Do Marxists want to destroy the family?

Typical Marxist lies

Why do Americans have such a hardon for the "me mom and daddy" type of family?

Why would I stay in one le family home when the system they want lets me do pretty much anything and can go anywhere? What exactly would be tieing me to muh extended family?

based

The nuclear family has been around since about ancient rome though. Was it a capitialst structure then too?

Good. You guys can take care of my children. They will probably be idiot dipshits anyway.

The Family Is a GUN, in the hands of the BOURGEOIS CLASSSHH!

All the large families I grew up with on council estates smoked weed and took copious amounts of drugs. This picture makes no sense.

>lets me do pretty much anything and can go anywhere

Soviet Union ran into this problem after the 1919 Code of Marriage was put in place, by 1921 there was around 8-9 million known orphans, mainly from people having kids and just fucking off to do other things, it caused the Soviet Union to take a more conservative stance in 1926 and then went full "Slavic babies for the motherland" under Stalin

Must be why they come up with shit like to cope with humanitys selfish nature

Good post

By "alternative structures" they mean promotion of homosexuality, transexuality, polyamory and prostitution and other atomising lifestyles combined with an all powerful managerial state that is probably going to be more oppresive than the family ever was, and worst thing is you can run away from your family but you cant run away from the state.

But there is nothing to destroy user. Family as the basic social unity has been dying since WWI.
The only thing that can stop the progress of nihilism in society is admitting, that the modern family brings only suppression andpain in the name of neoliberal padding of the increasing alienation and capital disparity.
Only the reorganization of society can prevent the humanity from the decline.

No, it hasn't. Ancient Rome had patriarchy.

I'm a Marxist and I don't want to destroy the family.

>And no, the nuclear family is not the traditional family
Based on what? This is a good distinction to make in order to obfuscate the fact you are in fact destroying family, it's a nice hand wave justification, but the second someone actually scrutinizes the claim it's clearly bullshit. What's the difference exactly? Is there some magic authority which dubs families as X or Y?

Marxists just want to accelerate the process of dissolution of all social bonds, the same process which created the postwar suburban nuclear family. Motivated by the futile hope that when people are fully reduced to abstract economic units described by marxist theory they will somehow gain consciousness of themselves as workers and overthrow capitalism, forgetting that resistance is always rooted in concrete communities. 19th century socialists actually promoted 'family values' as part of their effort to drill the slum dwellers of the industrial world into an organised political mass of self identified 'workers'. Modern leftists on the other hand have adopted a 'queer' ethics of mandatory transgression thhat actually harmonises quite well with the hegemonic neoliberal individualism.

Marxists have this knee jerk reaction against anything anyone to the right of them might like so they go through mental gymnastics to justify autistic thinks like "abolishing the family" "gender fluid" etc

Attached: 10269396_10152178033518795_6126456978482282605_n.jpg (504x720, 43K)

it's almost as though modern leftists are a tool of the system that created them....

Depends on the Marxist.

Accelerationists want to destroy everything and make life as bad as possible, so they'd probably rail against the family.

Anarchists (not strictly Marxist, but often influenced by Marx) often use the authority of a parent over a child as an example of a good, justifiable hierarchy, so they'd want to preserve the family, so long as husband and wives are equals.

Orthodox Marxists advocate for either an extended family (e.g. cousins, grandparents, and family friends are just as important as parents and children; see many asian cultures) or a brand-new family structure (instead of the family structure being a religious/economic arrangement, it's purely voluntary and more flexible).

Many Marxist-Leninists actually believe that capitalism is the main force destroying the family as it stands today, and believe that working-class "family values" are a key component in resisting the damage that capitalism does. A pure capitalist, for example, sees no value in having children other than the ability to preserve his wealth across generations; if the cost of childcare ever impacted his personal bottom line, he'd shun his children, or never have any in the first place. But an honest-to-God family man would have children for their own sake, even if it cost him a great deal.

And so on. I encourage you to do some reading for yourself, user.

I'm a marxist and this is basically it. Another one is blanket condemnation of nationalism, usually by anarchists, without recognizing the benefits of it.

The netflix documentary?

based Pol Poster

Attached: pol-pot-and-skulls.jpg (800x422, 73K)

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-08-28 at 3.09.50 PM.png (970x440, 107K)

Son, you're gonna have to stop reasonably dividing our monolithic groups by the different motivations driving their ideology in accurate ways if you're going to make it round these parts

In Rome, the paterfamilias (the eldest male ascendant) was the legal head of the family. All property in possession of his children, grandchildren etc was legally owned by the paterfamilias (with some exceptions, such as reforms that allowed for children to legally own booty obtained during military service). In this regard, children, and even those with children of their own, were akin to slaves. The paterfamilias could decide to cast a child to the rocks, sell their children, and put their children up for adoption, as well as adopt other children as heirs even to the detriment of their biological children.

