What Marxists call "capitalism" is just the corpse of God. Prove me wrong

What Marxists call "capitalism" is just the corpse of God. Prove me wrong.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vmd1qMN5Yo0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory
libcom.org/library/i-am-woman-human-marxist-feminist-critique-intersectionality-theory-eve-mitchell
youtube.com/watch?v=T6Heu5TRDB8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Woah...

what you call the corpse of god is just the tip of my penis.

fuckin' nu-fedora

what you call the tip of my penis is inside your ass

What you call my ass is your mouth.

...My penis is inside my mouth?

...yes...

My penis must be very long then. Must be why you keep sucking it ;0

No, that's liberalism. Capitalism is the economic system based on labour exploitation that goes with it.

8+++++D 0:

Pretty much.
And to seek the alternative to that dead God they seek to resurrect another

Veeky Forums was a mistake

So how does changing the economic system bring back God?

>dueling philosophies in a nutshell

What other?

MUH
LIBRULS

'capped and grabbed

impeach drumpf amirite my fellow brains?

It doesn't. It allows humanity to reach its full potential so there'd no longer be a need for God. Religion is the opium of the people.

GOD is DEAD!
And LIBERALS have KILLED him!

If you 'cap it because of the massive amount of shamefagging please keep in mind I was doing a deconstruction of political parodies along with the fellow user. What you witnessed was deep politicophilosophical satire.

so much for the tolerant left

How do people reach their full potential without God? Isn't that just creating a new religion where man is God? How is that better?

Looks like r/incels has already colonized Veeky Forums

Kek

What's satire?

Colonized? I thought they were the same thing?

what's a people potential

comedic deconstruction of something aiming to make you laugh and think about the subject seriously at the same time
This is my own definition donut steel

Sure but the above exchange with "penis, ass, mouth" and so on and so on smells very a-like reddit.

What's a people?

I don't know. I don't usually go around smelling people's ass.

Unironically true.

Humans are material creatures. Their capacity to flourish lies in their material conditions. The right material conditions allows for the full realisation of their species-being. You don't need God at all. Man doesn't become God, you just don't bother with God.

But people aren't just material. We are ideological. Society, the basic structure Marxism concerns itself with, is purely ideological, with no meaningful material significance. How do we even determine what the full realization of our species is without ideology?

Now, don't you take things too literal. That is autism.

What is to say our full realization isn't living in the mud with our fellow apes?

>people's ass
>inferring that all people have one bumhole

There are only two bumholes!

youtube.com/watch?v=vmd1qMN5Yo0

male and female

We have ideologies, yes. "Idealism" is the view that we are driven by our ideas and ideologies. Marx critiques this in favour of materialism, which says that the casual arrows go, well, both ways, but moreso "bottom up" - the material conditions cause and shape the ideology. A person's material interests will to a large extent determine what their ideology is. (Not necessarily so, but it generally does. This is observable throughout history).

The science dialectical materialism (i.e. we can observe history)

You're right, and the marxists themselves were the first to notice this. See Walter Benjamin.

But history is only seen as progress from certain ideological perspectives. Furthermore, if ideas do not shape our behavior and society, then how does cultural marxism work? Why post-structuralism? If ideology is not the dominant force in human society, then why does Gothic architecture exist alongside the Romanesque? What explains the transition from Renaissance to Baroque to Rococo, back to NeoClassicism. And what explains the various Modernist movements, which are explicitly ideological? If we are to believe that it is all just material movements in our gut and brain, how does that differ from a fatalistic nihilism in which no action is possible, and so no action is worth pursuing?

But the marxists were the first to really kill god outright and celebrate it, no?

