/gulag/ - Meta

Meta Board. Where you belong

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 80.00 MB

Max files: 5

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


If you have questions or need answers you can contact the leftypol staff through matrix @ https://app.element.io/#/room/!RQxdjfGouwsFHwUzwL:matrix.org

Comrade 04/09/2020 (Thu) 12:02:07 No. 4630
Can you explain what is "willfully bad" or whatever about my reading of OTJQ? Any reasonable reading of that text will is that it is MORE antisemitic than what I argue for in /edu/511 This is the second time I have been banned for being disparaging towards Jews. The first time was for saying the hosts of Chapo had "whiny jew voices". After that time I made a /gulag/ thread in which I may have said that I am not an antisemite, and at that time I didn't consider myself one. I have been taking Marx's work on this subject more seriously lately though and I would admit that this does make me an antisemite. I still don't think I am nearly as antisemitic as Marx was though, and Marx wasn't nearly as antisemitic as Proudhon or Bakunin. What rule did I violate exactly? I didn't go so far as to claim that the Jews have a worldly "essence". Why is this such a sensitive topic for the mods here? Are people banned for using slurs against black or attacking Christianity? What is so special about the Jews that they are beyond criticism?
>>4630 Calling people slurs is not the problem. Claiming a "race" of people are less cultured or compare them to animals or some other reactionary shit is bannable, because it is reactionary. You were not banned for calling jews kikes (which I don't think you did). You were banned because you are engaging in antisemitism. That shit is idpol. I am skeptical of the edition you are attaching at least because the title is quite sketchy and not at all a good translation of "Zur Judenfrage" which quite literally translates to "On The Jewish Question". If you search for the book title on google you get white supremacist websites hosting it. And reading some reviews by people on the book also confirm this to be a racist edition, geared towards a misunderstanding of Marx, the historic and academic context the original work was written in. It is also a bad reading because as much as I understand, Marx was being an edgy retard about his anti-semitism but laid out that the jewish religion in that moment was primarily a result of the socioeconomic context (base -> superstructure). That religion as such no longer exists because it is historically contingent, as all things are. So your idpol arguments are moot. Let me be clear that even if Marx was actually an anti-semite, this board is anti-idpol, it would not permit the discussion in support of idpol positions, even if Marx espoused it. And finally, pro-antisemitism is a topic that, surprise surprise, attracts the most reactionary elements that inhabit or visit the board. We don't want that shit, even worse when it's hidden in leftist rhetoric, such as the book you attach (according to quick research I made).
>>4636 This, just because Marx said it doesn't make it right.
>>4636 >Claiming a "race" of people are less cultured or compare them to animals or some other reactionary shit is bannable, because it is reactionary. I denied that they are a race also. >You were banned because you are engaging in antisemitism. That shit is idpol. Yes. My question is what rule does this violate? I have been on /leftypol/ since 2016 and this "no idpol" is made up and lacks precedent. >That religion as such no longer exists because it is historically contingent, as all things are. Okay that's just a bad reading of Marx's work on the base and superstructure. > And finally, pro-antisemitism is a topic that, surprise surprise, attracts the most reactionary elements that inhabit or visit the board. We don't want that shit, even worse when it's hidden in leftist rhetoric, such as the book you attach (according to quick research I made). And yet, if you actually look at the thread no one is advocating reaction accept the anti-fascist responder.
>>4642 All rules are made up. And what's your problem with anti-fascism? I can't bring myself to give a damn about whatever you're trying to say (on /edu) but this is of course immediately suspect.
>>4642 Perhaps I wasn't clear. The jewish religion/people/culture that Marx spoke about does not exist anymore. It is historically contingent, you don't need Marx for that. Marx, as I understand, was saying that the jews he was talking about exist culturally because of their specific socioeconomic position, not because they are culturally jews. You broke the 'no idpol' rule, and also 'no crypto reactionary-ism'. Perhaps you aren't a cryptofash or your post was not meant as that, but you're opening up the floor for other reactionary retards to agree with you.
