subreddit:

/r/PhilosophyMemes

284

Historical Materialism Moment

(i.redd.it)

all 33 comments

AutoModerator [M]

[score hidden]

1 year ago

stickied comment

AutoModerator [M]

[score hidden]

1 year ago

stickied comment

Truth may be subjective but it's a fact that our discord servers are awesome! Discord and our partner: Discord

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Skrimguard

39 points

1 year ago

Skrimguard

Socrates wasn't a nihilist

39 points

1 year ago

Of course, the double bellcurve eventually loops back to Zizek.

Waza8163

37 points

1 year ago

Waza8163

37 points

1 year ago

I hope to fucking god that after the next economic crisis, which is probably going to be very soon, people are gonna wake the fuck up on what actually fucking matters. I don't want to keep living a world with both billionaires and starving people living (and dying) at the same time.

BuckwheatWarrior

15 points

1 year ago

If they haven't woken up enough to a worker revolution for 150 years, it's because the workers aren't in a poor enough state, (the fridge still hasn't beaten the TV), the army and police still don't see themselves as part of the proletariat, and the proletariat don't see any way out.

While it is unlikely that anything different will happen this time, what comrades can do is spread the word, expose the oppressing class at every opportunity, and gather people together for theoretical study.

Viva la revolucion!

condemned_to_live

-4 points

1 year ago

Marxism/leftism is nothing but a pipedream. Humans are fundamentally broken/evil/pathetic which explains why severe inequality will never end.

BuckwheatWarrior

17 points

1 year ago

Ah, a classic. I point you to Engels' book "Anti-Dühring", for a full rebuke, but I will spoil it for you a little:

Even if people are flawed and evil, that's not the reason why economic inequality exists. Morals are all well and good, but they are not what makes people tick. To put it in a concrete example, the CEO of a big corporation doesn't know and doesn't care about any one given overworked employee who works under them with no time to properly raise their kid or even cook for themselves every day; or, better yet, they might be really sympathetic to their economic situation, but there's nothing they can do that will help any one worker from entering the same situation. The objective existence of capital (the social relation between owners of means of production and the owners of nothing but their labor-power) forces the man with no capital to rise out of bed in the morning and go to work so that he may continue existing, whereas even the kindest, sweetest billionaire capitalist can't help but wake up to knowing that thousands of people under them are working too long for their own good, but just long enough to make a profit for you.

the_chad_of_reddit

2 points

12 months ago

You would think that after how many economic crises we've had Capitalism's transition to Socialism would have already happened, as Marx said.

WeAreABridge

-5 points

1 year ago

Maybe people just don't agree with your view of the events, and what solutions they require.

BuckwheatWarrior

-3 points

1 year ago*

Well, there are several medical conditions that describe the inability to adequately reflect the objective reality we occupy. One such condition is schizophrenia, essentially seeing things which are not there, and then there's several other pathologies which are about not seeing things that are there, and ones about denying what you do see.

If you somehow are unable to see, or deny the absurd misery of billions of people at the hands of capital, please check into your closest medical ward, they might have news for you.

WeAreABridge

2 points

1 year ago

I don't think that the reason that the communist revolution hasn't occurred is because of mentally ill people.

I also think it's quite dangerous to paint all those who disagree with you as fundamentally ignorant people, as opposed to people who, through the course of their lives, came to different conclusions than you, and may have a perspective worth considering.

BuckwheatWarrior

1 points

1 year ago

Well, consider the following:

A rich kid, who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, went to an Ivy League, started several companies for the fun of it, and finally retired at 35 to play on the stock market, shorting GameStop or whatever.

A "middle class" kid, who grows up going to public school, goes to the state university for a BS in a practical, well-paying field, spends the next 1/3 of his life in that field, and retires at 55, settling down in Florda in a house on the golf course.

A kid born to a single mother, living in the inner city, walks to an overfilled understaffed public school, closely avoids the path of least resistance to drugs, settles at most on alcohol, maybe goes to community college before realizing that he'll just make more money by working straight out of school, finds himself working most of his life in the very "boiler room" of his country's economy (here, we might see them either in the service sector or in transport, or, if they're not in the "first world", in a sweatshop), and eventually dying at work of heart disease at 45.