Marriage was not a sacred institution. Marriage was regarded much more as a legal contract, with fairly lax divorce laws. The paterfamilias had concubines and had sex with slaves, monogamy was not the norm.

Many older men chose to be adopted by other paterfamiliases in order to receive the benefit of inheritance, even at the expense of some liberty.

>Mom and Dad have kids
>Mom and Dad raise and care for kids
>This is bad
LMAO

>Capitalists are incapable of having meaningful relationships with their extended family
U wot m8?

Isn't the idea that capitalism is already destroying the family and that under socialism that process would come to its natural conclusion?

>Marriage was not a sacred institution.
wasn't it?
the home was a sacred institution, so was the family, so was marriage
"the ancient city" by fustel de coulanges talks about this and many more things
also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hestia
of course the marriage had a legal side, but this religious side was its origin and its meaning

>bottom left
>straight relationship

No. Restore it

Good posts. Can you recommend a book or other literature that best explains the Marxist position on the family?

I’m sympathetic to the idea that that our economic conditions have done quite a bit to shape our family structure after reading about the familial structure of some hunter gatherer tribes. The nuclear family definitely is not innate.

why butterfly talk like grug

me no like

Attached: grug.png (485x443, 24K)

Extended families without religion or Jesus for them to tolerate and forgive each other? Can you show me examples of a strong extended family that came as the result of Marx?

Attached: 6C96E946-DC49-40F9-A301-1C9624D7BE7E.jpg (960x764, 46K)

Maybe, maybe not. I'd not trust any Marxist on the issue, they always seem to end up doing handwaving about capitalism also destroying the family and family is wrong anyway and we're magically gonna go back to extended families and happy days forever if you just do communism.

The Frankfurt School. Specifically Adorno IIRC (if not then it was probably Marcuse).

Engels also wrote about the family extensively, defining the capitalist family as both dehumanising and overly patriarchal.

Some branches of Marxism are opposed to religion, but not others. It’s possible to be socialist or anarchist while still being Christian.

It’s grammatically accurate if simplified.

Attached: 524821A4-7DA6-40CB-955D-5970EC7BA504.jpg (1280x960, 265K)

Christ is the opposite of anarchy. Although he came to bring division (sword), yet he brings peace to His lost sheep. This is Christ being divided from all other ways. Broad and narrow is the road that leads to hell. Straight and narrow is the path, not to the left nor to the right. By following Christ you will not get along with everyone, you’re pursuing agape love as a uniquely Christian virtue, dead to sin, a city on a hill that cannot be hid.

Forgiving thy brother seventy times seven when he trespasses against you. Merciful to the merciless. Forgiving to the unforgiving. Loving to the unlovable. Love god with all your strength, all your might and all your soul. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Who is your neighbor? Why the Good Samaritan from the tribe you hate. He is Humble, wise, hallowed in name and spirit. Our salvation. My Lord and God Jesus Christ. He is the Way the Truth the Life. Do you not see how Christ’s teachings are incompatible with Marx?

Attached: FB09B6EA-6698-44B4-A92C-13A2609F5684.jpg (500x665, 52K)

>/pol/cels don't know how family worked before the industrial revolution

Attached: Laughing_Marx.jpg (480x563, 120K)

>getting infinitychan refugee /pol and /leftypol vibes from this post.

I believe the nuclear Family already has thoroughly dissoluted aside from secluded communites.
It often fills my heart with sadness seeing the distance between me and my Family.
It's like watching ice in the Arctic melting and drifiting apart.
I think it's just me or my Family but then I look to my Friends
or my colleagues and it's the same thing over there, with rare exceptions.
Of Course it is not all bad but I can't imagine things getting better. Maybe on an individual plane but generally speaking.
Maybe I am being dillusional but please
someone draw me some Scenarios in which thinks are not continiously getting from bad to worse.

sorry for shitty formatting yadayada

Attached: 1_-tE36uVO5fe4HfIDk4sk_A.jpg (720x480, 108K)

