/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

After WW2, the Germanic poison infested the dominant institutions, and we haven't been able to get rid of the philosophy.

To be fair, this idea in German idealism is supposed to suggest to readers that it is a trap. Marx writes about German ideology to explain what this does, rather than get people to believe the world actually works that way. It is a thought about politics and war more than natural science - literally German doesn't have a proper word for "science" in the sense you and I believe in such a thing. "Wissenschaft" is an aristocratic rebrand of knowledge that is anathema to science, and it is this concept which gives rise to our present "religion vs. science" retardation. Before that, and in most of the world, religion and science were seen as complements. Many of the 19th century scientists were religious men, if not outright priests or openly and devoutly Christian. Non-Christians were no less cognizant of religion and philosophy and its link to science, but Christianity had a peculiar history about that, and it isn't possible to get the German ideology without understanding Christianity and religious conflicts around it. When people say Marx wanted to destroy Christianity, that was absolutely correct, for perfectly understandable reasons that many agreed with. Guy hated Christianity more than anything else.

It should also be noted that at the time Lenin is writing, he's basically a German asset and has to pump up the people who allowed him to return to Russia. So much of the Bolshevik revolution required the revolution to spread to the German-speaking world and make an alliance - basically "Eurasia" from Atlantic to Pacific. If that could happen, then the Americas would fall to communism - it is often forgotten how many Americans were sympathetic to communism but also understood that they were anti-American, because they would be servile to a European power and saw America as an appendage of that.

But, the German disease spread too far. We all tried to warn you, tried to resist it as best as we could. There is no making that "good". It will take a long time to heal from the poison, if we ever do.

What if Marx is indeed overrated? He is oversimplifying instance class struggle, by framing it as bourgeoisie vs proletariat, while overlooking role of managerial class. Or say his economic analysis, where he talks a lot about labour while leaving phenomena of rent to footnotes.
His notion of historical materialism was revolutionary at the time, but leftists seem to rely too much on Marx.

>>477205
>rent in footnotes
<what is part 5 of capital volume 3
>managerial class
xir, your troon class will never be real

>>477207
>what is part 5 of capital volume 3
Volume 3 was compiled posthumously by Engels from notes left by Marx. Considering how rent affects issues such as natural resources or intellectual property Marx could have said more about it.
>managerial class
>xir, your troon class will never be real
Come on, high ranking managers often play more important role than proprietors of business, and politicians are part of this class too. They constitute part of society which in some aspects may be more important than bourgeoisie, you can't just overlook them.

>>477205
The bourgeois is definitionally a managerial class - that is the basis for the capitalist's claim to productive wealth, that they manage finance and command labor. They pay the wages and expect a profit from this venture on average, if capitalism can be sustained. But, the bourgeois as a class are not reduced to "capitalists", as if they exist entirely to produce things. The bourgeois are also financiers, bankers, extractors of rent, usurers, and are themselves engaged in labors for their own purpose. The scientists, academics, intellectuals, and various such sorts, were all attached to bourgeois society in the time Marx writes. Marx is aware of this and does not make this reduction of society to bourgeois and proletarian as identities. The bourgeois is an alliance of classes and interests, and this alliance had conflicting interests. The proletarians also had divisions, chief among them being the division between the workers and the "residuum", or the reserve army of labor as Marx describes them. The lumpenproles proper are another division with the proletarian, who is defined first of all by his lack of claim to capital or property that would allow him legal standing.

The situation has changed, but this isn't really on Marx - at least not on Marx for the naive reasons a bad scientist would assume. Marx is aware that his theories may be wrong or may be updated, and society itself can change in a way that makes that class analysis obsolete. Marx will tell you outright that credit-dominated economies like those that came to prevail are a different beast altogether from capitalism, with very different interests. The idea that capitalism was frozen in the 19th century is some Austrian School faggotry.