>But history is only seen as progress from certain ideological perspectives.
I never used the word "progress"

>Furthermore, if ideas do not shape our behavior and society, then how does cultural marxism work? Why post-structuralism? If ideology is not the dominant force in human society, then why does Gothic architecture exist alongside the Romanesque? What explains the transition from Renaissance to Baroque to Rococo, back to NeoClassicism. And what explains the various Modernist movements, which are explicitly ideological?
"Cultural marxism" is a conspiracy theory. Do you mean just Marxist criticism in general? The questions you're asking here is exactly what Marxist culture critics and art critics such as the Frankfurt School seek to answer. Read some of them.

>If we are to believe that it is all just material movements in our gut and brain, how does that differ from a fatalistic nihilism in which no action is possible, and so no action is worth pursuing?
I don't see how it follows from materialism to "fatalistic nihilism in which no action is possible, and so no action is worth pursuing". We can still make choices and desire things; they're just grounded in material. Art itself is material; you can't paint without a canvas and paintbrushes. And in capitalist society it's hard to get these things for yourself, or the free time to use them. One of the primary reasons the Frankfurt School hated capitalism is because it fucks up and vulgarises culture and art.

Also post-structuralism has about as much in common with Marxism as analytic philosophy has with Kant; i.e. there is a connection but it's extremely slim.

>Cultural marxism is a conpsiracy theory
>read the frankfurt school
U wut m8? The cognitive dissonance is strong with you. Also, reddit spacing.

Post-structuralism is very evidently, both by lineage and expression, an artistic descendent of cultural marxism. It's presence in art shows quite clearly that ideology has more sway over art (and thereby culture) than simple materialism. Ideologies are certainly not independent of material reality, but a given material environment does not yield only a single cultural response, proving the material explanation is not sufficient. If it were sufficient, there would be no need to bring about revolution, for it would come on its own only when dictated by the material world.

And I'm gonna wikipedia link now

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

>but a given material environment does not yield only a single cultural response, proving the material explanation is not sufficient.
I never said this or that it was. It's just one way of analysing.

> If it were sufficient, there would be no need to bring about revolution, for it would come on its own only when dictated by the material world.
Many Marxists actually believe that.

>Post-structuralism is very evidently, both by lineage and expression, an artistic descendent of cultural marxism. It's presence in art shows quite clearly that ideology has more sway over art (and thereby culture) than simple materialism.
I already said that ideology is caused by material, it's not one or the other. And this precise example was first dealt with extensively by Marxist critic Fredric Jameson in "Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism". I recommend it.

There is a conspiracy theory yeah. That doesn't make the idea of cultural marxism a conspiracy. It is unargued that the Frankfurt School was made up of Marxists trying to come to terms with the lack of revolution in the Western world. They very clearly and openly worked with Marxism, redeveloped, recontextualized it, and broadened it. It was no more conspiratorial than any other philosophy. Are you going to say next that the lineage of mathematics professors going back to Newton is a conspiracy theory too? Are you going to deny the existence of intersectionality, which openly works on the initial Marxist paradigm of opressor/oppressed? No hidden intent or scheme is required to say that these ideas are related, and simple history shows the people who developed these ideas each step of the way, and how they moved from one place to another. The people are real. The books are real. The effects are real. The interactions between these people and books are real. Their positions in western institutions is real. There's no conspiracy because it's all very open. What part, exactly, of this academic lineage are you taking to be slanderous?

Post-structuralism isn't present in art at all. When it is, it's mostly because artists are influenced by post-structuralists, but most post-structuralists barely even wrote on art or aesthetics, and from the top of my head, the only ones who did are either just reviewing shit with a little more depth (Foucault) or just outright stating opinions and calling it philosophy (Badiou).
Ranciérie and Bourriaud are good but i don't think they're post-structuralists as much as their formation is post-structuralist, but they're already writing after it ended.

Intersectionality wasn't even that big of a concern to the Frankfurt School. It eventually became Marcuse's main field of study, but it's not like he's even that relevant outside of the US, where he's overshadowed by Adorno, Horkheimer and Benjamin.

