/edu/ - Education

>>21078
The west largely bases its economy on financial manipulation and military power.

>>21080
What do you think would happen to the west if america brought all of their soldiers home? As an open question.

What are you talking about comrade? We're initiating the people's war. Come on, we're going to smoke some pigs.

>>21082
"Whats that, grug? Communism, technology, anime? Did you hit your head before you fell asleep? Come on, we need you for the hunt."

>>21055
>>21056

( I am that anon who asked u questions )

>In marxist terms anything besides necessities are seen as "irrational" forms of production,

This is false, Marx is not an idealist who qualitificates and categorizes "necessities"

<A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.[2]…..

<2. “Desire implies want, it is the appetite of the mind, and as natural as hunger to the body… The greatest number (of things) have their value from supplying the wants of the mind.”

From Das Kapital I

Organic or non-organic, what is your "basis" to attritube a thing into being a necessity, taking form of the state of being necessity but not non-necessity for one- it's an abstract condition.

>Many critics of the culture industry where marxists themselves who thought that the rise of things like jazz and hollywood distracted from the "socialist realist" movement in art

The 1920 USSR had rampant socialist constructivist, surrealist, futurist and realist art movements. I do not favor any art.

>This is a direct reversal of marxism since we have a sort of communism, but of culture creation, where the superstructure builds upon itself and the productive base becomes the secondary character in production.

Uhh, I agree with your previous texts except some parts, but how it is a communism of culture-production, I didnt get it??

>Marxist notion of a singular, objective truth and suggests that the plurality of discourses and subjective interpretations in postmodernity undermines the monolithic framework of Marxist theory.

I see Marxist theories somehow likely from the viewpoint of Gramsci and Althusser. It does not presuppose "objective truth" but subjective conditions of progression

>the structural determinism inherent in Marxist thought

Umm, isn't saying "everything is fluidic and structures break into newly moments" assumes that it's the law?
But yeah, I don't think that we are structurally determined to have communism, althrough we'll see capitalism getting through another forms and crisises, inefficiency of production- like we just see it now. The grandè stagnation.

>>21079
Hierarchies can only be applied in the context of social, political and economic power, everything else that is otherwise called hierarchies are either priority assignment, power dynamics or violence which are not the same as examining control over others. This is a neat trick that allows right-wingers to equate capitalism with the natural order. A lion does not literally tell a zebra to become its food, he uses his capacity for violence in an anarchistic, non-hierarchical way. And zebras can even fight back, they have very powerful legs, they travel in hordes and are really fast which gives them some advantages over lone predators and small prides.

>>21084
Marx is describing commodities, but he was against commodity production and instead wanted to only produce necessities which accounted for the socially-necessary labour time of the worker, thus eliminating wage labour in a socialist system, where we only work for what is "necessary". The production of luxuries is a very contentious aspect of marxism, but it is of secondary concern, unlike today.
The "communism" of today is the lived experience of being in a post-scarcity world with a portable factory in our pocket - this factory only makes abstract commodities and not necessities however. This is the public working for themselves, but in the terms of culture creation, which opposes marxism since marx's dialectic of production and exchange ends itself in the closing loop of alienation, which terminates in socialism, where in lenin's words, society operates like a "factory floor", which is analogous to today, but in an extremely counter-intuitive way.

you will never be a 14 year old japanese girl hooked up to a computer. you will always spend 16 hours of your life labouring and sleeping, not to mention chores and errands

>>21086
>Marx is describing commodities, but he was against commodity production and instead wanted to only produce necessities which accounted for the socially-necessary labour time of the worker

Marx was against to form of Commodity production, not the quality of the commodity, like in feudalism- a desired thing would not take form of a commodity during the exchange.
How do you define a "necessity"?
Unlike that viewpoint, Marx really does not categorize an object's attritubion of being necessary or not- as long as it's desired ( or namely, needed. )

>The "communism" of today is the lived experience of being in a post-scarcity world with a portable factory in our pocket - this factory only makes abstract commodities and not necessities however. This is the public working for themselves, but in the terms of culture creation, which opposes marxism since marx's dialectic of production and exchange ends itself in the closing loop of alienation, which terminates in socialism, where in lenin's words, society operates like a "factory floor", which is analogous to today, but in an extremely counter-intuitive way.

