With no spooky shit prove to me that idealism > materialism

the point is religion and race are spooks, but who gets to keep all the shekels at the end of the day is not

communism is gay, but marx had some insights

>(seriously, economics is the sole point of contention among humans, religion and race never crossed your mind?? The good days of Europe).
Confirmed for never having read Marx

You're ascribing Materialist concepts like mastery-slavery and belief to the Idealist model. As did Hegel? I haven't read him.

>the point is race and religion is for spooks

Oh gee and everyone will wage heavy war to demand union rights but everyone will peacefully give up religion. Fuck off
Niblet you have something to add

Marx fanboys are terrible

>Oh gee and everyone will wage heavy war to demand union rights but everyone will peacefully give up religion. Fuck off

the masses having religion costs the ruling class nothing, paying the masses a union wage does

Jesus do you believe in the Illuminati as well, had to reread your comment to understand what you meant

>Niblet you have something to add
At the very least read the wikipedia article on Base-Superstructure before pretending you've read Marx

if you're going to argue about materialism or marxism read a book first, clearly whatever pseudy youtube channels you've been watching have steered you wrong

Try coming up with materialism without the IDEA (idealism) of it first
Heh, yeah, sit on that

Crap, Marxism is Hegel light. Materialism is shit because it can't scratch below the surface.

Marx sidestepped the whole race, religion and any other future social issues by pretending they all linked back to economics. They don't. Things get shitty during a depression and other issues get brought up but that's because people need to eat and survive. No poor ppl ever revolt in a large scale for macro economic reasons. Solely micro economic reasons. Prove me the fuck wrong

>indifferent reality
i'm not that guy but no it doesn't.
it doesn't mean you value nothing it means you choose what to value. i disagree with the OP that it means you stop valuing all external objects, that sounds more like zen buddhism.

the "forces bearing down on you" are ideological constructs themselves that dictate what the masses (and if you choose, you) decide to pursue and value. to think there is some objective assessment of what's valuable is just dumb.

This honestly

but the thing is... materialism exists whether you believe in it or not

>you don't agree with me read a book

Fuck off kid, I'm glad you finally read your first book

>the "forces bearing down on you" are ideological constructs themselves that dictate what the masses (and if you choose, you) decide to pursue and value. to think there is some objective assessment of what's valuable is just dumb.

The police is not an ideological construct, nor is money.

you clearly didn't understand marx and marxism

Sure, I'm not arguing it doesn't. It's just not the base, idealism is. Materialism doesn't purport to be the base, it just thinks it can be the end product and can skip over idealism. Here's a thought for you, people get into conflict because of shortages, anger and strife or conflict itself. Why sit at the top and call it economics. People get angry because of pain and inequality. Want peace? Solve that. Don't want peace, just want to follow progress. Then go fucking idealism

So does idealism :P

Well niblet, another shitty wiki article might do it

no, not really

>No poor ppl ever revolt in a large scale for macro economic reasons. Solely micro economic reasons. Prove me the fuck wrong
If you read Marx you'd realise you're literally not making an argument against him.

People revolting because their immediate economic concerns are not being met in no way "disproves" marx. It's an argument so far from disproving Marx it could only be made by someone who has not read him. Just do it user.

The current jewish power structure wants to turn you into an emasculated, mixed race, identityless consumer who clicks on sponsored jewgle content all day and is enslaved to a faceberg virtual reality mask.

European idealism wants to build spaceships to explore the galaxy once the semitic parasite is removed.

Is there really even a question here?

>police
what? do you live in the hood or something?
yes you need money but materialism would dictate that you need as much of it as possible and that you should center all your value systems around it.
trying to frame idealism as some wide-eyed hippie-esque give away all your possessions and go on acid trips adventure is dumb.

isn't posting on a japanse owned forum for japanese cartoon pornos betraying your noble and pure white culture?

heil hitler, 1488, shadilay, praise kek, omg did u see the new cartoon from japan? so kawaii best waifu lololol

kill yourself

in your first two sentences, you're making a very typically idealist conflation of subjective epistemological support, and objective ontological support. just because philosophical theory (even and especially marxism!) has to trade in idealist character (formulaic abstractions, math), and that therefore its materialism gives off the appearance of idealistic support, this cannot repress the fact that it is motivated by forces outside that abstraction, i.e., material forces like necessity and violence.

The rest of your post is unintelligible.

Why would any Marxist disagree with that? The amazing thing for Marx is not that large, anonymous economic forces control the whims and desires of the masses, but that individual, as you "microeconomic" decisions cause those forces to emerge and react back on the men and women that contribute to them.

Spooky

>what? do you live in the hood or something?

no, but i don't steal a pen when my kleptomania kicks in, not because of objective morality, but because of threat of violence from the police.

>yes you need money but materialism would dictate that you need as much of it as possible and that you should center all your value systems around it.

this is a cowardly conflation of philosophical materialism and the pop culture Ghandi definition of materialism as lust for material goods. the irony is that the latter proscribes a normative statement about the worth of material acquisition, while philosophical materialism aims to explain how normative statements arise in society.

I wrote that backwards I'm dyslexic. I meant ppl don't revolt for microeconomical reasons solely macro. Prove me wrong

I won't even tell you to kill yourself, I'll just tell you to move out of the white nation you are currently squatting in and move to Israel.

this is dialectical as fuck because the neoclassical distinction between micro- and macroeconomics is a false empiricist hypostatization of the contradictions embodied in the socialized individual, but an objective falsehood in that it represents the disjunction in life under capitalism between my everyday, atomized wants, needs, and decisions, and the social character in them that is ineluctable despite being empirically invisible.

i will but first lets do watch a marathon session of watching pokemon first in a celebration of holy white culture my aryan brother!

When materialism changes, it renders previous versions of materialism wrong rather than outdated or rare.
>Newtonian billiard board
>Waves
>Information
>Quantum
>Ether
Whereas the only versions of idealism that are wrong would be ideologies.

Please tell me how idealistic necessity is materialist. Not a spin off derivation. Pure necessity. I'll wait

Read this
Macroeconomic 'revolutions' won't produce the dialectics that Marx talked about. It leads to a false dialectic like the soviet union or China. Which, surprise surprise, weren't supposed to be the ones who went 'communist' according to Marx as well

I think being comedic is not your thing. I detect the mental illness common among your sick semitic tribe due to inbreeding. Move to Israel. You don't belong here.

Sure that sounds cool but it's the distinction between a true dialectic process and a fake one (one for aintellectual reasons, only mundane changes)

Read

yes only pure aryans belong on a japanese cartoon forum where we can celebrate pure white culture! oh btw i'm learning japanese so i can watch hentais without subtitles, give me a hi five brother!

I'm assuming you do think that materialism is the truth. If so, where does the difference come from?
>matter uses matter to tell matter that it is matter and not "non-matter", a mere product of matter and as such, false

>no, but i don't steal a pen when my kleptomania kicks in, not because of objective morality, but because of threat of violence from the police.
you have to be quicker then.
>this is a cowardly conflation of philosophical materialism and the pop culture Ghandi definition of materialism as lust for material goods.
not really. it's the organic end-point of materialism.
>philosophical materialism
this is the only irony here.

Literature is as white a cultural endeavor as it gets. Do you even know where you are? Stop trying to be funny, it's not working. You are a sick person and with the hatred of whites you display, there's no reason for you to be in our nations any longer. Move to Israel.

What do you know absolutely for certain exists? Only your own mind. Cogito ergo sum. Anything else is derivative.

>the point is religion and race are spooks

Which is ironic to say the least because in letters to Engels, Marx admitted that he had literally taken his concept of class struggle directly from the 19th century concept of race struggle.

Marxism is about as insightful as the ideology of the Ku Klux Klan.

>Please tell me how idealistic necessity is materialist. Not a spin off derivation. Pure necessity. I'll wait

Go 7 days without drinking water? That we can abstract from the local, material need of individuals to eat and drink to form a universal concept of necessity does not make necessity an ideal.

>Sure that sounds cool but it's the distinction between a true dialectic process and a fake one (one for aintellectual reasons, only mundane changes)

not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not, because im saying that exactly: the distinction between a real dialectic that separates individuals from their society at the same time that it unites them as a society, and as you say a "fake" one that hopes to analyze either side of the divide in isolation from the other.