Everybody in this thread is embarrassingly wrong. and included.
Marxists /do/ want to 'abolish the family' in the same way that they want to abolish gender, abolish work, abolish capital and the value-form, etc. If you're not braindead you should get a sense at this point that 'abolition' is used in a way peculiar to Marxism, and is supposed to be understood differently than, for example, the program of the "abolition of slavery" and so on (although in places where slavery is said to have been abolished, wage-slavery still persists).
The abolition of slavery is the total cessation of that category of social relation once and for all, i.e., where there once was labor compelled without remuneration, there is now nothing of the sort. It no longer exists, it is (justly) abandoned. But in the phrases, "the abolition of family/gender/work/capital/value" the word 'abolition' isn't meant to describe this kind of categorical annihilation, as if Marxists were so naive they believed they could airbrush an organizational element of society from history and make everybody forget about it and no longer want to emulate it, etc. (It's actually reactionary /pol/ retards who usually believe they could accomplish such a thing).
Rather, 'abolition' is to be understood /dialectically/ in a Hegelian sense. the Manifesto is a very dialectical text, even its pair of central theses (Capital is revolutionary! -- Capital must be abolished!) form a dialectical unity of opposites. To abolish in this sense is to convict something for its inadequacy according to its own metric, or to immanently critique something. It's to find out that the thing doesn't measure up to the goals that are latent in its existence.By making something "live up to its own standards", so to speak, you eventually change it completely.
If the family-relation were rationally conceived (and in Marxist philosophy there is a lot of this, the idea that the world can basically be rationally understood and that therefore we should be free to reshape our conditions to make them work better for us through logical thought) so as to provide the care, unconditional love, stability, etc. the bourgeois family purports to provide, it would /no longer look like anything we currently call a family/. This is evident enough from all the Oedipal shit and psychological trauma and abuse our current family-relation provides. 'Abolishing the family' is 'making the family as good as we can, and finding out that eventually we need to abandon our concept of family'. It's sorta like determinate negation. It's not a series of gradual refinements, it feeds on the appearance/resolution/new appearance of contradiction. (1/2)

(2/2)
Hence abolishing work doesn't mean no longer performing labor, it means freeing labor form its imperfect condition, and combining work, play, leisure, socializing, education, etc. all with one another -- there is no reason, after all, that these things, which are all kinds of expressions of human freedom and will, should be segmented from one another. It impoverishes all of them. The same goes for 'abolishing gender' (I'm not going to go more in depth on this one because drooling /pol/ dipshits and acneface libertarian high school B students are especially bad at responding to it).
Of course, these developments do appear in capitalism, just like the social relations of capital appear in feudalism. However, they appear in an antagonistic and alien form. Instead of true abolition of the family, the family degenerates to a purely contractual exchange-relation between atomized subjects. Ch 15 of volume 1 of capital contains a number of excellent descriptions of this idea.

For more on this basic dialectical concept that you really should already know by now, I'd point you towards the writings of the New Institute Of Social Research (isr.press/) as well as, of course, the original one, like suggested.

>And no, the nuclear family is not the traditional family. Marxists are a lot more supportive of the extended family structure which is more akin to the traditional family model.
Kind of but not really. Marxists couldn't care less about what's traditional, and it still seems bizarre and arbitrary to limit families to one's biological relatives. Extended families can have awful hierarchies etc. Although more people is probably better than less people, and 'it takes a village to raise a child' is the idea. Even MacIntyre, an anti-modern right winger (sort of, it's complicated) with both Marxist and Catholic influences, agrees with the substitution of communal relations for the nuclear family.

You don't know what you're talking about as much as you think you do. Also accelerationism isn't a serious political philosophy.

You're not a marxist, you're illiterate.

Most of /pol/ are drooling retards who think traditionalism is just American conservatism but more racist.

This

Not really. But liberalism does

what is the marxist position on child drag queens?

yes. inheritance perpetuates privilege you shitlord. no one needs a family

The difference between various marxists’ “positions” on these types of controversial topics is as big as the difference between the time you spend on imageboards and the time you spend actually reading books. :)

Yes. Pic related triggers the Marxist (and probably makes everyone else feel sad).

Attached: 1514912847941.jpg (650x888, 102K)

marxism is 95% descriptive
whoknows?

There is no rationally consistent conception of reality, and if there were, it would be far too multifactorial to ever form into something as reductive as a sublative unity. As always, Marx set aside conclusions to validate false premises.

I don't believe in any last-instance identity between spirit and being either, I appreciate Adorno’s criticisms in this regard. If you weren't such an awful pseud I would almost say I agree with you— unfortunately, you decided you had to continue past the second comma of your post and reveal you haven't actually read/understand hegel or marx.

It's not entirely incompatible. Marxists don't necessarily encourage hatred of the bourgeois, only claiming that their privileges should be removed. Another Christian principle is to make no man your master and to ignore politics. That's not even mentioning the quote of "we are all one in Jesus Christ". Christian Anarchists also like to make a distinction between the word of Christ and the word of the Church, as the Church is comprised of human beings, and so have the potential to pervert God's will.

Divisions come from the Marxists who embrace atheism (believing the Church to be an oppressive institution) and thus focus purely on the material world and how to improve it's conditions in the moment. This stance is devoid of spiritualism in favour of a purely materialistic worldview, but Christian Anarchists criticise this world view claiming that love of God must preceed love of humanity.