The computers have electric consumption & maintance thus they are more likely to be "machines of viewing an art" - and yesh, in internet , the art-production is not necessarily commodified. But it's not like having communism in your automatic factories modded minecraft server prevents the current conditions to progress of the non-cyber world.

>>21087
Thats what you think…

>>21089
and i don't seem to understand

>>21084 (me)

>Umm, isn't saying "everything is fluidic and structures break into newly moments" assumes that it's the law?

Also, I still wonder whats ur opinion in this, postmodernist-boo anon

>>21088
Yes, necessities are defined democratically by workers. Marx saw the market as an imperfect mechanism of this and simply wanted to improve upon it by centralising production thus immediating economic signals to their designated status by the state. The market today is not as "free" as it used to be and many public companies lie in bed with the state so we certainly see an analogous centralisation that marx predicts - the soviet model doesnt work though. Some companies are centralised while others are decentralised - this balance of markets also operates in china, who model capital to its own national interests. I think keynesianism is the final economic theory in line with neo-keynesianisms like MMT and so on. Markets over capital, like we see in cyberspace.
>But it's not like having communism in your automatic factories modded minecraft server prevents the current conditions to progress of the non-cyber world.
No, but as ive said previously, today you need computers to make computers. Everything gets funneled through the internet to come out through the other end. The internet here is our tool of social mediation - in the long run it will replace the state and that will be "full communism", if we still care about that.
>>21091
I am not that other poster. Im OP. the other guy pretended to be me.

>>21092
>Marx saw the market as an imperfect mechanism of this and simply wanted to improve upon it by centralising production thus immediating economic signals to their designated status by the state.

False

<[…]"All the social functions of the capitalist are now performed by salaried employees. The capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital. At first the capitalist mode of production forces out the workers. Now it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army.
But the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution…"

Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels 1877 Part III: Socialism

State centralizing of insturments of the production is a temporary phase thus it keeps the exchange relations likely to the capitalist system, it's like keyneysianism but even with more centralization for a temporary restructuring. It's like war communism in which the efficiency or socially necessary work time is not emphasized but the transformation process itself. Of course there will be overproduction and lack of connection in pre-socialist revolutionary stage. Althrough they enactrd NEP afterwards..

>the soviet model doesnt work though.

It wasn't pure planning or web of feedback between the productive forces so..

>I am not that other poster. Im OP. the other guy pretended to be me.

Well, u should answer it instead of that anon!!! You both share the same geist *w-

>>21087
>>21091
>Umm, isn't saying "everything is fluidic and structures break into newly moments" assumes that it's the law?
"everything is fluidic and structures break into newly emergent moments" does not purport to establish an ontological or epistemological law akin to the deterministic principles inherent in classical Marxist thought. Rather, it posits a perspectival acknowledgment of ontic contingency and epistemic relativity within the manifold phenomena under consideration. The emphasis lies in delineating the non-universalizable, context-dependent nature of socio-cultural, and economic configurations, eschewing a totalizing determinism while highlighting the need for a dialectical engagement with the multifarious factors constituting our intricate reality. In this manner, it aligns itself with the postmodern rejection of metanarratives, advocating for a decentered, contextually sensitive analytical framework that navigates the nuanced topography of contemporary socio-political landscapes.s.

>>21094
In quantum mechanical terms, the conceptual departure from deterministic frameworks akin to classical Marxism parallels the abandonment of a Newtonian causality in favor of a probabilistic understanding. The proposition that "everything is fluidic and structures break into newly emergent moments" resonates with the probabilistic nature of quantum states, where the trajectory of particles is not preordained but exists within a realm of indeterminacy until observed. The postmodern emphasis on fluidity and context-dependent interpretations aligns with the inherent uncertainty and wave-particle duality encapsulated by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Furthermore, just as quantum superposition allows particles to exist in multiple states simultaneously until observed, the postmodern contention recognizes the simultaneous coexistence of multiple narratives and truths within the sociocultural fabric. This resonates with the quantum understanding that particles can occupy multiple positions until a measurement collapses the wavefunction.

