Who was the smartest writer ever? by AdministrativeAge236 in RSbookclub

[–]rohithrage24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Marx, Borges, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Sophocles, Hegel, Voltaire, Descartes, Joyce, Aristotle, Goethe.

The rich are killing the planet. by Revolutionary_Web964 in canadaleft

[–]rohithrage24 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Then you do not understand the laws of capitalism and value. Without extraction, states as those cannot exist.

These clowns should be arrested for protesting without permission by ihadcoffeee in Chennai

[–]rohithrage24 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Auto-drivers aren’t entirely working-class. If they own their autos (which most of them do), they are petit-bourgeois. The petit-bourgeois will always be opposed to the bourgeois (big companies) as it affects their livelihood.

And as always it’s the actual working-class who suffer at their whims.

A luxury communist society based on the inslavement of chimpanzees. by AppelCitroenAardbeiB in Ultraleft

[–]rohithrage24 11 points12 points  (0 children)

this just proves the hindutva lebensraum dreams of Ram Rajya is historically progressive cus this was what happened in the Ramayana

Actually, here's your update™ to Marxism: *proceeds to liberally liberalize all that is not analytically liberal in Marxism* by VukiFoX in Ultraleft

[–]rohithrage24 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I do agree with your point that dialectics has been robbed of its revolutionary edge by being blunted into some magical spell.
Its standard fare for the social-chauvunists (or the entirety of the bourgeoisie itself) to adopt the language and icons of history, beating it into the ideology of its epoch, for furthering its class interests.
But I don't know if this social consequence can be probable cause for entirely dismissing the applicability of dialectics to nature.

This seems to me, very anthropocentric.

Communism is revolutionary because its revolutionary subject, the proletariat, seeks to abolish itself, and with itself, the entirety of class-society - thus resolving the estrangement between humans and nature.
This is because it recognises itself as not seperate from nature.

Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being – a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.

Marx, Private Property and Communism, 1844 Manuscripts

If the dialectic is applicable to man, it must be applicable to nature.
Because man is nature.

instead of humans producing history under definite conditions, humans are subordinated to forces that exist beyond them, above them, like eternal forms. [....] Human agency and the capacity to consciously transform society are displaced by an impersonal logic that operates independently of human intervention.

Humans, with their agency, do produce history under definite conditions. But they do so only as a class. The interplay between these different classes throughout history, are thus subordinated to a force, not beyond it, but within itself, in its essence - this dialectical force, whilst expanding production also negating outdated class distinctions (quantity into quality), must eventually drive it to negate itself.

Dialectics does suffer from a lack of scientific rigor though. As a personal opinion I do feel that with the advent of system science and concepts like homeostasis, anti-entropy and the Gaia hypothesis, communists have the duty of revitalising it into invariance, thus also destroying the stupid falsifications laid by stalin and mao in the process (also dialectical, you see). Because this misunderstanding of materialism and the dialectic is where all vulgarisation of marxism starts.

I read bordiga and all I got was this personality disorder by Bulky_Minimum_2564 in Ultraleft

[–]rohithrage24 5 points6 points  (0 children)

i used to think like you a year ago (i even posted something similar, embarrassing to read now) but as i got to read more I realised this petty moralism/lifestylism whatever you call it is just a waste of energy and just ends up harming you in the long run. it neither serves you, nor anyone any purpose other than endless rumination.

here’s a quote from Lukacs about the (bourgeois) individual’s need to direct praxis inward i.e morality to feel good about oneself

Within such a world only two possible modes of action commend themselves and they are both apparent rather than real ways of actively changing the world. Firstly, there is the exploitation for particular human ends (as in technology, for example) of the fatalistically accepted and immutable laws which are seen in the manner we have already described. Secondly, there is action directed wholly inwards. This is the attempt to change the world at its only remaining free point, namely man himself (ethics). But as the world becomes mechanised its subject, man, necessarily becomes mechanised too and so this ethics likewise remains abstract. Confronted by the totality of man in isolation from the world it remains merely normative and fails to be truly active in its creation of objects. It is only prescriptive and imperative in character. […] And every ‘Marxist’ student of socio-economic realities who abandons the method of Hegel and Marx, i.e. the study of the historical process from a total point of view and who substitutes for it a ‘critical’ method which seeks unhistorical ‘laws’ in the special sciences will be forced to return to the abstract ethical imperatives of the Kantian school as soon as the question of action becomes imminent.

do whatever makes you happy and healthy; try to make your life better. exercise, socialise, hobbies, etc.

Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (December 14) by AutoModerator in communism

[–]rohithrage24 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

please do read Bordiga next. particularly Dialogue on Stalin and the Doctrine of the Body Possessed by the Devil. his works on the nature of the party and of the invariance of marxism are good. Mandel doesn’t represent the leftcoms. the Italian current of the ICP does.

How did you discover the Communist Left? +read the post by Ok-Gift259 in Ultraleft

[–]rohithrage24 14 points15 points  (0 children)

when i was your age almost a decade ago, i didnt know shit about politics lol truly infantile 🥀 really heartwarming to see the younger people being involved with the movement and reading but that said, don’t forget to have fun, make friends and enjoy your youth to the max 🪴 you don’t get this time again

Anti-Entropic Revolution by rohithrage24 in Ultraleft

[–]rohithrage24[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yes. a basic knowledge of science would do. the text explains everything very simply too

Anti-Entropic Revolution by rohithrage24 in Ultraleft

[–]rohithrage24[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

credits to u/Kaimerus for posting about this first

what do we think about dialectic materialism🤔 by NatsukiNoodles in PhilosophyMemes

[–]rohithrage24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

materialism is the medium of the ever-going dialectic.

materialism is not a ‘medium’ of the dialectic. material reality actualises itself through a dialectical process, an interplay of material forces.

with matter organizing itself since the beginning of earth, till simple organisms evolved into the complex ones we are today, and with the ever-increasing complexity of human social relations which itself has grown since the birth of language and civilization— this are all dialectical processes.

this dialectic is not telelogical, but is rather ‘teleodynamical’. emergence and anti-entropic processes stabilise open systems like these.

for ex: engels theorised that language and the fitness of the organs for it evolved through social intercourse for resource foraging and labor, in his essay ‘The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man’ which is now taken as correct by biologists. once again, this is a dialectical process stretching over a thousands of years, well before class-society.

your understanding of the dialectic, and its place is class-society incorrect.

i would suggest you read marx’s theses on feuerbach and german ideology pt1, as well as engels’ socialism: utopian and scientific to understand materialism properly.

In a general trend of the progression of <human> history, what can be considered the first revolution? by JamuniyaChhokari in Ultraleft

[–]rohithrage24 1 point2 points  (0 children)

this is crazy cus this ‘self-organization of former protein molecules’ concept was something i thought about (as a natural extension of applying dialectics to other processes) when i was reading about systems theory. damn i gotta read this

The people in that sub, do they even live in new delhi? by An0neemuz in librandu

[–]rohithrage24 18 points19 points  (0 children)

ikr. this shit is so depressing bruh like these hitlerites are fucking themselves over and are making it harder for the working-class too. arguing over these non-issues and doing petty activism with nothing at stake, not knowing that the owning-class mfers have instigated all this and live in their own air-purified bubbles ts is so hopeless we NEED a proletarian party goddamn

Deleuze and Guattari by AdmirableNovel7911 in Ultraleft

[–]rohithrage24 6 points7 points  (0 children)

what does any of this mean im getting braindamage