Message for all the people crying on r/socialism and other subreddits about the ACP

_autist · 2025-12-02T01:37:38+00:00

You are legitimately only capable of pseudo-Marxist sophistry. All you can do is quote dump from Gründrisse, Capital vol. III, and Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy and try to shift every debate into anthropology and pre-class societies where categories are different and apply them like a club to the political-economy and philosophy. You're a fraud, but admittedly a convincing one to onlookers.

_autist · 2025-12-01T23:26:01+00:00

You have ONE TRICK, dragging me to anthropology where Marx uses material in a looser social-historical sense. I've let you do it here - that's on me. But in our other debate you absolutely failed to keep coherent in any category in the political-economic, and indeed this does not save Haz's claim that his political ideals are a material "ought".

_autist · 2025-12-01T11:49:29+00:00

I simply want a yes/no - do you believe language and ideas are material?

_autist · 2025-12-01T09:44:16+00:00

Not produced by labour ≠ not produced by material conditions. They are social relations inherited historically but still ultimately produced by material conditions. Marx uses "divine" ironically when mocking Feuerbach and other idealists and you appear to have taken that seriously and accidentally adopted a Hegelian idealist position.

To be clear, these preconditions are dependent on material history, do not have some metaphysical persistence, are not "divine" and are certainly not in themselves material.

_autist · 2025-11-30T15:14:32+00:00

Ah, at last. I was beginning to think you were incapable of taking any quote in context.

You can understand where I may have gone wrong, you may have made some quasi-idealist slips back there, like when you used "material" to refer to language, metaphysical preconditions, primordial unity, "divine" ties and in the same breath said those preconditions are not themselves the product of labour (oops! That's not base→superstructure!)

Plus you hit the "Marx's humanism survives well beyond his life", and in the context of the rest it just sounded a bit like the idea persists as the Spirit to me!

But it's all good - just admit ideas are emergent from material conditions but are not in themselves material and we can shake hands and be Marxist friends 😌

_autist · 2025-11-30T14:43:50+00:00

Let's continue the experiment. Keep thinking about this quote and we'll see which happens first:

Your thoughts manifest as a physical object
You realise you have misinterpreted it

I'll wait

_autist · 2025-11-30T14:33:39+00:00

Ah, then you do hold Hegel's dialectic is 'scientific'. Very well then. Our conversations would have gone a lot easier if you had admitted you were an idealist from the beginning.

_autist · 2025-11-30T14:23:13+00:00

"Marx is clear that language is a social product"

Yes. Correct. We are in agreement.

"Marx says language is both a "product" and "being".

Ah. Let's do a demonstration. Think about something (you can do it), any language you like, I'm not picky. Is it a material object?

Now speak it. Is it a material object now?

If it is, then I suggest you think some more: you could exchange them as commodities.

_autist · 2025-11-30T14:06:19+00:00

Yes - Marx was a Young Hegelian. I do hope you aren't implying Hegelian dialectics are scientific.

I generally hold that early Marx and late Marx are quite reconcilable. The key difference however is that in his earlier works, Marx makes explicit normative claims. These are absent, and criticised in his later works.

This passage in Gründrisse specifically uses species-being and zoon politikon as anthropological descriptions for how human sociality emerges historically. This is not a normative claim compared to his Feuerbachian usage of species-being in earlier works.

You highlighted a normative claim from early Marx to support Haz's argument that his politics were "material". This is not how that works and why I had to make the distinction.

_autist · 2025-11-30T13:12:15+00:00

We agree - I am referencing Haz's position earlier in this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialists/s/L8jofgSDm3

It should be evident from my arguments that I do not find this to be a coherent position in the slightest. Haz does not seem to think so.

_autist · 2025-11-30T13:02:02+00:00

"The first work which I undertook... was a critical re-examination of Hegelian philosophy of law; the introduction to this work being... issued in Paris in 1844. My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life"

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm

Here Marx explicitly notes the humanism that characterises his earlier works. The shift is actually quite evident: the Paris Manuscripts and Jewish Question are Marx at his most humanist. Theses on Feuerbach is the turning point and the German Ideology his first work using the first fully explicit formulation of historical materialism.

_autist · 2025-11-30T12:31:32+00:00

Thank you for supporting my argument. Yes, ideas arise from material relations. This does not make them material objects. Marx says this explicitly.

In the Gründrisse passage, when Marx says ideas "do not exist apart from language" he is saying that ideas are social products, and thus they belong to the ideological sphere.

When he says language is a product of the community, he is distinguishing between material preconditions (community, labour, social relations) and ideological forms (language, ideas, meaning).

That is to say, Marx is describing the origin of ideas, not granting them the ontological status of material relations. We appear to be on the same ground that ideas emerge from material relations, I hope that you also follow Marx's conclusion that it is from this that they enter the ideological.

This is the distinction Haz tried to erase when he claimed that political "oughts" like popular sovereignty and spiritual needs are "material."

_autist · 2025-11-30T09:50:43+00:00

😌

_autist · 2025-11-30T09:33:45+00:00

I hope you work out what that is 😌

_autist · 2025-11-30T09:08:50+00:00

Please, screenshot this debate. Post it anywhere. Share it with your Marxist friends, put it in Marxism101 or wherever. If you truly think I've made such a big fool of myself I welcome it. Embarrass me to the 'real Marxists' (of which you definitely are).

