature already known to be such a bloody and 'scary' affair. Recall Engels who said "Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution?" - the point being, a revolution already implicitly means the killing of priests, or the pathological equivalent as this is 'scary' to you. It entails violence that is like that. I don't need to have direct quotations from Marx and Engels, to defend the notion that 'hanging priests' (the equivalent) is a logical conclusion of any Communist revolution, becasue the qualifications for arguing this point, are far more complex than a simple "yes or no", or a "sshow me where Marx and Engels stated this". Finally even if Marx and Engels did directly say this, you would opportunistically respond by saying "No one knows what they would think about the matter today".

This is why calling you a philistine is justified, because you insist on the notion that WE CAN'T KNOW why Marx thought this was necessary in 1848. WHAT were the qualifications for the necessity of terror at this period? They were quite clearly bound up with strong authoritarian states, states that lacked institutions which made peaceful transition possible. I went into great detail explaining why these institutions no longer exist today, and furthermore, explaining why on the contrary new ones have emerged which make any hope of the seizure of state power impossible. It is also owed to the fact that US society in particular, for example, is rife for polarization. That is because, as a result of technical advances, specialized work has become increasingly predominant to the point where there is room for polarization: The engineers of America, may be divided 50/50, the professors, 50/50, and so on, all sorts of proportions to this end owing to a number of factors. Class relations have remained capitalist, but their form is different in numerous ways: A very small proportion of the population actually produces value, and this population is actually quite 'privileged' in some ways compared to other workers (though this is not entirely true - for example, precarious workers in California who produce value), i.e. has things to lose. The class situation has always been quite different and complex. But the underlying point is: Society will be divided, and even if 80% of society is with us, that 20% is enough to beget revolutionary terror, even if there are only 1 million active combatants. Terror is necessary for the same reason a proletarian dictatorship, which entails the suppression of one class over the other, is necessary: This cannot be sustained without resistance that is also subsequently terror. All terror means is the instilling of mass fear. If the enemy does not fear you, they will attempt to devour you. That's it.

Whether Marx would have lost faith in Communism, whether Marx would have become a heroin addict, whether Marx would have done anything today is something no one knows, because that's totally arbitrary and completely fucking irrelevant. The point is to be the equivalent of what Marx was FOR HIS TIME, what we are FOR OUR time. Marx's significance does not belong to himself as an individual, but to his contribution to the tradition beyond us all. So in saying that "nobody knows this", you are speaking pure nonsense, because of course "nobody knows". But if Marx remained consistent, remained a Communist, YES, he WOULD have recognized it was necessary today, because it is sheer inconsistency in thinking that terror was necessary in 1848 alone, but not otherwise. Marx had an epistemological break, but nothing about this break indicated a difference in morality - on the contrary, Marx and Engels became even more sharply anti-moralistic. When someone confronted Marx in his very late years with the question of "what about morality", Marx roared in laughter. Nothing about our present predicimant suggests that revolutionary terror is unnecessary, and it's that simple. I've already explained why.

This age, just as the age of imperialism, IS a new context that needs to be qualified. There is no such thing as an "ideological cleansing" - the ideas of Communism and Marxism need to 'keep up' with changes, they don't need to be 'cleansed' as such, they need to be in motion insofar as concrete circumstances are in motion, and they always are. Not 'changing' ones analysis is incidental, all it means is that conditions have not properly changed. The age of the Communist manifesto, and the age of the late 19th century were also different contexts, which is why there is a difference between young and older Marx. The notion of '"ideological cleansing" is totally ridiculous - what are you even talking about? Communism doesn't come from your ass, it comes from the contradictions of each new epoch as they need to be accentuated. Communism is only relevant, as it is relevant for the social antagonisms of 2016, and with it Marxism. That is why it is a TRADITION, one that is altered and changed - but there is an essential substance which remains, which endures and lives on, which is the consistency in how it is approximated to each according epoch of capitalism. What country? in an age of an even more globalized world, what are YOU talking about, "what country"? EVERY country, my god.

Violence is always necessary, not because it is written in the cosmos, but because INCIDENTALLY it is always necessary in a revolutionary situation. Perhaps in Britain in 1871, it may have not been necessary, it could have been peaceful owing to specific institutions in place. Those institutions can no longer be vehicles for revolutionary change, if they even exist in any meaningful sense, the point you are missing is that: The kings of europe did not represent feudalism as such, but as Lenin noted, capitalism - just in a different form. Capitalism had been present for hundreds of years, and industrial capitalism was simply a qualitative kind of capitalism. Even the serfdom in pre-revolutionary france was in nature capitalist, it simply was an impediment to capitalist growth. I claim that capitalism does not inherently need democracy to survive, and that this is the trend of society today, to revert to counter-enlightenment state formation. So if violence was necessary in continental Europe at that time, it is also necessary today (increased centralization, sophistication of power, ESPECIALLY in response to reform movements). Society today is sustained by violence. Insofar as society is sustained by violence, it must be violently uprooted. It is basic logic.

