Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Buzzfeed Deputy Tech Editor Thinks Beaches are Bad, Liking them is "Late Capitalism"" video.
-
3
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
@KazuyaMithra Communism doesn't fix anything unless it's global. That is why Communism is really a moral system to stay within a a "social" paradigm [to put it simply]. Social, meaning, national [ie. national bolshevik, "populist unionism", which came out of the Narodniks (that is, the populists in Russia: Russians are weird sometimes); China, cultural revolution were by nationalist Chinese, against imperialist Chinese, etc.]. Trust me, the imperial thing rings true. Even the concept of fetishization rang true IN the COLONIAL PERIOD [and only then, because since America & Europe has switched gears from that, they've been instilled with a liberal attitude, have they not, about "former colonial nations"...?]. Now, Marxist theory that doesn't at the notion of "recognition" within the field of studying reification [so, no, no "biopower" and intersectionalism: that is all "form" and no substance, if injected with some substance it can explain peoples behavior, though]. And Marx didn't predict Russia, or China, as they were peasant countries: he figured the bourgeoisie would piss people off enough that class consciousness would kick in [which it kinda already was, see Proudhon: but Marx came up with the historical materialist dialectic (mirrored fancifully in, say, books like "Guns, Germs, & Steel", only in a more anthropological than historical register)...this dialectic was what Marx said was "standing Hegel on his head": now, I think there is alot of prescience to the concept altogether, the supervenience of the superstructure and base...as a poststructuralist [in terms of linguistics, as such, and signs], this makes alot of sense. But as a Traditionalist, and constructionist, I can see where people fault it. It's outmoded. It's not actually as "wrong" as people make it out to be. Even Engels' marxian anthropology is panning out, in the study of ethnic cultures which evolved ages ago, by the by. It is extremely prescient, but it doesn't cover everything, it doesn't out-do Hegelian modes of thought (which there is a left-, and a right-wing, mode of Hegelian thought that follows Hegel), it doesn't out-do Kant, though might just match him, so to speak. And when it comes to right-wing thought, even contemporary, it all comports to Marxian theory [classical, not necessarily it's incarnate forms afterwords, or "orthodox marxism"]. "Thingification" was the talk of people in crisis of the modern world [Marxian term], peoples being 'overcome by machines', Heidegger, Evola, Kaczynski, et al., at all ends, it's been in line with the same mode of crisis interpreted by the aforementioned people, and guess what...it doesn't stop there. Accelerationism is not something tended to know about before recently [nor comprehend the philosophical or critical implications of], and it got took from the world of academia, to the world of the internet, then to the world of madmen, real politicks, and NOT someone who would be connected to the academic side, clearly! as it would be people who would be considered "leftist"...but alas, point being, we're all talking about the same thing here. No one is "100% right". Marx wasn't right about everything, as I already have clearly indicated.
1
-
@KazuyaMithra Somewhere along the line, these lines get crossed not really in Marx's thinking but alas in the management of his thought process by the school of orthodox marxism: case in point: fetishization is mismanaged because of a very vague reason I'd have to think on how to reason on, later. It has to do with people's representation of themselves, their recognition. At odds with certain trends and their ends [and means], groups, races, people, try to "find" the recognition in the world around them [they project, as well], and they find only social ends, and ends to themselves [individualized representational subjectivity]. At some point this creates a representation [or reification] that 'hangs together' so to speak. This creates the ideals [and idealisms; trends of ideas and their ideals], by way of this "Idea" [or representation] which is reified, and then is concluded in action & reaction {which by and by creates an equal and opposite reaction}. So with this [in a nutshell], people deign to want their representation to be that of the past [antiquarian], or there are those who deign to reap the representation of the present [authoritarian], and then those who deign to wish of the representation of the future [totalitarian]. After Marx's time, and after the "revolution failed", I think it's save to say, people took things the wrong way.
Everyone, Hitler, included, responded to Marx. They had to read him and understand him, someway, to do that.
1
-
@OffGridInvestor Shut up, I don't believe any of those things, you stupid idiot. Marx differentiated crude communism [it's crudity] from enlightened communism [principals, extending to the ends of the proletariat struggle]. I'm not even a Marxist, per se. I'm more of a non-Marxist, than a Marxist. I do think Marxian theory [from the classical school of thought] and don't ascribe to Trotsyism or Leninism or Maoism. The NATURAL ORDER is something you couldn't tell me, I don't think. You don't even seem to realize that 'bureaucracy' stems out of 𝖑𝖆𝖜: and government stems out of the people in your own republic.
This "left-wing", "right-wing" thing is just a dubious contention. Two differing ideals of utopia. Two different representations of an ideal world. That doesn't even make sense. Races, groups and social ends, make up the divide. Not "left-wing" and "right-wing" — these are collections of all philosophies — bifurcated at two extremes, which end-on-end, stand for opposing forces of how to reach the same central 𝕴𝖉𝖊𝖆, and foothold, and political ressentiment follows. All this is amaterial.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1