why aren't you answering my questions?
ok then, what is communism?
why aren't you answering my questions?
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
So Marxist theory is blatantly wrong, which is probably why none of the big stuff it predicted has happened. It's intellectually and scientifically bankrupt.
you're an idealist though, science is bankrupt because all creation is divine.
but you're wrong, everything it has predicted has happened, even the fall of the USSR. you just don't know how to think.
this is why your dad sent you to cambridge university instead of entrusting his biscuits factory to you because you cannot understand how to harness invariant categories.
this is why your dad sent you to cambridge university instead of entrusting his biscuits factory to you because you cannot understand how to harness invariant categories.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Wrong. Science is possible because all creation is divine.
then why is there geocentrism in bible?
∀x ∈ {real_communist, fake_communist}, x ⊆ n₁ ⇒ x ≡ n
limₓ→contradiction ( n) x = n + 1
∴ Category(real_communist, fake_communist) ∉ PathTo(n + 1)
germaphobian
Well-known member
∫₀^∞ [Innovation(t) * Privatization(t)] dt − lim_(☭→Breadline, Plan→Shortage) CommunistSystem(☭, Plan) + Σₖ=₁^∞ [InvisibleHand(StockMarket) / ConsumerChoice(k)] = CapitalistVictory * (McDonalds(1989) / Marx(1848))
how McDonald's tried to turn marx into a common liberal, but only by eating feudalism and calling the bill ‘freedom.’
∀ n ∈ CapitalistSystems, ∃ f ∈ {ForcesOfProduction, RelationsOfProduction} such that:
lim₍Innovation → ∞₎ [Socialisation(Labourₙ) + StateControl(Forcesₙ)] = CollectiveCapitalₙ
⇒ InvisibleHand = ∅, as Capitalₙ → ConsciousPlanning
∴ ∃ (n + 1) = Communism, emerging immanently from n — not refuted by n₁ < (n + 1)
⟹ LaissezFaire( n ) ⇔ ⊥, since:
Stateₙ ≠ ExternalImposition
but = Result[FeudalPower → ∅, LandedProperty → CommodityForm]
⇒ Attempt(N + 2) = Contradiction, as:
CapitalistDevelopment ⇒ StateMediation
⇒ ¬Possibility[ReturnTo(N −)] ⟹ N + 2 ∉ ℝₑ
I was thinking today about my good ol' USA, and how it's so fucked up that you can't really get by very easily (outside of maybe a dozen cities) without a car since living here has been so totally and completely structured around having a car. So you automatically have to have and maintain something expensive just to get by day to day (that is, if you don't want to spend 10 times the amount of time getting places you need to get to on a regular basis like a grocery store, or having a social life, etc.) especially if you live in suburbs or rural areas.
other_life
bioconfused
communism is a ham hock in your corn flake
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Finally, a straightforward answer
dilbert1
Well-known member
In his famous letter to Arnold Ruge, Marx says that “communism,” referring not to “some imagined, possible communism, but to communism as it actually exists in the teachings” of the living communists of his day, “is a dogmatic abstraction.”
Marx and Engels called their book the “communist” manifesto in a move to appeal to popular intellectual currents in the European working class movement circa 1848. Likewise with socialism, which is a more modern term referring to the realization of the potential of (bourgeois) society (i.e., “society” as such, considered as global humanity, as a solution to the 19th century “social problem” of mass unemployment, poverty, economic depression, dehumanizing industrial labor, etc.), as opposed to communism, which itself contains an idealization of the primitive human community, Marx did not invent the term; he was a critic of both socialism and communism, of the international workers’ movement then groping for such politics variously labelled, but from within these very movements, from the perspective of advancing their consciousness. He provided critique in the sense of clarifying the historical conditions of possibility along with their own potential for self-overcoming, insisting his work’s “task must be to latch onto these” already existing phenomena “as they are and not to oppose them with any ready-made system…”
“Nothing prevents us, therefore, from lining our criticism with a criticism of politics, from taking sides in politics, i.e., from entering into real struggles and identifying ourselves with them. This does not mean that we shall confront the world with new doctrinaire principles and proclaim: Here is the truth, on your knees before it! It means that we shall develop for the world new principles from the existing principles of the world. We shall not say: Abandon your struggles, they are mere folly; let us provide you with true campaign-slogans. Instead, we shall simply show the world why it is struggling, and consciousness of this is a thing it must acquire whether it wishes or not.
