Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Communism/Marxism

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 844
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Communism/Marxism Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:39 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This post by OhFortunae got me thinking:

Although communists, along with others on the far left, are infamous for their overusage of the words ending with -ist, -phobe, and accusing others of discrimination, intolerance, inhumanity, etc. I have never heard them calling anybody 'classist' in a derogatory manner.

To discriminate based on class doesn't even count as discrimination to them, and it is not only justified, but the moral imperative of a proper Marxist revolutionist.
All other categories are irrelevant, except class. This is made most evident in the famous saying - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Which translates to - doesn't matter your religion, nationality, sex, race, as long as you are one of the oppressed working class, you are one of us - shared victimhood status transcending every other identification.

It is therefore plainly visible that Marxism seeks to undermine all other categories except class.
But is it the end or the means?
1) Did Marxists seek to undermine sex/religion/nationality/race etc. out of a genuine, if naive, desire to create an earthly paradise (utopia), and removing sex/religion/nationality/race was just necessary to enforce their particular economic system which determines material contribution to be one's primary means of identification?
Or
2) Did they merely use the promises of utopia and social and economic equality to undermine the foundations for identity (sex/religion/race/nationality) of the masses in powerful countries to weaken them, effectively 'cleaning their slate of the past/nature' and making them prone to whatever memetic brainwashing the elites can imagine, paving the way for globalism/humanism?

I think the reason that sex/religion/nationality/race had to be undermined with 'critical' theory, or sometimes even denied existence, is that people would probably identify with all of those things before class, making Marxism/Communism ineffective.

I also wonder what would be the communist response to this. I may try posting it on a communist forum.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Communism/Marxism Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:04 am

Yockey wrote:
"The gradual transition of the Spirit of the 18th century into that of the 19th century was manifested by the increasingly radical nature of the conflict between Tradition and democracy. Rationalism became more extreme with each decade. Its most intransigent product is Communism.
In the century 1750-1850, democracy had undermined the State and opened the way for the Economic Age. But the financier and the industrial baron replaced the absolute monarch. Communism is the symbol of the transference of the democratic struggle to the sphere of economics.
Communism fitted itself out with a Rationalistic philosophy: a materialistic metaphysic, an atomistic logic, a social ethic, an economic politics. It even offered a philosophy of history which said that human history was the history of economic development and struggles! And these people ridiculed the Scholastic philosophers for the nature of the problems they set themselves! Religion— that was economic, politics, of course, also. Technics and art were clearly economic. This theory was actually the crowning intellectual stupidity of the Age of Economics. The Age asserted thus its omnipotence and universality. “Everything within economics, nothing outside economics, nothing against economics” might well have been the slogan.
Just as the political aspect of Democracy had been directed against quality and tradition, so the economic aspect was directed against even such quality and superiority as was engendered by economic differences. Political class war became economic class war. Just as the appeal in the first stage had been made to anyone not belonging to the two Estates, so later the appeal was directed to the non-possessors. Not all non-possessors, but only those in the great cities, and within this group, only the manual workers, for only these were physically concentrated so that they could be brought on to the streets for class war." [Imperium]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 844
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Communism/Marxism Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:14 am

It's amazing how accurate this analogy is.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14204
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Communism/Marxism Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:30 am

The last vid is brilliant.
"Pussy to the people".

Partially collectivized during the sixties, the "decade of love".
But not totally.
Confusion followed and we are presently living in the dazed and confused remnants of that age of "enlightenment".

Like Communism, collectivizing resources was practised as the privilege of those who were party leaders.
Nihilism must ALWAYS, contradict itself to remain viable, and alive.
Detachment form reality has to lie, otherwise it dies.

Sexually the lie that "all deserve" love, is practised with more severe discrimination.
Those controlling love/lust dictate how access to resources is attained.

In this case the resource is vagina and the womb.
The state enforces strict regulations, and punishes masculine traits that overcome this female natural power, forcing males in the role of worker.