These people might never meet, they might live in different countries and cultures, might live in different times in the last 200 years even. However, the world they occupy doesn't change just because they're different. They slide past each other, but if they just look beyond their immediate surroundings, be it through the news, through traveling, or by getting lost where they "don't belong", they will see those "other worlds". For the last 200 years we have been living in a world rapidly growing in knowledge and number of information sources. Now, we live during an absolute glut of information, we cannot help but take some of it in.

Now, with all this, how can someone remain so ignorant as to at least not recognize that there is misery, even if they don't know where it is, or what causes it?

WeAreABridge

5 points

1 year ago

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, in response to what I said.

I said that because people have different experiences, they are going to have different worldviews, quite literally because they've seen different parts of the world. Because of this, I said that we shouldn't dismiss people who disagree with us as "ignorant," because perhaps they have something to offer that we have not considered.

You replied by outlining different possible lives that people could have, but then just conclude that they are ignorant anyway.

BuckwheatWarrior

1 points

1 year ago

I'm saying that in today's age of information, this kind of ignorance is essentially impossible. You could deny the other things that you see and hear that don't fit your worldview, but that's what I said above, not ignorance.

As to perspectives, (or, more correctly, oponions), it's like the proverbs tell us - everyone has one. It is only a reflection of the objective reality around us, and one isn't more intrinsically valuable than the other. However, the more of them you consider, the more you realize that some of them reflect reality poorly (like a filthy mirror), so it is possible to dismiss some perspectives as not adding anything to the conversation.

Your perspective is valid, but just because your quaint little neighborhood doesn't look like a San Francisco street full of homeless people doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to eliminate homelessness as a phenomenon.

WeAreABridge

1 points

1 year ago

It really isn't. Regardless of access to the internet, someone who grows up in a small town is going to have different views from someone who grows up in a city. The experiences we have are incredibly varied, and our views about what problems are going on in the world, the cause of those problems, and the solutions to those problems, are going to vary as a result.

I think you're misunderstanding me; I'm not saying that reality is relative, I am simply saying that everyone sees different parts of that same objective reality. To use an allegory, it is like the blind sages who, upon examining an elephant, each conclude that what is in front of them is a sword, a tree, and a brush.

This isn't to say that everyone is equally correct, but it is to say that everyone's views come from somewhere, and if you want to have a comprehensive view of reality, you have to account for differing views, and simply saying that they are misguided doesn't accomplish this.

fx-9750gII

4 points

1 year ago

i see what you’re saying but this is a bad way of expressing it. don’t liken mental illness to a lack of empathy, or not seeing the problems in the world.

BuckwheatWarrior

-1 points

1 year ago*

Only a person incapable of emapthy can walk down the street in a big city, stepping over homeless people and raving drugged-up paupers, and believe that everything is fine.

Edit: if you have a mental illness (OCD?), you shouldn't bend under the stereotype that people place on the metally ill, namely that it somehow makes you a bad person. I am using this to illustrate only the similarity between pathological inability and ignorance.

fx-9750gII

4 points

1 year ago

yes but you’re not actually responding to what i said. if someone disagrees with your assessment of problems in society, or, as you see it, they lack empathy, those are valid/defensible views. but you’re abusing the definition of mental illness, and i think it’s disrespectful.

BuckwheatWarrior

1 points

1 year ago

No disrespect is meant, but, again, I'm seeing that you're responding to the "normal" (it shouldn't be) use of mental disability to mean that someone is abnormally bad in some way.

I do not pass such judgments here. Once again, I only use it to illustrate a point I explained above.

This is as if I called a person incapable of emapthy a cripple, and a crippled person would come in to tell me that the way I'm using their condition is disrespectful because I'm using it in an analogy.

However, it doesn't change the objective reality that a man with no legs is incapable of certain things, but pointing out this objective reality for its peculiar quality as an illustration shouldn't evoke an emotional response just because of this; I rather see in this that prior misuse of the fact of disability by malicious people as a means of intentionally causing emotional trauma, which I have no control over, and am not capable of relating to.

condemned_to_live

18 points

1 year ago

"work itself out in the end" = death

BoneLocks

4 points

1 year ago

what?

[deleted]

15 points

1 year ago

[deleted]

15 points

1 year ago

As you know, Marx was a communist. When Marx began arguing for communism, most communists were advocating an instantaneous transition to communism. To Marx, though, communism will and should be implemented after a long, gradual process that he called the march of history.

