>>450233>Just off the bat you've made yourself into fucking clown.
I posted Nechayev because he's a funny meme, with a kernel of truth to him. If posting Nechayev makes me a clown, posting H. L. Mencken makes you the whole circus.>There is a contradiction - because you claim to care about the workers for their "betterment" out of your coercion, but yet you're willing to kill them, hurt them for your idealistic cause. Again, you only care about the workers who agree with your demands.
That is in fact how politics work, yes. Simply because you advocate something which you see as bettering a class, does not mean all of that class will agree with you, and will not then oppose you and fight against those of the class that do advocate for such. Again, there is no contradiction here. This is like saying that fighting against slaves sent to put down a slave revolt, or who have cozied up to their masters, is the same as being against the slaves as a whole. Its garbage.>You use moral sophistry to deny your self-obsessed goals.
None of it was moral sophistry, it was just an analysis of politics itself. Your the ones waxing on about the moral indignity of it. >By posting Nechayev - you've already revealed what many thinkers have revealed about Marxism - that it is simply a form of sophistical nihilism. To a profligate, yourself, the ends simply justify the means. You have no principles, and you waste peoples' time by killing for the sake of killing because you don't have a coherent objective. At least be honest about your intentions.
Again, posted Nechayev because of him being meme, but yes, the ends justify the means. This is not the same as having no principles though, in fact its being entirely consistent with your principles by acknowledging that if you are to say that one principle supersedes all others, that you have the utmost and absolute conviction in something, that then there exists nothing in the world that should bar you in the pursuit of such. It is the absolute epitome of principle, its highest epoch, not its rejection. My argument is not killing for the sake of killing with no objective, but killing with an singular absolute one. >That's another problem with communists. You're pure idealists. What the fuck does "better" mean - how narcissistic can you be to believe you truly know what's better for someone?
Now this is actual sophistry. Everyone has a framework upon which they conceptualize what is better, and what defines such. You yourself, for all your dishonesty, find capitalism as a system to be "better". Are you a narcissist for doing so, by assuming "market freedom" is truly the best thing for people and society? I don't think you've actually thought this through. >Clearly, we don't have to use your ridiculous example because we have enough evidence, from history, to show that the bodies make it clear that socialism would never be better for anyone but the vanguard itself.
On the contrary, history shows the opposite; that socialism has been widely beneficial to the proletariat, even despite the suffering needed to fight to preserve it. >Anyone who has the most basic amount of critical thinking skills can see what you consider "better" is at the expense of anyone but yourself.
No, I am myself at the expense of what ever is necessary to achieve the goal of socialism. >I already know you're solipistic. Why waste characters for such an obvious statement - you fucking retard. To you, reality simply isn't independent of your emotions. That's why you're such a miserable person, in life, while others do just fine without turning envy, and revenge, into virtues like yourself. You solipsism is refuted the amount we resist your wretched heart with our own resolve.
Reality is independent from my emotions, at what point did I state something which implied differently? Nothing about rejecting the false dichotomy of "natural" and "unnatural" is solipsistic. I'm actually fine in my life, albeit jaded and cynical. My action are not informed by envy or revenge, but by what is consequential. Capitalism is system that by its own mechanisms careens towards inevitable ruin, of which we will all be taken with it. Therefore, if the ultimatum is ruin or the continued existence of society in a way no longer precariously resolving towards collapse, then I choose the latter.>Why pretend you care about "materialist analysis" when you've spewed normative non-sense and not positive claims for your political leanings?
Where have I stated this? >Imagine thinking that instinct theory is not "materialist." You people make sociological claims, but deny the biological basis of society. You really are just a solipsistic cretin.
What you argue to be "instinct theory" is not materialist, because you could very well argue anything in regards to it based on your assumptions of what exactly the inclination of people is during a time. There is no argument to it, because I could very well frame any "instinct" as being a sufficient enough basis for any system. >Its really not. History would be a testament against that. Socialism always is, and always has been, slavery to the government dole at the expense of individual freedom.
Proof? Define "individual freedom"? The freedom to lack even the capacity to engage in said "freedoms"? That doesn't sound like any consequential "freedom" to me. >Socialists want disastrously plan out the fate of society, and rid it its of its natural differences, through the concentration of state violence - you think you can play the role of a god for whatever stupid reason.
The state is already a monopoly on violence, so I don't understand you issue here with this. Saying "the concentration of state violence" is an oxymoron. And what exactly do you mean by "natural differences"? I have no interest in making people the same, or having people receive exactly the same in regards to labour.>However, you utopians ignore the fact that history has shown in every case that such ideas are simply dreams - all the horrors that you lament from capitalism were all apparently in the socialist dumpster fires you profligates defend.
Funny that this should be said, because it reminds me of a quote from elsewhere, that "Your fears about socialism, have been realized under capitalism". None of the horrors I lament in capitalism were present in socialism, particularly not in the context of what they emerged from. >But you don't care - for someone who claims to be "materialistic" you certainly become sophistic when your lies are exposed.
