>Year 12016 HE
>Not being a historical materialist
Why even bother studying history?
This
>being published by verso
>ever
>>864820
>>864820
Honestly a good question.
>being an idealist
>ever
>>864858
>muh great men
>claiming there's a single major driving force behind all history
Good lord.
>humans are mindless soulless automatons incapable of creative thought
Speak for yourselves.
>>864892
>HM
>A "force"
>>864908
Idealcucks criticizing HM without understanding it is nothing new
>>864892
>>864902
>societies can develop in any way except materially
>recognizing this means that there's no 'creativity'
>Studying history
>Making literal Communist ideology your theoretical basis
>Studying history
>Getting triggered because of muh ideology
>>864820
Maybe because we want to understand things rather than support discredited dogma.
>2016
>not being a dialectical idealist
>Idealists still exist
Shaking my head to be honest family
>>864960
All of these people are probably /leftypol/, desu
>>864970
>You're either a dialectical materialist or a strawman
Oh, I see your whole game now.
>>864970
historical materialism as been falsified so many times to be taken seriously, which almost no professional historian does anymore.
If sociologists and "philosophers" would get their heads out of their asses they would realize how backwards it is.
>ideas drive history, not people putting ideas to practice with labor
whew lad
>>864992
How do you even falsify a theory of history? They're all just interpretations.
>>864992
Popper, just go.
>theories of history
Eugh.
>>864960
>>864999
Your right, I'm extending that term to cover Marx's predictions of the future, which is a bit unfair.
>>864820
>>865018
>Every philosophy which believes that the problem of existence is touched on, not to say solved, by a political event is a joke- and pseudo-philosophy. Many states have been founded since the world began; that is an old story. How should a political innovation suffice to turn men once and for all into contented inhabitants of the earth? [That people think the answer to existential questions might come from politics shows] that we are experiencing the consequences of the doctrine…that the state is the highest goal of mankind and that a man has no higher duty than to serve the state: in which doctrine I recognize a relapse not into paganism but into stupidity. It may be that a man who sees his highest duty in serving the state really knows no higher duties; but there are men and duties existing beyond this — and one of the duties that seems, at least to me, to be higher than serving the state demands that one destroys stupidity in every form, and therefore in this form too. That is why I am concerned with a species of man whose teleology extends somewhat beyond the welfare of a state…, and with [this kind of man] only in relation to a world which is again fairly independent of the welfare of a state, that of culture.
Hegelians of all stripes, BTFO
>MMXVI
>not being a philosopher of the future
>>865027
>Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, ect, correctly predict 95% of the course of the 20th century
>"lol no one even takes historical materialism seriously anymore xD"
Keep fapping to your Robert Service books idealcuck
>>865035
>1900
>Dying of syphilis
>>865004
>shit just hapen yo
>>865040
>>Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, ect, correctly predict 95% of the course of the 20th century
>citation needed
>"lol no one even takes historical materialism seriously anymore xD"
Do you even have a history degree?
>>864992
>falsified
You were almost right.
The simple fact of the matter is that historians are not bound by falsifiability. Every historian has bias. The best ones put it to the side as much as possible and base their arguments on reason, method, and documentary evidence. The worst ones talk about which school of thought their bias belongs to every time they get the opportunity in every text they write, appealing to vague doctrines articulated 150 years ago and supported by a bunch of political radicals trying to hijack society for their own ends, which have never been achieved and which will never be achieved. They can't accept that, though.
>>864820
>Year 12016 HE
>not worshiping pure ideology as your god
>>865035
Nietzsche is literally a Hegelian who got famous by making a strawman of Hegel
The same is true for Marx
Stirner didn't make Hegel enough of a strawman, that's why he isn't legitimately well-known
>>865054
>The worst ones talk about which school of thought their bias belongs to every time they get the opportunity in every text they write, appealing to vague doctrines articulated 150 years ago and supported by a bunch of political radicals trying to hijack society for their own ends, which have never been achieved and which will never be achieved.
Yes, Liberalism does have problems, especially in the present.
>>865043
Correct. Or, may as well be correct.
Things happen for so many reasons and with the influence of so many interconnected and non-connected factors that trying to break it down into an overarching theory is just fucking silly.
>>865072
But liberals don't do that. Rawls published A Theory of Justice in 1971, and Nozick published Anarchy, State and Utopia in 1974. Liberal discourse is much more up to date than Marxist discourse, mostly because liberal discourse doesn't try to conceive of itself as liberal and therefore doesn't have to ground itself in anyone set of thinkers. In fact, liberalism has received a hefty injection of socialist thought recently.
Your post is good bait.
>>865043
Why are you linking this claim to history? This is a metaphysical claim.
>>865050
Yea, I have a degree
>Colonization of Africa/Middle East/Sort-of China
>Both world wars
>Collapse of the Soviet Union
I guess those were all lucky guesses tho
>>865092
>But liberals don't do that.
>Liberal discourse is much more up to date than Marxist discourse
>liberalism doesn't have to ground itself in any one set of thinkers
I'm going to cut to the chase, the real problem is your entire thought process is strawmen
>>865099
Do you think Lenin was literally the only person who made those guesses?
>>865116
> the real problem is your entire thought process is strawmen
So is yours
>Everyone who disagrees with me is an idealist!
Even worse
>lel u do too ;)
Your response to my post was a tu quoque.
>>865042
>2016
>using a "medical" diagnosis from the 1900s
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18575181
>>865040
>Lenin
From the October Revolution[1] onward,[14] Lenin had used repression against perceived enemies of the Bolsheviks as a systematic method of instilling fear and facilitating social control, especially during the campaign commonly referred to as the Red Terror.
>>865064
I've never seen Nietzsche labelled a Hegelian/Young Hegelian, unlike Marx and Stirner.
>that's why he isn't legitimately well-known
More like for the lack of content.
>>865117
Hilarious.
>>865121
>So is yours
>>Your response to my post was a tu quoque.
Delicious
>>865131
>quoting wiki
>>865148
Let's retrace the conversation.
My claim (>>865054), clearly directed at Marxism:
>The worst ones talk about which school of thought their bias belongs to every time they get the opportunity in every text they write, appealing to vague doctrines articulated 150 years ago and supported by a bunch of political radicals trying to hijack society for their own ends, which have never been achieved and which will never be achieved. They can't accept that, though.
Your claim
>>865072
>Yes, Liberalism does have problems, especially in the present.
Literally tu quoque. Literally "BUT U R LYNCHING NEGROES!"
>>865131
>implying revolutionary terror isn't necessary
>>865160
This guy gets it
>>865172
Ah, ça ira, ça ira, ça ira, les aristocrates a la lanterne!
>>865150
>Robert Gellately, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe, 2007, Knopf, 720 pages. ISBN 1-4000-4005-1
>>865160
>>865172
>implying orders of rank aren't necessary
>>865074
This.
>Studying history
>Parents pretend they are not disappointed you're not studying medicine
>>865177
Because the ruling classes will do anything to stay in power, up to and including putting an insane baron who thinks he's the reincarnation of Genghis Khan and enjoys flambeing peasants, in charge of a major army.
>>865158
Maybe you should look up what a tu quoque is.
>>865172
>>865201
Unironically this
>>865201
>Anything
Which is what, immoral? Just like Revolutionary Terror? It's just *necessary*
>>865216
Based Quentin
>>865225
Morality is a spook, but we have to defend our class interests too.
>>865233
>Morality is a spook
>Class is important
Dropped
>>865233
Why?
>>865245
>mfw this is still the big question at the heart of philosophy
>mfw it's still the case that nobody has an answer
>>865237
>arbitrary rules are more important than collective material well-being
wew lad
>>865259
>collective
Did you even read Stirner's book? Or its title?
>>865259
Collective well-being judged by arbitrary rules? What if I disagree with this? Am I not part of the collective?
Sounds like fascism mate ;)
>>865252
What exactly do you mean here? Can you formulate the question more precisely?
>>865273
>Am I not part of the collective?
