Apologies for the delay, I've been busy. Since you're both a Maoist and a supporter of dialectics, what would you say the best sources are for criticism of the bourgeois intelligentsia and bourgeois philosophy in general? Thanks!
Hey, in my time lurking here I've really enjoyed your posts. Seeing as I'm still learning, do you mind if I ask you a question (that actually has several questions embedded in it)?
hey dude, you're cool but you gotta drop that shitty hegel, don't you know hegelianism is a mental disorder. I recommend you read tony cliff for more info
But there are many variants of "dialectical materialism" too, and not all of them are intrinsically compatible with Marxism.
I also fail to see how Freud is so linked with either modern science or modern mass movements. Most serious professional scientists do not consider Freudianism to be a form of genuine science, and Freudianism is similar to Buddhism in the sense that it is essentially an inward-looking individualistic tradition (the difference being that Buddhism is excessively asexual while Freud is excessively sexual - making sexual development the central element in the human developmental sense, which frankly is quite pseudo-scientific) rather than an external social tradition like Marxist politics. Marxism is a type of politics, Freudianism is not, the 2 are not the same kind of thing at all.
It doesn't matter whether or not Freud is a "dialectician", it still doesn't make him right. "Dialectics" isn't some kind of magic. Throughout human history there have been at least hundreds of "dialectical philosophers" from various cultures (India, China, Greece etc), are we really to think that all of them share some kind of "special philosophical kinship" with Marxism and historical materialism? To worship "dialectics" like a Idol is frankly reactionary.
looooool wtf, why would that happen. we have highly advanced technology, loads of factories machines etc.. with the correct economic organisation, people could all have a good standard of living and only do a small amount of work
really, it seems like ideologically youre just stuck within capitalism and find it impossible to comprehend any other mode of social organisation
I comprehend fine. Some of the people on this site define what they want as being totally without leadership of any kind. If that's really what they think then I see problems with it. But if they can admit that someone out of the collective needs to have some position, you don't have to call it leadership, you could call it project cordinator if you like. Then yeah I could see that working.
Today people are very deluded with bourgeois elections and bourgeois "demo"cracy.
There are many Maoist organizations but no party. The Hoxhaists think they're "more revolutionary" because they have a party, but they like bourgeois politics and forget the revolutionary struggle. Their most beloved leader, Manoel Lisboa, was a Maoist when he was alive, but they deny it.
The situation here is: lots of rightist parties, lots of leftist parties (moderates) and lots of so-called communist parties with no revolutionary actions. Even together (what didn't happen yet) the "parliamentary communists" have no chance to win.
I'm not so close to the Maoists here since I'm not a real member yet, but I have strong contact with some of its members. What I can say about the party question is that the people I speak with think its better to re-found the former and revolutionary Brazilian Communist Party (PCB) instead of creating another party, further fragmenting the left.
Group Memberships
COMMUNISM !