I agree that people put way too much on dogmatic readings of Marx - readings Marx himself despised. There are many errors you can find in Marx, many of them deliberate because he's writing something that is intended to be read politically, rather than as a theory of natural science. It has become difficult to really get Marx today because Germanic schooling made the concepts he writes about partially inadmissible, without initiation into a class that is "allowed" to have ideas. That situation is not entirely on Marx, but Marx facilitated that and believed the unworthies had no right to speak, exist, or expect anything from this world. That's a simple fact. There is no one who believed those cast out should be allowed redemption ever. That's the last thing they ever want. It would be the end of their project - the ruin of the contending classes, as it should be.

>>477217
Since you claim that Marx's analysis is outdated. Can you be clearer about what you think the main class struggle is, and which classes are fighting it.

>>477227
First of all, "class struggle" is not an eternal force of essences. Human beings struggle for reasons that they consider very real, rather than because they're cajoled to do so by others. That's very fucking basic politics and when people say these contemptuous sing-song stories about historical narratives, they're saying "fuck you and die" in so many flowery words. So just get that out of the way and speak of what human beings actually struggle over, rather than insisting you're going to find the struggle like Freud is looking for the penis.

Marx's analysis viewed the situation he was in, and a biased view of it at that. In hindsight, and with Marx's work available in the public domain and discussed by god knows how many people, Marx's analysis can be compared against recorded history and the claims others have made, and many have written about that for as long as Marx's writings circulated. This is stuff communist reading groups all the way up to the leaders of intellectual circles talked about and took seriously. There was a considerable argument within the Marxist camp that class struggle, history, and revolution didn't work that way, and this is where the arguments for and against Kautsky come into play. Lenin's argument wasn't that he had the one true pure and eternal vision - this is contrary to anything Lenin believed or acted on. Lenin was pissed because Kautsky supported German entry into the world war, and wasn't willing to fall on his sword (or pen) at a time when going against the war meant certain death at the least and charges of treason against family most likely. This is understandable and correct, but the war wasn't an imaginary story - this is exactly what Lenin despised seeing from socialists who dithered on the war and its causes.

I'm so disgusted with these asshole college kids who co-opt things they don't understand and don't even try to understand, and insist we're supposed to follow them and their narrow agenda. But, Marxism as a philosophy was designed to be that. It isn't that the CIA "subverted" it. It's the sort of person who is attracted to the Marxist view of history. That is a whole other discussion, which is far too lengthy and uninteresting to get into here, but the OP's objection to German idealism diagnoses correctly the nature of the problem. What is missing is a genuine history of what the German ideology did to the world, and how it was imposed violently as a result of the world wars, and not without allies for ulterior motives.

As long as everyone goes out of their way to deny the centrality of eugenics and biopoliics to what happened, it's pointless to speak of this. I've tried to explain this, but it is now inadmissible. Eugenics won. Satan won. The rest of history will play out in accord with it, until those who pilot the machine decide to do something else. Eugenics made clear that there was no future for democratic society or a republic at all. Marx's class analysis took the republican concept and mass politics for granted. It is inappropriate to speak of class struggles in despotic societies, and if you were to read about Chinese history of peasant revolts, usurpations, invasions, and dealings with foreign powers, you read a story that has little to do with "class struggle" as a motor of history in that sense. It is an attempt to impose a highly artificial model of human history onto reality, and this is German idealism. Marx in his analysis, whether he was aware of this or not - and I believe he was very aware of what he was really writing and his purposes and was not a stupid man - was describing a very peculiar situation, when national republicanism was on the rise and constantly struggling to make itself a real thing. The narrative of "class essences" struggling in a story imposed on reality is Germanic, and really has more to do with Schmittian concepts of the political, where the republican idea is effectively negated and the Krauts become what they always were. It was well understood that class struggles were rooted in the shared interests of groups, and groups form coalitions to govern. They never govern as a hive mind. If they did, nothing Marx hoped to accomplish meant anything. But, this idea is inadmissible in the 21st century, at least for us. At the higher levels of society, they laugh at the idea that they have lost. They already wrote off 90% of humanity. The thrill of torture must be maximized. There is no other way, and no way to negotiate with that. So, I don't even know how you get off saying this shit. You sound like a fag.