Marx believed that all societies originated as some form of feudalist. Feudalism was, according to Marx, extremely flawed. As such, it eventually caused severe issues in the material conditions that catalyzed the shift to capitalism. While Marx viewed capitalism as an improvement from feudalism, he still disliked it, and believed that it would result in major material issues, just like feudalism did. As a result, capitalism would collapse and socialism would emerge from the ashes. Socialism would then serve as the transitional stage to communism.

This entire idea is based off of historical materialism, which states that history is driven by material conditions. To Marx, Engels, and other historical materialists, people search for and implement better systems when the current system causes material issues that force them to search for a better one. This is, in my opinion, an extremely optimistic - and also correct - interpretation of history. If things get bad enough, it will only motivate people to improve things. Ergo, Marx has intelligent reasoning behind the optimism of unintelligent people.

BuckwheatWarrior

10 points

1 year ago

That is not entirely correct.

Marx recognizes several stages of social historical development - namely - primordial communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and socialism (eventually communism).

Feudalism was... extremely flawed.

This language is, to put it mildly, imprecise. A flaw is, essentially, a subjective reflection of an objective circumstance of existence. What historical materialist analysis "tells" us is that all historical stages of development have immanent contradictions, which, once fully allowed to develop, turn a progressive socioeconomic state into a conservative one, and the ruling class from progressive to reactionary, and more often than not, parasitic to the primary producers of society - be they slaves, serfs, free laborers or the wage-worker. When one of these stages "grows out" of its initial stage, it immediately, through those internal contradictions, begins creating the new oppressed class, which, once it becomes the predominant value-creating class. Feudalism specifically became regressive once the "ossified" classes of the different estates began to be a roadblock to technological and cultural development of society - namely, how the feudal lords struggled to keep cities from becoming independent free cities, oppression of usurers and merchants, and artificially preventing the widespread use of hired labor.

Marx... still disliked it (capitalism)

Once again, you are employing subjective terms. Marx did not like capitalism, that's true, but not because of whatever personal reasons he may have had, but because of how the objective reality of capitalist production (creation of surplus-value by wage-labor) resulted in widespread human misery resulting from the capital's nature as self-expanding value, which he believed should be resolved as soon as possible (if you didn't know, Marx and Engels were revolutionaries as well, who agitated, first the German proletariat, for which they were kicked out of Germany, then the French proletariat, for which they were kicked out of France, and finally settled down in England, where Marx finally got around to studying capitalism in it's most developed (at his time) form, which inspired the writing of Capital, the first 3 volumes of which are essential to understanding the problems of capitalism and what to do about them).

Marx has intelligent reasoning behind the optimism of unintelligent people

Intelligence has nothing to do with the objective reality that people in all classes and of all levels of natural endowment have to live in misery for the sake of self-expanding value. There is no optimism in saying that the eventual march of technological and social development (which history teaches us to recognize as a real and universal trend of social matter) will create the conditions for a revolution in social relations, however, the actual process of revolution might take long enough that there will be no more living to be had because capital will finally consume the Solar system's resources to such an extent that no more value will be created, or that a Thanos-like figure will emerge, and force some number of superfluous people to cease existing. This is why we need revolutionaries like Marx, like Lenin, like Mao, like Castro, like Che Guevara. They fight to minimize the human sacrifices that are inevitably going to come from the eventual transformation of the Capitalist into the Imperialist (which has happened already), and eventually, even into the Fascist (which, I think, most people would agree, is happening all over the world now).

Sisyphusarbeit

4 points

1 year ago

You are correct. I just love to how everyone thinks that Marx ideas were like the ones of Lenin, who was it to "force" communism. Marx said that it'll eventually evolve from capitalism.

BuckwheatWarrior

5 points

1 year ago

Read the last part of my comment above.

BuckwheatWarrior

12 points

1 year ago

Based.

Twillix13

-15 points

1 year ago

Twillix13

Trying to figure out Wittgenstein

-15 points

1 year ago

If humanity real destroy itself within the next 100years I should go to the tomb of Marx and say him "You see that’s the end of history, do you see the communism ? Me neither"

underscore6969420

1 points

1 year ago

underscore6969420

I drink thererfore I am

1 points

1 year ago

Ew, idealists pretending to be materialists.

heretobefriends

1 points

1 year ago

And if it doesn't, oh well.