With no access to the resource he must enslave himself to pussy, and to those who actually control pussy, by controlling the mind pussy is attached to.
This is feminization of mankind, using the agency of woman to exploit and manipulate men.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 844
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Communism/Marxism Sat Jun 18, 2016 9:01 pm

Ordinary Marxism sought to replace the male sexual role of protector/provider by taking the control of  protection/provision away from the man and distributing it to those in need (mostly women). This reduces the sexual power of men drastically and mostly benefits women at the expense of men.

The one proposed in the Collectivize Sex video reverses this. It replaces the female sexual role of providing sexual services to the male (though it doesn't replace the child birthing part) by taking the control of vagina away from the female and distributing it to those in need (mostly men). This reduces the sexual power of females drastically and mostly benefits men at the expense of women.

Interesting how it can be turned around. I think the only argument the feminist Marxists would have is that vagina is part of the body and one's own body is their own choice, but then the men could say that the same thing applies to protection/provision being taken away from them, as it forces their body to act and respond in a certain manner to restrictions placed upon them.

I think for the more rational females it would succeed to truly expose the retarded reasoning behind Marxism.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Communism/Marxism Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:45 pm

With everything having become a 'knowledge economy', Negri wrote abt. Marxism morphing into an immaterial civil war against 'cognitive capitalism' , the proletariat into the "cognitariat"…

The 'knowledge class', the 'value producers', the 'creative class'… all Deleuzean rhizomatic solutions heavily relying on creativity as the solution - the fury of creativity that capitalism cannot keep pace with to exploit…

But not only has capitalism kept pace, but even exposed Natural hierarchies Automatically forming within all "creative commons" such as Wikicommons, etc.
Even amongst the utopia of 'free creative brotherhood', gaps inevitably widen, further and further differentiating, fragmenting into diff. class of labourers.

This need to out-capitalize capitalism by speeding up the pace of creativity or 'creative excess', only morphed into a capitalism in itself - speed even more dictating the Fact-ory (of) workers…, which goes to show the futility of eradicating inequality or erasing class distinctions through marxism/communism, which, as we all know, has only had the disastrous effect of

1. Pathological simulation in the name of creativite resistance

2. A plethora of classes, over-fragmentations - Satyr's "Idiot Savants", over-specializations like cells in a honey-comb, artificial laws, rights, complications veering towards chaos.

3. Increased disconnect from increased specialization calling for more and more socialization, participation, the artificial intimacy of secular humanism, "intimate" universes, and feelgood religions, and,

4. Paranoid neuroticism of seeing oppressors and oppression everywhere, culminating in the victim industry...


(Author is a Marxist.)

Quote :
"We are implicit, here, all of us, in a vast physical construct of artificially linked nervous systems. Invisible. We cannot touch it." [William Gibson, In the visegrips of Dr. Satan]


Quote :
Cognitive Capitalism

"Around 2006, the term Creative Industries (CI) started to surface in the mailboxes and mailing lists of many cultural workers, artists, activists and researchers across Europe, as well as in the calls for seminars and events. One of the points of condensation of this trend was the conference ‘My Creativity’ held in Amsterdam by the Institute of Network Cultures. An old question spins back: curiously, for the first time, a term is picked up from institutional jargon and brought unchanged into alt culture, a debate used to other keywords and post-structures (that may deserve an acronym as well) such as network culture (NC), knowledge economy (KE), immaterial labour (IL), general intellect (GI), and of course largely dominated by the two hegemonic models of Free Software (FLOSS) and Creative Commons (the famous CC). This interest in the topic of Creative Industries was more a reaction to the hype of Richard Florida’s ‘creative economy’ storming European institutions and local city councils. Indeed, the notion of Creative Industries was far more pragmatic and understated than Florida’s ‘flight of the creative class’. Originally, the precise 1998 definition adopted by the Creative Industries Task Force set up by Tony Blair stated:

‘Those industries that have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property.’