To say something is caused by something else is to say the second has primacy over the first. It is to say one over the other. To reduce everything to the material is to say there is no other type of cause, that material actions are the only kind of action, and all other seeming actions are just the interacting effects of those material causes. If ideology is caused by the material, and has nothing of itself, then there is no choice and no meaning. If ideology has something of itself, so as to have some independence, then material answers are not sufficient for ordering human life.

But it is a very big concern now, and that is the point. It is the biggest driver of left-wing culture in the united states now. And it develops out of the Frankfurt School, which develops out of Marxism. This is not a conspiracy theory, just as it's not a conspiracy theory that Plato developed from Socrates, and Aristotle from Plato, and that most of Western philosophy until Marxism relies on Platonic/Aristotlean though. Philosophies are technology. It's not conspiracy theory to say that technologies are developed and used after their conception.

Intersectionality is profoundly anti-Marxist
libcom.org/library/i-am-woman-human-marxist-feminist-critique-intersectionality-theory-eve-mitchell

Actually it comes from identity politics and postcolonial theory which is explicitly anti-Marxist
youtube.com/watch?v=T6Heu5TRDB8

To say A caused B doesn't mean that B doesn't exist, or that B is entirely reducible to A

But it does not develop out of the Frankfurt School. One guy who was part of the Frankfurt School wrote on this, but there's a bunch of anti-colonialist movements all over the world happening at the same time, with writers in a lot of different countries calling for similar upheavals and direct action from minorities, even non-socialist similar movements were happening in the Eastern Bloc. To blame it all in one group of writers who barely even preoccupied themselves with this shit is intellectual dishonesty at best, schizophrenia at worst.

>It is the biggest driver of left-wing culture in the united states now
you're thinking of liberalism, kid

Kek

200 years of academia BTFO by the finest youtube-fed mind of Veeky Forums

>criticizing opponent as archetpyically of Veeky Forums.
>Unironically arguing on Veeky Forums
wew lad

wubba lubba dub dub wat doeth lyf imma post this to reddit LOL

just jk, xoxoxo

'capped and grabbed

>tfw minoring in philosophy
>constantly have to read Marxist critiques of Rawls and the like
>professors all humiliate and disparage anyone who suggest all of humanity isn't learned behavior and that society needs to redistribute its wealth and rights (the latter in the case of women, gays, blacks, etc)
>most of the students are female and are just as fanatical and suck Marxist cock
>tfw defending the true expression of life and the right to failure and to conquer against constant stares and incredulous shouting

I didn't know he was sick

>professors all humiliate and disparage anyone who disagrees with them

Welcome to college. Drop out, you'll learn more.

...

Is it like this everywhere?

Marx isn't the problem. Anglos are.

It's not like this anywhere

It's too late. Sunken cost may be a fallacy but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Just because something's anecdotal doesn't mean it's not real.

>not attending wherever gave you a full ride

You're right, it is too late.

>where did people learn the behavior that informed current learned behavior?
>from previous learned behavior
>and where did they learn that?
It's not hard user, maybe if you presented better arguments you wouldn't be humiliated.

But there was some behavior that came first. How was that learned? Furthermore, how is new behavior learned from old behavior, specifically, how is revolutionary behavior learned from what is revolted against?

>muh infinite regress

>don't tell anyone my dirty little secret, or you'll be just another regress

>But there was some behavior that came first. How was that learned?
God. Hence, you cannot fundamentally alter people, that's the whole point.

CIAniggers are partially responsible for the extent to which Marxism>dialect>poststructuralism has taken over in the US. It's hardly a secret that the CIA is the military branch of the American brahman caste and that they work to promote specific ideologies

But what is the fundament?

Society has no meaningful material existence? What the fuck led you to that conclusion

⭐⭐⭐CORRECT⭐⭐⭐

Post a picture of "society."

The ideological is informed by the material.

and the material is informed by the ideological what's your point

what capitalists call marxists are just teh corpse of god