I want to discuss the concept of a "universal class"...

I want to discuss the concept of a "universal class". I'll summarize how I understand Marx to have understood this concept. Marx claimed that the proletariat is the universal class and what he meant by that is that their interests match humanities interests. He used this idea to claim that if the proletariat come to power this would lead to the end of class divisions and cause the state to wither away.

Do you guys think that there is even such a thing as a universal class understood in that way? And do you guys think that such a class would really cause the end of class divisions and cause the state the wither away? Right now I'm thinking that any time there is a distribution of power, whether it be economic power or governing power or etc, that class divisions will occur. So I don't think it is possible for one class to come to power and end class divisions.

You should check out Strauss' 1941 essay on German nihilism first, then Mosca's theory of elites, Ortega y Gasset's theory of "mass" man vs. elite/ascetic man, and Guenon on initiation

Thanks for the recommendations. Which one would you say is the most relevant to whether or not class divisions could come to an end?

I have no idea how people could find Marx not only smart but even aesthetically pleasing in the slightest.
There is nothing beautiful nor seductive about his idea beside lack of dynamism of a static monocultural society. What is it, precisely, that you find desirable in such an idea? Everything that makes stories possible - dynamism, change, conflict - would be eliminated once we reach the marxist/hegelian "end of history." Why are you so keen to put humanity to sleep? Why do you need impose on us your lazy, perpetual need to rest? Some people like to fight, some people embrace change and diversity, some people don't need a society were everyone is equal to feel like they fit in.

I'm banning you from my thread. Get out!

How can a subset of humanity know the mind of humanity as a collective?

I just finished German Nihilism and am moving on to Mosca. I see on wikipedia that "For Mosca, the dichotomous structure of society wouldn't be solved by the revolution." but I'm not sure what of his I should read to find where he talks about that. Can you point me to a specific thing to read?

I don't think Marx thought that the universal class knew that their interests aligned with humanity's mind/interests. He just thought that a universal class would have the same interests as humanity even if they didn't know it.

A relevant quote from the late Jonathan Bowden

>I’m drawn to extremism. I’ve always been an extremist. But I’m not drawn to the usual forms of counter-bourgeois extremism that exist on the Left. So, for me, the elitist spine that has to subsist in everything prevents me from going in a Leftwards direction because egalitarianism is a bore. There’s nothing more boring than egalitarianism. There’s nothing more aesthetically sterile.

>He just thought a universal class would have the same interests as humanity
Yes but how does he justify that assertion?

You are aware that communism was nothing more than a jewish scam, right? Of course there's no way to get rid of social class, and when jewish communism succeeded in Russia, what's the first thing the jews did? Establish themselves as the new elite class and murder millions of Russians. Stop taking Marx at face value, his work was designed as an explanation to jews for how to use the lower classes to overthrow the European elite so jews could take power. That's all it ever was, and that's what happened.

All I can offer is a summary. But his thinking was that since the proletariat are the lowest class and do not exploit anyone that they would not exploit anyone once they came to power. This would be the first time the class in power did not exploit and instead acted in the interests of humanity.

>the proletariat are the lowest class and do not exploit anyone
>the class in power did not exploit and instead acted in the interests of humanity

That is a severely deluded understanding of human nature and public choice, which is why Marx's hypotheses have been empirically proven incorrect for well over a century. As if a basic economics textbook couldn't do the same in theory.

I'm just explaining to you what it is I'm disagreeing with. I'm not advocating his views in this thread. In fact, I expressed my disagreements with him in the op and this guy actually posted some nice recs related to what I talked about.

Sad as it sounds, you just have to read Hayek

Well that's just idiotic. But even if that were true, it still doesn't have any bearing on the interests of humanity. Not unless Marx's idea of humanity's interests is as naive as "let no one be exploited."

What is something I could read from him that discusses class? Something that would argue against the end of class divisions or argue against a universal class or something.
You have to remember that his definition of exploitation related to receiving the value created from your own labor. He argued that it is in the interests of all people to receive the value they create. So, if a class of people did not exploit people in that way then the interests of all people would be met.

It all just seems very naive and baseless.

I agree with you there. I was just explaining why ending exploitation as he defines it does have a bearing on the interests of humanity as he defines it since you said it doesn't.

>as he defines it
That was my point of confusion. It's not something you can just define, nor is it a matter of opinion. The interests of humanity is something only humanity as a collective can ever know or determine.
It's like a worker ant claiming to speak for the ant hill.

>The interests of humanity

"Humanity" doesn't have interests. Individuals and groups have interests that are often very different from one another.

A dieter's brain and his stomach have conflicting interests, yet he still acts with purpose.

Your yuppie humanity fantasies don't last a second outside of comfortable white societies, and any appeal to such will get you laughed at, ignored, or murdered. Grow the fuck up.

Go back to /pol/

Learn how to apply reason and be less of an ideologically spooked faggot and you'll say retarded stuff others have to correct you on less often.

it was only a matter of time before a /pol/tard came in here considering the thread topic

Were you trying to correct me? I couldn't tell because your post didn't make any sense within the context of the preceding discussion.

I corrected you, and asked that you choose your words more carefully in the future. Part of why many like yourself have no understanding of what you often try to speak of comes from using words that don't actually mean anything.

Words don't mean anything. It's only through shared knowledge that they can convey thoughts. And we are obviously lacking in this instance.

That’s not the idea at all. Exploitation is a technical term for Marx, referring specifically to the extraction of surplus value, something which doesn’t happen outside of a capitalist economy. Parents don’t “exploit” kids’ labour by making them do chores, for example.

It was fully expected that when proles came to power they would suppress the other classes, thus the ‘dictator of the proletariat’.

see Do you still have problems with the way I spelled it out there?

You are applying a white standard and way of thinking across the board and to people who don't believe that and are in most cases incapable of that type of abstract thought to begin with. Moreover, you are using this approach out of ancestral habit due to the jewish universalist ideology of Christianity that was forced on your people many centuries ago to make your mind the utopian slave holding cell it is today. Will you be able to overcome that? Can you realize why you think the way you do, or will you just continue on unaware, repeating fake words and haphazardly applying the universalist lessons passed down to you to people who don't give a fuck in the world about such notions? I'm trying to help you here.

What did anything here have to do with race?
I'm no universalist, I'm a cyberneticist.

Everything has to do with race. And you are using jewish universalist terminology even if you aren't aware of it.