And this is precisely what is meant by your basic stupidity, the fact that you uncritically assume, as a given, that Leninism and Lenin are synonymous. This is why it staggers beyond belief why you have the confidence to even post in the first place - if only you knew how STUPID you look. But nevermind this. The fact of the matter is that your hollow phrase-mongering dodges the fucking argument - it is irrelevant that Lenin is the one saying this, for it could be anyone saying this and the argument at hand is just as true: namely, qualitative changes in the nature of the American and British states disallow for the same peaceful transition Marx talked about, for very clear reasons - Marx recognized that because of the growth of a strong military-bureaucracy in France, the state had to be crushed, rather than assumed by revolutionaries. This same type of bureaucratic formation occurred in Britain and the United States. And I didn't even stop at Lenin - I went into minor detail about why certain developments beyond this make the use of revolutionary terror necessary, which relate to an emerging kind of neo-feudalism and emerging counter-enlightenment tendency in capitalism for reasons that I grounded very thoroughly in specific material developments. This is why terror is ESPECIALLY necessary in the 21st century, the re-assertion of modernism must make use of both the guillotine as well as the leather-claden Bolsheviks with revolvers all the same. A proletarian revolution, would simultaneously be the re-assertion of the enlightenment, of modernism as WELL as its supersession.

You ignored this though, because your 'succinct" one-liners were in your mind enough to assess the substance of my post.

You're free to think that, what will you do, talk about the 'revisions' Lenin made, or the fact that Lenin may have disagreed with Marx on a certain number of points? The whole point of the fucking dialectic is that the only way for something to survive, is for it to change. In effect, changing Marxism by re-approximating it to new circumstances, is the only way to keep the spirit of Marxism alive. But even then, no one is talking about the infallibility of anyone - Lenin was faulty in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, and someone could have pointed that out even when they were both alive. This is a basic Hegelian logic, one that is not even particularly difficult to grasp for Marxists. The world is not static, it is always in motion. That doesn't mean "Oh, you never know, let's just be agnostics", it simply means that the basis of our assertion that, for example, we will permanently destroy all superstition, is regularly reproduced and not simply some static dogma. The point of dialectical reasoning is simple: Nothing 'exists' to itself, everything exists only because, for arbitrary reasons, it is able to reproduce itself. When something is unable to reproduce itself, we have a word for that - catastrophe (i.e. such as a mutation that changes a species). This is why your logic, for something who pretends to know how Marxists think, is quite bafflingly juvenile.

No child, we aren't in a 4th grade classroom, a yes or no will not suffice, because I am critically evaluating what these answers potentially mean to you in the first place. You don't get to make that a given. I have thoroughly already gone into detial about the relationship between atheism and Communism, their synonymy, I have done this so thoroughly and intricately that the idea that I need to repeat myself in 4th grade terms, means you're not equipped to actually address the topics of concern, not with Rafiq at least. What you are attempting to do, with your filthy idealism, is yes - OSSIFY a set of 'rules', dogmas, that posses the same formal level of meaning as a mathematics equation. I'm not going to give you a set of ontological rules written in the cosmos, what I have already done is explain to you a number of things, in terms that can be rationally explainable, thoroughly elaborated and explained. "Why is violence inevitable" is an irrelevant question to this end, because it's not because it's written in the cosmos that violence is inevitable, for example, as I stated, it is because of the nature of violence in our present, existing order and what this means for its overthrow.

Ha. Well I'm pretty sure we are both degrading the forum – me by indulging you, and you just by being you. If I'm having a hard time, It's only because it's time consuming to read through all your rhetoric to find your point. Funnily enough if one just lets you rant for long enough you eventually admit what I wanted you to anyway. You are not a Marxist. But at least I've gotten to the bottom of you after pages and pages of rhetoric and convoluted reasoning:. The philosophical wasteland that is (or was) The Frankfurt School. Now it's known that “critical theory”, can be used to argue just about anything. I mean take Giles Deluze for example, who positively delighted in reinterpreting, or 'buggering”, as he so wonderfully put it, philosophers to achieve wildly different meanings to what they intended. So you claim that “there is no such thing as Marxism” or Leninism is not, in fact, the words and actions of Vladimir Lenin (as though it could reasonably be considered anything else.) We already have it established that whether or not violence is required is contingent circumstances. So we don't need to carry on with that. BTW, what was meant by “never deigned to say such things” was not that violence would never be part of a revolution. It is trivial that violence must be part of a revolution. There is no peaceful way to defeat a counterrevolution after all. What I was getting at was that neither Marx nor Engels proposed the pathetic notion of violence for the mere sake of it. As for the Leninism you've been 'alluding to this whole time”. Well it's trivial that he advocated violent revolution. He administered it, after all. It's worth noting, though, that what he advocated was much more practical than your notions of ideological cleansing; Take massacring the Romanov family for instance. This was only done after it emerged (or he was led to believe), that Nicholas II was conspiring with the Germans to defeat the revolution. Prior to that they were being fed and housed in relative comfort, for heaven's sake. The only violence that could be regarded as excessive under Lenin's leadership was in suppressing Kulak insurrections. Not justified in any case in my view, but all the same it was nothing as tyrannical as hanging people for thought crimes. And no, it doesn't 'offend my sensibilities'. I just think it's pathetic. Thanks for betraying that your underlying need to gain attention though.

Getting back to the accusation of “vulgar Marxism”. I was wrong. Its probably because in my experience when people argue that theism is impossible or that communism is inevitable, that is the reason why. But I have no problem with being wrong. You ramblings are now in their proper context (postmodern quackery) and that is fine with me. I feel like my work is done.

Red Red Chile

26th January 2016, 04:43

I've been casually watching this thread and from an observer's standpoint, I'd like to thank Red Red for being so despicably, willfully ignorant to allow explanations by other users that assist my understanding. Kudos to you, comrade.