The interplay between postmodern philosophy and quantum mechanics transcends mere analogy; it converges on the profound implication that the act of observation and interpretation shapes the reality we apprehend. Similarly, the postmodern critique underscores the interpretive nature of knowledge construction, aligning with the quantum principle that the act of measurement fundamentally alters the quantum state. In this juxtaposition, the confluence of postmodern thought and quantum mechanics prompts a paradigmatic shift towards acknowledging the intrinsic indeterminacy and contextual subjectivity inherent in both the microcosmic and macrocosmic realms.

>>21093
I dont think postmodernity overcomes capital, it simply overcomes the category of the proletariat, which is the practical step forward in eliminating class society. Post-industrialisation, the service economy, automation, the internet and so on are the devices of a post-historical horizon where the geist becomes extinguished into the fury of its own splendour. Communism is paradoxically planned production alongside overproduction - this to me is the self-creative implementation of computers. Where, like i say, the dialectic between production and exchange comes to an end, but only with exchange taking precedence over production - the superstructure becomes the base.
Thats my material analysis.

>>21094
What you're describing seems akin to calling this a "a lawly paradigm of sensing and attritubing but with framework of uncertainity"

>Rather, it posits a perspectival acknowledgment of ontic contingency and epistemic relativity within the manifold phenomena under consideration. The emphasis lies in delineating the non-universalizable, context-dependent nature of socio-cultural, and economic configurations, eschewing a totalizing determinism while highlighting the need for a dialectical engagement with the multifarious factors constituting our intricate reality.

I think this is basically likely to Marxian dialetical materialism, or the term of "scientific" in general, but I'll just get to another topic.

So , for the example of "delineating" as in its content, it's methodical ways are established as a contrarian position to the prior ones, prior ways to "delineate". But perhaps even inconcinously- we are playing as a wheells of established relations which shape how delineating is processed. Make 'it's object's cause' unknown, plural, uncertain, or make the cause the so, perhaps at the end there's no validity or must-ness for a seed to take form of a tree, but we perceive it so in our current mysterious stage. Saying "it may be fluid" carries the same abstraction as "it may be constant". Applies for "non-universal" to "universal" So, I can see how the uncertainity may not essentially establish a fluidity but the absurdness in the term of "fluidity or constantness" themselves.

Like, such as,
Why we ask "why" , what does it really correspond to?

To "acknowledge" a thing?
Isn't the answer of why is mostly a mere assumption of forming a "valid relation" between Object X and Object Y even if in themselves they may not necessarily have a relation. So, you may think that you acknowledge a thing- but "why" not vice versa? Isn't acknowledging for you a perhaps is a sensation, an aestetic temptation.

Those words seems to be structural linguistic symbiosises as established to narrate forms of relations which may be "assumed" to really conform how things interact between.

But the law, or whatever you call- be it behind, between or upside on it , if there's one- why it is not constant but fluid, or as you may say, both on the different stages.

So, "the question of why" as a linguistic element is a symbolic narrative, which may have it's content or not, and it may not be a tool of "necessarily" "acknowledge" the relation between the objects. Who would and how would judge you for pursuing an esoteric , strange feeling? Be it a truth or not.. What should we base it on?

I am just confused how "postmodernist viewpoint" is not methodical while assuming a law of established plurality and uncertainity.

>>21097
I didnt get the last sentence exactly , but i guess i may agree with you in overall..