Again, what was sophistic? Simply repeating this over and over again without basis is not an argument, and all it does is make you sound like a pseud. >The root of all human problems are the heart, and as long as it beats, suffering will be the norm. You don't change that, as history shows, with socialist self righteousness and indignation. Nor should we ever change it - life would not be worth living without the trials of hardship.
Now this is actual sophistry, in its actual colloquial definition. First you make the unfounded assumption that all the problems of human society are merely innate, and thus for some reason also unsolvable. You also for some reason earlier then argued for what was better for it, which is itself nonsense if you see it as inherently a creature only capable of creating suffering. But then you go further, and make out socialism to be the ending of all human suffering, and that because you then make the normative claim that life would not be worth it without suffering, that then socialism is illegitimate and improper. Every step of this is riddled with issues. Why the assumption that socialism is the ending of human suffering? Why make statements against normative claims, but then make a normative claim on human suffering? You built up a strawman, and then knocked it down with platitudes. >You have no reason to cry about the poor, you wretched proletarian profligate, because being a worker doesn't intrinsically give your life value - as you Marxists assume. Life in itself has no value, but the values we construct for it. Sadly for you, you've given your life too much value when nature says otherwise - that is the source of your envy.
I never stated that being a worker is what gives life value. What a way to out yourself as a pseud when arguing against Marxism, which posits the end of economic class itself, and the self-abolition of the role of proletariat by the proletariat. Of course life has no value besides what we construct for it, but these value do not emerge from a vacuum. "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past", as Marx would state. Again, nothing I argue is based on "envy", and such words you may notice change when the class in question is brought up, which is what determines in our society the difference between "envy" and "ambition". Become a capitalist and dispose another capitalist? Ambition. Dispose of a capitalist and raise up the worker? Envy. Our language in such regards is simply informed by the system and the ruling class. As someone fascinated by Nietzsche, even you should know this. >Actually, no, I'm not an idealist. I'm just aware you're just slob, a brute, a thug who can't think of anything but power for your own sake. Jealousy is what drives you - not a moral urge for the love of your fellow man. You are s sociopath looking to rationalize your nihilism as a benefit for society.
You didn't make a singular argument here, just a list of unfounded assumption on the character of an anonymous user. When I stated for you to be an idealist in regards to politics, I stated that because that is what you actually are in your conception of it. What drives me isn't emotional lamenting of personal circumstance, or some moral urge, but necessity. That complete and utter drive to bring this process to completion. You can argue about "moral urges" and "a love for man", but these are never going to be universal. Whatever I state to be a love for man, you could very just accuse as actually simply being jealousy. And whatever you could call a love for man, I could very well accuse as being nothing more then obfuscation for your need to preserve the system, no matter the cost, for petty self-indulgence and narcissism. >Might is a fine thing; especially when its used against socialist deposits who deny the liberty of others.
No doubt you would think this, and I think the opposite, because our interests are opposed. Ironically though, you just conceded your whole argument to me. You acknowledged that this is what politics is, that you have no issue with power, authority, and a monopoly on violence when used to defend and pursue your interests. The "thuggery" you accuse us of is "thuggery" you yourself are ok with, that you in fact embrace, but delude yourself into being better then. You have no claim to your earlier posturing. >Don't, however, troglodyte , claim you are "changing systems." Your intentions have always been to change rulers. You want to wear the boot. Sadly for you, you will never have such a thing
Everything I do is in the interest of changing the system. Though you wont believe me, I truly don't care rulers or "wearing the boot". I only care about the end, whether I die in the process or not, because that is my singular and absolute conviction. Power is absolutely worthless if it does not fulfill a mean, in such a state it just rots as people rot. >Just as Nechayev died a nobody - so will you.
Nechayev is again a meme, but while Nechayev died, he still succeeded. His larger plan of killing the Tsar, went off entirely with barely a hitch. And all it took was his own life, which is a rather small price to pay in the pursuit of such a goal. Those who were to carry it out offered to free him, to let him out of prison so that he may yet live, but he turned them down so that the plan to bomb the Tsar would not come under suspicion. Regardless of what you or I may feel about the man personally, regardless of his faults, he had conviction. That absolute conviction, to have your goal above your life. It doesn't matter if you die a nobody, as long as you die content in having fulfilled your convictions to best of you abilities. >"No matter who tries to leave their mark, The hills and dales are not impressed. Collecting firewood and carrying water Are prayers that reach the gods."
Nice little quote, but one made by a person who lived in country ironically entirely marked and deeply impressed upon by those who acted and reshaped it. Here's another for you:>"Man's dearest possession is life. It is given to him but once, and he must live it so as to feel no torturing regrets for wasted years, never know the burning shame of a mean and petty past; so live that, dying, he might say: all my life, all my strength were given to the finest cause in all the world"