>not really. it's the organic end-point of materialism.
if by "organic end-point" (a truly meaningless abstraction, typical idealist tripe no better than "in the last analysis") you mean a theory of why the lust for material goods arises in a commodity culture then ok

more than that, reality is as is. Humans ascribing their autism, tribes, 'meaning' and ideology to it means nothing.

>Macroeconomic 'revolutions' won't produce the dialectics that Marx talked about. It leads to a false dialectic like the soviet union or China. Which, surprise surprise, weren't supposed to be the ones who went 'communist' according to Marx as well

doesn't parse

>a theory of why the lust for material goods arises in a commodity culture then ok
so you need idealism to find out why materialism sucks?

Way to jump in halfway, I never argued against materialism not existing. Just that it's inferior to idealism in philosophy. Kinda by definition.

No I'm disagreeing with you. Microeconomic dialectics produce Marx's actual dialectics. Macro produces soviet and china. If the society isn't ready the application will be shit

Historical materialism is the single best methodology to analyze social change and it will utterly transform the way you look at social structures and history. It hasn't been refuted at all, just replaced with memes because the USSR was evil and stuff.

Also, if you haven't read Chapter 1 of The German Ideology, followed by the major economic works of Marx and Engels, you have nothing of substance to say on them, please stop regurgitating liberal propaganda.

1. abstraction =/= idealism
2. consumerist materialism =/= philosophical materialism

your only argument at this point is shitty, unphilosophical conflations in a philosophical discussion.

i'm sorry, i thought we were talking about theory. i don't disagree with you in re: china and the ussr, these economies obviously had not developed the means of production to sustain their populations under socialist distribution/planning.

as to the macro/micro distinction, i'm not following you on how one "produces" dialectics and the other "produces" countries. i'm trying to say that you could analyze dialectical contradictions not only within macro and micro as theories, but also that the very distinction is dialectical and reflects a real contradiction in the way we experience economic life.

i'm interested in the "inferiority" you detect relating materialism to idealism, as you say, "by definition." whose definition would that be? an idealist's?

>Historical materialism is the single best methodology to analyze social change

It really isn't. It's simply a method to reduce every human phenomenon to material substrates.

Which might make you feel like an intellectual, but you're not.

Jesus Christ you ppl come out like cockroachs. Just because you can relate with most socio economic subject matters DOESN'T mean you're correct

>It's simply a method to reduce every human phenomenon to material substrates.

wrong. read a book.

>Just because you can relate with most socio economic subject matters DOESN'T mean you're correct

please explain how is it the case than an effective explanation of this or that phenomenon can also be an incorrect explanation?

>wrong. read a book.

Not an argument.

make an argument yourself before expecting to hear one back. your unsubstantiated accusation that materialism is "reductive," which is itself never defined, is "Not an argument." so again, read a book, learn how to explain yourself.

Why is it better to reduce every phemenonen to a cultural distraction from inevitable dystopian hell of capitalism instead?
"It can't get any better than this but you have markets and fredom holy shit" - mainstream economics

Well it is reductive. Here's an example:

>Religion is a tool of the upper class to make the lower class accept their subordinate position. This is all religion is, nothing more, nothing less.

>Humans aren't actually greedy by nature. Capitalism makes us greedy by spamming commercials all the time, and this is true for almost all complex human behaviors in capitalist society.

Etc etc, I can do this all night if you want to. Materialism is by definition reductionistic.

I may have been replying to someone else.

If the population is revolting because the economy is doing bad, it's a base concern. Low hanging fruit, not intellectual at all. If they revolt over an intellectual disposition, eg microeconomics, then it produces a golden age, or a dialectic process.

I wasn't saying macro produced countries just a fake dialectic process that played out as having those countries.

You're going too far, micro vs macro is a real distinction and has no use to think of as idealistic. It has to be idealistic to be a true dialectic split. That's why I say micro over macro.

It would have to be objective if you define materialist as derivative to idealist which it has to be.

>I see a dog in the air
>it's flying
>even tho it literally is in a literal sense it explains nothing outside of that range of moment in time (the dog got launched)

Marxism does explain one relation of progress through the lens of materialism but idealism covers everything in a general sense. Materialism in a specific sense. Revolutions can happen through materialism. The explanation happens through idealism

abstracting is idealist.
already said this, the only practical end-point of "philosophical materialism" is consumerist materialism.

>>Religion is a tool of the upper class to make the lower class accept their subordinate position. This is all religion is, nothing more, nothing less.

That wasn't even the position of Marx, let alone later socialists. To put it briefly, religion is part of the superstructure that keeps the economic system in reproduction. But its mythologies are also expressions of human misery and dissatisfaction, which are transported to an abstract realm of ethics instead of recognized as expressions of actual problems in the material relations of capitalism.

2 things

1. Your using "reduction" in this context as moralistic slander. By your definition any explanation of one phenomenon in terms of something is "reduction." The mathematical formalization of quantum physics is "reductive" because it asserts fully parity to to the latter. Your claim that "all complex human behaviors" can exceed their economic instrumentality would turn out to be "reductive" when it turns to biology, neuroscience, psychology, mythology, or idealism to justify itself. "Reduction" is stupid, unexamined ethical norm brandished to silence materialists.

2. But even if we allow that ethical claim to regulate how we go about analyzing the world, your examples of reduction are idiotic strawmen. Let's take your first case:

>>Religion is a tool of the upper class to make the lower class accept their subordinate position. This is all religion is, nothing more, nothing less.

The materialist response to this would suggest that yes, religions have been used by upper classes to engineer domination, but if they also provide powerful anchors for community, then they retain some utopian, resistive valence in late, atomized, entrepreneurial capitalism. Then you'll say that Marxism is a religion, but in that case you would actually be defending it against the very charges of "reduction" you've brought against it when you set out to defend religion.

As for your strawman about "greed," no one would be so stupid as to claim there is nothing biological, psychological, whatever, about greed. The only Marxist claim would be that the mode of production could conceivably advance to such a state that it could satisfy this greed without doing violence to others.

Besides, the burden of proof would be on you to provide such a biological, psychological, or neuroscientific, or spiritual explanation for these phenomena.

>accused of making conflations
>>reiterates his conflations

you can say it til you're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that abstraction is a methodological facet of materialist analysis, and that your claims about the "practical" or "organic" end-point (which is it?) of philosophical materialism assumes the latter includes normative biases that it does not include.

>The explanation happens through idealism

this is where you make the fatal conflation of abstraction as a tool of analysis and idealism as an ontological-epistemological claim about the world.

>To put it briefly, religion is part of the superstructure that keeps the economic system in reproduction

Which is just the Walter Benjaminean way of saying exactly what I said.

read the rest of the sentence you dipshit

>By your definition any explanation of one phenomenon in terms of something is "reduction."

No, that's not true. What I mean when I say Marxism is reductionistic is that it demands a a single materialistic explanation for any social phenomenon even when this strains the explanatory power of the ideology.

Why do right-wingers believe that they can fix "consumerist materialism" by doing nothing about economic problems at all, and instead forcing memes like nationalism, ethnic identity and religion? None of these things remove the degeneracy you apparently oppose, they function perfectly well in a society solely driven by the profit motive.
I guess I just don't understand this logic. Burke would be ashamed of today's neocons tbhfam.

Can you find a better explanation (meaning the opposite)

I'd argue it follows physics to assume idealism is higher level. The laws of the universe are constant even if relative

Because ideas matter LMAO

>it demands a a single materialistic explanation

and this is wrong.

beats coming up with a bullshit buzz-phrase like "philosophical materialism".
>methodological facet of materialist analysis
it's idealism within the narrowed scope of materialism.

>neocons
Do you actually think neocons promote the things you said? Do you even know who the neocons are?

>and this is wrong.

No it's not. But you're welcome to prove me wrong.

my response would not be to find a "better explanation," but to see if materialism couldn't explain your attempt at idealizing physics.

Let me quote Sartre for you:

>It has always seemed to me that a working hypothesis as fruitful as historical materialism never needed for a foundation the absurdity which is metaphysical materialism.