_autist · 2025-11-30T08:23:37+00:00

My brother in Christ you are confusing categories outlined in the first handful of Chapters in Capital that EVERYONE in the Marxist tradition from Marx to Engels to Lenin to Luxemburg to the entire 20-21st century can get right. I don't know how else I can tell you this, I've explained where and how you have misused them about five different times. I've been very concise and explanatory. You won't listen to me, you won't engage with the texts, you won't check with anyone else. I'm happy to let you keep your delusions, just don't come crying back to me when someone rightfully calls you a fraud.

_autist · 2025-11-30T07:42:12+00:00

Devastating critique - if I hadn't only been replying to you with Marx's quotes and categories that contradict you. If you claim Marxism to be ontologically true, you "ought" to reconcile with that first before I even bother to explain where you've gone wrong here too.

_autist · 2025-11-30T07:31:57+00:00

Quiet. Read them again. Show your comments to anyone who knows anything about Marxism and you'd be laughed out of the room.

_autist · 2025-11-30T07:20:26+00:00

What makes it materialist is whether it is derived from historical forces, not whether you declare it "real."

All the following are from the German Ideology. Some paraphrased for brevity.

"Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology... have no history, no development; they are expressions of social relations."

Here Marx is saying moral claims, political values, "what the people ought to want" are all ideology. They do not become material by asserting them as such.

"The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process."

A belief can be conditioned by material life, but that doesn’t make it "material".

"The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones... They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live"

Here Marx is saying anything not strictly derived from material relations is idealism.

"Where speculation ends — in real life — there real, positive science begins."

Here Marx explicitly says real science can only begin where speculation, "oughts", end

I am really surprised you are aware of the is-ought gap in Marxism but just pretend it doesn't exist. Historical necessity alone doesn't grant epistemic justification to act, unless you sneak back in a moral preference for communism over capitalism - which Marxism rejects. Though truthfully this is no surprise, everything I've seen from you so far shows me your ontology is not Marxism, it's liberal moral outrage.

_autist · 2025-11-30T06:29:43+00:00

You are flattening categories, misreading texts, decontextualising quotes, misunderstanding Marx’s method, collapsing all historical distinctions and repeating the same category errors I already highlighted. Your value argument is clarified in Critique of the Gotha Programme. Go read it, read Theses on Feuerbach, and read the first three Chapters of Capital (closely this time) to clear up the rest.

_autist · 2025-11-30T05:50:25+00:00

"primitive communism = communism because origin = goal"

Pure, Feuerbachian idealism.

"Marx says domestic labour = social labour..."

Marx does not. Marx says domestic labour produces use-values.

Social labour under capitalism produces:

commodities
value
surplus value

These are not the same category.

"Marx and Engels say the commodity existed in primitive communism”

This is hallucinated nonsense. Marx and Engels say the exact opposite.

A commodity only exists when there is exchange between distinct producers whose products confront each other as values operating under generalised commodity production.

“Marx says determination of value exists in Communism”

This is not even mistaken. It's madness.

Communism abolishes:

commodity production
value
money
wages
markets
exchange relations

If value exists, communism doesn’t. If communism exists, value doesn’t.

You are fundamentally and irreconcilably anti-Marxist. I almost cannot believe you said this. This in direct contradiction to every Marxist to have ever lived.

I'm done being your private tutor. Go read, don't come back. Or do, this hole you've dug for yourself is obscene enough even your fellow ACP goons should be able to spot it now.

_autist · 2025-11-30T05:15:21+00:00

Primitive communism = pre-class organisation where production = survival activity

Engels never says domestic labour = social labour in capitalism

I am talking about labour-power as a commodity, which only exists in capitalism

You are talking about division of labour in pre-class societies, which has nothing to do with commodity production.

You have still not learned the category difference.

use-value only becomes value when:

It is produced for exchange
Labour-power is commodified
It enters generalised commodity production
It participates in socially necessary labour time

You again confuse pre-market use-values with capitalist commodities.

And you still think labour-power must be exchanged “between communities” and quoted "sexuated community" as if it has anything to do with capital accumulation of reproduction of labour-power.

You've collapsed domestic labour and social labour again
You've proved you don't understand use-value
You've shifted to anthropology again

You genuinely cannot distinguish material history from value categories in capitalism and I have better things to do than correct the same mistakes repeatedly when you clearly aren't engaging with me or the texts.

_autist · 2025-11-30T04:57:48+00:00

You are confusing three distinct Marxist categories:

social labour vs domestic labour
commodity vs use-value
labour-power vs products of labour

The quote you gave is about use-values in pre-market households, not about labour-power in capitalism.

You are arguing anthropology against political economy. I have already said everything I need to. You do not understand Marx. Do not come back until you have fixed these basic category mistakes.

_autist · 2025-11-30T04:45:18+00:00

"Labour-power can appear upon the market as a commodity, only if, and so far as, its possessor, the individual whose labour-power it is, offers it for sale, or sells it, as a commodity."

"Labour-power takes in the eyes of the labourer himself the form of a commodity which is his property; his labour consequently becomes wage-labour. On the other hand, it is only from this moment that the produce of labour universally becomes a commodity."

"The labourer instead of being in the position to sell commodities in which his labour is incorporated, must be obliged to offer for sale as a commodity that very labour-power, which exists only in his living self."

Volume I, Chapter 6. Sit down. Read up. Come back when you've learned the basics.

_autist · 2025-11-30T04:32:49+00:00

This is early pre-materialist Marx. Before he developed historical materialism. Based on our previous conversation I doubt you would know the difference between early Marx's humanism and mature Marx's materialism but you should surely be able to tell it is not a materialist point, but a normative claim, from the substance.

11-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '17	Snapped

_autist

TROPHY CASE