what should we do about our embaressing nazis?

dilbert1

dilbert1

Well-known member
Tea he’s not really keen on Trump, at least not on a political level, probably gets a laugh out of him and doesn’t lose sleep over that fact. But same with me and most people I know at this point, most Americans have calmed the hyperventilating. His thing is more pointing out Democrat hypocrisy and the irrational aspects of anti-Trumpism. Its a rhetorical thing, and far from the post-ironic delusional “MAGA communist” grift. Promise I wouldn’t associate with that type of thing even informally
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
And from one of our texts of 1921 («The Function of Social Democracy in Italy»), one may read:
«The social-democratic parties maintain that the democratic period is not over, and that the proletariat can still serve its class needs by these democratic forms. Given that these political forms exist and that the proletariat, particularly in the conditions resulting from the war, can draw no advantages from them, social democrats are led to advance and propose changes to a more perfect and advantageous democracy, suggesting that the present system acts against the proletariat only because it is not fully democratic.From here arise all the new plans for a republic, the extension of suffrage, the elimination of the upper house [of parliament the granting of new powers to parliament, and so on.» (2)
Click to expand...

We are heading to the second and final death of democracy, where, as a good dialectician knows, it is not accidental. Thus our task is to repeat the russian revolution (harder) in a manner speaking, and fail a bit less than we did the first time when it was tragedy.


As a matter of fact, the mode of capitalist production that emerged victorious after centuries of fighting against feudal production reached a summit at that cross-roads; not in the sense that it could not expand and develop
further (which it did); but in the deeper sense that it had exhausted the positive phase of its historical ascent, positive in that the new mode of production lifted humanity ahead. Now it was passing into a period in which it was becoming ever more passé and, with the passage of time, more destructive and self-afflicting. Today, in 1999, one need only look around oneself.
Hence Marxism was born as an epitaph to the old mode of production and as a science of revolutionary rupture. It undertook the responsibility for a detailed analysis, better still, for a near microscopic autopsy, of the capitalist mode of production. It posited itself as a combined theory, program, and praxis applicable for the entire span of time needed for the class struggle to clear the stage of capitalism, an obsolete system of production - a spate of time that revolutionaries hoped (and always hope) would be short; but which, given the whims of the social war, may be long, turning the agony of the old and the birth of the new into a travail seemingly without end. On the other hand, let us remember that the bourgeoisie employed nearly five centuries to dispose of the earlier mode of production.
Click to expand...

 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
Thus we can say that modern critical philosophy, inaugurated by Descartes and Galileo was an epitath to the feudal (or more properly) tributary mode of production.

It is hegel who gives it the irrevocable repeated punch of death, pursuant to the French revolution, by systematising theology entirely into a science of logic and a phenomenology, and thereby in a very real sense concealing the rational kernel in mystical shell. This questioning as inner relation could only advance with the scientific method, which follows dialectic enquiry, and necessitates a total fusion of history with the present. Hence it is certainly true that the substance of hegel's dialectic is spirit iI.E: God, but few have understood what this actually means. It means, in essence, that religious criticism that intended to purify and return the religion to a prior affirmation (protestantism) by nature had to take up the struggle against unproductive prejudices, and thus bring religious knowledge into self-consciousness.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
the old scholastics still posited a fundamental abyss between human consciousness and understanding of the divine word. Hegel historicises this, and thus both affirms and kills christianity.

This, wouldn't have been a big issue if catholicism didn't strangle Europe, but then islam would have to be seen as superior tributary/feudal ideology. hrmph! what a pickle for our boys on this forum!
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
dilbert1 said:
Tea he’s not really keen on Trump, at least not on a political level, probably gets a laugh out of him and doesn’t lose sleep over that fact. But same with me and most people I know at this point, most Americans have calmed the hyperventilating. His thing is more pointing out Democrat hypocrisy and the irrational aspects of anti-Trumpism. Its a rhetorical thing, and far from the post-ironic delusional “MAGA communist” grift. Promise I wouldn’t associate with that type of thing even informally
Click to expand...
From what I read of that bit by him someone posted here a while ago was that he believes (or affects to believe) that *all* the charges against Trump, even the ones he's been convicted of, are - well - trumped up. Which seems... far-fetched, to be honest.
 
G

germaphobian

Well-known member
thirdform said:
the far right is parodic because it tries to use the old language of tradition, family and property even when the phenomena such language corresponds to is no longer extant.
Click to expand...

It's not always the case though. There's always been two main currents within far right - traditionalist and modernist.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
germaphobian said:
It's not always the case though. There's always been two main currents within far right - traditionalist and modernist.
Click to expand...

this differentiation is in fact semantic. In reality all traditionalists are modern because their mediation of the tradition begins from what it is not, hence the furious attempt to preserve it in aspic. Rather than A) either something living and breathing or B) something handed down, thematised in writing to be engaged with in the present. Both of these phenomena, the traditionalist cannot abide. He wants to dispense with the enslaving principle of writing, without renouncing writing as such. Which is manifestly impossible, hence all the Italian and German fascists calls to atavistic resurgence were merely window dressing for the fact that they had to administrate capitalism faced by the threats of workers revolutions. If social democracy is clean cut, then fascism and traditionalism are the middle class dirt bags, thuggish and scummy. But they accomplish the same function. Terror directed against the proletariat.
 
G

germaphobian

Well-known member
thirdform said:
this differentiation is in fact semantic. In reality all traditionalists are modern because their mediation of the tradition begins from what it is not, hence the furious attempt to preserve it in aspic. Rather than A) either something living and breathing or B) something handed down, thematised in writing to be engaged with in the present. Both of these phenomena, the traditionalist cannot abide. He wants to dispense with the enslaving principle of writing, without renouncing writing as such. Which is manifestly impossible, hence all the Italian and German fascists calls to atavistic resurgence were merely window dressing for the fact that they had to administrate capitalism faced by the threats of workers revolutions. If social democracy is clean cut, then fascism and traditionalism are the middle class dirt bags, thuggish and scummy. But they accomplish the same function. Terror directed against the proletariat.
Click to expand...

You do know that Mussolini came from a working class family and started out as a socialist, right? And, lo and behold, he was named after this guy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Juárez
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
germaphobian said:
You do know that Mussolini came from a working class family and started out as a socialist, right? And, lo and behold, he was named after this guy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Juárez
Click to expand...

So? the working class is a product of capitalism. It is always and at all times conformist left to its normal operations as statistical mass in-itself. Mussolini was a great marxist once, in 1912. But quickly changed his tune in ww I. But what does this mean, exactly? It isn't the gocha you think it is.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
I'm not even saying you have to be a marxist, but if you don't think the radical right didn't constantly evoked the spectre of judeo-bolshevism in the 20s and 30s, well...

even mussolini who personally considered antisemitism to be stupid had to pander to it.
 
G

germaphobian

Well-known member
thirdform said:
I'm not even saying you have to be a marxist, but if you don't think the radical right didn't constantly evoked the spectre of judeo-bolshevism in the 20s and 30s, well...
Click to expand...

Yeah, they did do that. And for good reasons. Mussolini was a pussycat compared to almost any communist regime.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
@luka dialectic for you

q4:157 And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

q24:35 Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The similitude of His light is as a niche wherein is a lamp. The lamp is in a glass. The glass is as it were a shining star. (This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it. Light upon light. Allah guideth unto His light whom He will. And Allah speaketh to mankind in allegories, for Allah is Knower of all things.
 
G

germaphobian

Well-known member
I do agree about traditionalists and cuckservatives being complete morons who can't grasp the development of technological process though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top