The celebrated notion of ‘social creativity’ was largely left out of that definition, even if today the two terms Creative Industries and Creative Economy increasingly overlap. After so many years, Tony Blair is still suspected of stealing your ideas.

Cognitive workers are networkers, precarious workers are networked, the former are brainworkers, the latter chainworkers: the former first seduced and then abandoned by companies and financial markets, the latter dragged into and made flexible by the fluxes of global capital.

It was clear from the beginning that this cohabitation was problematic for the standard pauperism of the radical left. In the late 2000s, all these theoretical efforts condensed in general around the notion of cognitive capitalism, advanced specifically by the Paris-based magazine Multitudes and the Italian magazine Posse.

During the golden age of net culture, the debate around ICT and the new economy was often linked to concept of ‘knowledge economy’. The Austrian-born American economist Peter Drucker introduced the terms ‘knowledge workers’ and ‘knowledge economy’ during the 1960s in his books The Effective Executive and The Age of Discontinuity. Fritz Machlup had, in fact, already described the ‘knowledge industry’ in 1962.

It is no mystery that the Anglo-American context has nothing of the productivist and workerist approach of continental Marxism. Here, the motto ‘information wants to be free’ could be cited as the perfect incarnation of this tradition, being focussed more on the issues of freedom, rights and property rather than production of knowledge. Finally, in 2001 the debate around copyleft escaped the boundaries of Free Software and established the widely cel- ebrated paradigm of Creative Commons licences.

In 2002, the bestseller The Rise of the Creative Class by Richard Florida (itself based on controversial statistical evidence) appeared right in the middle of the Anglo-American debate but strangely absorbed many continental traits and concerns. His model at first seems inspired by the notion of cultural capital introduced by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu in the 1970s and ’80s. In this sense, Florida breaks with the Anglo-American tradition, since his model is no longer exclusively based on intellectual property but on the exploitation of cultural capital. Indeed, this agenda is more appreciated in Europe by the Nordic social democracies for their cultural policies, rather than the neoliberal tendency of the UK, for instance. So far the debate is dominated by two models: the institutional notion of Creative Industries based on the exploitation of Intellectual Property (typically British) and the new entrepreneurial model of Creative Economy based on the tactical and dynamic exploitation of the cultural capital of a given city (extensively adopted world-wide but especially in Northern Europe). These are the main coordinates (aside from the one-dimensional models of Creative Commons and ‘peer production’) through which a critical understanding of culture industry and a new politics of cognitive labour have to find their own path.

At stake is the political re-engagement of a generation of creative workers (before getting mixed up with chain workers) and, at the same time, the ‘economic’ engagement of a generation of activists (as the Seattle movement was more concerned with global issues than their own income). My creativity = my value = my conflict.

The massification of the ‘creative’ attitude: ‘Everyone is a creative’ is a widespread slogan today. Many years after Benjamin’s artwork, the mass artist enters the age of social reproducibility where ‘creativity’ is sold as a status symbol.
The social base of cultural industry is getting larger (at least in the Western world) and unveils new scenarios. In the first period, cultural industries become hegemonic (as a fact and as a concept). In the second period, they face an entropy of meaning and producers. Collective intelligence also has its own entropy." [Matteo Pasquinelli, Animal Spirits: A Beastiary of the Commons]



Quote :
Rent is the new Profit,

"Vercellone, accordingly, provides an apt slogan for the nature of cognitive capitalism: ‘Rent is the new profit’. Rent is parasitic because it is orthogonal to the line of classic profit. Parasite etymologically means ‘eating at another’s table,’ sucking surplus in a furtive manner, rather than directly. Whenever we produce freely in front of our computers, somebody has their hands in our wallet.