>>21099
Marx's dialectic is in seeing the contradiction between modes of production and exchange, otherwise known as the base and superstructure. The tension between these two is known as alienation - such as in the case of the proletariat, where the proletariat is alienated twofold - in the base and superstructure. He is first alienated in his Being, where he is made to be a worker for survival and secondly in exchange, where his labour is not given in full representation but is mediated by cash - the value of his labour in an alienated format.
Marx wants to close the gap between the base and superstructure by representing the value of labour in its concreteness until money has been abolished and man simply takes what he needs from the mass of products made from labour. In communism too, man is no longer a worker, but fully human, he has achieved his species-being, or man-as-man.
I think in postmodernity this is achieved but in reverse, where the gap between base and superstructure is closed, but in the way that the superstructure becomes the productive base, yet has no abstract representation to alienate itself from, for the production of man in this system is abstraction itself, in cultural industrialisation - this is the play on words, that culture is seen by marx to be secondary to industry, but culture industry synomymises these concepts.
Here, man becomes self-creating because he represents himself and so has escaped the subjection of industrial capitalism and emerges as an artistic self-creation - this is the overturning of the category of the proletariat, which is part of the post-insdustrial movement in the west - to abolish the *form* of the factory floor and to replace it with portable factories in our pockets.
What is "productive" today? Clicks, likes, views.
You can become a millionaire from making youtube videos - material conditions have radically evolved.
Today, there is no proletariat and there is no humanity - so modernity is finished. Universality has been overcome. We exist in the multiverse.

>>21025
>Today, the qualitative virtuality of culture leads in productive capacity, which gives false pretence to the necessity of industrial labour. The truth is that a youtuber and their data are more useful today than any warehouse slave.
What a fucking pseud. Imagine still believing in the "Post-industrial society" in 2023. Without substantial power and telecommunications infrastrucure in Earth and space, "The Wired" would literally be nothing. If you think you can survive without factories or powerplants, then you can turn to the power of your mind to feed and clothe yourself.

>>21100
It's amazing how badly you misunderstood Marx.

>>21102
Then correct me

>>21101
I think you misunderstood, but its ok

>>21103
There is no contradiction between the capitalist mode of production and exchange. It's its very basis. The contradiction you likely misunderstood is between the forces of production, due to its social nature due to the division of labour, and the relations of production, i.e. privation of the means of production through private property.

This has nothing to do with the base and superstructure. That one is just that famous Marx quote, about being determining consciousness, extended to the whole of society. It really just means that a capitalist society will produce capitalist art, capitalist technology, capitalist critiques of capitalism.

I did not read the rest.

>>21056
> the grand narratives of Marxism, with their overarching teleological structures and deterministic visions
>>21056
>the multiplicity of truths in postmodernity challenges the structural determinism inherent in Marxist thought
>>21058
> Marxist theory traditionally relies on a linear understanding of historical progress
>>21094
>deterministic principles inherent in classical Marxist thought


>>21103
>Then correct me

Its basically a liberal caricatures of Marx. Marxism is not deterministic. What it goes on to say is the solution is actually closer to a description of Marxism with random postmodern terms thrown in.

>>21025
>Today we have the multiverse of multimedia involutions, reflected in quantum mechanics and cinematic representation.
Right off the bat OP quantum mechanics has no perceptible effect on our everyday reality. That's the greatest pseud warning sign when someone tries to associate it with some philosophical mumbo jumbo.

>>21105
The contradiction is in the mode of exchange to *adapt* to revolutions in the productive base - which is what politics is for, to progress exchange in line with the burgeoning modes of production already present within the order.
The whole schematic of communism comes from this understanding, that "Socialism" proper is an outgrowth from the socialist mode of production, already present in marx's time. Here, the contradiction between production and exchange reveals itself in the contradiction of capital itself, like the crises of overproduction, which a socialist state could easily mitigate, yet which a market economy is powerless against. Here is the dialectic of darwinian evolution where exchange adapts to its conditioning environment.
Youre right that a capitalist mode of production produces capitalist modes of exchange, including capitalist cultures - but marx's whole horizon is that socialism is already here, it just needs to have its own mode of exchange, which is only possible through revolutionary politics.
The ultimate goal of socialism is to abolish the superstructure; to abolish exchange and for it to be subsumed into the productive base, that sustains itself by necessity. This is the end of history. What ive been saying in all my posts is that we have now entered into this realm, where the base and superstructure are the same thing, and so history has ended by the singularity of its own demise. Thats why we have postmodern theory today which carries the torch to enliven the fullness of our postmodern condition.
>>21106
Marxism IS deterministic. Thats the whole point.