>>4645 What reactionary retards though? The only poster in that thread who said anything reactionary is the one who reported me... >muh antiwhites >Perhaps I wasn't clear. The jewish religion/people/culture that Marx spoke about does not exist anymore. It is historically contingent, you don't need Marx for that. Marx, as I understand, was saying that the jews he was talking about exist culturally because of their specific socioeconomic position, not because they are culturally jews. See this is an interesting conversation to have. I think your interpretation is interesting, and I would like to see some nuanced discussions like this. When you shut down threads for fear that reactionaries are going to agree with me (even though there is no evidence of this happening) then we can't have that discussion. >You broke the 'no idpol' rule, and also 'no crypto reactionary-ism'. There is a no-idpol rule? Why? The whole point of being anti-idpol I thought was to avoid censorship and group think... at least that is what is about when I started posting on /leftypol/ in 2016 >And what's your problem with anti-fascism? I can't bring myself to give a damn about whatever you're trying to say (on /edu) but this is of course immediately suspect. https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/bordiga02.htm https://libcom.org/library/5-fascism-anti-fascism https://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/bordiga/auschwitz.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1996/auschwitz-reply.htm
... it low key seems like the mods haven't actually read the rules. Am I missing something? It pretty explicitly says that idpol IS not a ban-worthy offense <Reaction and liberalism, or any other kind of non-leftist positions are not banned per se, It also seems to me that the user who I have been arguing with actually IS breaking some rules. Look at this section... >(1) argue under false pretences ("false flagging") >(2) imply reactionary positions of the userbase as a form of group shaming >(3) are of an overly derisive and mocking nature I don't really care, but their entire "rebuttal" of my post is just autistic screeching about how I am a nazi >(4) are of a gratuitously offensive or hysterical nature I think that the user who reported me is of a gratuitously hysterical nature. >(5) are debating inherently reactionary topics where no reasonable debate is possible >Reaction and liberalism, or any other kind of non-leftist positions are not banned per se, as we will endeavour to allow and encourage people of other political philosophies to explore leftism through Bunkerchan so long as they follow the rules contained herein. In addition, Bunkerchan is committed to the ideal of left unity, or at least that the left should have an avenue for open discussion, so all leftist ideologies are tolerated and Bunkerchan is not officially wed to any specific ideology. >Reaction and liberalism, or any other kind of non-leftist positions are not banned per se, as we will endeavour to allow and encourage people of other political philosophies to explore leftism through Bunkerchan so long as they follow the rules contained herein. In addition, Bunkerchan is committed to the ideal of left unity, or at least that the left should have an avenue for open discussion, so all leftist ideologies are tolerated and Bunkerchan is not officially wed to any specific ideology.
>>4647 Formatting got fucked up but whatever.
>>4647 >Bunkerchan is committed to the ideal of left unity No, in practice they are committed to groupthink and circlejerk. > "rebuttal" of my post is just autistic screeching about how I am a nazi You nearly got cancelled bruh, soon you'll end up with a permaban. In summary there is no discussion to be had on this website.
>>4649 Fuck off. >>4648 (OP) Don't try to act coy about rules, you know idpol is banned, and you know we try to be as hard as possible against crypto-reactionaries, which is also banned. I don't really care if you've been here since 1998, or if it's your first day. I'll lift your ban, you can keep discussing it on /edu/. You tread thin ice with ANTISEMITISM. This should be blatantly obvious.
>>4652 >Don't try to act coy about rules, you know idpol is banned, and you know we try to be as hard as possible against crypto-reactionaries, which is also banned. I'm not acting coy. When and why did idpol get banned? I have taken a few hiatuses and it seems like a lot has changed since I got back. >I'll lift your ban, you can keep discussing it on /edu/. Thank you! >You tread thin ice with ANTISEMITISM. This should be blatantly obvious. Okay, I will try to tone it down. I'm not going to pretend like I understand what the rational for this is though.
>>4653 It got contained because there were TERFs and redditors shitting up everywhere and derailing threads. Then incels took over the idpol thread and it was 24/7 incel reactionary shit. The thread has since been deleted but we have not loosened up the idpol rules. We've tried on different occasions to loosen the rule, make exceptions, but reactionaries tend to derail threads pretty quickly.
>>4654 Gotcha. Well thank you for your efforts in keeping out the redditors and incels. I fully support a zero tolerance policy towards them.
>>4654 >TERFs Is this deliberate revisionism?
>>4656 Yeah I thought everyone who posted on /leftypol/ was a transgender TERF.
>>4656 >>4657 You made a wrong turn somwhere.