No problem! You might be interested in Zizek, too. He likes to say controversial things, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qhk8az8K-Y

Rafiq

26th January 2016, 06:55

Let's make one thing clear, Chile - stop FUCKING pretending like this discussion has been concluded, we all know you're full of shit, we all know that what you call "your work" is far from being done - indeed, it is blatantly fucking obvious that you can't tolerate not having your last word in. THIS is your NEW fucking profession, THIS, THIS is what you direct from now on all of your energy on. How do you reconcile this, however? instead of FUCKING responding to the post at hand, you make pretenses to bringing this discussion to a close, unegaged, as though you are in the third person. And I know exactly why - so intricately and powerfully have I crushed you, so humiliated and degraded do you feel, that at this point you're going to try and make pretenses to 'concluding' this discussion in a seemingly unengaged, neutral way. The reality is that in fact you are attempting to slip the EXACT SAME FUCKING ARGUMENTS which I have thoroughly demolished and destroyed, passive aggressively, because you can't actually own up to the responsibility of addressing these arguments in a head on manner. In your attempt, your failed attempt at summarizing this discussion, you attempt to redeem arguments without feeling responsible for actually defending them in a manner which directly confronts the arguments at hand - you PATHETICALLY fucking think this SHIT is going to slide, child?

You fucking THINK that this is going to conclude the discussion? You THINK I'm going to let you get away with this? Somehow, you THINK that I am not going to respond? Do you literally sit to yourself, in your head, and say "Rafiq is just going to brush this one off, he's not going to respond". I AM going to respond, even if it takes my whole life as of now, I am going to never, never allow you to have your last fucking word. But you know what, because I know for a fact that you are going to respond to this, because you feel so fucking degraded and humiliated, I am going to savior this:

and that is fine with me. I feel like my work is done

So from this point on, I'm going to use this little post of yours to expose indefinitely the utter fucking intellectual dishonesty on your part: because I KNOW FOR A FACT that you are going to reply to this post, I KNOW FOR A FACT that you are going to, again, try and get your last word into this. This much has already been established, and the very nature of this little post of your shows that. Because, really, what the FUCK have you given us here? You attempt to make a post summarizing how you want to conclude the discussion, but in this very same post, you passive aggressively and indirectly attempt to bring back the SAME ARGUMENTS which I have DESTROYED and TORN to fucking pieces over and over again. What does that say about you? It sais that you are unable to cope with your defeat, it shows that far from feeling like you have resolved the discussion, you have deluded yourself to the point where you think you can just, like a BROKEN fucking record, keep re-hashing the same arguments over and over again, as though saying them as though they are a given, as though you are actually successfully deflecting my arguments, is going to redeem them.

Not so, child, I don't care what your post looks like. Even if your post is so long that it takes me 2 weeks to respond, or even if it is so short that it takes me 20 minutes, it doesn't matter, because so long as you attempt to assert your arguments, I will be here to knock you the fuck down. Be sure of that. So far I have kept my promise, but Red Red Chile, who has insinuated he is "done" with this discussion, IS ABOUT TO SHOWED EVERYONE what a FUCKING LIAR he is.

Ladies and gentlemen, let this be a testament to both Red Red Chile's sense of self-control as well as his intellectual honesty: I claim he is going to respond to this post, even though he has insinuated that he is "finished" with this discussion. Just watch.

Let's begin:

If I'm having a hard time, It's only because it's time consuming to read through all your rhetoric to find your point

YOU ARE NOT IN A FUCKING POSITION TO DEFINE THE PARAMTERS OF WHAT PROPERLY CONSTITUTES MY "POINT". In other words, your PRETENSE to distinguishing my "rhetoric" and my "point", IS AN UNJUSTIFIED, UNCORROBORATED, AND EVEN UNELABORATED ONE. So you are, in effect, LITERALLY JUST TALKING SHIT by saying this. The fact of the matter is that there is not an IOTA of rhetoric in my post, where it concerns the essential points at hand, EVERY SINGLE WORD I am using revolves around a greater point, EVERY SINGLE PHRASE AND SENTENCE IS PIVOTAL and JUST AS NECESSARY as the next in construing the point I am making at hand. That the point I am making is too complex for your to fathom, either out of pure stupidity, an insistence on ignorance or laziness (which is all quite the same thing, actually) is NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM. In other words, the standards for what constitutes a "point" on your terms, are bellow those as they have been established by this discussion, the fact that you cannot wrap your head around the fact that I HAVE PRODUCED ACTUAL COUNTER-ARGUMENTS, and furthermore, that you cannot understand these counter-arguments, means that AGAIN you are not FUCKING equipped to engage in this discussion in the first place.

Funnily enough if one just lets you rant for long enough you eventually admit what I wanted you to anyway. You are not a Marxist.

