What are the "material conditions" necessary for revolution?

What are the "material conditions" necessary for revolution?

Better yet, what are "material conditions"?

Attached: 2CD582EF00000578-3251482-image-m-10_1443400211916.jpg (634x817, 103.12K)

Don't listen to the fags spouting this nonsense. "Material conditions" literally just means "reality" - including ideas.
So when they say "the material conditions for revolutions arent there" they're just making a useless and vague statement.

Why are leftists obsessed this doing this kind of shit?
Pretty much every conversation about "What steps can one take to (literally anything)" is consistently met with "JUST ENACT PRAXIS, DUH!"
It's less than meaningless.

Not really sure what you're asking tbh. I've never heard the phrase "enact praxis" before.

Really? Between here and the cultists at Zig Forums, I hear it regularly.

Well I'm one of the "cultists" at leftypol. So I suspect you may be pulling shit out of your ass.

As the name implies, conditions existing in material world, but not including ideas despite what says

Simple, ask yourself what real life circumstances drive people to act in a "revolutionary" way or, in other words, make them willing to use violence against the the currently existing system since their currently existing position has gotten unbearable.

Unmarxist TBQH.

Thank you for you response user. To your point about making the poroles take up their arms (in Burgerland) there in lies a dilemma. Most Americans are reactionary towards any sort of leftist revolution. How can I help to wash the taste of leather from the mouths of my countrymen?

And also I feel you are contradicting yourself here
Is this not very specifically "an idea"?

meant for>>69901

You should go back.

I will post on both boards, thank you very much.

You can.
But the Zig Forums containment board exists soley for your ilk.

Why this hostility?

Sure. But first, tell me what Marx was wrong about.

Literally nothing. Marx was GOD.
Now, why this hostility?

Because you're not a leftist, you're a cultist.
This is why you should go back. People like you make the entire left look bad.

Why don't you lay out your (I'm sure) well thought out critique of Marx so we can all learn?

fuck man, I'm sorry I made this thread. I'm sure I'll just figure it out in the course of my studies.

Yeah, read Marx you god damn brainlet.

No, treating Karl Marx like some sort of infallible prophet from God makes you a cultist.
Not "Marxism".

I was obviously kidding because I didn't want to play your game since you were being unnecessarily hostile.


Cockshott atm mah boi

the proletariat being class conscious

thread over

The problem is, none of your friends over at Zig Forums are pretending.
They're actually retarded cultists.

link 5 threads here that make you think they're cultist then you fucking goober

I have a really hard time following your logic. Maybe because your ass is bleeding too much for you to concentrate on making an argument.
How the fuck is bitching about idealism "unmarxist"?
Do you have any idea what hegelian idealism vs marxist materialism is even about?
This thread is a good reminder of why leftypol is a superior board. People actually read Marx there.

Go to any thread, and ask the question I asked you.
They'll give the same answer you did, except they're not pretending to be retarded.
They're legitimately retarded.

Who woulda thunk.

You said ideas, products of the consciousness, are part of material reality, didn't you?
Yes, I actually wanted to ask the same thing about you, except without using the "hegelian" word, after all there was quite a few of non-hegelian idealists.

I don't need to ask these questions because I can read.

you should read, people will like you more, goober

"What did Marx get wrong?" is not a stupid question.
It's pretty fucking basic.
Why do you believe it to be a stupid question?
Hell, go ask Zig Forums "What did Hitler get wrong?" and you'll max out the thread with different answers.
If you can't even answer such a basic question, you're just as much of a cultist as the rest of Zig Forums.

Yes? The idealist position is that ideas precede material reality, the marxist position is the opposite.

If that were true, you would be able to answer the question.
The sad part is that you have absolutely zero self awareness of how much of an intellectual invalid you sound like when you say stuff like "I READ, THAT MEANS YOU'RE WRONG!"

I COULD give you a list of things Marx very clearly got wrong, like revolutions happening in the most advanced sections of the working class, the reason I didn't was, as I said, because you were being a fucking cunt for no reason at all.

