>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.
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