>>477227
So, what interests dominate today? It very clearly isn't capitalists in top hats making Randian speeches about how great they are and raping and masturbating all over the place. That was never what the smart capitalists did. The smart capitalists were the Rockefellers and Mellons and Morgans who knew this was about owning the bank - becoming king. And so that's what happened, effectively. They do not believe they are orthodox, ideological republicans. They believed the won power. But they don't rule alone, or rule because they're so much smarter and better and everyone but the elite of the elite are stupid. They need officers - and here enters the technocrat and the eugenicist, and the interests of the 20th century which are dominant, but that we are forbidden to acknowledge as what they are, outside of limited purviews. If we did, then everything we have been made to do is farcical and we would take efforts to remove this threat to our existence, and so an elaborate lie was established. This could not be done overnight. Entrenched interests would try and fail to reclaim what they could of the world, or try to survive in the hope that humanity would regain some sanity. It is not a given that those who ruled had to be entirely given over to evil, or that the men who were effectively kings were destined to be the worst they could be. It's just that the king that won in the end was eugenics, and the eugenic creed is the only idea that rules now. As the eugenic creed grew and gained its core adherents, the conspiracy around it became more and more unmentionable, as they poisoned children and bragged to our faces that they were going to kill us, and then we were told we couldn't say what they just meant. That's what Satanists do. That's German idealism. That's what they are.

And when you really understand Marx, he was not averse to this and his writing was dominated by biopolitical language, praise of Darwin. Being in London, he would have been an agent of intellectual society - they all are if they are to be allowed to be anything. No one who goes against this will last long.

>>477232
Fag.

A lot of coping itt from marxcels. Marxism is not a science. If marxism is to actually be a science, it needs to be disinfected first, it needs to be deGERMified. Marx was a GERMan, and even tho he tried to rebel against his circumstances, even tho he got exiled, he still carried this GERM within him to his deathbed.

GERMany as we know it was born in the fires of the Napoleonic wars. GERMans as we know them were born in them. There is no GERMan without Napoleon, and there is no Napoleon without Robespierre.

Coping is not gonna help you. You need to deGERMify the Marx.

>>477284
>Marxism is not a science.
There definitely are Marxists who treat it as a scientific endavor, by getting data from objective measurements, testing hypotheses and so on.

>>477164
>GERMans fucking HATED the French Revolution and all it stood for.
Why did Hegel saw Napoleon as the World Spirit incarnate then? He was a race traitor?

>>477284
Funny thing about Marx is that one of his first entries into writing is describing the German Ideology and telling everyone it fucking sucks and anyone who buys into it is a rube. If you get his later writing, he's telling people "This is what Conservatives Actually Believe", and it's just like that bit South Park did with the flashing message. You couldn't miss it if you were at all aware of anything outside of "canon texts". Then, it turns out that the people who were supposed to get into Marxism really did not understand this and kept making the stupidest errors in understanding.

The immortal science cargo cult stuff is people who went off the rails, and they would latch on to anything. That's sadly what humans are, and especially what the middle class elements Marx was really writing to are more than most of us. It's a philosophy that appealed to a sector of bourgeois society that saw an opportunity. The workers proper have little to gain from studying Marx, except some insight into how ruling elites imagined their system at the time and the overt discussions they published to each other, since they believed ordinary people were too stupid to know anything. When the real shit began, the intellectuals knew they had to conspire about everything and make it illegal to stop them, and so it happened. Everything that would have averted the course we're on now was snuffed out and not allowed expression as a "real thought". The method of critique can be used by anyone, and who has an advantage with it? Workers are too busy trying to live to engage in this intellectual struggle session, and the lowest class can only be raised as enablers and influencers. They can't pursue their own mission, so far as they have one, and most of the lowest class would rather not involve themselves in society at all let alone politics which they'll always lose. The only incentive for the lowest class to think about politics is to see what nightmare is coming for them next, and now that awareness is something we can't avoid - after being told for a century "just ignore it", to act like the traps and more traps killing us off weren't happen. It was the Marxists' efforts to disallow us to say what this was that led me to despise them more than anything about "the theory". They could have not done that, not gone out of their way to uphold the institutions at our expense, but they made that bargain. I don't know how anyone past 1950 can really believe Marxism is an active thing. It's a historical relic - an important one to understand why the world turned out the way it did, but Marx is not the center of the universe and not the only person who had ideas. It was this tendency to jump in front and insist others get along with them that Marx sealed, and at root it's the same Germanic ideology he started out with. The insults, the demeaning ridicule, that's what Marxism really is. It's a really nasty way of thinking, and it was turned against the workers and especially the lowest class far more than it was turned against the proprietors. Its effect on the proprietors was mostly to encourage them to lock ranks and pick off efforts of the lower classes to really change anything, and to make it impossible to speak of anything being different let alone better for us.

