Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Vaush Is So F***ing Wrong About, Well, Everything But Specifically Marx \u0026 Lenin" video.
-
5
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@v.k.rt.m.6030 Naive. Engels is actually a perfect example of what happens in the contemporary moment when Communism unfolds from a proletarian state of mind, apart from a duly aristocratic one: neither of which are anymore or less scrupulous. Marxian theory is sound: Engels interpretation of Marxian theory is nothing but a form of naive realism. It's one of the best examples [other than in the current political moment right now] of the arbitrarization of tendencies and things in general [something Engels would gathered easily, even if in his naive way: as he would have pointed out the objectification of things into people and people into things, and the conversion from quality into quantity, and visa versa]. With Engels, the contention that "Marxists make everything into a economism and into a materialism" is a sound one, that holds water. But Marx, himself, was more circumspect than that. He quite duly noted, for example, that Communism would come from Capitalism itself, and thru it, to be more precise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@The80sWolf_ I'll just repost what I gave as retort, to someone else who wants to jive-talk Vaush about quibbles:
Engels is actually a perfect example of what happens in the contemporary moment when Communism unfolds from a proletarian state of mind, apart from a duly aristocratic one: neither of which are anymore or less scrupulous. Marxian theory is sound: Engels interpretation of Marxian theory is nothing but a form of naive realism. It's one of the best examples [other than in the current political moment right now] of the arbitrarization of tendencies and things in general [something Engels would gathered easily, even if in his naive way: as he would have pointed out the objectification of things into people and people into things, and the conversion from quality into quantity, and visa versa]. With Engels, the contention that "Marxists make everything into a economism and into a materialism" is a sound one, that holds water. But Marx, himself, was more circumspect than that. He quite duly noted, for example, that Communism would come from Capitalism itself, and thru it, to be more precise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@inovakovsky Actually, I am saying quite the opposite, quite literally. It's foolish to assert "what would Marx x", cause that is a: antithetical to Marxian theory, and b: Marx wasn't a proponent of such things, and c: Marx can still be wrong; he was, afterall, not able to predict the revolutions arising in Russia and China, but instead, saw the historical outcomes completely differently than how they actual panned out: and this is one of the many reasons why Marxist-Leninism is a misnomer. It should just be called "Stalinism", and leave it at that. Just like Lenin, apart from Stalinist theory, is very different, and should be simply called "Leninism".
1
-
1
-
@juhman Yeah, but they are still potential revolutionaries [which I think is what was suggested, and so you're quibbling over hardly anything much of distinction: but even if you were, the distinctive difference is minimal, at best]. Proletariat in the Marxian sense of the term is adopted from the same term for a certain class status, not based in a purely Marxist sense of the "working wage-earner" class [wage-based slavery], but instead that of a "lower class" based on their demerit as "belonging" to no one, so was considered "property" to the sovereign [as children are considered, as "property" of the parents: hence the name "proles"]. The terms have changed, but the meaning is still the same: peasants, were, and are still, in effect, part of the revolutionary class, because they are in the same precarious situation as even the petty bourgeoisie [consumerists, in the modern sense]; and they have more to lose, because they are outside of the city limits [most of them, as it were], and by now, most people who aim to live as such live the lives as like the bourgeoisie: and are bourgeois: hence the terms have changed, yet the meaning stays the same. Or rather, to be more precise, the "usage" has changed, while the terms are used slightly but albeit, only slightly, differently.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SocialismForAll I'll just reiterate what I told someone else, who wanted to argue quibbles about some piddling nonsense:
Engels is actually a perfect example of what happens in the contemporary moment when Communism unfolds from a proletarian state of mind, apart from a duly aristocratic one: neither of which are anymore or less scrupulous. Marxian theory is sound: Engels interpretation of Marxian theory is nothing but a form of naive realism. It's one of the best examples [other than in the current political moment right now] of the arbitrarization of tendencies and things in general [something Engels would gathered easily, even if in his naive way: as he would have pointed out the objectification of things into people and people into things, and the conversion from quality into quantity, and visa versa]. With Engels, the contention that "Marxists make everything into a economism and into a materialism" is a sound one, that holds water. But Marx, himself, was more circumspect than that. He quite duly noted, for example, that Communism would come from Capitalism itself, and thru it, to be more precise.
1
-
@SocialismForAll There are, of course, major differences. Engels is a proponent of Marx, but misapprehends where Marx ends and he begins: he misrepresents Marxian theory. They diverge in their thought by the time Engels has written The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. His understanding of science, also, was not only not up to snuff, but just made too primary in the comprehension of a "nature" of things, and henceforth, his conception of socialism and of reality, and how to interpret that reality. Social realism in a complete naivete about the construction of not only the world but our concept of it: unlike Marx, whom understood such things. This places Engels in a much different category of what is conceivably sound in the early Marxist period.
1
-
1
-
@smjfg THe high-school dropout, who flubbed Hegel, and then took up being an industrialist, helped Marx [after Marx received some interesting erm "grant" money, I suppose] to foment a "scientific and utopian" [within reason, I suppose he meant] form of socialism (that is, radical democratic socialism, or Marxist communism) *and form of an understanding of Capital: thankfully [???] editing vols. 2 & 3 of Das Kapital, he could only do so much with his huge aspirations to promote Marx [after Marx died...], wherewith he propounded about his takes (which would now be considered pseudo-science) about the "scientific" socialism he espoused, along with Marx's vision of the capitalist system, along Hegelian lines, I might add: this naturphilosophie of the time, in Engels, was, of course, also in Hegel: but Hegel was much smarter than Engels [and Marx, too].
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1