Haha epic good sir I too p0wn my ideological opponents by asserting that they never read

Marx literally wanted children taken from their parents and put in schools. He hated families. Marxists in this thread are lying as usual.

Let’s settle this ideological dispute with lots of direct quotes of Marx.

sounds like it gets awkward when your “ideological opponent” (lol) realizes you're a right winger and so necessarily the stupider party

i love asserting things at my ideological opponents. fag

Yes, because the end goal of leftism is to destroy all culture, tradition, and individuality

haha ur stupid gottem

lol

teehee

Because I am half of both of them and they have an innate love for me that no one else could physically have.

Attached: 9e7.jpg (249x249, 16K)

Nice youtube education

>Gender-nonconforming Nova Scotia kid hopes to educate, break down stigma

>HALIFAX, N.S. - Elliott Sweeny loves dogs, banana bread, Beyonce, sometimes wearing skirts, and pink rain boots.
In the Halifax six-year-old’s words, Elliott also says they have a “boy body and a girl brain.”

Curled up on a large couch with their mom Kym Sweeny at the South House Sexual and Gender Resource Centre, Elliott said they usually don’t mind explaining how they identify as gender fluid and gender-nonconforming, or use “they/them” pronouns -- but kids don’t always believe them and can say mean things.

Driving home from school one day, Kym said some people on the radio were talking about women’s periods in a joking way. When Elliott asked if people made fun of menstruation because they didn’t understand it, Kym said “sometimes.”

The next day Elliott asked for magazines to make a collage about things people should know more about, adding glitter and photos of Beyonce and trans actress Laverne Cox next to words like bodies, consent, racism, gender, and decolonization -- which they asked for help writing.

When Kym asked who they thought should come to the pop-up, Elliott smiled and said the friend who didn’t believe him, as well as Donald Trump -- who is a “mean boy.”

While Elliott often used blue (he), pink (she), or yellow (they) bracelets to show Kym which pronoun they preferred before they started school, after a “rough” first couple months in primary they decided on “boy” clothing and “he” pronouns after being teased.

Attached: tn-07022017-elliott2_medium.jpg (458x305, 25K)

Didn't read

The imageboard “this is teh freakin EPIC reply my sir” routine wont leave you with commitments any better regarded by those who shoulder the studying you're too internet brokebrained to undertake. Sorry

Its not like they actually even care about pedophilia or w/e either

marxist believe in socioeconomics.
meaning economics and society are one in the same.
So there is this mistaken belief that if you socially engineer society you can change the economy in a bloodless way.
If socialism is a inevitable like leftists claim they should stop meddling with society and let things happens naturally.

I can tell how not flustered you are by your broken English

Marx didn't understand Hegel. Nobody understood Hegel, including Hegel. All of the "Hegelians" merely adopted one bit of Hegel's verbiage or another to ad-hoc rationalize some premeditated conclusion. Marx's "critique" of Hegel does little other than appropriate that verbiage concerning Hegel's "method" to suit his own conclusions, those being a slavish adherence to the tenets of Classical Ricardian economics.

that post has perfect grammar (allowing for internet slang). lrn2 read

No you're just illiterate

Lol you caught us

it's not broken, it's technically ok, he just writes in a terrible, unclear way.

sometime after the fall of the soviet union, leftists stopped caring after economics at all, they have come full circle and nowadays they mostly focus on helping globohomo multinational corporations promote the gay agenda. It's like the trotskyists who later became neoconservatives, marxism lends itself well to that sort of pretzel logic

Likely because he isn't very intelligent

>Im too dumb to understand this author (who is actually pretty easy, theres a line in Adorno’s dialectics lectures about how he has a sort of second-instance intuition that I agree with) so nobody in history has understood him
Also lol at vomiting out the Samuelson line on Ricardo-Marx as if answering a catechistic prompt. You're not fooling anybody. You havent read a word of Marx, Hegel, and especially not Ricardo

>Hegel is pretty easy to understand
No he really isn't. It's not even comparable to reading Kant or something.

Im correct. You cant address this because its objectively the case lol

Ya I'm right. Conservatives' synapses and reasoning centers are literally broken from looking at frog images too long. Your mind is wired incorrectly, u have nothing like an ethics or method, just infantile manchild impulse to trangress what u regard as 'wokeness' (rooted in contempt of the feminine probably, if gamergate —> trump is any clue)

Hes intuitive sorry. Whitehead and Kant are hard, Deleuze is cringe and easy, Joyce is hard but worth it, DFW and Land arent worth bringing up (theyre jokes), Lacan is really hard because hes really good, no I wont be taking questions!!