Post-Operaismo has developed the theory of rent by upgrading Marx’s notion of the general intellect. If in Marx the general intellect was embodied in the fixed capital of machinery, today knowledge pro- ducing value is rooted in the distributed cooperation of brains that exceeds the boundaries of the factory. Profit is to the Fordist factory as rent is to the diffuse ‘social factory’. Contrary to the theory of information revolution and network society, Vercellone claims that the mutation of labour cannot be explained by the technological determinism of ICT. The power of ICT does not originate from the vitalistic force of capitalism, but from the social networks of knowledge that are prior to any technology. Cognitive capitalism emerges later in the form of a parasite: it subjects social knowledge and inhibits its emancipatory potential. Rent is the other side of the commons – it was once cast over the common land, today over the network commons.

The becoming rent of profit means a transformation of management structures and the cognitive workforce. Not surprisingly, the autonomization of capital has grown in parallel with the autonomization of cooperation. Managers now deal increasingly with financial and speculative tasks, while workers are in charge of distributed management. In this evolution, the ‘cognitariat’ is split into two tendencies. On one side, high-skilled cognitive workers become ‘functionaries of the capital rent’ and are co-opted within this system through stock options (a parasitic type of wage that partially absorbs the worker into proprietary capital itself).

On the other side, the majority of workers face a declassing (déclassement) of life conditions despite their skills being increasingly knowledge rich. It is no mystery that the New Economy has generated more McJobs: temp-workers are proliferating coincidently with the rise of the ‘wealth of networks’. Production went social, but wages are still trapped within the cage of labour as the only access to income. The effect is a stagnation of income and the precarization of labour, while rent accumulates energy on a parallel level. This model can be easily applied to the Internet economy and its workforce, where users are placed in charge of content production and web management, but do not share any profit. Major corporations like Google, for instance, make money over the attention economy of user-generated content with its services Adsense and Adwords. Google provides a light infrastructure for advertising that infiltrates websites as a subtle and mono-dimensional parasite, extracting profit without producing any content. Of course, a small part of the value is shared with users, and Google programmers are paid in stock options to develop more sophisticated algorithms, so we are placed in the belly of a benevolent parasite; to a certain degree, it is still comforting and paternalistic.

In this interweaving scenario, Negri and Vercellone advocate the final collapse of Marx’s trinitarian formula of profit, rent and wages. For them, rent is the new antagonism between capital and labour in the age of the general intellect. The theory of rent, therefore, at last opens to the actual multiplicity of late capitalism and its molecular strategies of valorization, since there are heterogeneous kinds of rent at work concerning finance, real estate, knowledge, wages, and so forth. Moreover, according to the ‘emergence of immaterial labour’ outlined by Negri and Hardt in Empire, cognitive labour lies at the centre of the valorization process and, consequently, can break the mechanisms of capitalist production more easily. Along this conceptual line, however, the notion of multitude has been kept rooted by its own production force, but with few strategies of self-defence. The theory of rent finally illuminates the new fields of conflict and sabotage in terms of value accumulation, which become crucial for producing and defending the new commons." [Matteo Pasquinelli, Animal Spirits: A Beastiary of the Commons]



Quote :
The Hacker Class

"A Hacker Manifesto by McKenzie Wark is a remarkable attempt to develop a Marxist critique of the information society and the digital economy. Wark, nevertheless, still remains trapped in a form of digitalism. Here, the term hacker class is introduced as an attempt to synthesize Marxist thought and the new autonomous movements of Internet-based workers and activists, traditionally allergic to any kind of Marxism especially in the Anglo-American context. ‘Hacker class’ is the Californian translation of all those continental terms, like immaterial workers, cognitariat, multitude and so on, that have descended from the older Marxist concept of the general intellect. Wark’s hacker class is, therefore, specifically defined by the power of abstraction (the ability to shape new ideas, or the creative act):

Wark wrote:
"All classes fear this relentless abstraction of the world, on which their fortunes yet depend. All classes but one: the hacker class. We are the hackers of abstraction. We produce new concepts, new perceptions, new sensations, hacked out of raw data. Whatever code we hack, be it programming language, poetic language, math or music, curves or colorings, we are the abstracters of new worlds."

