Given that the rhetoric of the Left is so focused on being against the predominance of white European men in the building of our worldviews and paradigms, how the hell is all of progressivism built on>Marx>Hegel>Schopenhauer>Sartre>FoucaultHow does this make any sense?.
>>23559145I have read a considerable amount of material on various notions like how rebellions justify their own alienation, the value of placing ethics over all other considerations, and the list goes on really. At the end of the day I sort of reconcile these various things in an analogy, they are sort of like the size argument with females, and this applies equally to the right wing and it's intense hatred for capitalism despite loving the word. It doesn't actually matter what the female tells you, all of it is a lie to either stroke your ego or an attempt to subvert your ego. To the average participant of either ideology whoever is telling them something is actually important to them for reasons they may neither be able to articulate, nor may want to articulate, but make no mistake in what I am saying: females always lie on the size topic, it is up to you as an individual to determine whether this lie is stroking your ego or an attempt to subvert your ego.
>>23559145>Given that the rhetoric of the Left is so focused on being against the predominance of white European men in the building of our worldviews and paradigms{{cn}}>how the hell is all of progressivism…probably because progressivism isn't leftism, but a form of bourgeois liberalism?>How does this make any sense?.>?.You've not read.Leftist rhetoric is fixated on the social relations of production in capital, and the relations of extraction of social surplus in all societies. The left is fixated on the social-material relations between people, as foundational of "worldviews and paradigms" or "ideology." Ideology is rooted in the modes of accumulation, subsistence, extraction, and consumption for the leftist. For the leftist, the predominance of white European men is related to the predominance of European forms of social extraction: capital, wage-labour (including modern slavery), patriarchy as the household reproducing labour power. For the leftist, white European men ideologues are important because white European patriarchal extractive social economics dominated the shit out of the world. Leftists are deeply interested in white European men ideologues, not because of their ideology, but because their ideology is indicative of the underlying social-material relations which they wish to abolish. For the Leftist, changing the way people relate to each other in culture requires changes in the way people relate to each other in the material bases of their lives.Progressivism is, on the other hand, an idealist liberalism. Progressives believe that if we change what we say and think, we change what we do.It doesn't make sense to you because you're conflating two different social and intellectual traditions. Watch the second half of chomsky/Foucault where Foucault says that he would support the working class regardless of their evils: because Foucault supports actualising the immanency of solidarity replacing capitalist material-social relations. Foucault doesn't give a flying fuck about morality: Foucault can see that the working class have an actualisable capacity to literally shoot the rich including their children, and that actualising that capacity is a necessity like drawing ones' sword in the moment of drawing ones' sword.For more information read Andy Anderson's _The Enemy is Middle Class,_ as this is a recent (40 years) work by a proletarian author about how progressives are the enemy—the primary enemy—of the left.
>>23559145Yeah no shit most books come from Europe. Nobody cares
There actually used to be a point in time where leftist ideologies were still budding and hadn't actually been proven to be entirely destructive, and neutral-minded individuals pondered on its potential to improve society as a whole. Fast forward about 80 years and we get the absolutely most disgusting leftist leniency towards anything related to social structures in modern society we've ever been a witness of, and they don't even see a problem with it.
>>23559334I see some leftists have started to stop referring to themselves as progressives. I guess you guys will do anything to stay as this pure substance that has absolutely no relation to the enlightenment and liberalism or the burgeois class (even though most of you guys hail from it).Class theory is older than Marx. It has its roots in liberalism and the works of Augustin Thierry. Marx admits to this himself. Also, this is just a really convoluted way to say what OP akready said.
>>23559334>Foucault can see that the working class have an actualisable capacity to literally shoot the rich including their children, and that actualising that capacity is a necessity like drawing ones' sword in the moment of drawing ones' sword.Why is that a necessity? It doesn't make any sense.
>>23559340A lot of people do evidently care.
It's the same bourgeois who created the USA based on classical liberalism, and the USSR based on socialism.This makes the bourgeois control he 2 biggest countries on earth and the 2 religions left for the commoners to venerate.
>>23559354>burgeois>Also, this is just a really convoluted way to say what OP akready said.Generously I'll say, you're drunk cunt, go home already. Ungenerously your attempts at adhominems are facetious, the idea of the purity of an abject substance, the refuse of the world, the proletarian: those who sell their sons into slavery as they have nothing else to sell; is re-dick-ulose.And your attempts to attack a bourgeois ideology such as Marx as derivative shows that you're unwilling to concede the centrality of ideas in history: in effect the proof is your givens.Go home cunt, you've shat your dacks.>>23559357Ontological necessity: being a worker is reproducing solidarity faster than reproducing capital in the long term. The reference is to zen swordsmanship where ontology was seen to be more important than skill.
>>23559423>you're drunk cuntOk? I'll just telk you that it's 11 am where I am and that I'm just an ESL phoneposter.Your cringe verbose response is retarded. I mean, I know Engels said that slavery is better than wage-labour because the slave is an object, a thing without freedom whereas the worker is a proatitute or whatever, someone who actually has to struggle, to exist. Not really sure why you are bring so defensive though, must be really important to you.>Ontological necessity: being a worker is reproducing solidarity faster than reproducing capital in the long term. Oh, ok, so you're full of shit. Got it. Sorry to tell you this but ptivate property isn't going to go away any time soon and you do not live in the 20th cebtury any more with 20th century material conditions. Not that it matters, because materialism is retarded.
>>23559334>probably because progressivism isn't leftism, but a form of bourgeois liberalism?Anything that’s not monarchy or aristocracy is leftism by default.