Let's use actual FUCKING empirical evidence to evaluate whether, on properly defined and defended qualifications, Rafiq has "admitted' he is not a Marxist:

The qualifications for what constitutes being a Marxist are here unjustified. No, we don't fucking agree that they weren't Marxists - not only were they Marxists, THEY are pushing the very threshold of Marxism. The fact of the matter is that it is not a given that these were Marxists - the burden of you is to provide what qualifications you have for claiming these were not Marxists, I don't have to 'prove' shit, because all of these figures identify with Marxism, and I am fully capable of defending their grounding in Marxism. I can't simply do this, without any context of an accusation of their non-Marxism, because accusations that these individuals are not Marxists stem from accusations of idealism, to their allegedly 'creative' use of Marxism which strayed from the tradition. I can address every single one of these, but I will not waste time doing this, unless I am properly given the context of the assertion that these are not Marxists. What you fail to understand is what being a Marxist actually means. The Marxism you know of, is a bastardization of Orthodox Marxism - before then, there was no 'ironed out', clear and coherent tradition called Marxism, you simply had the views of Marx and Engels immersed in the context of 19th century Communism. This camp would not be sophisticated, 'ironed out' and given Orthodoxy until the second international, and subsequently from there, relating to the schisms that developed from it - which culminated into the Zimmerwald Left, which split into Leninism, to the Marxism-Leninsm with Stalinism, and then Western Marxism, which was distinguished from Stalinism in that it was a successor to Marxism in that it was non-formalized (i.e. Lukacs), did not have to fit the particular private needs of the Soviet state which was undergoing a radical bourgeois revolution in the countryside, etc. - this "split" occurred, in clearer terms in the 1930's. The fact that these individuals were Marxists, is not controversial (perhaps besides Lacan, but he was thoroughly immersed in that context, i.e. even if he was not politically engaged, he was a Marxist in his specialized domain) - they were simply not the same kind of Marxists as others. Like the idea that Marxism since the time of Marx and Engels has remained static and confined to some cliche'd notion of a "base and superstructure", i.e. has not been elaborated beyond this, is so atrociously ignorant it is vomit worthy. The fact that you were unable to recognize an insistence on the necessity of destroying churches, outside of some simplistic 'base and superstructure' formula, resulted from your own ignorance, and nothing else. Not our problem, in other words, it's YOUR fucking problem.

Put it this way: Red Red Chile has already made up in his FUCKING mind, as though this is uncontroversial, that the tradition that which informs Rafiq's post is alien to Marxism. As though he as abstracted himself from the parameters of this discussion, he thinks that it is simply a matter of whether Rafiq confirms - or rejects, his immersion in a tradition that Red Red Chile axiomatically assumes to be outside the tradition of Marxism. Yet he not only does he not define the proper qualifications for what it means to be a Marxist and defend this, HE DOES NOT EVEN INSINUATE THAT THIS IS A CONTROVERSIAL MANNER - IN HIS MIND, THIS IS A FUCKING GIVEN, SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING CONTROVERSIAL. Rafiq, on the other hand, can very clearly define what Marxism means and what qualifies one's immersion in the general tradition of Marxism, which, as stated by Marx and Engels' themselves, presumes no empirical dogmas, no set of ossified formal 'rules', but entails a RELATION, a PRACTICAL relation to real concrete processes, with absolutely no room for superstition, etc. - in other words, Marxism is a tradition which refers to nothing more than consciousness of social processes. Because social processes are complex, the intricacies of these social processes as they concern matters of the psychological dimension, as it concerns ideological processes, WHICH ENGELS DIRECTLY STATED HE AND MARX DID NOT ALLOT ENOUGH TIME TO, the tradition of Western Marxism, AS IT IS ACTUALLY FUCKING CALLED, is fully justified in being Marxist - it simply is elaborating the reach of the tradition of Marxism as was the point to begin with. But more succinctly, the fact of the matter is that there is already a fucking Wikipedia page for "Western Marxism", which means, it's not like Rafiq is making up the fucking word, it is a genuinely defined, real existing and identifiable tradition. Therefore, it is NOT a given that these are traditions somehow outside of Marxism, the argumentative burden of proof is UPON YOU and YOU alone to justify why "Rafiq is not a Marxist". Because Rafiq does not conform to the juvenile, high school American textbook strawman you conflate with the tradition of Marxism, is not my fucking problem, it revolves around YOUR OWN FUCKING INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND MARXISM, WHICH I HAVE DEFENDED IN AN ELABORATE, INTRICATE AND DETAILED MANNER COUNTLESS AND COUNTLESS FUCKING TIMES OVER IN PREVIOUS POSTS. Posts which YOU DID NOT EVEN FUCKING ADDRESS, or REPLY to. You come here and FUCKING say, so casually, that "You are no Marxist", WHERE DO YOU GET THE FUCKING CONFIDENCE TO TALK SHIT LIKE THIS? You haven't even FUCKING come CLOSE to addressing any of the arguments that pertain to the manner, so who the FUCK are you to say this? Again, all of this goes back to my final prediction: Eventually, you're going to attempt to draw your last and final card, and you're going to try and muster up a large post that you think can conform to these qualifications, BECAUSE YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT. And I'm WAITING for that fucking post, I'VE BEEN WAITING, because when you DO post it, I'm going to SHATTER YOUR FUCKING hopes that it will shut me up and CRUSH you. So how's that for "You're not a Marxist". You can call it whatever the fuck you want, but for you to claim that somehow it does not belong to the tradition of Marxism, can either resort to baseless, practically worthless word-games that pseudo-intellectual scum so often dabble in, this formalist scholasticism, or can be wrought from the most thoughtless, uncritical stupidity, which qualifies Marxism as solely relegating to the works of Marx and Engels - quite paradoxical, considering they themselves directly rejected this assessment of the tradition they were spear-heading and giving birth to.

But at least I've gotten to the bottom of you after pages and pages of rhetoric and convoluted reasoning:. The philosophical wasteland that is (or was) The Frankfurt School.

No, child, what you are attempting to do here, which is not even fucking cute, is REDUCE the ENTIRETY of my post to a DESIGNATION that you feel you are justified in dismissing. But you aren't justfiied in dismissing this, because nowhere in my FUCKING post did I simply say "The Frankfrut school", I USED ARGUMENTS that DIRECTLY related and CONFRONTED the ESSENCE of your arguments, which were informed by traditions of critical theory, in outlining Marxism. What an utterly fucking STUPID excuse for not actually confronting the fucking arguments at hand: "Hands up, it's all the Frankfurt school (which was MERELY a single fucking current, which is often criticized by other Western Marxists in specific ways), no need to think critically or even engage it"

This is how bourgeois ideologues work, indeed this is the basis of Fascism. No doubt Red Red Chile is on some level a Fascist, who we already suspect to be the sockpuppet of the banned Carlos-Marcos. One doesn't need to think critically, one becomes an intellectual barbarian at the onset of excepting oneself from the space of universal reason, or more specifically, EXCEPTING others from participating in it because of some a priori qualifications. Rafiq, for example, CAN address, confront and smash Fascists theoretically, even though he supports banning them unconditionally, if a Fascist tries to argue with Rafiq, he can crush them, by addressing their arguments head on. This space of universal reason in our degenerate epoch, by Anglo-Saxon philistines IS MERELY SUPPRESSED: The use of reason can be reduced to some external factor. Take anti-semitism, do you fucking think a Fascist is moven by a Jewish intellectual who is underlying the pathologicla basis of their anti-semitism? No, they can say "at the bottom of you after pages and pages of rhetoric and convulated reasoning: He is a Jew" and that is simply ENOUGH for them to INSIST upon their ignorance, INSIST upon exempting themselves from the shared discourse of universal reason - because the Jew no longer occupies their space of reason. Likewise, because critical theory informs Rafiq's arguments, this is grounds for reducing them to some designation that can be dismissed. This is the hallmark of intellectual barbarism: INSTEAD OF CONFRONTING THE ARGUMENTS DIRECTLY, AND INCIDENTALLY BEING ABLE TO ATTACK WITH REASON ARGUMENTS THAT ARE INFORMED BY CRITICAL THEORY, the fact that critical theory informs them, is alone justified as being enough to ignore and dismiss them - he cannot even ARTICULATE his purported opposition to critical theory, it is simply an uncritically accepted given that it is to be opposed, more even pathetically, because "it's known" (admitting his subservience to the big other):

Now it's known that “critical theory”, can be used to argue just about anything.

A blatant fucking lie by Anglo-Saxon philistines, who confuse their inability to understand theoretical language, that IS clearly meaningful and substantial to anyone who is not a philistine, i.e. who has a PRACTICAL inclination to understand it, with total meaningless arbitrariness, as though they're just using "complex language" to justify a much more simple point. THIS IS A NOTION WHICH IS THOROUGHLY UNJUSTIFIED , and the ONLY FUCKING REASON Anglo-Saxon philistines say this, is because critical theorists arrive at very real, tangible conclusions, that sometimes seem rather simple to grasp - so the philistines will take a glance at these conclusions and assume that they were priorly unjustified. The only fucking evidence you need to show that YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT about critical theorists being able to "argue anything" is the fact that within the school of continental thought, more specifically critical theory, there are innumerable amounts of controversies, debates and arguments between critical theorists themselves who know perfectly well what the other is saying - if your argument held up, that they are using 'blah blah blah meaningless bullshit' to argue 'just about anything', there couldn't be any room for controversy, FOR THAT WOULD PRESUPPOSE A CONSISTENT, FRAMEWORK OF DISCOURSE AND MEANING THAT IS NOT ARBITRARY. Unless you want to propose, for example, that Zizek's criticism of Badiou, that the dispute between Zizek and Habermas, that the disputes between Lacanians in general, that the controversies WITHIN the frankfurt school and what they generated, and I can really go on with this: Are simply a matter of people yelling incomprehensible (even by each other) gibberish for no reason. You're free to be so delusional as to tell yourself this, but for those of us - like Rafiq, who do not care about whether the philistines of the world tell themselves fairy-tales about how we Marxists are simply crazy, we will continue operating at the level of this discourse, reading each other, engaging each other, arguing with each other in a manner that we can conceive as discursively meaningful.

But let's move on and look at the "example" you use:

I mean take Giles Deluze for example, who positively delighted in reinterpreting, or 'buggering”, as he so wonderfully put it, philosophers to achieve wildly different meanings to what they intended.

So Red Red Chile, who is not even close to being an iota of what would be sufficient experience in knowing Delauze and his arguments, qualifies the basis of his accusation that critical theorists simply talk shit to justify any assertion, because apparently Deleuze characterized philosophers as having meant things, that they did not intend on meaning. No matter at fucking attacking Deleuze for such a vague practice, why not FUCKING attack Marx, who said that if the appearance and essential basis of a thing were synonymous, all science would be impossible, that people cannot be qualified by merit of how they identify themselves. Of course, Delauze was quite different in doing this, as we know, but the difference is that he justified himself - he didn't just fucking "wildly" attribute meaning to philosophers without justifying the theoretical discourse and framework which made himself think he was justified in doing this. This is what makes your argument paradoxical and effectively little more than nonsense: If Delauze is using THE SAME DISCOURSE to "justify about anything", then it must be assumed that the imperative to, what you designate as "arguing just about anything" is unjustified and is a given at the onset of Deleauze's works. But his approach to an author - how authors are not unto themselves with what they intend, etc. IS something that is thoroughly fucking justified in theoretical terms, for anyone familiar with him. You clearly are not, which is why your assumption falls FLAT ON ITS FUCKING FACE, because it is inconsistent and totally fucking paradoxical. Congratulations on that, though, nice try. What is even more fucking hilarious, what is even more STUPID is the fact that nowhere in the course of my arguments did I make pretense to the notion that something can be "argued" without real, definite and clear qualifications for what constitutes the basis of that argument, that cannot be defended with the use of reason, and so on. I was not even delving into what you would think as "postmodern obscurity", the profound level of stupidity on your part is staggering - my arguments were not even that "deep", so to speak, and yet at the onset you associate them with certain criticisms of Dealuze, whose views within our framework are already controversial, IN A COMPLETELY UNJUSTIFIED manner.

THIS is fucking intellectual barbarism. It doesn't matter what I say at all, because you INSIST upon your ignorance. But tell me, if you're so fucking confident you've solved this debate, WHY EVEN MAKE THIS WORTHLESS POST TO BEGIN WITH? Because YOU KNOW you're not done - you're going to continue. I have already proven it.

So you claim that “there is no such thing as Marxism” or Leninism is not, in fact, the words and actions of Vladimir Lenin (as though it could reasonably be considered anything else.)

Everyone, I want to show all of you how Red Red Chile arrives at his conclusions. Because Rafiq recognized that UPHOLDING the contribution to Marxism as a tradition Lenin made, does not entail Leninism, apparently now Rafiq is arguing that "There is no such thing as Marxism". EXCUSE ME? EXCUSE ME? NOT ONLY have I NOT insinuated that "There is no such thing as Marxism", I QUITE CLEARLY and in ways that you couldn't even fucking COUNT IDENTIFIED a TRADITION called Marxism, I use the word "tradition of Marxism" OVER AND OVER AGAIN, SO MANY FUCKING TIMES. But no, Leninism and upholding Lenin are not synonymous, because Leninism refers only in practical terms to two distinct currents: Trotskyism and Stalinism (Marxism-Leninism, which was the codified, official ideology of the Soviet state). If what you say is true, then you would have to explain how people like Mike Macnair, Lars Lih, etc. have nothing to fucking do with Leninism, and in fact condemn it, will upholding Lenin - never mind what rafiq can do argumentatively. And it's not some new fucking thing either. There are plenty of Western Marxists who cannot be qualified as Leninsts, but who uphold Lenin, there are pletny of renegade Left Communists who do the same thing but are not Leninists - Bordiga, for example, upholds Lenin. Recognition of the fact that neither the traditions of Trotskyism or Stalinism have a right to Lenin's legacy, is a very possible thing to do, in fact, the position is a very refined and sophisticated one. You wouldn't fucking know that though, because you talk out of your FUCKING ass. But instead of being humble, and admitting your ignorance, what do you do? FROM HAVING NO REAL REASON TO THINK SO TO BEGIN WITH, you insinuate that it is "ridiculous" to think that one can uphold Lenin without being a Leninist. And for all intensive purposes, ALL of these designations are practical. I don't fucking care how you choose to use words, but you need to EXPLAIN what those words are actually conferring, what they are actually meaning: When someone uses the word "Leninism", they are solely referring either to Trotskyism and what would become Marxism-Leninism (the official ideology of the Soviet state after the defeat of the proletarian dictatorship). Again, your utter unfamiliarity with the traditions you are making pretenses to knowing, to the point where you confidently can say "Rafiq is not properly representing them", is responsible for this mundane and basic stupidity. But nevermind that - back to the substantive argument at hand, the fact of the matter is that YOU YET AGAIN DODGE THE FUCKING ARGUMENT, which was about what Lenin was SAYING, not about regressing towards using Lenin as an authority - the point was not that "Lenin said it so it must be true of Marx", the point is LENIN WAS SAYING SOMETHING that ANY person could argue and say, and it would still be fucking true. We'll get to that, though.

We already have it established that whether or not violence is required is contingent circumstances.

Whether anything is "required" is contingent upon circumstances, because NOTHING is written in the fucking cosmos. What I have established, properly, is its necessity as a result of our existing conditions, conditions that are not going to change unless some almost impossible miracle happens which we have no reason to think will.

It is trivial that violence must be part of a revolution.

No it is not trivial, because this strikes at certain sensitivities AND YOU KNOW IT. Violence, is something you are scared of. The idea repels you. No one really cares about how you cope with it.

Well it's trivial that he advocated violent revolution. He administered it, after all. It's worth noting, though,

AGAIN, for FUCK'S sake:

The fact of the matter is that your hollow phrase-mongering dodges the fucking argument - it is irrelevant that Lenin is the one saying this, for it could be anyone saying this and the argument at hand is just as true: namely, qualitative changes in the nature of the American and British states disallow for the same peaceful transition Marx talked about, for very clear reasons - Marx recognized that because of the growth of a strong military-bureaucracy in France, the state had to be crushed, rather than assumed by revolutionaries. This same type of bureaucratic formation occurred in Britain and the United States. And I didn't even stop at Lenin - I went into minor detail about why certain developments beyond this make the use of revolutionary terror necessary, which relate to an emerging kind of neo-feudalism and emerging counter-enlightenment tendency in capitalism for reasons that I grounded very thoroughly in specific material developments. This is why terror is ESPECIALLY necessary in the 21st century, the re-assertion of modernism must make use of both the guillotine as well as the leather-claden Bolsheviks with revolvers all the same. A proletarian revolution, would simultaneously be the re-assertion of the enlightenment, of modernism as WELL as its supersession.

