What does it mean that Rawls failed? One possibility is that it casts doubt on humanism itself. If our notion of “humanity” is historically conditioned and separate from some fixed notion of justice, appealing to our humanity is not a sure-fire way to solve political problems. Marxists have known this for some time. If socialism were the moral way of organizing society in some obvious and easily implementable way then there would be no history of class struggle. The first humans, in an imagined world, would have simply continued to integrate new technologies into their communal ways, never thinking to divide themselves up into masters and slaves. Marxism was developed because the modern capitalist era was the first to be able to see the real possibility of its supersession by an active agent for socialism, the proletariat. Socialism had always been desirable but changes in class organization through industrialization made it possible.
Just because the proletariat comes into being under capitalism does not mean that the whole of society shares its view of the world. On the contrary, the class position, and differentiated class positions within each class at that, determines the basic worldview within society. This is true for all angles of class – such as the dimensions of race and gender. The difference is that only the lived materiality of economic class makes it possible to organize around this basis, because of economic class’ position within a system of social reproduction. In other words, it is easy to imagine racial oppression, but there is no obvious way to translate racial liberation into a system of social reproduction, except as a derivative of socialism. As such, other oppressions can modify the character of a class state – and must if such oppressions will be undone – but they cannot form the basis of a state in itself.
Sloughing aside liberalism, Marxism argues that only a historical view of the state that insists on the leading force of the proletariat can organize itself successfully to build socialism. But how can this be put into practice? The answer is the equivalent of a literacy test: Workers must be able to position themselves in history in order to gain admittance to the leading organization of workers, the political party. This limited membership – to people who can explain and defend the need for proletarian revolution, and are willing to stake their lives on it – is little more than the demand that people participating in the direction of society demonstrate that they understand basic facts about society. The Communist Party, then, is a combat organization built around a membership that is aware of history and capable of making sophisticated decisions based on the perceived demands of proletarian revolution.
Here we have a very different view from the prevalent liberal-democratic theory. Marxists do not hide their partisanship behind ideas of human nature. Marxism is therefore a situated view of society. It sees history from within history, rather than trying to transcend it. Explained in this way, one can better understand the various Marxist-Leninist regimes of the 20th Century, rather than dismissing them as somehow intrinsically flawed due to a lack of liberal-democratic norms.
~This thread is dedicated to discipline.~
getfiscal posted:Here we have a very different view from the prevalent liberal-democratic theory. Marxists do not hide their partisanship behind ideas of human nature. Marxism is therefore a situated view of society. It sees history from within history, rather than trying to transcend it.
~This thread is dedicated to discipline.~
And this is meant to be a good thing? So much of human history and culture is centered around the idea of transcendence and you're saying the people should be happy with Marxism because it offers some "rational" worldview instead?
"OH my life as a garbageman or soldier dying on the field is so much more noble because it's disabused me of the notion of unyielding loyalty to God to unyielding loyalty to the state"
i'd rather let humans keep their superstitions and dreams, lends flavor to the place really
littlegreenpills posted:does liberal hedonist individualism really have anything in common with selfless dedication to a higher transcendental vision
what? all of liberal hedonism is underpinned by consumerism which is nothing but a constant promise of transcendence
Ironicwarcriminal posted:getfiscal posted:Here we have a very different view from the prevalent liberal-democratic theory. Marxists do not hide their partisanship behind ideas of human nature. Marxism is therefore a situated view of society. It sees history from within history, rather than trying to transcend it.
~This thread is dedicated to discipline.~And this is meant to be a good thing? So much of human history and culture is centered around the idea of transcendence and you're saying the people should be happy with Marxism because it offers some "rational" worldview instead?
"OH my life as a garbageman or soldier dying on the field is so much more noble because it's disabused me of the notion of unyielding loyalty to God to unyielding loyalty to the state"
i'd rather let humans keep their superstitions and dreams, lends flavor to the place really
that has nothing to do with what he said
karphead posted:thats great and all but what is trotskyism
some FAIL @SS SH!T. dont even try it
Ironicwarcriminal posted:getfiscal posted:Here we have a very different view from the prevalent liberal-democratic theory. Marxists do not hide their partisanship behind ideas of human nature. Marxism is therefore a situated view of society. It sees history from within history, rather than trying to transcend it.
~This thread is dedicated to discipline.~And this is meant to be a good thing? So much of human history and culture is centered around the idea of transcendence and you're saying the people should be happy with Marxism because it offers some "rational" worldview instead?
"OH my life as a garbageman or soldier dying on the field is so much more noble because it's disabused me of the notion of unyielding loyalty to God to unyielding loyalty to the state"
i'd rather let humans keep their superstitions and dreams, lends flavor to the place really
give it a rest man you're only trolling yourself at this point
karphead posted:thats great and all but what is trotskyism
a miserable little pile of secrets.