Polanyi > Marx. Marx himself was a market teleologist, who didn't understand that economics is an abstract model and that real economic activity is always socially embedded. He even went to the point of uncritically supporting 19th century colonialism and the marketisation of all social relationships. it was Marx' own work that laid the basis for the USSR's and China's absurd and genocidal industrial and agrarian policies. Marxists have to recognise that their theories have, even by their own standards, an awful track record, the USSR is dead and China is objectively an authoritarian capitalist oligarchy (the extent to which some marxists go to deny this proves marxism itself has lost all meaning and been reduced to a collection of empty symbols, slogans and juvenile fantasies of apocalyptic violence).

You've done nothing but regurgitate a bit of Adorno's pathetic screeds too add some ersatz ethos to your insults. Where do I err? Hegel was a charlatan who expanded a nucleus of German Nationalist banalities into an intentionally obscure philosophy, and Marx was an embittered Classical who tried to buff out some of the more glaring flaws in Ricardian Socialism with his shoddy knowledge of history and some Hegelian musings in volume III. If you've been able to slog through Part I of volume I of Capital, and you know who Paul Samuelson is, then surely you're familiar with Eugen Böhm-Bawerk and Joseph Schumpeter? I await your inevitable Marx apologia per Hilferding and Bukharin.

Holy fuck you're embarrassing

>Marx himself was a market teleologist, who didn't understand that economics is an abstract model and that real economic activity is always socially embedded.
No he isn't, no he didn't. read more marx scholarship, this is probably even addressed in elementary and flawed works like Harvey's companions iirc. didnt read the rest of the post btw

Bad canned line, at least be creative, see
>The imageboard “this is teh freakin EPIC reply my sir” routine wont leave you with commitments any better regarded by those who shoulder the studying you're too internet brokebrained to undertake. Sorry

So you're one of those "Marx was never even wrong" types. Are you gonna enlighten us all on TSSI next?

shut the fuck up ultra

There really isn't more nuance to these posts than this post , just more words. The only actual point of departure is over the term "traditional," which, given the Marxist penchant for appealing to "primitive communism," could easily be forgiven.

You clearly didn't understand what he was going for.

Attached: b530b29364dc197ef695fa1cde29db91_L.jpg (960x1145, 331K)

Ultra smart and ultra cool you mean

>Hegel was a charlatan who expanded a nucleus of German Nationalist banalities into an intentionally obscure philosophy, and Marx was an embittered Classical who tried to buff out some of the more glaring flaws in Ricardian Socialism with his shoddy knowledge of history and some Hegelian musings in volume III.
No, mischaracterization of hegel is especially bad here. (the Marx stuff is relatively banal. The section of capital I mentioned isnt in part one btw lol.) You cant get away with not understanding something through accusations of obscurantism buttressing an essentially conservative political agenda (although hegel is conservative, it's because he's not hegelian enough and so on). You can't with derrida, you can't with deleuze, you can't with hegel. You just can't
>surely you're familiar with Eugen Böhm-Bawerk and Joseph Schumpeter? I await your inevitable Marx apologia per Hilferding and Bukharin.
Lmao rec Mises next

Why should I? This was about Marx's take on the family until a bunch of you revealed how awful your understanding of Marx et al. are.

Marxists overinterpret Marx' work(the sacred texts of revelation) to the point they lose all meaning and all contact with reality, they might even throw in Lacanian psychoanalysis just to boost the pseudoscience and obscurantism quotient. How this is not like the cranks who look for mathematical codes in the bible? Reminds me of a story I heard about professor Althusser of the Ecole Normale Superieure who wrote volumes and volumes on Marxism before even setting foot on a factory. When he did, he was baffled by the punch clock system, never having seen anything like it. If you want to actually improve the world and achieve social justice you are better off studying economic and social history.

Attached: punching-the-clock.jpg (615x409, 33K)

still wrong

Dumb

Hegel's philosophical system, despite its occasional insights, stands as a turgid amalgam of hermetic occultism, megalomania, and german pietistic theology, anchored by this grotesque simplification of history. In terms of his interests, readings and associations still a pre enlightenment, almost medieval man obsessed with paranormal phenomena.

Nope

user from here. I think you're forgetting an important distinction: Marx versus Marxists. Lots of people are influenced by Marx, but don't adopt all of his views. My post was based mostly on in-person discussions I've had, rather than primary sources, for these reasons.

I'll concede that "orthodox Marxists" might have been the wrong word to use for group C. Maybe a better term would be "post-Marxists" or something like that. People who are by and large Marxists, but who don't adopt 100% of his views.

And accelerationism is absolutely a serious political philosophy (although it is kind of silly). I've seen people enacting it.