Even then, what does it matter what Marx got wrong? We know today that he said some racist shit and acted like a bufoon (typical 19th century german) but as a marxist I don't give a shit because he was right about what we built Marxism upon. Marx was correct about class, the state and his critiques of capitalism so why badger on 200 years later about that time he called someone a jewish nigger? Stop flinging your shit here because you're a moron.

When I say "material reality precedes ideas/consciousness", I don't say "human consciousness is a subset of material reality", only that material reality is primary determinant of human consciousness while still maintaining some sort of opposition between the two.
Same goes for the idealist position that "ideas precedes material reality", the material world is an imperfect reflection of the world of ideas, but is still distinct.

When did you say that?
Other way around.

A populace willing and able to revolt.
Mode of production, social relations, resources. That sort of thing.

Because you're literally stuck in the 1800s.
If you don't see how that's a problem on your own, there's nothing I can do to help you.


Well you need to buy expensive 200 dollar doc marten boots and a jacket. Otherwise how would anyone know you're a hipster commie that carries a bikelock as a weapon to protest fee-feez and free-speech at Berkeley?

Attached: iEdPHkX_d.jpg (640x426, 29.15K)

I'm a marxist after all, so I also think reality determines consciousness. My point is that consciousness, even despite subordinated to/preceded by the reality, is also separate, without separation there would be no opposition, be it between consciousness and reality, ideas and things or superstructure and base.

I wrote "Same goes for the idealist position" just before that part for a reason.

I feel we've been talking past each other the entire time. In my very first post I said "including ideas" - clearly making the distinction.

not going to happen in a looooong time. Thats what you have to know. You care? Don't listen to tankies, listen to yourself and participate in on going revolutions you care about if you want. Such as Rojava for example.

Attached: ernst-junger-the-anarch-wages-his-own-wars-even-quote-on-storemypic-b2b88.png (600x600, 18.68K)

For me "including" means ideas are a subset(which buries separation), rather than being merely subservient.
Am I too pedantic?

Yes, and I think the tanknigger is a massive faggot.

Isn't a subset exactly subservient…?


Yes, but not everything subservient is a subset and I would avoid calling consciousness a subset of reality even despite being preceded by it, since "includes" does not stress the separation enough, which triggers me enough to derail threads.

Attached: assburger.jpg (210x240, 4.99K)

That doesn't sound very dialectic to me.
Are you sure that's the best praxis?

WELL I actually think it's important to blur this line between reality and consciousness to stress the function of ideology in our everyday lives.

they're dweebs on a chan board arguing about pointless shit. take that as you will.

And I would prefer not to, since I have a massive aversion to retards "spreading class consciousness" by posting unfunny images on the internet rather than taking up class action among fellow workers, which would be more fruitful as far as """praxis""" goes.
To each his own I guess.

I disagree with nothing you said. Let's drop this.

It's vague for sure, but it isn't useless. If an agrarian peasant society has a "socialist uprising", you can bet it won't be, and pardon the term, actual existing socialism, at least for a few decades, because socialism is an economic order only applicable to industrialized nations.

Material conditions - which obviously include the application of ideas anf condciousness according to their historical circumstance - is the material reality shaped by the material and social conditions that define man's own existence. Examples would be the material reality of factory labor, the use of electric energy, the social relations of capitalism and the consciousness arising from it. Today, we have the same conditions except for generalized factory labor, which has been outsourced into the Third World or automated. Out of the material conditions, revolutionary conditions can arise, when the direct result out of the material conditions is poverty for the majority of the people responsible for value-creation, or, more general, the feeling of unberable conditions for the working class in relation of the value that's created.

However, so far the greatest catalyst of revolution was imperialism. Anti-imperialist fights have produced the most revolutionary energy, and continue to do so.

What kind of vulgar shit is that? With that flag I assume you'd be the first one to bitch about the dialectical materialism of the Second International.

To give a hot take, one of the main indicators for revolutionary potential would be unironically the Gini coefficient.