

be respectful now, there could be libertarians among us
In study.
be respectful now, there could be libertarians among us
Philosophy should not be used to justify regular human actions, and non-scientists should not expect their crank-adjacent theories to be taken seriously in the respective science communities. We don’t need awful people running around calling themselves ‘solipsists’ to ‘explain’ their behavior, and we do not need Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists popping their heads into debates about the Big Bang Theory or whether electrons exist
this is definitely controversial, you got that down
you’re arguing for something extremely non-conventional among philosophers themselves - without sufficient arguments to make anyone believe you. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong, it just means people won’t take you as seriously
one thing i would say, where you would likely agree, is that most people calling themselves Marxist are not well-versed enough to argue for their Marxist or Marx-influenced philosophy - if Lenin wasn’t confident in his Marxism without starting to understand Hegel’s Greater Logic… I think we all know what I’m implying here
What you’re arguing for here sounds like something that requires several months of studying philosophers from their own works. You can go even further and argue something like Derrida, that maybe we’ve all been reading philosophers who misread their contemporaries who misread their contemporaries and so on and so forth.
This isn’t something I myself am well-versed enough to do, so all I can do is wish you luck on this one
i recall C. Derick Varn making a similar point and it’s mostly true. that’s why i’m personally annoyed when people still do the “right-wingers are stupid” bit
diamonds, so i can disprove the labor theory of value like a boss, epic style
i personally thought the most common form of idealism was summed up as this: “humans cannot perceive reality perfectly, they perceive things to their human limit and see appearances of things”
or, alternatively: “humans have experiences that trascend humanity itself and can’t be fully understood by humans”
For Marx in particular, he saw any theory divorced from practical experience as a slipperly slope towards idealism - I’m still working through this argument myself, though, and I believe I misunderstood his point. I’m not very strong on my Young Hegelian critiques, truthfully
The bird flu? yeah they tend to do that
Rosa Luxembourg would probably disagree with me here and claim capitalism has a tendency towards its own collapse under the weight of its contradictions. For the moment, I do not share this viewpoint; I believe capitalism can only end by workers’ self-conscious activity towards that aim and towards their own abolition.
There is no limit to accumulation itself (=> profit), but there is a law of diminishing returns, so to speak
Profit itself can trend towards infinity, but the rate at which it is extracted has a tendency to fall; in theory, a low rate of profit can continue for several centuries towards that $$$
In practice, however, we have to consider that war (and other means) can contribute to a destruction of capital; that unequal trade relations exist; that climate catastrophe is on the horizon; that humans cannot live forever; and so on.
tl;dr - assuming humans live forever, there is nothing setting a limit on profit itself
i think bordiga would be cool with it
read hegel, play disco elysium. play disco elysium, read marx
hegel’s revolutionary plasm
\\
“In the dark times, should the stars also go out?”
damn so im not the only one who read some Camus recently? i’m not even an existentialist, i just find the work comforting
UnitedHealthcare is so awful I have to defend ABA
i say the odds are 40:60 you like it
Question. Do you use, or have you ever used tumblr? This will help answer your question and I cannot tell you why. Your honesty is important.
Secular leader who turned from a social-democratic stance into a more gradually pro-privatization stance as she gained more power; alleged chemical attacks; has said something about Russia; thought of as disproportionately wealthy compared to constituents without solid proof; silly photos leaked
but we taught Afghani women how to use makeup epic girlboss style
I’ll be honest, their Chinese takeout looks pretty good. And I do eat some of their food, like fish and chips. If the “jacketed potatoes” are what I think they are, then that’s a staple for sure. A bunch of dishes I eat probably came from Britain without me knowing
Russia can go wherever they want and the problem won’t be resolved. It’s not about what countries are involved in Ukraine, it’s about why countries feel the need to go there in the first place. Ukraine, like Haiti, Syria, and Sudan - to name a few more - is a site of inter-capitalist rivalry
You can get peace - sure - but the Ukrainian economy will be subjugated to whoever the ‘victor’ is. You can argue that economic integration reduces conflict and wars, but what will remain is a sort of neo-colonial relationship; or a dependency of sorts. That’s what I have an issue with.
But that is the only realistic outcome - that exact economic dependency on one power or another (whether that be the US, the EU, or even Russia, or even a mixture, say, for instance, the EU+US or EU+Russia)
There are no liberationary movements in Ukraine to my knowledge, just a reactionary military regime where political rights have been greatly reduced, even by liberal standards for governance. It is exceptionally rare that a country caught between two capitalist rivals gets the ability to form their own sovereign and independent liberation