Not if you're not a worker, no
>>865277
The question is "Why?"
>>865285
What if I'm a dissenting worker? Don't dodge the question my fascist friend
>>865299
Why would a worker dissent with the will of the Communist party, which always acts in the best interest of the proletariat? Do you lack proletarian consciousness, my friend?
>>865099
http://www.stephenhicks.org/2010/03/02/marxs-three-failed-predictions-ep/
to bad the predictions central to his vision of the future failed
>>865318
>I'm just infected by their memes.
Your arguments are flawed because Stirner has so much power over you. Like, that's literally the reason your arguments don't work. Stirner is incompatible with Marxism, stop using spooks as if the concept didn't make proletarian action irrelevant.
>>865233
>“high culture is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its first presupposition is a strong and soundly consolidated mediocrity.... To be a public utility, a wheel, a function, for that one must be destined by nature...”
>Whom do I hate most among the rabble of today? The socialist rabble, the chandala apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker’s sense of satisfaction with his small existence–who make him envious, who teach him revenge. The source of wrong is never unequal rights but the claim of “equal” rights.
>“the socialists’ conception of the highest society is the lowest in the order of rank”
>“the logical conclusion of the tyranny of the least and dumbest”
>“politics of ressentiment”
>“residue of Christianity and Rousseau in the de-Christianized world”
>Oddly, submission to powerful, frightening, even terrible persons, like tyrants and generals, is not experienced as nearly so painful as is [the] submission to unknown and uninteresting persons, which is what all the luminaries of industry are. What the workers see in the employer is usually only a cunning, bloodsucking dog of a man who speculates on all misery; and the employer’s name, shape, manner and reputation are a matter of complete indifference to them. The manufacturers and entrepreneurs of business probably have been too deficient so far in all those forms and signs of a higher race that alone make a person interesting. If the nobility of birth showed in their eyes and gestures, there might not be any socialism of the masses, the idea that it is only accident and luck that have elevated one person above another...and thus socialism is born
>>865348
Who is this quoting?
>>865364
>"ideology"
Why should I care about your ideology?
>8 8 8
That isn't an argument
>>865387
Unironically this.
>tfw reactionary critique
>>865387
Y'know, I've never had it explained to me this way but it makes perfect sense.
Though, I disagree with your conclusion.
>>865387
This post is edgelord supreme
>>865372
Neither is linking me to some randroid's blog
We're talking about everyone else's ideology here, not my materialism.
>>865360
Nietzsche.
Capital accumulation is merely the economic reflection and logical consequence of the brute fact that we are not equal. And that's what's really bothering the anti-capitalists.
The main peeve of the anti-capitalists is that the goal of capitalists is profits. But what is profit? It is merely the economic manifestation of the gratitude that an individual feels he owes to someone who has served him. And so the subhumans earn the right to vilify the capitalists... for serving them — and indeed for being exceptionally good at it too (otherwise they wouldn't have earned so many profits) — the sheer rudeness and ingratitude of which behavior would have made even the most vicious of old style slave owners seem good-natured, amicable, and just.
>>865478
>confusing labor with capital
No, anti-capitalists hate capitalists because they have capital which results in profits instead of laboring to produce profit like everyone else
>>865486
Don't they create jobs though?
>>865387
Have you considered Toynbee's critique of creative minorities evolving into controlling minorities, and creating a universal state?
>>865418
>We're talking about everyone else's ideology here, not my materialism.
But you haven't given me a good reason to accept materialism yet.
>inb4 ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
>>865486
>No, anti-capitalists hate capitalists because they have capital which results in profits instead of laboring to produce profit like everyone else
How is that not the exact same as
>Capital accumulation is merely the economic reflection and logical consequence of the brute fact that we are not equal. And that's what's really bothering the anti-capitalists.
>>865500
>Toynbee.
M
E
M
E
S
I
S
>>865508
Because anti-capitalists want inequality to be based on inequality of labor, not inequality of capital.
If you don't work, you don't eat.
>>865536
>Because anti-capitalists want inequality to be based on inequality of labor, not inequality of capital.