>>4658 Ah we're laying out the welcome carpets for heartbroken Bernie liberals Gotcha guvna Nothing to see here move along eh Feel free to delete my questioning post
>>4647 >their entire "rebuttal" of my post is just autistic screeching about how I am a nazi Fuck you. In that thread you said I was engaging with tour argument despite my insults. Now you come here and mischaracterise it on purpose. You're here in bad faith. You're a reactionary who used Google to find some "relevant" articles and jargon, and now you're here to troll /leftypol/. You mentioning WTO in 1999 and how you "personally know well-known communists" is an attempt to ingratiate yourself to the users so they would take your reactionary garbage seriously. Mods can see my post history, and they can see how "anti-mod" I am. But in this case you should be banned and then subsequently banned on sight when you rear your ugly head on this board. You admitted you're a fucking anti-semite. But it's OK, cause you're a "left anti-semite". And people here are fucking eating this stuff up. Unbelievable.
>>4664 Well yeah you where engaging with the arguments to a degree and thanks for that. I should not have used the word "just" like that, but I was a bit frustrated that you got me banned. I didn't bring up shit about my personal history to get people to take me seriously... I brought it up because you are continuously calling me a nazi and a liberal and saying things like "you can't just waltz in here and expect to be taken seriously" The point of bringing that up is to point out that I have been here longer than you have and your attitude that anyone who disagrees with you about something must be a secret nazi infiltrator is fucking paranoid. >You admitted you're a fucking anti-semite. But it's OK, cause you're a "left anti-semite". And people here are fucking eating this stuff up. Unbelievable. Yes, I am an antisemite! I didn't call it left antisemitism, I called it cultural antisemitism. May on the right are also culturally antisemitic, but the problem with them is that they generally wed cultural antisemitism with racial antisemitism and personal antisemitism (a type that I didn't mention but that is kinda important). The point is that antisemitism is not and never has been against the rules of this board. Apparently there was some sort of reddit raid where they had to crack down on idpol but I can't find anything in the manifesto about this so idk.
>>4674 Is this kvetching really neccesary comrade?
>>4675 I suppose not, but I am having a hard time toning it down with >>4664 constantly responding to me in every thread I post in with insults and charges that I am a nazi.
Like it was fine when it was just the anti-semitism thread but now he's trying to derail the consciousness thread with braindead defenses of vulgar materialism.
>>4676 >every thread yeah, because I found you out. Your fascist ideology is obvious. Anti-semite, Schopenhauer, "will"... Go jack off to Triumph of the Will. You'd get the wall for the shit you say, regardless of "what you really are".
>>4678 Do you think Schopenhauer was a fascist? Perhaps you are confusing him with Nietzsche or Heidegger?
... the philosophy that I'm really here to shill is that of Phillip Mainlaander, who was a communist. Everything I have been posting is straight out of Lenin, Marx, Bordiga, Schopenhauer, Stirner and Mainlander and none of these people where any sort of fascist. https://www.docdroid.net/Bj0oMLa/mainlander-philosophy-of-redemption-pdf
(1.98 MB [email protected])
>>4679 >>4680 I never said Schopenhauer is a fascist or a Nazi, because he predates both of those things. I said this philosophy you're advocating is a path to Nazism, or an inspiration for it, doesn't matter how you say it. Here's an academic, peer-reviewed paper that goes into it (attached). THE NAZIS AND THE GERMAN METAPHYSICAL TRADITION OF VOLUNTARISM Author(s): STEPHEN STREHLE
...so your goal here is obvious. You didn't come here to change your mind or "debate". You came here to spread Nazi philosophy in hopes of creating a pipeline to fascism. Not today.
>>4699 Did you even read that? This is all that paper has to say about the relationship between Schopenhauer and the Nazis. Nothing about it being a direct inspiration or leading to it. On the contrary, it notes that the Nazis fundamentally disagreed with Schopenhauer's conception of will. But that's it, not a single citation about the Nazis even being aware of Schopenhauer's existence. Using this to portray Schopenhauer as a proto-Nazi is not only dishonest, but ridiculous. Unlike OP, Schopenhauer wasn't even an antisemite.
>>4701 >it notes that the Nazis fundamentally disagreed with Schopenhauer's conception of will. That's not what your screenshot says. >turned the will-to-live into an imperative that is not a "fundamental" disagreement, you dishonest Nazi. How are you still posting? Ban evasion?