You ignored this though, because your 'succinct" one-liners were in your mind enough to assess the substance of my post, yet AGAIN, even AFTER I fucking pointed it out.

It may be FUCKING trivial if the basis of my argument was that "Lenin was a Marxist so that Lenin said it means it is representative of Marxism" - even though INCIDENTALLY I agree with this, THAT IS NOT EVEN WHAT I WAS FUCKING SAYING, I didn't even HAVE to fall back on Lenin as some figure of authority. If I FUCKING wanted to do that, I literally would have just quoted Lenin stressing the necessity of violence, or Trotsky for that matter. I didn't have to do that, however, because the MANNER IN WHICH I was quoting Lenin, did not confer him special authoritative status, it merely was an argument anyone could have fucking used. But because Lenin already used this argument, why should Rafiq re-invent the wheel, why not just cite Lenin? It's like you LACK BASIC COMMUNICATION SKILLS, it's so INSUFFERABLE. You literally THINK like a dog, you literally THINK in terms of philistinism, obedience, power, it is so disgusting and sickening how you think - as though there is some FUCKING hierarchy of truth.

That what he advocated was much more practical than your notions of ideological cleansing

And the fucking example you provide has nothing to do with what you FALSELY accused of being "ideological cleansing":

There is no such thing as an "ideological cleansing" - the ideas of Communism and Marxism need to 'keep up' with changes, they don't need to be 'cleansed' as such, they need to be in motion insofar as concrete circumstances are in motion, and they always are. Not 'changing' ones analysis is incidental, all it means is that conditions have not properly changed. The age of the Communist manifesto, and the age of the late 19th century were also different contexts, which is why there is a difference between young and older Marx. The notion of '"ideological cleansing" is totally ridiculous - what are you even talking about? Communism doesn't come from your ass, it comes from the contradictions of each new epoch as they need to be accentuated. Communism is only relevant, as it is relevant for the social antagonisms of 2016, and with it Marxism. That is why it is a TRADITION, one that is altered and changed - but there is an essential substance which remains, which endures and lives on, which is the consistency in how it is approximated to each according epoch of capitalism. What country? in an age of an even more globalized world, what are YOU talking about, "what country"? EVERY country, my god.

That has nothing to fucking do with Lenin's propensity toward needless cruelty, at this point you're literally just talking out of your ass. The example you use, sais nothing about whether Lenin was more "practical" than Rafiq, even as it concerns matters of "ideological cleansing". But yes, the Bolsheviks before the October revolution were quite naive about terror. Lenin explicitly claimed that they want to avoid what happened in France. Evidently they were proven wrong, with red terror occurring at a grassroots level out of pure necessity alone, only later to be under the control of a more top-bottom structure. Lenin would later on come to realize the necessity of terror, do you want me to prove that to you, too? And the Bolsheviks, frankly, were planning on putting the royal family to trial. They weren't planning on housing them and feeding them indefinitely. But to say nothing of the romanovs, I don't even need to point to the thousands of bloodsuckers, counter-revolutionaries, scum upon scum who were shot by the Cheka. What do you have to say about them? Why weren't "they" comfortably housed and fed, child?

that Nicholas II was conspiring with the Germans to defeat the revolution.

Again more talking out of your ass. This is in fact not why they were shot, they were shot because those in charge of the Romanovs were led to believe that opposing forces were approaching them on a mission to save the royal family. It was decided that rather than allow the whites to have a symbol to rally around, the family should be shot on the spot and the place they were in ditched. It had nothing to do with some notion of the Tsar conspiring with the Germans, the Tsar who was under constant survalence and imprisoned by the Bolsheviks.

Why do you talk out of your ass? WHY? Why do you, without knowing for certain, just fucking SAY things? WHY? WHY THE FUCK do you do it? Tell us!

but all the same it was nothing as tyrannical as hanging people for thought crimes.

Do you think no one was killed during the period of red terror for having certain views? What about the intellectuals rounded up and shot, one in particular for having 'monarchist opinions'?

And no, it doesn't 'offend my sensibilities'. I just think it's pathetic.

No one is really interested in how you articulate, lie to us about how it is something that you pathologically find horrifying. The fact of the matter is that IT DOES offend your sensibilities, that we live in a pseudo-cynical era wherein... Wait a FUCKING second, I already went over this, DIDN'T I!:

This, ladies and gentlemen, encapsulates the false cynicsm of our epoch. The child Red Red Chile, HE ACTS LIKE HE is some skeptic, cynic, while Rafiq is the naive one. But nothing is more naive, and requiring of blind faith, than the sensitivity he possesses toward threshers of worldly hope, meat-grinders of the human soul, places of ignorance, backwardness, superstition and reaction. This is how the cynicism of our epoch works, it is totally false - you can receive "Oh riiight, the Earth is spherical?", this is totally possible so long as the flat shape of the Earth remains righteously, ignorantly, unquestioned. So alien from critical thought, so unable to question ruling ideology, you have individuals like "Red Red Chile" who will literally fucking act like YOU'RE the naive sucker for doing so. Sorry, you're in for a surprise, child.