Wark believes that the hacker class can reopen the question of property more effectively than any previous social struggle. Surprisingly, he does not make any distinction between material and immaterial property: property on signs and ideas, as opposed to property on material goods or biochemical energy. Wark believes implicitly that the free reproducibility of digital data will eventually undermine material property itself. A soft Marxism defines the hacker class: where Marx proposes the abolition of private property and the re-appropriation of the means of production as a revolutionary solution, here, there is only the gesture of the gift as a silent rebellion. The gift economy is advanced as the real threat to the property system and to the power of the ‘vectorial class’ (the class owning the media infrastructure), precisely as P2P networks are undermining the music and movie industries. Yet this form of sabotage remains predominantly digital.

The declarative style of the book is principally locked in a binary scheme. Wark does not recognize that capitalism has already found a third way and many business models are already based on the ‘gift economy’ (IBM parasiting Free Software, Google providing free services, etcetera). On the contrary, Wark believes that the ‘vectorial’ class is still committed to a reactive concept of scarcity and has not repositioned itself into a more competitive scenario, where the notion of property itself has become more dynamic and negotiated. In other words, the endless reproduction of desire (Deleuze and Guattari stretched out again!) triggered by digital media cannot be fatally stopped.

Wark wrote:
"But short of seizing hold of a monopoly on all vectors for producing and distributing information, the vectorialist class cannot entirely limit the free productivity of the hacker class, which continues to produce yet more fuel for the free productivity of desire."

What the farming, working and hacking classes have in common is an interest in abstracting production from its subordination to rulin classes who turn production into the production of new necessities, who wrest slavery from surplus. What the farming and working class lack in a direct knowledge of free production the hacking class has from direct experience. What the hacking class lacks is the depths of an historic class memory of revolt against alienated production. This is what the farming and working classes have in spades." [Matteo Pasquinelli, Animal Spirits: A Beastiary of the Commons]



Quote :
The Hydra of Language

"When instinctual drives contaminate collective language and culture, they appear as a conflictive hydra, whose heads scream and devour each other in a material and immaterial ‘civil’ conflict that erupts from the multitude. Today’s ‘Free Culture’ movement (from Free Software to Creative Commons to any artistic use of such metaphors) can be taken as an example of the belief in the ‘natural goodness’ of human beings and networks. ‘Information is non-rival’ is a popular saying among supporters of the Free Culture movement, from which the contours of a utopian non-competitive society are deduced and explained. On the contrary, examining the labour conditions of temporary workers, free-lancers and activists demonstrates how competition and social distress are amplified through informational production.

The hydra of the immaterial civil war emerges when the economy of ideas is extended across the whole of society; it is linked to the phenomenon of ‘artists in the age of their social reproduction’ and the entropic decay of collective intelligence. Immaterial conflict is the norm between intellectual workers, despite all the rhetoric of knowledge sharing and digital commons. It is manifested in the well-known rivalry within academia and the art world, to the economy of references, the race of deadlines, the competition for festival selection and between festivals themselves, the envious and suspicious attitudes among activists. Immaterial civil war is the constant struggle on the stage of the society of the spectacle: a cruel Ballardian jungle of brands, pop stars, gadgets, devices, but also formats and protocols. Immaterial exploitation is the everyday life of precarious workers, particularly of the younger generations, completely aware of the symbolic capital produced by their lives put to work. The notion of immaterial civil war describes the explosion of social relations enclosed in the modern commodity. As Italian economist Rullani points out, there is even more competition in the realm of the knowledge economy when reproducibility is free and speed becomes a crucial mark of difference. How can the constitution of the common be reconsidered in the context of a cognitive civil conflict? The ‘composition’ of immaterial civil conflict as a material class conflict in the form of the exploitation of cognitive capitalism is the political question at stake. Immaterial civil war challenges the composition of new social subjects, from the cognitariat to the ‘creative class’. Only a productive definition of the common can decipher the profile of the new subjectivities. In the mirror of immaterial civil war, there comes the production of the common." [Matteo Pasquinelli, Animal Spirits: A Beastiary of the Commons]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Communism/Marxism Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:28 am

Pg. 4 and 5 on Marx/Engels' double-stds.

