A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

[promethean75]

this imaginary thing in Marx's head (that he calls capitalism) is a neoliberal idea that, in its modern form, is what were witnessing today. but its foundations preceded even adam smith by thousands of years going all the way back to large agrarian societies that accumulated surplus. that's where class division of any real substance and consequence began.

"And this ideology, this belief in free markets, deregulation, and privatization can be traced back — pretty directly — to a group of men meeting in the Swiss Alps."

from: https://www.npr.org/2021/07/05/10127338 ... a-ideology

But all this is in Marx's head of course and never really happened.

[promethean75]

7gq0le.jpg (25.74 KiB) Viewed 409 times

7gq0zv.jpg (43.03 KiB) Viewed 409 times

[Immanuel Can]

Was Marx a misogynist who wanted to erase women?

Well, by all biographer's accounts, he was a nasty piece of work: he was a financial sponge who drained his family first, then lived off the largesse of Engels, and never did any real work. So far as we can discover, he knew only one working-class person, his handicapped maid, whom he sexually assaulted and produced a child he disowned. He hated bathing, and had boils and a raging temper. Lovely man.

But no, we do not know that he wanted to erase women. And trans was not a thing he even thought of. HIs whining was all along the lines of "class" rather than "sex" or "gender." And almost everything he said about class is now manifestly wrong. That's why today's Neo-Marxists refer to him as espousing "crude Marxism," and them as more "sophisticated": they've substituted the "class" issue for others -- race, sex, gender, ability, sexuality, fatness, and so on. But the game is the same: today's society is "oppressive," and these new classes of people are "marginalized" and "oppressed," and must overthrow the system...it's an old load of nonsense in a new wrapper, really.

But trans is the new axis of "oppression." It's just one more lever upon which the Neo-Marxists want to pull in order to produce their "revolution." So they take it up as readily as they formerly took up class, race, women, sexuality, fatness, abilism, and so on. Any grounds justifying the overthrow of the status quo is good, in their eyes.

[promethean75]

Bro lol I shit u not I was just logging in to say 'please remind us that Marx seduced his housemaid, IC.'

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Was Marx a misogynist who wanted to erase women?

Well, by all biographer's accounts, he was a nasty piece of work: he was a financial sponge who drained his family first, then lived off the largesse of Engels, and never did any real work. So far as we can discover, he knew only one working-class person, his handicapped maid, whom he sexually assaulted and produced a child he disowned. He hated bathing, and had boils and a raging temper. Lovely man.

FFS. Who cares??? He was a man who lived a long time ago who came up with some ideas, some of which people liked and adopted/adapted. You are only playing into their hands by being a religioturd idiot. Stick to facts and science.

[Immanuel Can]

Was Marx a misogynist who wanted to erase women?

Well, by all biographer's accounts, he was a nasty piece of work: he was a financial sponge who drained his family first, then lived off the largesse of Engels, and never did any real work. So far as we can discover, he knew only one working-class person, his handicapped maid, whom he sexually assaulted and produced a child he disowned. He hated bathing, and had boils and a raging temper. Lovely man.

FFS. Who cares???

I don't.

But you asked if he hated women. He pretty much hated everybody but himself.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So you knew him then. I didn't think you were that old...

[Immanuel Can]

So you knew him then. I didn't think you were that old...

Biographies.

[Gary Childress]

So you knew him then. I didn't think you were that old...

Biographies.

Biographies are interesting but ultimately can be as much ad hominems as anything else. It all comes down to relevance.

Ultimately Marx was a grumpy and angry man. Who but a sociopath wouldn't be when they saw the conditions workers were being put through during the earliest days of the Industrial revolution? The early capitalists were more barbaric than the feudal lords before them who had at least mellowed a little toward the end of their reign. Those who criticize Marx seem to criticize him because he was born of the class of people whom he criticized. That amounts to little more than saying, he should have been happy he wasn't working in the coal mines of his day himself and not said a word about the plight of others. That's not a really great approach that is going to bring improvements to society. In fact, Marx took up an unpopular cause that left him in poverty and hated by authorities for most of his life. In effect, he sacrificed promising schooling and upbringing because of conscience.

Like him or not, like what he said or not, Marx raised serious awareness of the horrors that some like Charles Dickens famously wrote about. Did Marx offer a solution to those problems? Maybe not, but he did better than most to point them out in my book. Would Marx approve of the Soviet Union or Mao's China had he lived to see those places? I would honestly doubt it if he learned the truth about what happened in those places, at least if he was truly concerned with human suffering I don't think he would.

[promethean75]

Tell em about the land seizures, peasant displacements and the factory lock-outs too, Gary!

"... the wretchedness of existence" - Karl

Liver problems, being so fuckin smaht and max stirner. That's what I attribute that to. Stirner got him and Engels all shook up and it gnawed on em both, constantly. So Karl said fuck it I'll eat pickled cucumbers I don't give a damn anymore! And he drank and smoked like a sailor. He and Engels would get drunk and ride donkeys like sportbikes through town. That's how fucked up Max made em.

