LTV thread

I want to understand what you said here but I don't. If you swallow the ideological pill whole you fall into the game that you've created? I'm not a Marxist btw.

> It makes claims about empirical phenomena, but it's not correct empirically?

That's right. And what do we call that kind of idea? Engels' Dialectics of Nature makes clear how entirely pseudoscientific Marxism is, as Engels tries to prove that the natural sciences confirm dialectical materialism.

>have never intellectualised their lives as much as you have

Oh Veeky Forums, you never fail to get me hard.

>This is why Marxism fails - the primary producers have never intellectualised their lives as much as you have to to become a Marxist. That's why they're the primary producers.

Eh, it's not really that big an agenda to have the working class fully understand Marxist thought, see "organic intellectuals", noone expects the working class to spontaneously read up on and accept Marxism after much critical thought. That's why you need "professional Marxists" to rain down propaganda on them.

You won't see many revolutionaries talking about an "unbiased education" they fully accept that you need to shove propaganda down the throats of the working class.
And in so far as them being involved in the movement is concerned, you don't operate like fuckin' Jevoha's witnesses and give them your set of beliefs to "think about" and "decide if it's for them". A lot of gaining recruits usually comes down to actually forming unions, helping them out with real-world problems, and on the side also exposing them to propaganda.

Using what is called the "lumpen proletariat", that is robbers and vagabounds and general good for nothings wasn't below Lenin either, sure they might not be down with the intellectual contemplation of Marxian theory but as long as they can be used in the revolution, they're good to go.

Taking the particular case of one Maoist group in India and one of the bases they formed in a forest in Bastar, Chattishgarh (read Arundhati Roy's "walking with the comrades" for more info), they didn't gain ground by blasting Marxist propaganda on loudspeakers.

They went in the forest and well, it was "awkward" at first since the villagers were suspicious of armed men roaming around their forests, but eventually, keeping a respectful distance and helping them out with real-practical problems, in this case helping them negotiate with merchants they were selling their produce too, they managed to gain trust.

>2016
>Buying into ideologies of ressentiment

> So do the working class

Short answer, the working class can't enjoy their world under capitalism, according to the Marxist, which is what they are told, they don't need to intellectualize their problems, they just need to see the Marxist revolutionary working to help them enjoy their life more, that gets them hooked.

I get that trying to keep in mind the contradictions of the labour theory of value (found in the natural world) while formulating it would be "putting the science before the science" as Marx said but, surely the methodology Marx would have followed isn't so pseudo-scientific that he would down right ignore empirical contradictions to his theory?
I mean, surely he'd bother to give some explanation, regardless how absurd, to them?

'Ideology' only exists in the minds of people who discuss ideology, and nobody who has to work for a living or to maintain a fortune is listening to people who discuss ideology.

>surely the methodology Marx would have followed isn't so pseudo-scientific that he would down right ignore empirical contradictions to his theory?

Surely...

In other words, they bribe the uncomprehending like Salvation Army Majors, another reason everything they try goes wrong. 'Organic intellectual' is a fairly weak euphemism for 'tubthumper'.

I think his point is that the working class are too caught up in sensual pleasures and enjoying the fruits of their labor to care about all this speculation of alternative political systems.

He seemed to think that this is some kind of impossible hurdle to Marxists which is untrue, as I argue.