AmericanNazbro posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
getfiscal posted:
Here we have a very different view from the prevalent liberal-democratic theory. Marxists do not hide their partisanship behind ideas of human nature. Marxism is therefore a situated view of society. It sees history from within history, rather than trying to transcend it.
~This thread is dedicated to discipline.~
And this is meant to be a good thing? So much of human history and culture is centered around the idea of transcendence and you're saying the people should be happy with Marxism because it offers some "rational" worldview instead?
"OH my life as a garbageman or soldier dying on the field is so much more noble because it's disabused me of the notion of unyielding loyalty to God to unyielding loyalty to the state"
i'd rather let humans keep their superstitions and dreams, lends flavor to the place really
give it a rest man you're only trolling yourself at this point
and you're only kidding yourself:
Remember Who You Are: Remember 'Where' You Are and Where You 'Come' from
David Icke (Author)
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #14,857
Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy
Karl Marx (Author)
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #17,037
I don't think this is me being unnecessarily contrarian....as getfiscal said:
If socialism were the moral way of organizing society in some obvious and easily implementable way then there would be no history of class struggle
Ironicwarcriminal posted:Remember Who You Are: Remember 'Where' You Are and Where You 'Come' from
David Icke (Author)
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #14,857
Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy
Karl Marx (Author)
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #17,037
Ironicwarcriminal posted:what? all of liberal hedonism is underpinned by consumerism which is nothing but a constant promise of transcendence
transcending what precisely?
i mean im as eggcited as the next person for the singularity, but by that i mean no one actually cares or gives a shit.
guidoanselmi posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
what? all of liberal hedonism is underpinned by consumerism which is nothing but a constant promise of transcendence
transcending what precisely?
boredom, loserdom, chumpness, bad breath, unattractiveness, hopelessness.....it's the promise that you can transcend your ordinariness through purchasing products and become something better, something more...to me there's an exceedingly clear link between old baptist preachers and the dudes on the home shopping network.
tbqh, y/n. depends how strictly 12er and what flavor you are. as far as the very orthodox velayat e faqi, yeah.
that said it's pretty diverse as far as i can see which is not much at all. sunni/non-jafari mathhab primary sources have been far better translated so i just stick to what i can read rather than put the effort elsewhere. theres always shiachat forums if you like to get wisdom from thoughtless People On The Internet.
Therefore i find it probable that such a test as this would merely formally entrench the sort of white privilege and domination of revolutionary movements that was so prevalent in the occupy movement.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:Also OP we all know that standardized testing (this "marxist literacy test") favours socially favoured groups like whites at the expense of minorities who do not have the time or resources to pursue the study of history.
Therefore i find it probable that such a test as this would merely formally entrench the sort of white privilege and domination of revolutionary movements that was so prevalent in the occupy movement.
"Beware of those who speak of the spiral of history; they are preparing a boomerang."
Ironicwarcriminal posted:Also OP we all know that standardized testing (this "marxist literacy test") favours socially favoured groups like whites at the expense of minorities who do not have the time or resources to pursue the study of history.
Therefore i find it probable that such a test as this would merely formally entrench the sort of white privilege and domination of revolutionary movements that was so prevalent in the occupy movement.
swirlsofhistory posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Also OP we all know that standardized testing (this "marxist literacy test") favours socially favoured groups like whites at the expense of minorities who do not have the time or resources to pursue the study of history.
Therefore i find it probable that such a test as this would merely formally entrench the sort of white privilege and domination of revolutionary movements that was so prevalent in the occupy movement.
"Beware of those who speak of the spiral of history; they are preparing a boomerang."
jk Ellison had a moralist's ideas of communism, his anti class colaborationist opposition to the Popular Front made him switch to full on anti-communist after the war – the trajectory of every ultraleftist
Ironicwarcriminal posted:guidoanselmi posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
what? all of liberal hedonism is underpinned by consumerism which is nothing but a constant promise of transcendence
transcending what precisely?boredom, loserdom, chumpness, bad breath, unattractiveness, hopelessness.....it's the promise that you can transcend your ordinariness through purchasing products and become something better, something more...to me there's an exceedingly clear link between old baptist preachers and the dudes on the home shopping network.
You've spent over 1,000 dollars on SomethingAwful forums accounts just to serve as a running joke to a megathread in a subforum. You are a joke to a forum full of jokes, too lame to even be accepted on a dying internet forum or the remains of the remains of a dead one. Don't speak about anyone else being a loser as if you are not the king of losers. Thnaks
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:over 1000 dollars? yeah thats not true
it's probably a bit less than that but eh, a criticism of "you spent nearly a grand on something you like over 5 years" isn't particularly cutting.