At this point I just gave up on any large movement existing. Any time that someone says "hey, this is fucked up", influencers are ready to "correct" that, and we've been trained to submit to institutions for so long that we can't really stop it. In theory, we could consider new institutions, but that will never happen. The stakeholders know they have the world by the throat and can keep marching, marching, marching, until the people they hated most - us - are tortured and dead. That's the only thing any of them believe in. There wasn't an "other system" where we get to live, let alone join a society that was always alien to us and treated us as aliens in whatever country we happened to be in.

And if someone tells me "hurr durr you don't UNDERSTAND Marx" - I've heard these people for many years from the source, and knew of their positions or what they publicly expressed when I was younger, because it wasn't too hard to ask questions about what communism was. If they had anything, they would have been able to speak, in secret, of what eugenics was doing to us, instead of getting on a high horse about how we were the problem, and inventing spurious political "crimes" we committed by being noncompliant with institutions set out to destroy us, so we're not allowed to reassemble ourselves on what power we have left. They're very good at exhausting any will we had to build something else, not so effective at suggesting we really didn't have to do that. If they were going to do that, they'd stop acting like the world never changed since 1917, and they wouldn't keep relitigating the past as if you could change it by writing new dialectical takedowns. It would be necessary to do what revolutionaries usually did, operating in the present moment and regarding a world outside of them, like anyone could. They would have seen the centrality of eugenics. You couldn't miss it, but it was and is the holy of holies, above politics and above questioning. It's understandable why nothing overt against eugenics would be expressed. Thoughtcrime is death. But, to go out of their way to aid and abet it is a particular vice of the communists, and they could only think of short-term advantage and grasping, because "we're winning, we're winning" was the mantra they were trained to follow. Of course they're winning, because it's poor people who are expected to sacrifice. The intellectuals and technocrats are "too valuable", for real or spurious reasons.

Anyway, it doesn't matter now. Eugenics won. We live in that world now, and now we can say what this was - only because the faithful openly march in lockstep. They have been given this impunity to poison us and we're told to never fight back or stubbornly refuse. The worst are those who become agentur of the poison, who carry it along because it feels good or because it has become their instinct. The eugenists gain something, but the fucks who promote the rot for a cheap thrill are the true villains. If I can get revenge on the enablers, that would be beyond any expectation I had in this life. Hate. HATE.

>>477292
Fag.

>>477292
uyghur transhumanist

>>477164 (OP)
>GERMan poisoned source
So Austrians don't count as "GERMans" now? Because Austromarxism with its positivism were one of the two major attempts to de-methaphesise Marxism (the other being mechanists in the SU).

You know.. Red Vienna.. Vienna Circle.. logical positivist revolution.. Neurath and Bauer.. rings any bells?

And speaking about "sources", I saw a different scheme:
Marx - histmat + Hegel
Lenin - histmat + french materialism
Austrians (and I would also add Russian mechanists) - histmat + Kant + Mach

As can be seen there is quite a long-running tendency in Marxism (Cockshott is basically a positivist too, tho I don't think he is that familiar with Austrians beyond Neurath's take on the calculation problem).

>>477466
>Cockshott is basically a positivist too
Case in point: I remember in one of his vids he was talking negatively about "Deborinists" that got purged in the 30s, but he didn't mention (doesn't know?) that "Deborinists" were crucial in purging the mechanists in the 20s. They too were against "dialectics" and some of them of philosophy in general (Science is its own philosophy maxim).

Tho it's not like Austromarxists fared any better either lol. Not radical enough. Compromising became full chaotic retreat. In fear of losing whatever little they had they've lost everything.