There you go again, not actually saying anything aside. Yeah, it's in Part IV, whatever. You sure showed me. There is no actual substance to about 80% of PoS, so any attribution of his obscurity is about as good as any other for that alone, and PoR is exactly what I described, which makes my contention even more likely.
>although hegel is conservative, it's because he's not hegelian enough and so on
Holy shit, LARP harder lel. I'll accuse him of whatever the fuck I want, especially since at least half of what he wrote seems to suggest that I'm correct. You can pull whatever "immortal dialectical science" out of your ass that you like, but Hegel's method is a goddamn funhouse mirror that you can distort toward whatever end-goal you like.
>Lmao rec Mises next
Here, you like accusing people of not reading if they don't agree with you, so I'll give you a hand in the hopes that you'll disabuse yourself: books.google.com/books/about/Capital_and_Interest.html?id=wfxHBd9ivsUC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button
Read Chapter 12, parts A, B. 1., B. 3.-7., and C.

>Why should I
Because, as you showed in your first two posts, you think yourself to be Marx's Holy Spirit made corporeal.

No, you're still wrong. Neither any Marxist nor ‘post-Marixst’ believes (although maybe dumbass anarchists do) in making family relations ‘completely voluntary’, and any Marxist would tell you notions of voluntary or uncoerced activity fall apart under rigorous scrutiny. It's why the distinction Hayek makes between liberal and socialist conceptions of freedom in ch 2 (iirc) of RtS is incorrect; it doesn't matter whether what you are enabled to do is controlled by a small number of people or if the absolute range of what you are enabled to do is small, in either case your activity is absolutely determined by society. That's just how causality works. Free will isn't real. I'd rather be 'unfree' in the Hayekian sense if my activity was determined by an intelligent and attractive person than 'free' if I was impoverished in our exploitative society.
The alternative conception Marxists offer to 'voluntary' relations (what does that even mean? newborns look through a catalogue and decide which parent they want?) is also Hegelian, and admittedly rather vague. Has to do with the development of latent potentialities etc etc. This is getting boring.

>And accelerationism is absolutely a serious political philosophy (although it is kind of silly). I've seen people enacting it.
How? Going on twitter? Buying verso books? Practicing "antipraxis" in real life? lol

*aside from some comically stand-offish insults

>although maybe dumbass anarchists do
Oh, you're THAT user. Now I understand why it seems as though I've been playing chess with a pigeon.

so this is the true power of the dialectic.

Will being "free" is not the issue; rather, it is the naïve holism and totalizing "social determination" that Marxists adopt as validation for praxis.

ur orbiting me after u self owned by misidentifying bad grammar

I’m actually enjoying the back and forth, this must have been what those Parisian cafes felt like in the 18th century if they called each other retarded more.

Lol if I have to provide some kind of comprehensive response to all of subjective value theory and all of marginalism and the calc problem debates and the TSSI debate and so on and so on all in a Yea Forums thread, as anons (who arent busy something out about drag queens) seem to be suggesting, then you have to write an essay disputing the confirmation of TRPF by the empirical historical literature and email it to me. Luckily neither of us have to do this.
I've already read BB btw.

*who arent busy sperging out

...

I think myself to understand Marxist notions of abolition.

>confirmation
Lol ok David. At least all the language that I've been using is deliberately positional.

You can regurgitate it at least.

read the sentence again carefully

Can you give me some Christian anarchist authors or figures you’re talking about? Are you talking about pic related?

Hmm
>removed
Labeled, Murdered, Silenced

Attached: B48A520C-BA95-446D-A07C-478867A1580E.jpg (1000x1588, 640K)

Anarchist here. Family means literally nothing. I know my friends more than I know any of my family outside of my immediate which I have nothing to do with. That said, is right about the nuclear family being a capitalist construct and propaganda.

Also if you're this bad at hegel I'm allowed to be bad at the austrians (even though im not).

See, the difference is that I'm not the one who made the first positive assertion. Why should I believe that you're "good" at anything when you haven't done anything but attack my "bad" ethos? If I'm as dumb as you say, your defense should be simple, Dr. Harvey.

I should add that every digression I've made was only after you made this about my ethos rather than your logos. I'd have loved to have a nice little chat about how nascent absolute idealism is inextricable from any sublative methodology, and how the will is irrational, but then I realized you were a toefucker.

I'm sure you're fine at bohm-bawerk, George Mason student, but you're bad at hegel and I refuse to divulge why (more than I already have). He isn't an obscurantist nor am occultist, he is reason applying its critical faculty to itself. If you don't understand it you're either too low IQ or haven't spent enough time/effort. I rest my case!

What does 'sublative' mean in this context? I looked up the phrase "sublative unity" on google earlier and it had only been used twice (one of those uses happening on Yea Forums).