(48.05 KB 533x594 wut.jpg)
>>4700 You heard it here first folks, if you read GERMAN PHILOSOPHY like SCHOPENHAUER or HEIDEGGER you might be in a PIPELINE to FASCISM!
>>4699 The thing is anon: German Idealism was the inspiration for Marxism as well as Nazism. The implication of what you are arguing is literally horseshoe theory. Also, >>4701 is not me. I find this kinda funny because you gave me shit for thinking an incelposter in the other gulag thread is a nazi. In regards to how I am still posting, I got unbanned as a result of making this thread, because I have arguments, and you have none. I am banned again rn for thread derailment through blogposting but that one is kinda fair since I was derailing a good thread.
>>4707 >is a nazi lol, meant to say <is you
(117.00 KB 1200x1200 1561420138516.jpg)
>
>>4707 >German Idealism was the inspiration for Marxism as well as Nazism. See? This is why I respond so angrily towards you. You either make these obviously false statements on purpose and then draw conclusions from them dishonestly, or you really do genuinely think it and then you draw conclusions from it ignorantly. >Also, >>4701 is not me. I find this kinda funny because you gave me shit for thinking an incelposter in the other gulag thread is a nazi. Yeah, fuck. Honestly, I'm gonna stop arguing with you because clearly I'm letting anger and emotions cloud my thinking, which means I'll just make mistakes and say things I may not actually mean. Marxists, as a (philosophical) goal, wish to find an explanation for "movement of the dialectic" that doesn't rely on Hegel's Spirit, or on History, or even on "internal contradictions of all things that after resolved result in something better". Engels doesn't even mention Hegel's second negation in Anti-Duhring, but you can call Engels an idealist because he tried to explain science and nature and literally everything through Marx's dialectic, but Marxism doesn't end with Engels. There are still problems in Marxism, issues to be resolved: do contradictions continue forever, can the dialectic be considered a progressive force? The latter question is where idealism can creep in, because "progress" only makes sense if there is an ideal towards which to strive, rather than revolutionary changes and dialectical syntheses resulting in a society that isn't better or worse, but simply free of the contradictions that resulted in revolution in the first place. Most Marxists are aware of this, and in fact, most Marxists wish to supplant Hegel's idealism and they engage with it critically, Nazis do not wish to supplant idealism, but continue it. Nazis are fond of talking about "ideal states" and "Natural" things. Your "Will" suggests reason and thinking, therefore the "Will" that put everything in motion from the Big Bang started it all with a purpose; and what that purpose may be is up to interpretation, i.e. hand-waving and mumbo-jumbo. So as you can see, there's work to be done, work that is only gonna take longer if we have to struggle to defeat concepts such as "Will". In the other thread you said that "Will" has a mechanism, yet you did not expand on that mechanism, or suggested in which medium that mechanism works.
>>4711 *Marxists, as one of their (philosophical) goals
>>4711 >See? This is why I respond so angrily towards you. You either make these obviously false statements on purpose and then draw conclusions from them dishonestly, or you really do genuinely think it and then you draw conclusions from it ignorantly. That's the point I'm making you idiot. It's an obviously false statement because either one is ridiculous. You wouldn't reduce Marxism to it's philosophical foundations, and you shouldn't do the same for Nazism either. Fundamentally, they both represent CLASS INTERESTS. In the case of Nazism that is the interests of displaced elements of the petite-bourgeoisie in collaboration with the big bourgeoisie, in the case of Marxism that is the industrial proletariat in alliance with the peasantry. Both political movements have philosophical roots in German idealism. Hitler was influenced by Wagner and Nietzsche, Marx was influenced by Hegel. >Yeah, fuck. Honestly, I'm gonna stop arguing with you because clearly I'm letting anger and emotions cloud my thinking, which means I'll just make mistakes and say things I may not actually mean. Clearly. > Marxists, as a (philosophical) goal, wish to find an explanation for "movement of the dialectic" that doesn't rely on Hegel's Spirit, or on History, or even on "internal contradictions of all things that after resolved result in something better". I don't think that is a fair characterization of Marxism, although that is how the word is used in academic circles. To me, Marxism is is the attempt to ground revolutionary socialism in a scientific basis. This doesn't necessitate a particular metaphysical outlook, because metaphysics is inconsequential to science. >Engels doesn't even mention Hegel's second negation in Anti-Duhring, but you can call Engels an idealist because he tried to explain science and nature and literally everything through Marx's dialectic, but Marxism doesn't end with Engels. I am doing an in depth study of Anti-Duhring at the moment. It seems to conform much more to Hegel's conception of dialectics