No type of revolution? Do not underestimate the transformation of quantity into quality. Every week seems to be a decade recently. Just because some people are comfortable-ish now doesn’t mean that any one of the massive crises we are constantly on the brink of will spill over enough to cause more radical shifts.

Good point. Do we need to organize to build a massive party over decades with underground newspapers and walking thousands of miles? Or will things just go viral enough one day after the capitalist governments have failed hard enough? Technology levels the playing field, but of course we need to do all we can to come out on top.

Memes are stupid, but we can just as well retort that Khrushchev claimed he would have full communism in a decade while deng gave reasonable estimates for advancing to the next stage.

Hey, I’ve seen a ton of comedies that all center “middle class people [who have moderately sized businesses and never struggled a day in their lives.]” http://smbc-comics.com/comic/frigid

When has anyone focused on convincing hardcore liberals? Debate bros?

We are definitionally in an ice age. There are polar ice caps. Of course we are not far from ending that.

Most people are not even aware of their need to conform. They live under the illusion that they follow their own ideas and inclinations, that they are individualists, that they have arrived at their opinions as the result of their own thinking—and that it just happens that their ideas are the same as those of the majority

Erich Fromm

Libs literally said trump supporters and communists (and Nazis for that matter lol) are enemies of the people

lol this is exactly what the below banger is pointing out. Most people are not idiots. They definitely have false ideas, but that is because those ideas bring them some sort of security, and/or they have not had sufficient access to alternative perspectives (in the ways people actually learn). While we are no logic machines (closest to that is philosophers and the amount of times we’ve realized reason doesn’t really work), we are all just looking for the most satisfying explanation of how things work.

Definitely gotta accept most people won’t dedicate years of free time to political theory. Just gotta nudge their thinking enough so they fall for less bullshit and are more likely to unionize, organize, voot, etc closer to your vision.

Important to remember that “logic” is often a retrospective process for justifying existing emotions about things. People get the information you’re transmitting when you connect on an emotional level and make sure your logos is well tied to the sorts of pathos and ethos they are receptive to. Of course this is all grounded in individuals’ material circumstances and personal practice.

I am the nerd who talked about Marxist theory explicitly and constantly for years. It worked on a few (neurodivergent leftlib) people. If they don’t listen to that (most won’t), whenever people complain (and not much otherwise, people like it when others agree with their complaints, not “bring everyone down” or “complain about nothing”), chip in comments (in a similar tone, showing your sympathy/shared struggle) pointing out how the people causing their problems are wealthy or tied to wealth. Slip in the notion that the authorities handing down bourgeois ideology are subject to the same moral condemnation they place on other things and tied to wealth. Note contradictions in reactionary narratives (comparing headlines or just counter-examples to major ideas like the need for growth, human nature, etc) at good times. If opportune, add light explanations on your understanding of the structures lying to and hurting them, and what could be better (only a full vision of society if they are interested). If they are receptive enough you can drop socdem, investigative journalist, etc sources, just not too explicit to poison the well.

Do not be too evangelistic about it. “Preach the gospel” as in taking intellectual comfort in the “good news” you have, not giving the impression that you despise all who do not accept your worldview in its totality in a short time frame. Be open minded. Marxism is a most solid and rational worldview. Do not take others opinions as a threat to your identity. Do not be defensive. Everyone you talk to will probably have a less coherent way of seeing the world. If you hear them out non-judgmentally they will be less averse to hearing you out. Good faith reciprocates. At best you actually understood their perspective, which helps you poke holes it. At worst your own perspective evolved and you got something out of it.

If someone is too (materially) comfortable, escapist, and/or immoral (to the point of accepting the logical ends of fascism consciously), focus your energy elsewhere.

This isn’t totally easy in practice (especially autistic myself), but it’s the best advice I’ve seen.

deleted by creator

Solidarity comrade

Kant’s totally in there. Of course, he came after Spinoza and probably developed and disputed his ideas a decent bit. Of course everyone intellectualizing any of these places and times could have had a direct impact on the development of this philosophy. I felt like I had written enough names and didn’t need to add Fichte, Lao Tzu…

Fair enough. Makes sense why there’s so much emphasis on practice (besides that being where the revolution comes from) because you kind of have to live dialectical materialism to understand it fully.

Glad your confidence is boosted. Congrats on the hormones! Good luck :3.

Dialectics isn’t some static thing that popped into the world one day and will suddenly pop out with something else in its place. That’s a metaphysical way of understanding dialectics. Marx or Hegel didn’t invent dialectics. Everyone everywhere has discovered it in some sense. We just have the most coherent philosophical form yet seen for a world that has made computer chips and capitalism. Other lenses we can call dialectical have greater understandings of different axes of the development of knowledge.

The old survives within the new while being in other ways more dead than we realize. Nobility and metaphysics are still around in full and in part as remainders in their successors. Buddhism has an advanced “dialectical” philosophy with many schools and turns and obsolete ideas that were forgotten. In the west we learned from Heraclitus, and people are still influenced by him but his worldview is understood to be incomplete. Spinoza made many philosophical leaps and has been largely left behind for those who were influenced by him, though people still read his work. All these philosophies are dead and alive. They have had their negation do the negation. Marx negated Hegel. Marx has been superseded by Lenin without really dying. One day there may be a successor so advanced that only nerds remember Marx like today they remember Heraclitus.

Dialectics started when people started trying to understand the world. Maybe it will end when we are no longer here to care about truth and reality.

Lines aren’t real. Everything doesn’t turn to ice the moment the thermostat hits 0.0000* C. We still understand that that delineation is very useful. Class is far less exact. Liberals think we propose that there is a very fine and exact line where everything to one side of it is saintly prole and the other side is evil bourgeois pig. Dialectics acknowledges that there is fluidity. There are many classes and subclasses with various moving parts and their own contradictions. Class relations are always changing and we know class traitors and those who do not understand their interests exist. But we understand that generally under certain circumstances we can define certain general categories the have certain interests according to conditions generally shared.

For another comparison, let’s say you said the exact same thing but about gender. “We know that men and women exist and will give you distinctions about how they work and act.” We know that this statement ignores huge complexity and conditionality. Are revisionist might hold that there is absolute bourgeois and proletariat and there are absolutely two genders. This understanding can be functional enough in many situations, but we both know that such ideas can be further analyzed with the dialectical method to reveal a much truer and more complex picture.

To organize a revolution we don’t say “hey workers, it’s in your interest to go kill your boss, so do it.” If it were so clear cut everyone would just be conscious of their interests and we’d have a stagnant communism already. But dialectics is how the world works, not simple slogans. We analyze all the relevant conditions through observation and existing concepts derived from practice to determine the best course of action within our material circumstance.

Edit: put another way, everything is too interconnected and changing to have a separate stable definition that corresponds to it, yet defining things relatively is very helpful

It’s probably “normal.” Sounds familiar anyway.

Short answer: “man” “woman” and “nonbinary” aren’t real and there is no evidence to analyze to see which category you belong to. Over time you will figure out your vast and multifaceted preferences.

Longer, better answer: you should read this recent hexbear post (well, mostly the comments).

Based asf. It’s funny how when it comes to discussing philosophy some of us resort liberal metaphysics without even remembering to define our terms (no hate, it’s a product of social context). If someone came up to us and asked for the exact monetary line between bourgeois and proletariat we’d laugh at them, but we forget that the same frameworks apply elsewhere.