>>21107
Dark matter also has no bearing on our experience, yet it says something about reality.

>>21108
>Marxism IS deterministic. Thats the whole point.
Nope. Thats the second time you have got something flat out wrong and then just repeated it. I was starting to think it was GPTs fault for sourcing from wiki but I think its your fault for giving it bad prompts because you don't understand the text.

>>21110
Explain why im wrong

>>21109
Says what exactly? You can take any random physical phenomenon and try to make some illogical philosophical extrapolation out of it.

>>21113
>explain why im wrong
<no
Ok. Nice talking to you.

>>21112
It leaves an impression in the mind to consider that the universe is being ripped apart faster than the speed of light by stretching into infinite hyperspace

>>21114
Sartre correctly points out that to understand an individual it is necessary to dig deeper than the vulgar Marxist class analysis, to examine specific historical complexities, and to investigate in detail the individual's biography, beginning with his or her family and childhood. There is certainly nothing un-Marxist about going beyond a simplistic two-class view or examining personal psychological motivation; this is obvious in many of Marx's works, exemplified by the very rich historical complexity in his analysis of Napoleon III.14 Some of Sartre's followers have remained more existentialist than Marxist. One, Richard Pozzuto, writes: "Given a scientific interpretation of the world the potential for human liberation is stifled since man has given up responsibility and control of his life to an external force. If we were to follow the argumenthat Marx is a determinist, we would find no political task for human actors." Any institutionalist or Marxist can sympathize with Pozzuto's desire for human freedom and his opposition to treating humans as puppets. It is a false dichotomy, however, to set political freedom against a "scientific interpretation" or "determinist" view of history. As noted earlier, Marx argued that people freely make their own history-it is not predetermined by God, Marx, or economic trends-but they do make historical choices under given conditions.

Scientific Marxist determinism has always emphasized that human beliefs and actions must be included as a dynamic determining factor of social analysis. Certainly, humans are "free" in the sense that they may make any decision they care to make and may act upon it. Humans are "determined" in the sense that their decisions are predictable as a statistical probability for an entire group within the limits of social science knowledge, just as the weather is predictable as a statistical probability within the limits of current human knowledge of natural science (as well as our fact-gathering technology). Human decisions are predictable (within those limits) because they result from human ideas and psychological states. These ideas and states are determined for each individual by his or her experiences from birth to the present (and his or her inherited physiology). Knowing a group's history and environment, social scientists can predict its behavior (within the limits stated above), but that does not make the group or the individual member any less free or their actions any more predetermined by some outside plan. Of course, humans can carry out their decisions only within biological, physical, and political-economic conditions inherited from the past. Humans make their own history, but under given ("determining") conditions, and in predictable ways, although our predictive powers are limited in the ways stated above.

>>21115
Again what does that have to do with amything relevant to politics, economics, or philosophy?

Is Marxism deterministic?
> Bourgeois ideology thus attacks Marxism both for being too deterministic and for not being deterministic enough. In every historical situation there is a tension between necessity and freedom, between what is objectively determined and what we can affect or change, but the balance between necessity and freedom is not fixed or stable. At the dawn of human history and for a long time thereafter the element of necessity was heavily dominant. Human behaviour was massively dominated by forces beyond our control, by the interaction between external nature and our own physical constitution. Yet also present from the beginning – indeed it is what marks the beginning – is the embryo of human freedom, namely conscious social labour. The whole of history is the struggle to expand human freedom through the development of the power of human labour. The socialist revolution is this resolution of this contradiction. With each step taken towards the international abolition of classes and the unification of humanity, human beings take increasing control of their own destiny. As material scarcity is progressively overcome, so the ‘tyranny of economics’ is ended. What was hitherto the ‘ultimately determining factor’ in history, namely the production of the necessities of human life, while not disappearing, will play an ever decreasing role in shaping human behaviour.
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/molyneux/1995/xx/determin.htm

Determinism and Indeterminism (Necessity and Free Will)
>Social determinism, i.e., the doctrine that all social phenomena are conditioned, have causes from which they necessarily flow, must not be confused with fatalism, which is a belief in a blind, inevitable destiny, a "fate", weighing down upon everything, and to which everything is subjected. Man's will is nothing. Man is not a quantity to be considered among causes; he is simply a passive substance. This teaching denies the human will as a factor in evolution, which determinism does not.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/2.htm

Marxism and the New Physics
>Marxism, not being a theory of physical materialism and not bound to Newtonian determinism, is not affected by the new physics and microphysics. To be sure, Marx had no way of rejecting and no desire to reject the physics of the nineteenth century. What distinguished his historical materialism from middle class materialism was his rejection of the latter’s direct confrontation of individual man and external reality and its inability to see society and social labour as an indivisible aspect of the whole of reality. What united Marxism with middle class materialism was the conviction that there is an external world independent of men and that science contributes to the knowledge of this objective reality.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1960/new-physics.htm

The Myth of Marx’s Economic Determinism
https://www.marxists.org/subject/marxmyths/peter-stillman/article.htm

No, Marxism Isn’t Economic Determinism
https://jacobin.com/2021/10/axel-honneth-marxism-economic-determinism-recognition-moral-psychology-critical-theory/

>>21116
Sartre was an idealist who famously had a sperg out against freud because the idea of an unconscious was disturbing to him, who rightly saw it as a limiting factor of human agency - that what is freely chosen in the unconscious is not what we willingly choose for ourselves - our instincts precede our reason and so we are only determined by these chaotic forces. This is nothing new of course, the gods have always sealed the fate of men.
Political "freedom" begins as a baseless abstraction. What is freedom? Free choice? The point of socialism is to live by the fruits of labour, which with technology give us the delights of their occult potentials. Like ive said, we talk on the phone using satellites. We live in miraculous times, yet "freedom" is something i dont consider. I dont know what it means.
>marx says men make their own history
The passage is explicitly saying that the history men make for themselves is held in repetition, because man is a circular animal in his ambitions - this is why revolution comes from technological advancement which evolves humanity into the horizon of fuller opportunities, but these themselves are only mediated by these same machines. We are free to do what the internet allows us to do like we are free to consume what we are allowed to produce.
Proudhon and the anarchists idolise an "essential" human "freedom" - but marx departs from this.

>>21108
I don't know where this mode of exchange thing comes from, but not from Marx, that's for sure. Socialism *is* the socialist mode of production, not some "outgrowth". Again, the contradiction is not between production and exchange, but the forces of production and the relations of production. The forces of production are already "socialistic", they are communal in the sense that to produce a single good, you need the input of many-many people. The contradiction is that despite this, the relations of production are still private, the means of production are owned privately, private property exists and the proletariat are exploited. To resolve the contradiction, the relation of production has to be made collective, which is what the revolution is supposed to achieve, by abolishing private property. The abolition of private property is the ultimate goal of socialism/communism.

The superstructure cannot be abolished because it is a pretty arbitrary analytical distinction that was invented purely to shut up idealists from trying to reform capitalism through conscious consumption and shit like that.

>>21025
pseud post

Marxism belongs in the 19th century the way a fish belongs in a tank or dinosaur bones in museum

>>21120
We basically totally agree but we just use different language
>>21122
Marxism is already stuck in the 19th century. Thats why marxists want to enter us *back* into history to achieve its lost future. Same way nazis are also stuck in ww2, because they dont realise that the "nazis" in any historically relevant terms went on to work for USA and helped develop the contemporary military industrial complex.
Like how communism by any standards would just reproduce postmodernity since postmodernity has escaped history, thus ending the historical contradiction - but in reverse, like i say, where in postmodernity we experience the autoproduction of our alienation (abstract mediation) rather than smashing everything down to "material" circumstances.
This is because science and technology has revealed what "matter" really is, and it isnt "material" in any schematic sense. Thats why i have said earlier that "use value" is becoming a disappearing concept, since the flesh of objects are becoming digital and thus intangible. This is the unrealisation of contemporary political economy.
>>21117
Its about the transcendental horizon of discovery and its impacts. The nazis hated einstein because he defeated newtonian mechanics and absolutism - but this itself is only possible within the horizon of the changing tides of matter itself, experiencing its self-consciousness through the human. Interestingly enough, einstein also held ideological views about the universe, concluding that there was no big bang. To do this he came up with the cosmological constant or dark energy - this he later denied in lieu of evidence for the big bang, however, it turned out he was right. Einstein too denied the "spooky" effects of quantum mechanics which have now become the staple of research today, producing effects in culture like consciousness of the multiverse, which is being massively explored in cinema - thus representing how culture operates by this revelation of concepts. We can then give poetic device to this and see how in postmodernity the multiverse concept coincides with the increasing plurality in society.
Lysenko might say this is just capitalism's old tricks, of metaphysicalising its own economic properties, like some said about darwin - that he was a malthusian, a whig and so on. Marx ofc too said that darwin went round the world to discover victorian england, with its conditions of mere life and market dominations, like smith's invisible hand.
Its possible ideas are historically contingent.
I do believe that darwinism is being revised all the time - not to disprove its basic princippes, but its qualitative conclusions. Donna Harraway for example forwards theories of "bio-semiotics" to account for the modalities of communication in nature. Nature is not just brutal market mechanics, from *within* nature, but from an artificial gaze it probably is.
Fascinatingly enough, darwin himself thought it was possible that plants were intelligent beings, so science can often work itself back round that way.

>>21123
While some of the specifics Marx wrote about seem outdated now, the core conceit of marxism, of bourgeois and proletariat, has not changed. We still live in a class struggle.

>>21124
The proletariat and bourgeoisie are being erased every day, unless you are a revisionist and think every service worker receiving a wage is the same as what marx was talking about
The bourgeoisie are being erased by the proliferation of publicly-owned companies which produce the postcapitalist conditions of the "managerial revolution" like what james burnham talks about.
Thats why reactionaries love "small business owners" and hate "woke capital" because corporations are overriding the political syndication of the middle class. Some would rightly argue that this just creates deeper stratification with the ultra rich and very poor, and i agree - but this is not "class struggle" in the old sense.

>>21125
>unless you are a revisionist and think every service worker receiving a wage is the same as what marx was talking about

how the fuck is that 'revisionist', there were non manufacturing workers in marx's day too

>Some would rightly argue that this just creates deeper stratification with the ultra rich and very poor, and i agree - but this is not "class struggle" in the old sense.

How is it not??? There were also 'publicly owned' (a euphemism of course for 'owned by wealthy people and investment funds') companies in Marx's day too. 'Managerialism' is just another word for capitalism, there were plenty of factory owners in 1800 that weren't involved with managing their own businesses

>>21126
Yes theres always been a wide variety of jobs in capitalist society, but marxism has always been specific to analysing the industrial working class, like in england during the 19th century. Today these sorts of premilennial speculations about everyone being shafted into this domain is antiquated, since markets have evolved and technology has appropriated much of the role of this designation. Thats why revisions such as any number of neo-marxisms take its place, since it remains relevant.
Going into a supermarket and railing about "proletarians" to checkout workers like lenin on a soapbox is already a parodic thought. Labour has shifted its concerns.
>Managerialism' is just another word for capitalism
Its a different type of capitalism which creates different sorts of workers. Ofc today we have the scourge of the PMC and so on. The white collar office worker fulfils a different mode of production to the warehouse picker and packer. It all serves profit, but not to individual capitalists, but a growing managerial elite.

>>21127
>Thats why revisions such as any number of neo-marxisms take its place, since it remains relevant
Revisionism is based actually, orthodoxy is unscientific, ACCELERATE REVISIONISM.

>>21128
True