The reform of consciousness consists entirely in making the world aware of its own consciousness, in arousing it from its dream of itself, in explaining its own actions to it…
Our programme must be: the reform of consciousness not through dogmas but by analyzing mystical consciousness obscure to itself, whether it appear in religious or political form. It will then become plain that the world has long since dreamed of something of which it needs only to become conscious for it to possess it in reality. It will then become plain that our task is not to draw a sharp mental line between past and future, but to complete the thought of the past. Lastly, it will becomes plain that mankind will not begin any new work, but will consciously bring about the completion of its old work.”
That “thought of the past” and “old work” was the liberating transformation of the world into a global society based on the free exchange of labor, which in capitalism has now transformed into the form of the (given the immense wasted potential) most profound unfreedom humans have ever known. “Communism” is the name (particularly post-Revolutionary French) intellectuals, on the side of the workers’ struggle for the value of their labor, gave to the future society they theorized would transcend the situation which gave rise to those struggles.
“If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.”
That’s a cursory stab at what “communism” means for Marx and Marxism, anyway.
Marx and Engels called their book the “communist” manifesto in a move to appeal to popular intellectual currents in the European working class movement circa 1848. Likewise with socialism, which is a more modern term referring to the realization of the potential of (bourgeois) society (i.e., “society” as such, considered as global humanity, as a solution to the 19th century “social problem” of mass unemployment, poverty, economic depression, dehumanizing industrial labor, etc.), as opposed to communism, which itself contains an idealization of the primitive human community, Marx did not invent the term; he was a critic of both socialism and communism, of the international workers’ movement then groping for such politics variously labelled, but from within these very movements, from the perspective of advancing their consciousness. He provided critique in the sense of clarifying the historical conditions of possibility along with their own potential for self-overcoming, insisting his work’s “task must be to latch onto these” already existing phenomena “as they are and not to oppose them with any ready-made system…”
“Nothing prevents us, therefore, from lining our criticism with a criticism of politics, from taking sides in politics, i.e., from entering into real struggles and identifying ourselves with them. This does not mean that we shall confront the world with new doctrinaire principles and proclaim: Here is the truth, on your knees before it! It means that we shall develop for the world new principles from the existing principles of the world. We shall not say: Abandon your struggles, they are mere folly; let us provide you with true campaign-slogans. Instead, we shall simply show the world why it is struggling, and consciousness of this is a thing it must acquire whether it wishes or not.
The reform of consciousness consists entirely in making the world aware of its own consciousness, in arousing it from its dream of itself, in explaining its own actions to it…
Our programme must be: the reform of consciousness not through dogmas but by analyzing mystical consciousness obscure to itself, whether it appear in religious or political form. It will then become plain that the world has long since dreamed of something of which it needs only to become conscious for it to possess it in reality. It will then become plain that our task is not to draw a sharp mental line between past and future, but to complete the thought of the past. Lastly, it will becomes plain that mankind will not begin any new work, but will consciously bring about the completion of its old work.”
That “thought of the past” and “old work” was the liberating transformation of the world into a global society based on the free exchange of labor, which in capitalism has now transformed into the form of the (given the immense wasted potential) most profound unfreedom humans have ever known. “Communism” is the name (particularly post-Revolutionary French) intellectuals, on the side of the workers’ struggle for the value of their labor, gave to the future society they theorized would transcend the situation which gave rise to those struggles.
“If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.”
That’s a cursory stab at what “communism” means for Marx and Marxism, anyway.
who is he? i love him!
You used to call me on my cellphone 🥺🥺😔😔💃🏻💃
what is this absolutely retarded thread
todays intellectuals can't even ascend to the level of dogma though. and in fact this was the criticisms which Bordiga offered to his critics. First get to the level of dogma, then call us dogmatic! It is an incorrect assessment that Bordiga himself was a dogmatist
But if you dissolve the invariant core of marxism in anti-scientific eclecticist rubbish (as is so common in all universities) then even dogma (dialectically speaking) is a step up in cognition, though insufficient. Why may that be? because dogmas do not plop out of mans head as idol flights of fancy, but are guides to action. The fact that marxism is based on experimental science does not diminish our respect for the refuted historical dogmas, even if their acquisition of knowledge was based on intuition, and myth.
Read the science of logic, my main man!
and meditate on this thoroughly: