@LandsharkRides is completely wrong about Marxism.
I recently got access to Landshark’s account. Since he apparently is some hero of the right wing. I collected every critique of Marxism he has ever pronounced to demonstrate how wrong it is - 🧵
I started with the critiques with easier content and more normie-consciousness so I could answer them on a ground which would also answer usual misconceptions. Since Landshark is the big Ray Peat guy, let’s make something clear here: We are on the high ground.
Ray Peat is our guy. He wasn’t merely “inspired” by Soviet medicine. He thought the very METHODOLOGY (with all its political implications) they used to arrive at their conclusions was the peak of human thought. He thought Marxist philosophy of science was genius.
He thought Soviet political and economic organization was a revolution in humanity’s development. For a lazy Marxist, this is enough to shatter all of Landshark’s rhetoric about Marxism to zero, as his own foundation refutes him. But I am no lazy Marxist.
I honestly see this as a compliment to Marxism as a science rather than a critique. One word: Lenin. The goal of the Communist is philosopher-kingship. Many fail. But some win.
And when you win, it is beautiful (USSR, China, etc). Only a few chosen can traverse the mountain of theory, practically apply their insights and attain the golden Marxist center; those who accomplish it are bound to change eras for millennia to come. Is it worth chasing?
One would rather fail in the pursuit of greatness than not attempt anything and read Evola instead.
Marxist analysis is anything but “simplistic”. In fact, authentic Marxist analysis is probably the most sophisticated form of analysis you can apply to modern society. Why?
What Marxism seeks is the philosopher’s stone, the sublimation of all ideals into practical, moving, sensuous reality.
Marxists scoff at those who masturbate themselves with their ideals (which is most of the right-wing), they want to show how every ideal arises out of given material conditions and thus unite the realm of subjectivity and objectivity.
Marxism’s object of study is the whole of History itself, its plane of action is the whole of humanity and its vision is absolute. Let’s take an example.
A right-wing philistine would look at modern culture and say; “This is the degeneration of the eternal ideal Order that I have constructed in my mind which is modelled off Ancient Greece. It’s so over.” No plan of action. No explanation for its necessity. No historical grounding.
In short, no analysis. Just feelings. Basically anarchism.
The plan is to scream very loud. A Marxist would look at modern culture and say; this specific and historical form of art is a centuries development of bourgeois post-Reformation subjectivity in which the primacy of abstract natural right is asserted so as to make commodity…
…exchange possible. Now that the commodity is breaking down at the outset of rational social organization, this specific form and manifestation of culture has become alienating with regard to its audiences. The CONDITION for the production of meaning has broken down.
To restore meaningful culture, society must answer to its social premises once again, social premises which are definite and grounded in material realities.
Thus, Marxist analysis pushes the theorist to real and concrete ACTION since he fully understands his object of study. Now, a fat ret*rd right-winger might say that this form of analysis is “boring” since it deeply traumatizes his masturbatory tendencies
and makes the object of study grounded in a real historical and social premise. But this is nothing but the awakening of the power of humanity with regards to its totalizing potential. Yes, humanity will totally master History as its object.
If you oppose yourself to this and wish to stay in your fantasy LARP bubble, then do it. Just don’t dare speak of those who actually have the courage to destroy everything that makes them “feel good” about reality, to make everything sacred melt into air.
Since the Marxist believes that what is sacred will MANIFEST itself AFTER the destruction of everything, a destruction which nonetheless has real and not abstract premises. Or else, it wasn’t sacred in the first place.
Generated by Thread Navigator
Press ⌘ + S to quick-export