But it already is. What must be understood about the subject of "labour" before any further discussion can begin on the subject is that there are two types of job: the one that you create yourself, and the one that others offer you, and it is always the latter type that subhumans mean whenever they use that word. But in order for the latter type to exist, the former must have originally created it (since "jobs" do not exactly grow on trees in the jungle by themselves now do they). Translated from Subhuman, "We need more jobs" means "We need more innovative, daring individuals to risk their lives' savings (or borrow from banks by placing their property as collateral at the risk of losing everything and even going to prison) to launch mankind on new, daring and untried paths, and advertise whatever secondary subservient roles they might have for us under their tutelage and protection". But nobody uses the Human formulation because it would spoil for them the narrative of Marxist propaganda, so we are stuck with the popular conception and its associated implication that jobs do grow on trees after all. So fight the system, brother! Those capitalist vampires are not creating anything! All they are doing is sucking your blood dry and trying to take your "jobs" away from you!
>>865536
But I don't want to eat, I want to eat large amounts of delicious food.
>>865540
hoo boy
>>865540
This is a good post
>>865540
>or borrow from banks by placing their property as collateral at the risk of losing everything and even going to prison
>ayy bankers arent capitalists
If you're borrowing from a bank, it's not your capital, you're laboring with the bank's capital, and the bank is profiting from it by virtue of having capital.
>We need more innovative, daring individuals to risk their lives' savings
Because big corporations, rich executives and wealthy investors are totally doing that.
>>865540
>>865562
>you're laboring with the bank's capital, and the bank is profiting from it by virtue of having capital.
He's not claiming it's the individual's own capital.
>Because big corporations, rich executives and wealthy investors are totally doing that.
This is a strawman, desu. I feel like most people making arguments like the one you're responding to think there's some kind of Mandate of Heaven to the economy. Firms should be cut down to size by active, competitive market forces when the time comes. There's no reason to think that "big corporations" would necessarily grow endlessly in this model, assuming that the state doesn't side too much with the large businesses.
I guess I sound like a minarchist or an AnCap.
>>865571
>He's not claiming it's the individual's own capital.
So who is the capitalist in the equation?
>This is a strawman, desu. I feel like most people making arguments like the one you're responding to think there's some kind of Mandate of Heaven to the economy. Firms should be cut down to size by active, competitive market forces when the time comes. There's no reason to think that "big corporations" would necessarily grow endlessly in this model, assuming that the state doesn't side too much with the large businesses.
Hurr, I'm just going to look away from reality and turn to magical utopia austrialand.
>>865571
>assuming that the state doesn't side too much with the large businesses.
Christ, you are on a HISTORY board. How could believe this has ever not been the case?
>>865581
Do you not know how assumptions work?
>>865571
>think there's some kind of Mandate of Heaven to the economy. Firms should be cut down to size by active, competitive market forces when the time comes.
Which is pretty much the Mandate of Heaven, economic version. Just replace dynasty with company.
>>865562
1. Most capitalists are not bankers themselves
2. Banks also risk their property
3. The borrower's capital is their property (and even freedom), traded for the bank's
4. The "big corporations, rich executives and wealthy investors" totally did that, that's how they got rich.
>>864833
If you're dead it's not hard, they've got a monopoly on a ton of dead left theorists
>>865195
I finished a law degree and i realise the little history i studied was way better for me. You gotta do what suits you lad
>>865562
Hey, managing those kapital is also a work in itself m8.
>>865575
>So who is the capitalist in the equation?
A lender, rather than the borrower. The entrepreneur in question is borrowing money.
>Hurr,
I'm not taking his position, I'm pointing out that someone has made a bad objection.
>>865406
He has a point though
>>865711
No he doesn't.
>>865700
>A lender, rather than the borrower.
Exactly, so why do you pretend the borrower is the capitalist to justify capitalism?
>>865697
Yes, so a hedge fund manager is a laborer. A person living off a trust fund inheritance managed by a hedge fund manager is a capitalist.