>but you're bad at hegel and I refuse to divulge why
This is why you're a toefucker.

This isnt me (the person with whom youve been talking) btw. i know what sublation is

"Sublative" in the sense that saying "dialectical" mischaracterizes Hegel's method as one of triads. I'm willing to accept that it isn't THAT reductive, otherwise we wouldn't have generations of mouthbreathers like yourself sperging over exegesis. You know what sublation is, right? I thought you attended comrade Koževnikov's lectures.

See

Oh, got it.

It's on the manifesto. Even Peterson at least read it.

I wasn't part of the convo, just an onlooker wanting to know what sublative means in this context. Like okay, sublate literally means
> to negate or eliminate (something, such as an element in a dialectic process) but preserve as a partial element in a synthesis

But what is a sublative methodology? How does that work?

I was just trying to prevent an argument over terminology. The fact that sublation (aufheben in Hegel's German) preserves elements embodied in prior contradictions is an important distinction to Hegelians, who are often accused of reductivism based solely on the false assumption that their methodology (the way in which they go from premises to conclusions to put it very, very simply) is A. strictly eliminative and B. conveyed through triads (thesis + antithesis = synthesis). My accusation of Hegel's methodology being "reductive" instead rests upon a lack of robustness, in which it can accommodate any premise and conclusion comfortably given enough epicycling.

I'd also emphasize that I consider myself an Adornian before a Hegelo-Marxist or Egoist. Like I said before, I almost agree that the idealist last-instance System is reductive and that thought can proceed neither from first principles nor System. Thought is always grappling with its non-identity which never receives some miraculous resolution at the end, is essentially a negative operation, etc. But I find it to be my imperative to defend hegel from things as puerile and childish as accusations of obscurantism (as well as the awful treatment of anything dialectical-sounding by bohm-bawerk). Adorno's 'open thought' is most attractive to me, in my initial two posts I was just pointing out an aspect of thought actually present in Marx. Also “the will is irrational” lol retard fuck off

The bad and cringe point about dialectic being a rhetorical tool to get to anywhere is addressed early on in Adorno's introduction to dialectics lectures. It's a good introduction and you obviously don't know what you're talking about make it the next book you read. I'll give you an inkling of credit for distrust of triadic schema

>it can accommodate any premise and conclusion comfortably given enough epicycling.

y-yeah, good thing i have a methodology that doesn't allow for that, h-heh

you still looking for a paypig?

Tolstoy is Christian Anarchism.

Unfortunately for you, Marx does provide us with an eliminaive method of sorts in his "third thing" argument, which can be attacked as lacking in logical necessity without ever having to pay special attention to any Hegelian formulation. I don't know if you're familiar with Rudolf Hilferding, but he basically took
>as well as the awful treatment of anything dialectical-sounding by bohm-bawerk
and stretched it over 80 or so pages without actually addressing the issues brought up by Böhm-Bawerk per se, as making a reference to Marx's "dialectical method" was little more than passing snark from BB, and not at all integral to his critique. Bukharin did more or less the same thing in Economic Theory of the Leisure Class.

Adorno may very well have sincerely used Hegel's philosophy as an instrumental method rather than a rhetorical device, and I'll give his lectures a look, but the multifarious-yet-seemingly-consistent application of Hegel's method over the last 200 years leaves me dubious as to whether any Hegelians besides Adorno shared his honest German angst. It doesn't mean that Adorno's negative dialectics or whatever are in any way apodictic, and I can't see Marx, Kojève, or Lukács having a death by tits. Suppose that I'm wrong, and Hegel is never invoked rhetorically. If every Hegelian is a true believer, wouldn't that hurt the whole program even more? I'd say that the only thing that is really contingent upon the social context in which it reproduces itself is the way in which Hegel is invoked.

With Hegel, it has been the rule rather than the exception.

Honestly I always associated with the anarchy component for a good chunk of time, just my lived reality schema. I see now what you mean. I suppose now I’m empathetic to an anarchist Christian then.

Attached: 0ADB70FC-1D36-43BC-A82B-0B21CBBF822A.jpg (362x447, 52K)

Merely a propaganda pamphlet they just never got around to disavowing.

I'd also recommend reading Les Miserables alongside Tolstoy's theological works. It advocates for socialism, but does so through an overtly Christian lens.

God bless you, user.