[promethean75]

"Would Marx approve of the Soviet Union or Mao's China had he lived to see those places?"

the beginnings, yes, but he'd be appalled at what they became. and Bakunin would be like 'didn't I tell u dude? i fuckin told u it wouldn't decentralize. but u were all like 'we trust in the proletariat to fully democratize society yada yada yada.' and off to the side leaning cooly against a lamp post would be stirner, smoking a cigar and chuckling to himself. 'lol democratize society. NICE SPOOKS NERD.'

[Immanuel Can]

Ultimately Marx was a grumpy and angry man. Who but a sociopath wouldn't be when they saw the conditions workers were being put through during the earliest days of the Industrial revolution?

There's no evidence at all the Marx cared about the suffering masses. What he really cared about, by his own family's account, was getting the world to pay his bills for him. The one actual prole he knew, he sexually molested. That's not even a contested fact, regardless of the biography.

So the guy was no saint, whatever else we can say. And if his "philosophy" were more than a wretched grift that had an unblemished record of getting masses of people killed, maybe it wouldn't matter. But the fact is that his theories are now recognized as largely errant, even by present-day Neo-Marxists. They just think they can do better. However, in any real-world case where Marxism has ever been applied, bodies have piled up, economies have crashed, and no workers' paradise has arisen from the steaming pile of ashes.

So I think we can forgo any admiration for Marx, or for his rantings.

[promethean75]

Big Karl was a Taurus stellium with an aquarius ascendent, jupiter in capricorn, mars in cancer (the doozy... moody af) and mercury in Gemini.

so u gotta guy who's immediate impression is de facto revolutionary and anti-establishment (aquarius), who's intellect and ability to communicate is impeccable (gemini), who's strongest interest is the subject and matter of work (Capricorn), who can be a real cynical dude (cancer) and who is as solid, steady and obstinate as a fucking rock (taurus).

it all makes sense now. that triple taurus is a monster too. dude wuz destined to be a master of the material erf.

Now if someone were to say about Karl 'what a bunch of bull', they would not be entirely incorrect.

[Gary Childress]

Ultimately Marx was a grumpy and angry man. Who but a sociopath wouldn't be when they saw the conditions workers were being put through during the earliest days of the Industrial revolution?

There's no evidence at all the Marx cared about the suffering masses. What he really cared about, by his own family's account, was getting the world to pay his bills for him. The one actual prole he knew, he sexually molested. That's not even a contested fact, regardless of the biography.

So the guy was no saint, whatever else we can say. And if his "philosophy" were more than a wretched grift that had an unblemished record of getting masses of people killed, maybe it wouldn't matter. But the fact is that his theories are now recognized as largely errant, even by present-day Neo-Marxists. They just think they can do better. However, in any real-world case where Marxism has ever been applied, bodies have piled up, economies have crashed, and no workers' paradise has arisen from the steaming pile of ashes.

So I think we can forgo any admiration for Marx, or for his rantings.

People born into wealthy surroundings usually don't sacrifice the nice opportunities afforded to them in order to write revolutionary journals protesting the horrible conditions others are experiencing and, as a result, live in the kind of squalor Marx lived in as a consequence. So I'd say you're overlooking some very obvious evidence that Marx 'cared', that of sacrifice and tangible action.

So I disagree that there is "no evidence" that Marx cared about the plight of "the suffering masses". He clearly tried to do something about it. And what he did didn't lead to a pleasant life for him personally. That's usually called 'sacrifice'. People usually don't go to self-negating extremes in order to try to fix something they "don't care" about.

Whether or not that very clear anger toward the wealthy Capitalists of his day, who profited off those conditions, and the actions Marx took, in order to try to remedy that injustice, were misguided, deserved, effective, misdirected, or appropriated, or otherwise, I'll concede is debatable. But, then again, he did help foment (along with many other equally, if not more fervent, organizers and activists) real substantial backlash at those capitalists on the part of the victims, which pretty clearly served to demonstrate (and still does) that there is a tangible penalty to pay for exploitation. An extremely powerful business can't treat its workers like slaves and get away with it.

I've worked in large corporations before and I will attest from what I've witnessed firsthand, that sometimes the only thing that will break down a business that is managing to profit off injustice is for those running it to feel some of the pain they inflict in a way that can be clearly linked to their actions. It's the proverbial nature of the beast, IC. Take it or leave it, but I've seen it firsthand.

I've shown my evidence, above, that demonstrates (albeit perhaps inductively and not deductively) that Marx "cared" about the suffering masses of his day. Your counter-evidence seems to be that he got help from others around him to help him live in the squalor he experienced and sexually molested a woman of the "proletariat". That certainly proves that he wanted to survive in that squalor (and he didn't survive in any way that could be called "lavish" by most accounts) and that he probably had a rampant sex drive that drove him to do evil to a particular individual woman (I'm assuming he didn't go around sexually molesting every woman he encountered). But that doesn't prove he didn't care at all for the "suffering masses". He did. And he made a significant sacrifice for it. You can blame him for what probably amounted to the eccentricities of a displaced, privileged person who was seeing the way his 'lowers' were truly living during his day, but it's very difficult to say he "didn't" 'care'.

[Sculptor]

Rightards are full of contradictions.

Prolife:progun.

Pro Personal freedom: anti LGTBQ+ etc

This is one of my favorite takdowns of the year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCuIxIJBfCY