This is what you get when you constantly promote zizek.
Edit: thereās a reason why marxists donāt use hegelās dialectics
postmarxist-hegelian thought
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?
Deeply unserious people.
If youāre gonna be an ultra at least offer a proper critique. These lazy anticommunists donāt even inform themselves before flapping their gums.
I wasted a fucking hour on this guy. I argued for a while about imperialism being the primary contradiction before I realized he thinks all modern economic modes and equally bad. Doesnāt help heās a slow typer.
This guy needs to read works by Marxists, his analysis sucks and is conceding massive ground to bourgeois ideology.
In order to truly understand this contradiction, the most explosive contradiction capitalism has engendered, the centers/peripheries polarization must be placed at the heart of the analysis and not at its margin.
"But after a whole series of concessions, the forces of the Left and of socialism in the West have finally given up on giving the imperialist dimension of capitalist expansion the central place that it must occupy both in critical analysis and in the development of progressive strategies. In so doing, they have been won over to bourgeois ideology in its most essential aspects: Eurocentrism and economism."
The very term imperialism has been placed under prohibition, having been judged to be unscientific. Considerable contortions are required to replace it with a more āobjectiveā term like āinternational capitalā or ātransnational capital.ā As if the world were fashioned purely by economic laws, expressions of the technical demands of the reproduction of capital. As if the state and politics, diplomacy and armies had disappeared from the scene! Imperialism is precisely an amalgamation of the requirements and laws for the reproduction of capital; the social, national, and international alliances that underlie them; and the political strategies employed by these alliances.
It is therefore indispensable to center the analysis of the contemporary world on unequal development and imperialism. Then, and only then, does it become possible to devise a strategy for a transition beyond capitalism. The obstacle is disengaging oneself from the world system as it is in reality. This obstacle is even greater for the societies of the developed center than it is for those of the periphery. And therein lies the definitive implication of imperialism. The developed central societies, because both their social composition and the advantages they enjoy from access to the natural resources of the globe are based on imperialist surpluses, have difficulty seeing the need for an overall reorganization of the world. A popular, anti-imperialist alliance capable of reversing majority opinion is as a result more difficult to construct in the developed areas of the world. In the societies of the periphery, on the other hand, disengagement from the capitalist world system is the condition for a development of the forces of production sufficient to meet the needs and demands of the majority. This fundamental difference explains why all the breaches in the capitalist system have been made from the periphery of the system. The societies of the periphery, which are entering the period of āpost-capitalismā through strategies that I prefer to qualify as popular and national rather than socialist, are constrained to tackle all of the difficulties that delinking implies.
- Samir Amin, Eurocentrism, For a Truly Universal Culture
This is basically what I was trying to say. The reply I got was āyouāre not a Marxist, youāre a nationalist. If you fight US imperialism āāāother imperialismsāāā will fill the gap.ā
Deprogramming people from milquetoast liberalism to program them into equally empire-friendly (and ultimately more dangerous) ultra-lefti-ism. Very cool.
āPost-marxist hegelian thoughtā, sometimes I think that philosophy was a fucking mistake. But then I remember that this idiocy is mostly confined to fans of postmodernism and the like.
Yeah fetishizing philosophy is fairly common in western spheres. But we Marxists are not philosophers, we are scientists and with that comes observations and experimentation (real world implementation, praxis, etc ).
I come from a natural sciences background so my honest feelings is that a lot of that pre Marx stuff is, while nice to know, not particularly necessary.
I come from a natural sciences background so my honest feelings is that a lot of that pre Marx stuff is, while nice to know, not particularly necessary.
Same. Iāve always been suspicious of pure philosophy and i still am.
For me one of the best sentences that Marx ever wrote is the last point he makes in āTheses on Feuerbachā:
āThe philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.ā
Itās just important to know how the theory has been developed over time, and stress how even the development of dialectics is dialectical itself! Everything is a process.
Marx didnāt develop dialectics in a vacuum, it was developed by building up from Hegelās dialectics, which in turn were built from someones else. And surely, people will continue to develop dialectics by building up from Marx. Itās all a process.
We have to respect the previous philosophers for being part of the process but we must not idolize them, even Marx. Even if Marxism (dialectical materialism) may seem as the end of philosophy, there will come a time were someone builds up from it and renders it obsolete. It hasnāt happened but it will.
the moment they said Hegelian dialectics as anything other than a joke i knew what was wrong with this clown. Marx spent and entire fucking book dunking on Hegel for being a fucking idiot and took his singular half contribution to human knowledge and made it good. Hegel was pure idealism in his philosophy and he was incoherent and flat out wrong in his pitiful attempts at natural philosophy, it is no wonder than someone who would hold Hegel in anything other than contempt would not understand the practical necessity of working with the national bourgeoisie against imperialism.