Quote :
"Europeanization was seen as necessary for the development of both Asians and American slaves." Avineri's assessment is worth quoting at length:

Quote :
"Since Oriental society does not develop internally, it cannot evolve toward capitalism through the dialectics of internal change; and since Marx postulates the ultimate victory of socialism on the prior universalization of capitalism, he necessarily arrives at the position of having to endorse European colonial expansion as a brutal but necessary step toward the victory of socialism....[T]he horrors of colonialism are dialectically necessary for the world revolution of the proletariat since without them the countries of Asia (and presumably also Africa) will not be able to emancipate themselves from their stagnant backwardness.

Marx's view of European-and particularly British-colonial expansion is determined by these dialectical considerations consequently, Marx's views on imperialism can be painfully embarrasslng to the orthodox communist; there certainly is a deep irony in the fact that while Marx's writings on European industrialization are always the first to be used and quoted by non-European Marxists, his writings on India and China are hardly known or even mentioned by them. The Maoists in particular seem to be totally unaware of them..."

The Hegelian and Eurocentric orientation of Marx and Engels is particularly evident in their writings on the Arab world. In 1848, a year of revolution in Europe, Engels wrote:

Engels wrote:
"Upon the whole it is, in our opinion, very fortunate that the Arabian chief has been taken. The struggle of the Bedouins was a hopeless one, and though the manner in which brutal soldiers, like Bugeaud, have carried on the war is highly blameable, the conquest of Algeria is an important and fortunate fact for the progress of civilisation.. . .

And the conquest of Algeria has already forced the Beys of Tunis and Tripoli, and even the Emperor of Morocco, to enter upon the road of civilisation. They were obliged to find other employment for their people than piracy. . . . And if we may regret that the liberty of the Bedouins of the desert has been destroyed, we must not forget that these same Bedouins were a nation of robbers,-whose principal means of living consisted of making excursions either upon each other, or upon the settled villagers, taking what they found, slaughtering all those who resisted, and selling the remaining prisoners as slaves. All these nations of free barbarians look very proud, noble and glorious at a distance, but only come near them and you will find that they, as well as the more civilised nations, are ruled by the lust of gain, and only employ ruder and more cruel means. And after all, the modern bourgeois, with civil- isation, industry, order, and at least relative enlightenment following him, is preferable to the feudal lord or to the marauding robber, with the barbarian state of society to which they helong."

In any case, by 1848 the founders of Marxism were already engaged in a significant controversy with Michael Bakunin, a previous associate from the revolutionary Hegelian circles. Bakunin published an essay entitled Appeal to the Slavs where he called for social revolution, the destruction of empires, and national self-determi- nation.

Engels wrote an answer arguing that justice and independence were "moralistic categories" which prove nothing. Referring to the U.S. war against Mexico, Engels wrote:

Engels wrote:
"And will Bakunin reproach the American people for waging a war which to be sure deals a severe blow to his theories based on "Justice" and "Humanity," but which none the less was waged solely in the interests of civilization? Or is it perhaps a misfortune that the splendid land of California has been wrested from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?. . .Because of this the "independence" of a few Spanish Californians and Texans may suffer, occasionally "Justice" and other moralistic principles may he injured, hut what do they count compared to such world historic events?"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The right to local self-determination was denied on grounds of the 'larger pic.'

At bottom, even they Had to realize the stupidity and the consequences of 'right to self-determination' of 'savages'; better the colonial rule and 'Europeanization' of the world, than that.

In this, we see the continuation of the convenient self-chosenness at work…

'Better us, than them'.

Liberalism is an ill-logic of the original J.-Xt. schizophrenia and world-inversion.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Communism/Marxism

Back to top Go down
 
Communism/Marxism
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: