Muh materialism

How come you think this?
You probably only have met the liberal retards.
I will agree on that

marxism is all about moralism but obfuscates itself as materialism

Contrary to idealism, which regards the world as the embodiment of an "absolute idea," a "universal spirit," "consciousness," Marx's philosophical materialism holds that the world is by its very nature material, that the multifold phenomena of the world constitute different forms of matter in motion, that interconnection and interdependence of phenomena as established by the dialectical method, are a law of the development of moving matter, and that the world develops in accordance with the laws of movement of matter and stands in no need of a "universal spirit."

"The materialistic outlook on nature," says Engels, "means no more than simply conceiving nature just as it exists, without any foreign admixture." (Marx and Engels, Vol. XIV, p. 651.)

Speaking of the materialist views of the ancient philosopher Heraclitus, who held that "the world, the all in one, was not created by any god or any man, but was, is and ever will be a living flame, systematically flaring up and systematically dying down"' Lenin comments: "A very good exposition of the rudiments of dialectical materialism." (Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, p. 318.)

Attached: 1576642606223.jpg (590x729, 103.4K)

Contrary to idealism, which asserts that only our consciousness really exists, and that the material world, being, nature, exists only in our consciousness' in our sensations, ideas and perceptions, the Marxist philosophical materialism holds that matter, nature, being, is an objective reality existing outside and independent of our consciousness; that matter is primary, since it is the source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and that consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a reflection of matter, a reflection of being; that thought is a product of matter which in its development has reached a high degree of perfection, namely, of the brain, and the brain is the organ of thought; and that therefore one cannot separate thought from matter without committing a grave error. Engels says:

"The question of the relation of thinking to being, the relation of spirit to nature is the paramount question of the whole of philosophy.... The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature ... comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism." (Marx, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 329.)

And further:

"The material, sensuously perceptible world to which we ourselves belong is the only reality.... Our consciousness and thinking, however supra-sensuous they may seem, are the product of a material, bodily organ, the brain. Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter." (Ibid., p. 332.)

Concerning the question of matter and thought, Marx says:

"It is impossible to separate thought from matter that thinks. Matter is the subject of all changes." (Ibid., p. 302.)

Attached: 1569843189182.jpg (469x653, 49.65K)

Describing Marxist philosophical materialism, Lenin says:

"Materialism in general recognizes objectively real being (matter) as independent of consciousness, sensation, experience.... Consciousness is only the reflection of being, at best an approximately true (adequate, perfectly exact) reflection of it." (Lenin, Vol. XIII, pp. 266-67.)

And further:

– "Matter is that which, acting upon our sense-organs, produces sensation; matter is the objective reality given to us in sensation.... Matter, nature, being, the physical-is primary, and spirit, consciousness, sensation, the psychical-is secondary." (Ibid., pp. 119-20.)

– "The world picture is a picture of how matter moves and of how 'matter thinks.'" (Ibid., p. 288.)

– "The brain is the organ of thought." (Ibid., p. 125.)

Attached: 1583418518697.jpg (349x421, 15.46K)

I also heard Cuck Marx was a great economist

>only material things matter
lol you don't understand Marxism

Don’t read, don’t care.

Your ideology is a failure worldwide, cope.

Attached: B4CDF38B-23DD-49D5-BD7D-E19B7B216D80.png (219x230, 9.18K)

One of my biggest criticism of marxism is that it isn't even materialist enough. Namely:

1. The structure / superstructure distinction is suspicious on materialist ground as it suggests the presence of a "material base" and a possibly NON material base that's subjugated by it, which would contradict the materialist premise.

2. Marxists love socio-centric materialism but just cannot for the life of them bother to ever give a shit about bio-centric materialism. Under a materialist premise, HUMAN BEINGS are also strictly material and subject to the determination of matter. Yet Marxists never seem to bother to consider the aspect of materialism that could possibly suggest anything other than socio-centric economic determinism.

So are Marxists actually real materialists? Not sure. Why? Because Marx was a Feuerbachian humanist at heart.

>You probably only have met the liberal retards.
I'm afraid I have to confirm this.

Hollands always insult us hungarians with this: "Ah these pesky rat hungarians, the only thing they want is our money"
Which shows that the only motives they can think of are material ones and they assume the same for others.

Nigger be like :

that philosophy is the opium of the bourgeois

Based

Oh, the none liberal dutch just dont want foreigners in their country.
Its nothing person. Also we are very direct and not "polite" by other countries standard.
I personally have no problem with europeans.
I have a big problem with jews, turks and morrocans.
They should be shoahed

>t. never read Marx

Marx was a materialist in the sense that the foundation of his social plans lies in satisfying material needs while "removing" any unity beyond that. The state was the giver of needs and there was no higher being than the state. Spiritual ideology replaced with political ideology, regional unity replaced with union or party membership. Nothing was farther beyond than what the state said and that changed for whatever they needed most at the moment.

In all respects he was a materialist, albeit not a hedonistic offshoot much like the modern Frankfurt cultural marxists of today.

Attached: 1470011824234.jpg (202x249, 30.09K)

>"everything I don't like is liberalism"
>the Marxist baby's guide to political argument

>and a possibly NON material base
no, you think thats what its saying because you are approaching it from the direction of idealism.

Ideas exist, but they are physical. There is no such thing as the non material. The society feeds back into the material conditions, using its construct of ideas, but those ideas are the rebounding of the material. Its not a separate thing subjugated by it, its just a delayed response, a reflection.

A reflection is a good analogy.

>human beings
are a product of the same thing that produces society. Your ideas are a variation of your brain which is physical, the thoughts they contain, socially derived, are no different from some other trait developed due to your conditions, such as a certain kind of muscle fiber or whatever., i dont quite understand your criticism

>Oh, the none liberal dutch just dont want foreigners in their country.
I totally agree with this. As for the hungarian migrants to the Netherlands: I consider them the same as those middle eastern shitskin rats. You, dutch have all the right to hate them.

But when these dutch politicians say: "fucking hungarians stay in the EU just because they want to siphon our money but they don't want to accept our liberal values and take the shitskins to their country", this drives me crazy.

>"everything I don't like is liberalism"
more or less
There is no reason to dislike monarchists because they dont exist anymore in any appreciable sense. So we have socialists and liberals.

The assumptions are endless you are implying.
Oh wait i get it.
You are a liberal arent you?

Trust me, thats not how rightwingers think about hungary.
Its indeed the woke faggots that parrot the (((EU))) politician who say things like that.
You shouldnt listen to:
GL
PVDA
SP
VVD
D66
They are all faggots and controlled by der Juden

>There is no reason to dislike monarchists because they dont exist anymore in any appreciable sense. So we have socialists and liberals.
Most European liberals were monarchists, but then again I wouldn't expect a Marxist subhuman to know anything about history. If you did, you wouldn't be a Marxist.

I love it when Marxist vermin try to talk tough. Your dogshit ideology is a fucking joke, kids. It has no future. The fascists have a more serious ideology than you retards do.

The sole idea that every human has this divine right to shelter, job and food just because he popped out of a pussy is retarded.

I know you don’t realize it, but you just displayed that you’ve never once picked up a single book of his. Dialectical Materialism doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Attached: 4D562855-3C26-443E-8100-F72434DC77C6.jpg (478x477, 49.71K)

Im not a marxist you dumbfuckwit
Nor a liberal

>Ideas exist, but they are physical.
You call others reductive materialists and yet you also believe this

Attached: Bottomless.jpg (645x729, 57.42K)

>living in a socialist country
>france
Has private property been abolished in France?

What's more likely to hurt? Getting hit by an idea of a brick or an actual brick?

BTFO

Then how would your dream economy work if you are neither a socialist nor a liberal?

>Most European liberals were monarchists
What the fuck are you on about the liberals stood against the King in France? Maybe in the UK you have a point but their monarchy is essentially neutered and the banking/capitalist class rules the country.

Attached: 1581281778280.jpg (271x288, 10.35K)

liberalism is incompatible with monarchy because liberalism depends on the supremacy of metaphysical absolutes to justify positions in society. The liberal must imagine some choice was made and that these choices lead to the current conditions because to the liberal all actors within reality are distinct things which through a combination of their own personal will and decisions, arrive at their current condition.
The feudal system on the other hand took for granted that one was born into their station, that ones position was not their own doing but simple fate.