>>865387
>this meme tier argument
This is 'horseshoe theory' level
>>865721
I'm not, the obvious implication is that he can, through some action on his part, acquire capital of his own in the future. The process of acquisition will involve paying off his debt.
>>865728
Do you have a counterargument?
>>865728
It's not necessarily wrong. Something analogous to this argument, though in a far more realized form, is expressed sort of off-hand in an essay by Graeber talking about popular left intellectuals being more related to prophets than scholars during their conferences.
Left academics involve a wide range of approaches and disciplines. Big verso names like Negri or Berardi? Not so miuch.
>>865739
Oh, yeah! I forgot that it was the current year for a minute, haha.
>Year 12016 HE
>Not being a multilevel selection social evolution theorist
Why even bother studying history?
>>865732
There's need to be an actual argument first
>>865765
See
>there'd need to be an actual argument first
>>865765
Well then I will.
If you look over any faculty listing, even in disciplines like sociology (assuming you're not somewhere like the philippines, where saying you're a sociology or anthropology student is pretty much the same as sahying your graduate schooling is gonna be with the NPA) you might notice a vague sort of keynsian leftism among the lot, but not communism. Folks that stick with that sort of thing are only able to insofar as they can occupy an academically useful niche, something that their non-marxist colleagues can read and cite.
But hey, if you still want intellectuals lined up and shot, there's certainly a place for you among pol pot revivalists.
>>865795
desu, it's disingenuous to act as if the claim is confined to the beliefs of employed faculty at universities.
>>865807
Insofar as these are the folks teaching "intellectuals", we can take them as fairly representative. As for anyone else with claims to the title, unless they're part of a think tank they're in the same situation as the lot of us: he who does not work, neither shall he eat.
>>865813
>As for anyone else with claims to the title, unless they're part of a think tank they're in the same situation as the lot of us: he who does not work, neither shall he eat.
Eh, you're clearly committed to your fifelesque position, I don't feel like debating this with you anymore.
>>865822
>y won't u argue my point
>ok i will
>no i don't want to talk about this
you're clearly committed to your fifelesque position
I suppose we can therefore summarize this conversation as such: I'm right and you're wrong + I fucked ur mum
>>865830
Honestly, someone who just says "My definition of intellectual is the only right one and the influence of intellectuals is objectively confined to what I say it is" isn't worth debating. University faculty do more than just "teach intellectuals."
>>865729
>yes little prole
>keep working like a good prole and maybe some day youll have capital of your own
>>865838
Sure, they also engage in academic research. Which is, of course, very much an extension of the role of intellectuals.
The rest may be intellectuals, I did specifically say "anyone else with claims to the title", but their role is such that it can be relegated by themselves to a secondary position. Jose Rizal, for instance, was a very good Opthamologist for his time, and by all indactors he took his work in such seriously. We know Che as a revolutionary leader, but we also remember him as a practicing doctor. If you're not an academic, you still gotta eat, and the only way to eat is work.
But you're fully within your rights to provide a counter definition, and we can of course work within that context, if you prefer.
>>865862
>but their role is such that it can be relegated by themselves to a secondary position.
But that's the problem I have, I don't see a good reason to do this, when we're talking about the general system of things students at universities learn (which is actually what we're talking about, not just who is being paid for doing research).
>>865873
We don't necessarily do it, insofar as history is concerned. Obviously, Jose Rizal is not remember for his work in opthalmology, but as an anti-spanish writer and activist. But for folks who relied on his work as an opthalmologist, we can says his status as an intellectual was probably secondary to them. If we cannot do such, what is an intellectual for you, then? Anyone who has learned an iota of theory? I gave you the opportunity to freely define an intellectual and even the grace of accepting it whatever it is, but you have still refused to conclusively answer. Bit disingenuous, innit?
Yes, and the general system of things students at universities learn is not a full four years in dialectical materialism or hegemonic apparatus's. They're learning to good ol' trade of managerial tasks for different areas of society as per their particular disciplines. Sometimes it involves working as a carny and avoiding getting a beat down. Valuable skill, that is.