then it does to Mao or Trotsky's or even Bordiga's (as much as it pains me to say that). I haven't read Stalin's pamphlet on dialectics yet so maybe that one is the way. As best I can tell, what all of these thinkers mean when they talk about materialism really has nothing to do with metaphysical materialism (except in the case of Trotsky but his argument is full of non-sequitors) rather they are making a case for contexualism and particularity, which is perfectly compatible with idealism. If you want to point me to any texts from Marx or Engels or whoever that you think might give me pause that would be appreciated. >you can call Engels an idealist because he tried to explain science and nature and literally everything through Marx's dialectic Well sure, and if your conception of materialism is as vulgar as what you find in say, Trotsky, then yeah Engels was absolutely an Idealist. I wouldn't describe him as such though. I think he was a materialist in the tradition of Heraclitus. >do contradictions continue forever, can the dialectic be considered a progressive force? What? The answers to this should be clear. Insofar as "contradiction" is an appropriate term for what you are describing, then the answer is yes. They are fundamental. Do you mean a particular contradiction persisting indefinitely? Then no, by definition, no. In the case of the "dialectic being a progressive force" again I have squabbles with the semantics here but I will try and look past that to answer the question. No, not universally in every particular case. There are developments that are regressive (described abstractly in the Phenomenology of Spirit) and there are developments that are progressive (described abstractly in the Science of Logic)... it is in the interplay between them that a certain teleology is present, and this can only be actualized through volition. Another way to answer this is just to look to the natural sciences. There is no stopping entropy, so yes, there is a certain direction to aggregate developments in the world. Whether you want to assign a positive or negative value to that probably says more about your social values than anything else... I would call it progressive or good without hesitation, but that is because I have a pretty pessimistic outlook on life in general and I see decay as positive. >Nazis do not wish to supplant idealism, but continue it I disagree entirely. Nazism cannot be reduced to a metaphysical outlook! What you are doing here is literally idealism in the sense of what Engels and Marx where criticizing. Nazism represents a class interest, not a metaphysical outlook. Insofar as Nazism relates to German Idealism, it is not a continuation of anything in Schopenhauer, but rather an adoption of some of the stylistic conventions without accepting the necessary logical antecedents to those conventions. They want to take will to life without understanding why that is BAD, and should be rejected in favor of contemplation. >So as you can see, there's work to be done, work that is only gonna take longer if we have to struggle to defeat concepts such as "Will". In the other thread you said that "Will" has a mechanism, yet you did not expand on that mechanism, or suggested in which medium that mechanism works. You're right I didn't expand on it, because it is fundamental and self-evident. It is discovered through contemplation, and meditation. Once you strip away everything in experience that is contingent on externalize, all you are left with is will. This can be demonstrated logically, and I did make an attempt to do that but I can explain it again if you're interested. Perhaps not in gulag though... go bump the consciousness thread on /edu/ if you're interested. Message to mods: Apologies for filling /gulag/ with arguments about metaphysics I know this is off topic, but I would really like to reconcile this feud because I don't like this animosity between myself and someone who should be my comrade
>>4720 >>4711 Sorry for calling you an idiot that was rude. I could have made that point more clearly and I can see why you misunderstood what I was saying.
>>4720 I don't want to fight with you either. Just the things you said made you seem like you're advocating (inadvertently) for a destructive ideology. I don't have the time to respond to your post right now, although I do have things to say. I just wanted to let you know that I don't have any animosity towards you as a person, although I did insult you. I insulted you only as a way to make you see that the things you're saying can be used to justify a fascist ideology. I don't actually think you're a swastika-wearing, goose-stepping Nazi. So, I will be back in this thread.
>>4706 Heidegger was an actual card-carrying Nazi, and a personal anti-semite (above and beyond the requirements of Nazi 'public' performative ideology) tho
>>4749 No shit. This is the first thing you tend to learn about Heidegger. The point is that studying Heidegger is not going to put you into a pipeline to fascism, and thinking along those lines is liberal idealism. You can say the same about Mien Kampf. It should be required reading for communists imo. Fascism represents a CLASS INTEREST, not merely a set of beliefs.

Delete
Report

no cookies?
__divBanCaptcha_location__