The only reason a Marxist would promote those things is to see capitalism fail faster.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_in_ancient_Rome
>The Ancient Roman family was a complex social structure based mainly on the nuclear family, but could also include various combinations of other members, such as extended family members, household slaves, and freed slaves. Ancient Romans had different names to describe their concept of family, including "familia" to describe the nuclear family and "domus" which would have included all the inhabitants of the household.
This langauge is a little bit retcon to say it was "mainly on the nuclear family, but could" when it was more like centered on the nuclear family AND did include...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_household
>The medieval household was, like modern households, the center of family life for all classes of European society. Yet in contrast to the household of today, it consisted of many more individuals than the nuclear family. From the household of the king to the humblest peasant dwelling, more or less distant relatives and varying numbers of servants and dependents would cohabit with the master of the house and his immediate family. The structure of the medieval household was largely dissolved by the advent of privacy in early modern Europe.

Nuclear families make it so that you are incentive be "an individual" mortgage a second home, pay for daycare, instead of building an empire by pooling your family resources into a self sustaining network taking care of your parents and grandparents having people to watch the kids and such.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family#Changes_to_family_formation

Its basically liberal propaganda to keep you in debt and boomers bought it and sold out their kids.

Attached: file.png (310x513, 37K)

>Its basically liberal propaganda to keep you in debt and boomers bought it and sold out their kids.
This but the irony is it happened on both sides of the Cold War as far as city life was concerned, meaning that capitalism and socialism prefer the weaker family in equal measure.

atlas shrugged is the right-wing harry potter. please read another book. get some wrinkles in those smooth brains

It's actually a step in the cycle of human civilizational destruction. The family is the most fundamental organizational unit. Nothing is more basic. Thus, a priesthood -- or, excuse me, I mean a group of highly educated intellectuals, or a movement -- which can break those bonds is achieving the ultimate power over his followers.
Remember that in the film this is exactly what Thulsa was going to do.

In a traditional family the wife moves in with the husbands mother and father the men work, collect firewood, build things and the women clean the house, bake, cook, wash. You keep making kids until you get a son and then you teach him how to do what you do or you teach your son in law and if you have a second son you also teach him and then he works along side his brother and they get married and have kids and when you get old they take care of you and your wife.

Two houses means two kenmore dishwashers two ford cars two kids going off to college student debt atomization destruction of bonds the death of legacy and the buying up of middle america by corporations to subdivide pave over and sell them back to their children.

Right, you could think of the Soyuz as a big experiment for Wall Street, and Wall Street is the reason this garbage is still around, and they're the source of the anti-Second Amendment garbage. Recall Google swatting one of their own employees who had turned whistleblower. The corporation does not want one single blade of grass between you and it.

Attached: file.png (333x500, 256K)

Attached: file.png (218x331, 110K)

I haven't read Tolstoy's political/theological writings but my impression from another essay was that he was a hardcore Georgist that was inspired by Progress & Poverty more than anything else, which is pretty detached from most socialist thought. Did he also support mainstream socialism and/or some Christian-motivated version of it?

Do they really? That’s news to me. Sounds kind of red scary honestly
I never got the difference between marxists and communists btw of someone would care to explain to me

Tolstoy really thought that the Russian peasant life was an ideal and the only thing screwing it up was non-peasants attacking it with wars, exorbitant taxation, or predatory practices.

>Marxists overinterpret Marx' work(the sacred texts of revelation)
This is exactly how its clear you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Engage with whats being discussed using the common definitions of terms or don't. Marxism is a method of scientific observation first outlined by Marx, like how "Cartesian" is used to refer to a geometric coordinate system not how "Christian" refers to a follower of Christs teachings.

>The adjective Cartesian refers to the French mathematician and philosopher René Descartes, who published this idea in 1637. It was independently discovered by Pierre de Fermat..

he has Andrei explain that in War and Peace but Pierre wants to build them schools and hospitals and stuff. They have a debate about this that I dont think is ever resolved and im not sure Tolstoy made up his mind about it.

marxism is as ''scientific'' as the works of comte or saint simon.

lmao Cartesian also refers to his dualism and is used pejoratively in that sense, not least of which by Marxist monists themselves. Better luck next time, you dissembling zealot.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_apparatus

It helps if you know chemistry/alchemy

Sublation describes how the dialectic is more than thesis + antithesis = synthesis.

Like if you sublimate metal crystals out of an liquid acid solution, you go from a liquid to a gas, but it is not liquid + heat = gas, its the byproduct, a metal with solid/conductive properties that arise from the constitution of what remains after everything else is accounted for. So like purifying gold or mercury metephorically as intentions/desires through actions and um Giest. Hes a basically a witch doctor and spirit is phenomenologically the sublime sublimate of the Logos who is totally Jesus.

no, those "nuclear families" you are thinking of are traditional extended families. people continued to live with and own their family's land for generations until c(r)apitalism decided eveyone should be a good little consumer and anbandon familial ties and values to buy mcmansions in suburbia

>bringing up dualism in math class
Without trig you cant meaningfully apply calculus to reality, buddy. Nice try though.

You should put that back in your ass. No-one wants it.