>mfw this thread
>mfw people near me think dont follow a physiognomic interpretation of world-history
>mfw materialists still think they are interpreting anything
>mfw people still think that base and superstructure still hold any validity, and that it isnt just a meaningless distinction of different realities of human experience and becoming.
>>865905
>They're learning to good ol' trade of managerial tasks for different areas of society as per their particular disciplines.
That's my point. This and the intelligentsia are part of the same system.
I'll give you a definition: an intellectual is anyone involved in the diffusion of ideas throughout society, especially someone whose ideas (I'm not going to say "theories" because I think that's too limiting a conception of what intellectuals do) are granted legitimacy by a large, radical, or powerful portion of the population.
>>865387
Only someone that's never been to uni would think they are controlled by communists.
>>865954
Ideas? "Ideas"? Could you then please define "ideas"?
>>865963
I knew it was going to come to this.
"Ideas" are things experienced by consciousness or put into words by it.
Could you please define "material?" This is a thread about historical materialism, after all. The burden of proof is technically on you, if you're going to assert the proof of your own conception of "intellectuals" or your own ontology on all of this. And the crux of my rejection of historical materialism is precisely the fact that it makes metaphysical claims in the first place; you wouldn't be so beholden to using the word "theory" and so literally questioning of the word "ideas" if you weren't committed to a materialist metaphysics.
>>865974
Well, if the criterion of judging who ought to be lined up against the wall and shot is someone who is an intellectual, and an intellectual is someone who diffuses something so broad like "ideas", I'd wager your hit list is a lot longer than is feasible. I'm very sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt bruv, it seems your hit list really is that big.
So let us then ask: is what we are doing an activity that involves the diffusion of ideas?
>>866025
I'm not the Pinochet wannabee like the guy who made that post, I just don't think it's reasonable to expect people to yield hegemony to Communists like you without putting up a fight. I'm concerned because of the amount of radicalization I've observed among people who consider themselves to be moderate liberals but who don't understand that the positions they take are not compatible with the liberal paradigm they claim to abide by. I'm sorry, but you and I disagree about political topics that can't be discussed here. Are you familiar with bunkerchan? You might like it there.
>I'm very sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt bruv, it seems your hit list really is that big.
Why do you assume I have violent intentions? Again, I'm not the guy that wants to toss every intellectual out of a helicopter. I just don't want to yield hegemony to you Communists who claim a monopoly on theories about the way social systems work. I'm particularly taking issue with people on 4chan and in my personal life for what I think should be obvious reasons, just as you yourself insist that intellectuals and the average person live in separate universes as a consequence of your actually spending enough time in the university system that you demand that people pay you when they ask you to engage them in discussion instead of interrogating and belittling them. I honestly don't know why you post on this board, fifel.
>is what we are doing an activity that involves the diffusion of ideas?
That's one thing it is, yes.
>>865387
reminder that right wing resentment of intellectuals is slave morality
Are idealism and materialism mutually exclusive?
>>865131
>More like for the lack of content.
This. I absolutely love Stirner's philosophy, but there simply isn't enough of it to sink one's teeth into, and thus it's pretty boring from an academic perspective.
>>865418
>We're talking about everyone else's ideology here, not my materialism.
But your materialism is an ideology.
>>866046
Do we? All I've said is that communism is not the dominant ideology among intellectuals. Aparently, I am now a communist claiming monopoly on social systems
Look, I apologize for mistaking you for that guy, but cmon man
>>866263
Are you not fifel? I thought you literally admitted to and took pride in being a Communist.
>>864820
Prove that class struggle is how history evolves first, and I'll think about it.
*snort* and so on and so on
>>865478
An investor with more starting capital than an equally competent investors will accumulate more capital.
The game is rigged. So it requires arbiters to ensure fair(er) competition.
>>865540
>there are two types of job: the one that you create yourself, and the one that others offer you, and it is always the latter type that subhumans mean whenever they use that word
Yeah, fuck farmers. Who needs them? It's the guy who takes that food and puts in the market shelves that counts. Sorry, I mean the guy who tells that guy to do it.
>>866197
Yes.
If you recognize both, that's, like, dualism or something.