It is the idea of the individual and choice which best defines liberalism. From this you get both the yellow flags who think everyone has exactly what they deserve because they must have chosen it, and the rainbow flags which have inverted the choice to be the choices of others imposing upon them. The SJW is a mutation of the liberal which can not reject the liberal idea that the state of things is the result of choosing, but having not chosen oppression they imagine it must be others choosing to oppress them.

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard nature as an accidental agglomeration of things, of phenomena, unconnected with, isolated from, and independent of, each other, but as a connected and integral whole, in which things, phenomena are organically connected with, dependent on, and determined by, each other.

The dialectical method therefore holds that no phenomenon in nature can be understood if taken by itself, isolated from surrounding phenomena, inasmuch as any phenomenon in any realm of nature may become meaningless to us if it is not considered in connection with the surrounding conditions, but divorced from them; and that, vice versa, any phenomenon can be understood and explained if considered in its inseparable connection with surrounding phenomena, as one conditioned by surrounding phenomena.

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change, of continuous renewal and development, where something is always arising and developing, and something always disintegrating and dying away.

The dialectical method therefore requires that phenomena should be considered not only from the standpoint of their interconnection and interdependence, but also from the standpoint of their movement, their change, their development, their coming into being and going out of being.

Attached: 1546175012364.gif (291x300, 2.92M)

>liberalism depends on the supremacy of metaphysical absolutes to justify positions in society.
100% true.

Argue with a single libertarian, and they will always resort to moral truths or metaphysical concepts like “abolishing private property is theft” because they know there is no way to argue with that, due to it being metaphysical moralistic nonsense.

The dialectical method regards as important primarily not that which at the given moment seems to be durable and yet is already beginning to die away, but that which is arising and developing, even though at the given moment it may appear to be not durable, for the dialectical method considers invincible only that which is arising and developing.

"All nature," says Engels, "from the smallest thing to the biggest. from grains of sand to suns, from protista (the primary living cells – J. St.) to man, has its existence in eternal coming into being and going out of being, in a ceaseless flux, in unresting motion and change (Ibid., p. 484.)

Therefore, dialectics, Engels says, "takes things and their perceptual images essentially in their interconnection, in their concatenation, in their movement, in their rise and disappearance." (Marx and Engels, Vol. XIV,' p. 23.)

Thus concludes selected reading from stalins dialectical and historical materialism.

Attached: 1565403213344.jpg (960x923, 56.26K)

>liberalism is incompatible with monarchy because liberalism depends on the supremacy of metaphysical absolutes to justify positions in society

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. This is below Wikipedia-tier bullshit. Hilarious how Britain still has its monarchy, if any of this bullshit you just posted were grounded in historical reality.

>It is the idea of the individual and choice which best defines liberalism.
No. Again, Marxists have no fucking clue, what a joke your entire "movement" is. The idea is that liberalism means "individualism" is Cold War propaganda, not based in historical reality or practice. But again, Marxists don't know shit from shinola. Marxists do not deserve to be taken seriously, they only deserve to squirm and squeal under a Fascist boot, as befits vermin.

>Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change, of continuous renewal and development, where something is always arising and developing, and something always disintegrating and dying away.
What the fuck are you on about? Being and becoming. This is the world of becoming and is understood as flux and change. What metaphysics are you talking about?

I ducking hate that ducking face so much

>Hilarious how Britain still has its monarchy
A neutered monarchy that never does jack shit.

Technicalities, technicalities. Nobody cares.

>The idea is that liberalism means "individualism" is Cold War propaganda
Everything is propaganda. Doesn’t make it any less true. Are you trying to tell me that liberalism as an ideology doesn’t value individualism over collectivism?

Explain what you mean by materialism and also explain what you think you mean Marx meant by materialism.

i dont understand the question

>Individualism VS Collectivism and it’s relations to liberalism

Which brings us to an obvious fact that nobody is willing to admit. Collectivist ideologies are inherently authoritarian and individualist ideologies are by DEFAULT anti-authoritarian. Since liberalism puts all its focus on private property rights, free market, and freedom of speech is is inherently individualist.

Dont really expect you to understand anything

>A neutered monarchy that never does jack shit.
It's a monarchy, just not an absolutist one. If you have absolutism in mind, just say so.

>Are you trying to tell me that liberalism as an ideology doesn’t value individualism over collectivism?

Liberalism was historically very nationalistic and the nationalism obviously overruled any "individualism", which is why liberals were among the most fervent supports of Fascism, in Germany, Italy, etc. The Italian Fascists formed a "National Bloc" with the Liberals.

In Germany, the Nazis received most of their support from former Liberal voters. Same patterns emerge in other countries. Oh wait, you didn't know that, did you?

The most extreme version of individualism would be anarcho-capitalism, and there is no arguing with this.

Marxism proclaims itself to be materialist but it has revealed itself to be idealism, as evidenced by the way Marxists have clung to the intellectual model and predictions of Marx (none of which are actual material things and are therefore by definition idealist), in the face of the material evidence of more than a century worth of failed Marxist experimentation.

I believe the proper term is autistic

Authority is inescapable if you want to have a society.
All that happens is this alleged 'freedom' installs people into positions to impose their will on other.
the difference is the collectivist society has some sense of group cohesion and therefore the authority is trying to benefit the group, whereas the individualist society can claim to be individualist, and use this claim to justify the individual with authority continuing to use it for his own self interests alone

The assertion that a metaphysican would view this world as static is a false one.
snowconenyc.com/2018/11/19/805/
The physical world, the world of becoming, as far as i know is understood to be a world of flux and change.
Its not something unique to Marx or materialists.

Engels predicted both world wars and the collapse of the USSR.
historical materialism is the most accurate predictive theory of history humanity possesses

>Engels predicted both world wars and the collapse of the USSR.
proof?
Give his exact words please.

>to be a world of flux and change. Its not something unique to Marx or materialists.
Of course not. Marxism credits heraticlus (all is fire) in the west, and dialectical materialist books for students published in the ussr draw comparisons to taoism

marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/index.html
a 1983 soviet book

>It's a monarchy, just not an absolutist one
The monarchy in Britain is nothing more than a remnant of the past. Which any stage of society should be expected to have some birth pains left over from the one before it. It’s an exception to the widespread liberal democracy which has taken over the world.

>Liberalism was historically very nationalistic and the nationalism obviously overruled any "individualism", which is why liberals were among the most fervent supports of Fascism, in Germany, Italy, etc.

The liberal will always side with the fascist over the communist, which has been shown time and time again throughout history. Look at the political compass. The bottom right is far closer to the top right than it is to the top left.

It’s no different than anarcho-communists (bottom left) siding with the authoritarian socialists. The authoritarians always end up being the strongmen of the “left vs right”

>Authority is inescapable if you want to have a society.
I agree. I’m a national syndicalist. Former ML, but I realized that an economy based on beurucracy can’t work.

Id like to hear this as well

BTW Marx predicted that authoritarians would hijack his movement and result in beaurocratic regulation of every aspect of life. He called it barracks socialism.

Then why this bit?
>>Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change
Its not contrary to my understanding of the metaphysics of Plato to say that nature, the material world, is one of change.

Such a stagnant pond around here, nothing but burnt out slaves making the same images again and again... Such creative remixers!

>Which any stage of society should be expected to have some birth pains left over from the one before it. It’s an exception to the widespread liberal democracy which has taken over the world.

Most Northern European countries still have their monarchies, as does Spain. German monarchy was only deposed because of losing WW1, Italian monarchy deposed because of losing WW2. Eastern European monarchies were vanquished because of the Communist regimes there. None of this had anything to do with "liberalism."

>Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change
It's also a false statement, because that is not "contrary to metaphysics", but rather it is a metaphysical statement in and of itself. Dialectics is still within the sphere of metaphysics.

cringe
Idiot.

Karl Marx would have hated the Soviet Union if he had lived to see it.

He predicted early on that there would be some who would hijack the ideals of communism and turn it into an bureaucratic hellhole. Most notably in an argument with Sergey Nechayev who suggested PIC RELATED.

His response to was this
>What a beautiful model of barrack-room communism! Here you have it all: communal eating, communal sleeping, assessors and offices regulating education, production, consumption, in a word, all social activity, and to crown all, ouR commJttee, anonymous and unknown to anyone, as the supreme director. This is indeed the purest anti-authoritarianism.[5]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracks_communism

What Marx called “Barracks Communism” grew into Soviet Union style Marxism Leninism. And there you go guys. It actually WASNT REAL COMMUNISM! It’s more than a meme.

Attached: 590E9E18-2ADB-4DE3-8800-61CDF207345B.jpg (1799x1028, 763.88K)