Retarded illusions that you could contain right wing by parliamentarism. Retarded illusions that there is a non-antagonistic relationship between the peasantry and the proletariat.

Interwar Austria is what happens when you don't have an absolute mad lad like Lenin to seize the moment. Tho Lenin's strategy failed too lol.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The Left is an absolute failure.

In general the paralyzing fear of civil war and foreign intervention. There is no war if you surrender, no millions dead (yet).

>>477469
They fared worse and doubled down on all of the really shitty parts of Marx, in favor of the bullshit. The positivists are pretty fucked generally but they are hampered by the Nazification of the academy making their position unintelligible, until the assholes came along to GERManize it. The deepest flaw of the positivists is that they believed you could treat thought like matter or a "thing", and this leads to a lot of problems. Mostly, the problems of semiotics and signs - it is easy to make impressions that bypass everything we use to make comparisons that make science possible, and with sufficiently advanced technology, reality can be effectively controlled by interdicting thought and denying anything can exist that questions this. The only way to "solve" positivism is to return to metaphysics and determine that all scientific models we can communicate - and this is particular to communication - are really metaphysical models of systems at heart, rather than "natural models" that resemble the real world. We build with models what we hope to be approximations of the world, and we are only capable of lying so much before nothing at all is real and we give up on all such efforts. That limits even the most brazen liar, and it takes training and dedication to be a fully mind controlled believer. That's what Scientology and its ilk do, teach people to lie maximally - for the future, of course. The way we're able to resolve this problem and exercise judgement is to see correctly that metaphysics is necessary for us to speak of science in the proper sense, rather than a thing apart from it. Things like "gods" would themselves be part of the world we study, if we are to regard anything they pertained to as meaningful. But, the real problem only arose with the eugenic creed and an essentially Satanic cosmology, rather than positivism in of itself which suggested a theory of how scientific models could be constructed. The positivist is rightly skeptical about "grand theories", and here is where the German ideology and Marxism took a bulldozer to our sense of what these things are and what they referred to. The scientism has a lot to do either with the eugenic creed, or failed attempts to refute it before it could spread.

My view is that anything like economics is primarily a mechanistic understanding and has to be, because of what economics is. You can't really use dialectic the way Marx is doing without some serious consequences, which Marx is aware of and carefully manipulates to suggest what he needs to suggest, rather than what evidence suggests is likely - because that story is a much uglier picture of what this really has been, and if you see that, then the productive process doesn't take the central stage that Marx grants to it, at least for the reasons Marx suggests. The main problem is that productivity was never really the basis for capitalism, beyond a need for any arrangement to reproduce society. Very early in the free trade situation, there were members of the rising bourgeoisie who knew they wanted to become aristocrats, and would in time become the new princes and kings - and always acted in accord with that goal. The producer was never "just" a producer, nor was the worker "just" a worker, seen through the conceits of management. The liberals understood this was the case, and economics did have a limited purview and a limited explanation. It goes awry because even in the degraded state of capitalism, you're dealing with a relation between worker and capitalist that is more than exploitative or a political fiction. The capitalist doesn't "automatically" win against the proletarian, or obligate the proletarian to exist entirely on the capitalist's terms, as if the prole has any buy-in with the entire arc of hitherto existing humanity or even values the concept "human" as Marx assumes he must. Nor does the capitalist really need to be "human" or given over to any ideology or attachment. There was never unanimity in the house of the capitalists - and that's one reason the American Civil War happens - and even today there are factions among the bourgeoisie with divergent aims. Those aims will never lead to a general war between them, and never have, but they will be eager to arrange wars and set proxies to attack others, and stir up as much carnage as possible to keep their institutions intact. This is about the institutions rather than the class, which has no intrinsic reason to see itself as a thing in-of-itself or for-itself. The aim of everyone in the club is to win the game, not share in brotherhood with the other capitalists. They hate each other and have aspirations to join the next thing, just as revolutionaries would.

All that said, the difficulty isn't philosophical or reasoned errors, but that none of these programs spoke to the vast majority of humanity, nor to anything a reasonable person would regard as meaningful. All of these ideologies and plans to take over the state have nothing to do with the world most of us live in and have to abide, whether we like it or not. The world as a whole cannot change. That's not what the world does, and human volition will not change reality itself no matter how fervent they are, or what technology they possess. A fetish for technology and knowledge just leads this to turn on itself and creates echo chambers.

This ultimately has more to do with the malicious wants of humanity and those who aspire to use an aristocratic state and its approach to the political, rather than the correct theory or idea or technology or some model of goodness passing down by an implied hereditary virtue. It isn't won by struggle for its own sake, because we can exhaust ourselves like Sisyphus and get nowhere. Whether humans want a different society and different concept of the political is a whole other matter, and really I have not seen a strong desire for this to change. Only the lowest class really wants the situation to change, and they have no say in the matter. Everyone else is beholden to not be the "retard" and learns what transgression against the aristocracy does to you.

And this is why I say, if humans are to do something different, it would happen under very different conditions, which we can only guess at today. We can see the kind of changes that would take place because some of them are happening now - the desperate attempts to break free from this trap that was set for us. What I can say based on that is that humans are very, very far away from conceiving of a different way to do things, let alone a markedly different world or a different entity we would call "post-human". I believe in the end humans cannot direct this change or struggle to make anything happen, but that the true change only happens when the world and the situation will allow it, and it will not be evenly distributed or "just" in any way. When it does start, it is more likely humanity will look to each other, ask "what was any of it for?" as so many have in the past, and see that what they've been made to do was ridiculous and never should have gone on the way that it did. But, the way out likely means that humans become very detached from past concepts of the political, while having a sense of the world that allows them to subvert the machinations that drag us back to this situation. Very likely, these people would have already, due to the misery humanity inflicted on others, lost interest in "life for its own sake", or the philosophy that struggling for life is the point. It's not difficult to see that the "struggle for life" is counterproductive, but to get past that requires getting past this imperial biological pseudoscience regarding evolution, and to use sense to reconstruct how something like evolution could even happen in the first place. That is not a difficult challenge, but eugenics is the holy of holies. They kill anyone who tells these Satanics they will be anything less than living gods.

Just getting rid of eugenics and its creed would improve everything drastically in obvious ways, even if humanity remains fundamentally evil. Given human history and what is likely, humans will abandon conceits about republican government and see that all such political forms are unworkable, which is already happening. This leaves only one real option as a true political theory, and those will be the conditions of humanity moving forward.

But, humans won't actually live in any "different world" or get over themselves for a very long time, if that ever happens. It doesn't even happen at a local level. The better of humanity just sigh and find some way to reconcile with the world, and keep society at a distance.

It would be better if anyone surviving the nightmare to come saw this for what it was, knew that modernity was a failed experiment, and learned the proper lessons from it. Perhaps, sooner than I expect, there will be a way forward to endure this. Humanity was denied social interactions worthwhile, but a dismal existence with a half-aware understanding of what might have been stays alive until the bastards snuff that out, and record recurs from the damned who carry on against a race that cannot cease its cycle. The world cannot change, and if humanity insists of following a crass interpretation of the world as the shortest route to political power, humanity too cannot change. Ever. But, humanity would not have grown into anything if such a foul logic were true. It would exist - humanity's origin is demonic and there is nothing to redeem it - but anything we would regard as good exists because the world allowed it to exist, because there were no malicious humans around to destroy or pervert it, and because of some decency humans inherited - which will never, ever be theirs - that suggested that allowing something better than the purest rot would be a good idea because this makes life easier for everyone, and pointless suffering and torture led to predictable results every single time their theories have been tried.

>>477507
Back again with your a historical retard hot takes I see.

>>477466
He was also using money y'know. & even invested all of the profits from one of his books into ComIntern Inc.
What a fucking cappie-kike, being a capitalist in a feudal shithole, surrounded by capitalist world ordnung, amirite guize?

Not even talking about how he made deals with Bri'ish Empire & their Iranian cocksock sheikh & also t*rkoid republicans, damning all the communists in these countries to death so he could get sum noice deals.
Oh, & RSFSR also supplied Arditi de Popolo with rifles. Y'know, the Italian popular fascists with death squadrons specifics who denounced that socialist cuck Muzzolini.