>bullshit buzz phrases

why are you talking about philosophy if you think distinctions are "bullshit buzz phrases?"

>it's idealism within the narrowed scope of materialism.

If i say that every exchange of one commodity with the other can be formalized in terms of

>x Commodity A = y Commodity B

would you call this idealistic even with the caveat that should we discover a commodity exchange that does not conform to this abstraction we should do away with it?

try reading more than one sentence of my post

it occurs to me now that you might be suggesting that once we agree to an abstraction we have mutually constructed an "idea" that attests to your idealism. but in that case the burden of proof would be on you to show that this idea exists in some meaningful sense in excess of your understanding of it, my understanding of it, and the words we use to communicate it.

I did, and it doesn't change anything.

Even if you accept the Benjaminean view that even if something part of the superstructure can produce positive surplus value(such as art for example), the most true thing about the superstructure is still its material substrate, so my claim that Marxism is materially reductionistic is still true.

I've already critiqued your mention of "reduction" but once we clear away its ideological baggage there is nothing left in your post that I disagree with.

Now, if you go on to suggest idealism is somehow less "reductionistic" (it's all idEAS man, it's all FORMS, jesus did it!) you're a retard, but if you think that the very tendency to detect that universal ideals have some substantial existence can't be materially explained, be my guest to put that ludicrous, religious claim forward. you're not dealing with philosophy any more, though, but theology.

Well I don't think Marxism can answer questions of existential psychology or fundamental metaphysics.

Because it denies that these things are relevant to the social life of the individual, or if it doesn't deny it, it considers false consciousness for example, more important.

neither is superior to the other, they simply ask different questions. A simple shift in grammar makes this fairly obvious.

Materialism:
>what is matter?

Idealism:
>what is the matter?

Read the section entitled "The problem of reality".

sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/file uploads /sebastian_gardner_philosophy_guidebook_to_kant_abook4you.pdf

philosophical materialism is materialism, feel free to make the distinction though.
it's idealism because as idealism attempts to discover the ideas that result in actions within society does your "abstractions" try to do the very same thing albeit only within its own limited field of vision.

>Because it denies that these things are relevant to the social life of the individual, or if it doesn't deny it, it considers false consciousness for example, more important.

That's not true. Marxism would say that metaphysics attempts to reconcile subject and object in response to a capitalism that has rent them apart. It would say that existentialism tries justify the experience of meaning in a society that has reduced all meaning to economic value, a society like capitalism. This doesn't mean that the attempt is futile.

i like this

>idealism attempts to discover the ideas that result in actions within society

ok, so it is satisfied merely to discover these ideas, but it gives up on explaining their development?

>philosophical materialism is materialism, feel free to make the distinction though.

you're arguing all materialisms can be boiled down. i'm saying they "non-reductively" retain their distinctions in ways that make them incompatible. you want materialism to be a monad because it's the only way idealism can deal with it: as a self-contained "idea." For instance, here is a materialist telling you that you are wrong, and you can't read a word he's saying because you are reducing his arguments to the "ideas" behind them.

This is, by the way, the case i've been staking out since the beginning (

>Marxism would say that metaphysics attempts to reconcile subject and object in response to a capitalism that has rent them apart.

Which is, again, a form of material reductionism.

>It would say that existentialism tries justify the experience of meaning in a society that has reduced all meaning to economic value, a society like capitalism.

E.g it considers false consciousness more important.

Pic related is a worthwhile read that focuses precisely on idealism and materialism as conceptualised by Marx. Check it out if you're into continental stuff.

>>Marxism would say that metaphysics attempts to reconcile subject and object in response to a capitalism that has rent them apart.
>Which is, again, a form of material reductionism.

Already told you that while I disagree with the ethical baggage in the word reduction, I don't disagree with it if we use it as a synonym for explanation.

>E.g it considers false consciousness more important.

"More important" is a value judgment that I don't peddle in for reasons I've explained to you several times now.

I'm going to stop posting because you're proving yourself illiterate.

of course not.
you talked about coming up with a theory for the rise of consumerism, that's idealism.

>that's idealism.

why?