Ella_HOD
Left com moment😪 I guess at least they aren’t collaborating with fascists yet? But maybe that’s just cause they don’t do anything at all
This is the worst attempt at Marxist analysis I have ever read. In their attempt at materialist analysis they have developed an entirely idealist conception of things. In their hands, Marxist classes have become no better than thought categorise, as these “Marxists” have gutted them of their actual content. The mere idea of the proletariat is all they’re concerned with, nothing to do with the actual life of the proletariat in their specific conditions, conditions which facilitate or hinder self-consciousness; nothing to do with what is actually historically Progressive in a given situation, but merely the idea that the proletariat is progressive. There is not a single analysis of material conditions to be had, merely a comparison of abstract class interests. And this is not to mention their continual misuse of language that makes it feel like it was written by a child. “Foundation stone,” confusing foundations and corner stone; “historical interest of the proletariat,” they here must mean class interest, as historical interest can only refer to the specific, historically constituted, interests of certain sections of the proletariat and is thus not the universal class intrest of the proletariat, etc. I’m gonna sob, western Marxism is so cooked.
You’re acting like we, as Marxists, are starting from scratch and basing ourselves on nothing but guesswork. No. There are real, tangible, obvious trends in society, as in life in general. You’re making the same confused argument Jordan Peterson does when, in a Joe rogan interview, he says “we can’t predict climate change, climate just means everything and there’s no way to account for everything.” We don’t need to predict everything; not everything that influences a person does so to the same degree. Class interest influences people in a massive way, we see this most obviously manifested in what people from different classes view as ideal. The bourgeoisie has their free market, individual liberties, etc. In short they wish to roughly maintain the present or the recent past, that time in which their mode of production was most dominant. The petty bourgeois has their decentralisation, their small commodity production, etc., in short they wish to turn back the clock to the very beginning of capitalism, when their small commodity production was still predominant. And the proletariat have abolition of private property, equality, community, etc., i.e. communism, that mode of production in which the proletariat becomes dominant, universalised, and in that action it abolishes itself.
I wonder what those genius theoreticians did? Oh right! They analysed historical evidence, the material furnished by the natural sciences, production and how it developed, society and its laws of motion and even language at times. Additionally they analysed the goings on of the present and transformed that into practice, practice which merely furnished proof of their correctness! How about you actually read Marx? Maybe try basing your understanding of Marxism off of more than 2 pages that were written as a quick, but useful, polemic! Engles himself has analysed the class character behind the desire for decentralisation in more depth, try The Housing Question!
Just ignore all of the analysis of all the genius theoreticians. It’s totally just him saying “trust me!”
First. Yes, you were wrong! What in their writing suggested they thought SW wasn’t work?
Second. No? Have you read even the most basic communist theory? Communism is a society based upon the principle of “from each according to his needs to each according to his ability.” Meaning that you take what you need (in terms of commodities and services) and give what you can (in terms of labour). How don’t you know this?
Third. what you described isn’t prostitution. Entering into sexual relations with people because that’s what you want to do isn’t prostitution! Someone that sleeps with a lot of people under capitalism isn’t necessarily a prostitute are they? Also, this whole paragraph seems to completely misunderstand the conceptualisation of “professions” under communism. Read The German Ideology.
Fourth. Saying it presupposes bourgeois philosophy being instilled within individuals is the correct opinion. The idea of trading a service for a piece of social wealth is inherently tied to the existence of private property; the kind of prostitution we’re talking about being tied to bourgeois property and relations, thus to bourgeois philosophy.
Fifth. completely ignoring the material reasons for things like being an Incel and treating them as inherent aspects of some eternal and transcendent humanity. Please try to engage in dialectical materialist analysis!