Priests were butchered in the terror. If you witness this, you are telling us that you would think "it's pathetic, come on, you Bolsheviks just want attention." - we KNOW you're full of shit. You ARE horrified by this, you are repulsed by it, ESPECIALLY and MOST IMPORTANTLY because they are priests. I have explained the manner in a very detailed and thorough way already.

You ramblings are now in their proper context (postmodern quackery)

Listen child, I'm going to chase you to the end, I promise, I absolutely promise. So confident am I in my contention that YOU IN FACT ARE NOT DONE, that I AM SAYING this EVEN BEFORE you inevitably respond to this thread and make that post we all know you can't help FUCKING make. You can DITCH the fucking fake ass, bullshit persona that you're "done" here, BECAUSE YOU'RE CLEARLY NOT. But more pertinently, NOWHERE has it been justified that my post is in nature "postmodern", because as I've fucking demonstrated:

What is hilariously ironic about qualifying my "representation of Marx" in a "post post modern" fashion is the fact the only postmodern ideologue here, is you, Carlos-Marcos, you are patently and thoroughly a postmodern ideologue in every meaningful sense of the word, simply from your etiquette. This non-engagement with the controversy, this half-assedness, this insistence tacitly on being 'balanced' and not 'too engaged' like Rafiq isis totally a postmodern phenomena, it represents the logic of Western buddhism. Lacan was not a postmodernist, only Anglo-Saxon philistines blindly throw around this fucking term to designate anything that elaborates beyond the parameters of their 'common sense' philistinism as it pertains to the social domain. The fact of the matter is that postmodernism is above all a societal phenomena - it is an ideological phenomena, where postmodernism has a formal, theoretical basis, it is not really postmodernism as such, but a 'theoretical' postmodernism. But it doesn't matter, because Lacan does not fit either qualification. It's just, the way you use words like this just goes to show how fucking ignorant you are of the controversies as they pertain to Lacan - like what, Lacan, Althsuser, and get this - Marcuse (who only YOU have mentioned) are all postmodernists? HOW? Do you even know what postmodernism is, or do you talk out of your ass? It's like calling Frederic Jameson a postmodernist, it's literally so stupid it's almost funny. And what is so cute of you, is how you isolate the specific use of words, i.e. 'ossifying'. The fact that this phrase sounds erratic to you, means it must have some essential significance in how I justify 'representing' Marx. You don't care about what this word means in its specific context of course, it's just that "ossifying" sounds kinda funky, and that's all there needs to be on the mater. You talk about me going off topic, but what is hilariously ironic is that Rafiq giving Red Red Chile a fucking lecture on 100 years of Marxism would be getting off topic. That you are not familiar with this is irrelevant. If you can't even step up to CONFRONT these ideas, again, you have no reason to be here in the first place.

Anglo-Saxon philistines, who talk out of their FUCKING ass, speak of "postmodernism" to designate and refer to any discourse which exceeds beyond the parameters of there common-sense philistinism. Anything which explores the depths and domains of critical thought, is now dismissed as a matter of "postmodernism". Nevermind the fact that THE MOST ARDENT and EFFECTIVE critiques of postmodernism have come out of the school of Western Marxism, and Frederic Jameson here comes to mind, the fact of the matter is the juvenile tendency for Anglo-Saxon philistines to dismiss complex and intricate schools that are rife with controversy and differential complexity, i.e. the continental school, with what is essentially pop-culture philistinism bellow the standards of any intellectual discourse, "post-modernism", is by far the epitome of irony, because as it has been shown, THE GREATEST CULPRITS of postmodernism are NONE OTHER than anglo-saxon philistines. That is because the thinkers they accuse of post-modernism CAN APPROACH CRITICALLY and DEBATE about post-modernism, whether they defend it or not - anglo-saxon philistines can only ever identify with it without being conscious of their immersion in postmodern ideology.

But looking forward to your next post, child, nice try trying to DISMISS THE ENTIRETY of this fucking debate to something which you think is adequate in dismissing - I'm going to CHASE YOU THE FUCK DOWN for all eternity, and at the onset of you reading this, at the onset of that URGE to fucking respond, I have already proven that. Even if, somehow, you suppress this urge to respond, YOU KNOW it's there - but I'm not even going to bullshit at this point, I'm going to go ahead and say that you won't be able to suppress this pathological urge to respond, because UNLIKE ME, who is THOROUGH and DIRECT, FRANK, you feel like you NEED to respond just for the fucking sake of it, because it sustains your ideological constitution, it sustains your sense of guarantee in your false idols, you feel UTTERLY fucking humiliated, destroyed when you see my posts and you know it.The argument I am making is very clear: convnetional wisdom might dictate that out of personal pride, Red Red Chile doesn't want to prove me right, and would like to spite me. I contest that this is the case: Instead, he by merit of his pathological ignorance, is going to see the contours of this debate in such a way that he still thinks in his head, and is still confident that the framework of this debate, is still embedded in his ideological substrate. That is why even though I am directly saying he is going to respond, after denying he will, Red Red Chile WILL STILL respond in this thread - because he has to.

Just WATCH, literally. After him saying this:

and that is fine with me. I feel like my work is done

WATCH how, like a lab-rat, he will directly contradict himself.