This brainlet got to determine what "communist" practice is for almost a century

'

Attached: 37622690_10117298873505714_612338753020624896_n.jpg (800x960, 74.19K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/two4.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Attached: lame4534.jpg (244x380, 31.41K)

Stalin didn't become the successor of Lenin for his Autism Level. The dude was capable to handle an immense workload (15 hour workdays) and could hold the diff. branches of bureaucracy together.

and, yeah, he was a brainlet

I agree the Author of this post was a Brainlet

no, stalin

Attached: 1.png (1081x407, 177.06K)

...

Which were very influential to leftist thought and are certainly read by anyone other than deranged ☭TANKIE☭s

Funny thing about this passage is that using dumb generalities masked with Marxism ("it's all aristocratic, and it's all bad, so I don't have to learn it") to dismiss what you're too dumb to understand is such standard Stalinist practice even today. It's no different than the retards in this board who don't get post-structuralism so they just call it a CIA ploy.

Is Google too bourgeois for you to use dipshit?

They….Were?

hear hear

a lot of Hegel is just gobbly gook

can you blame him?

The Nazi is right for once Hegel is pretty much garbage, frankly I have no clue why Marx ever even followed in some of his work.

Hegel was the end all be all philosopher of the time. He was revered as being god-tier level, so ofcourse Marx, studying philosophy, studied Hegel.
But Marx concluded that Hegel was an idealist metaphysical bumfucker, so he took the kernel of Hegel that was dialectics and remolded it into what we now know as historical and dialectical materialism

What about Stalin correcting Lysenko on "bourgeois biology"?

why do you even need to read Hegel? stalin, a party bureaucrat wasting his time reading Hegel in between organizing the party and signing off on forms, talk about pure ideology

when I used to hang out at my local socialist reading group the facilitators claimed you only needed to read the communist manifesto, wage labor capital, and piece value profit by marx and maybe conquest of bread to understand why capitalism fucks people over and why socialism is the solution, and they were honesty right

what a joke, even philosophy grad student don't read hegel

...

Hegel is dumb shit

Attached: zizek.jpg (258x374, 35.64K)

I get it and it's fucking trash

Not really. The vast majority of postmodern ideas are garbled nonsense. Hegelian thought is just convoluted.

The vast majority of ALL ideas are garbled nonsense. Why single out postmodernism?

Because they *embrace* the fact that it is garbled nonsense, which makes it impossible to derive anything useful from it.

Explain.

The fact that you seem to believe there is a single unified post-modern movement shows how much of a brainlet you are.

Enjoy being naked and psychotic.

No one will ever know what he meant by this.

Which is fine, Zig Forums has taught me that discussion and persuasion are worthless wastes of time.

Their whole obsession with narratives and rejection of any kind of absolute truth, which is one huge greasy shit on Occam's razor.

Learning WHY capitalism should be overcome does not necessarily show the way to overcome it.
The HOW part has to do with that whole dialectic kernel that marx took and yadda yadda.

You know zizek's whole "what happens ze day achfter ze revoblution" shtick.

nothing wrong with being critical of what we think of as "common sense" considering, unironically, most things are social constructs and therefore hold no weight or authority

Why is that bad?

If you don't see how important an "obsession with narratives" is to understanding the rulling ideologies in a class society, I don't even know what to tell you.
I don't see the relevance of Occam's razor here.

Because analysis of things like cognitive and cultural bias do not require a rejection of the very notion of truth. It is impossible to derive anything useful from postmodernism because it makes any kind of opinion, action or discussion on anything inherently self-defeating; this is why it was pushed by the burger feds during the Cold War.
Yes, the problems that pomos try to address are real. They just failed miserably at it.

Yeah but rejection of absolute truth is literally idealism, it's incompatible with dialectical materialism. We're no more brainlet in rejecting pomo than we are in rejecting Machism.

Attached: thinking.png (225x225, 4.25K)

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/two4.htm

So it's bad because it's unnecessary for the 2 things you mentioned according to you at least?

Isn't postmodernism just a general scepticism towards grand modernist theories like Marxism and Christianity as being ABSOLUTE truths?
Doesn't a scepticism also allow room for USE of such metanarratives?
I don't see it written anywhere in my copy of the postmodern neo-"marxist" handbook that I can't lean on various likelihoods as the way I use the word truth.

"X is more likely true than Y it seems so I'm going with X for now."


Why do we have to be fucking dogmatists about what we KNOW truth is.

"FUCKIN REALITY IS MATERIAL DAWG AND HISTORY IS DIALECTICALLY DETERMINED. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT THEN YOU'RE JUUUUSSSTT WRRROOOONNGG AND WE CANNOT TALK ABOUT OTHER IDEAS EVER OR EVEN EXPLORE WHAT OUR OWN PRESUPPOSITIONS MEAN"

Idk I'm just being edgy but like these beefs seem so small to me.

I don't think leninhat was saying that the essence of social expression is devolving into irreconcilable particularities, but rather that Marxism expresses emergent character, in all respects, as aleatory rather than formalist

What I mean is like I think it IS useful, or potentially useful, to start from a position of scepticism of our ability to apprehend the TRUE truth.
That scepticism fules inquiry.

But this is a materialist outlook you idiot. Materialism recognizes relative truths which can later be abolished or modified by deeper discoveries. Humans will never know the whole objective truth, but through their relative truths, they get ever-closer to it.

Okay so how does a pomo position distinguish itself from what I said there?

pomo rejects the existence of the whole objective truth and the possibility of getting close to it.

So I think we might be working on different definitions of pomo.
I'm saying basic orientation of scepticism to a given absolute truth claim.
You're saying denial that we can even get a proximity to an absolute truth.

Those aren't the same position per se.

foucault BTFO'd marxism