Last week's thread>>25214473Hegel talked about the nature of his dialectics in contrast with Fichte. Fichte had a schema of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, which Hegel disparages because it features A form and B form and then a mix. In contrast he follows Heraclitus: there nothing BUT flux. His dialectic is abstraction (generalized conception)-negation (think of it like circumscription in its broadest sense)-concrete (particularization in its broadest sense), which he says is the basis of all concepts and reality. If you have ANY confusion about the reading or want something cleared up, this is the thread to ask.This week we continue with Hegel's Science of Logic (download linked in the original thread), Section Two
>>25230587Sounds like he is saying the same thing as Fichte, just worded differently
>>25230587No dialectical writing group still I see...
>>25230606Hegel does not believe in Platonic forms, he believes that reality is change and change is reality. So dialectic for him cannot be the contradiction between two distinct pure things or states, because no such things or states exist for Hegel. As he says, "pure consciousness" is identical with nonconsciousness, and therefore to speak of consciousness we can only talk about it as also something with is other than consciousness, or we are not talking about reality at all. He even says at the outset that "pure being" would be empty of content and so be nothing. But also nothing is a being (like zero is a number), so the idea of a dialectic between pure being and pure nothing is nonsense, neither concept has any meaning
>Dialectical Reading Group
>>25230587dialectics are fake and gay. history has never following a narrative and you're all fucking stupid.
>>25232298Why do you think dialectic = narrative?
>>25230587I have not read any books on socialism or communism. Where would I start if I wanted to learn?
>>25232399Probably start with the topic of labor alienation. Although originally talked about extensively by Hegel, the best place to start on on it would be The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, by Marx
>>25232399If you want to understand Marx specifically, I would actually start with Rousseau. The Social Contract is a good start
>>25232399You should read about Jonestown, the Holodomor, and the Shinning Path. The actual implementation of Marxism in practice.Read like actual history and ignore what pseuds write (Like Marx) about because they're just going to lie about it.
>>25232411>>25232757It's always fascinating when someone asks communism it's always some theoretical bullshit and concrete information about life under communismhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSH8c-js7xc
>>25232411>>25232757Thank you.>>25232770>>25232780I know authoritarian regimes kill people. I consider myself more of a libertarian socialist and I favor a kind of social democracy. I am interested in knowing the historical context and theory behind these ideas. Recent events have radicalized me and should have radicalized you society doesn't work if people can gain so much wealth and power they can be above the law.
>>25232798>Historical contextWhat other historical context you need besides countless, repetitive examples of communism in practice?>Recent events have radicalized me and should have radicalized you society doesn't work if people can gain so much wealth and power they can be above the lawAnd why would you want to learn about a philosophy that exactly did that for anyone who wasn't a party official?
>>25232823Communism is dialectically inevitable, anon. Just as the capitalists overthrew the obsolete aristocracy, the proles will overthrow the obsolete capitalists--because capitalist logic itself will destroy capitalism
>>25232399Settlers by J. Sakai.
>>25232862Communism is so old and retarded that Aristotle even debunked it back when Plato was shilling it in the RepublicIt was a joke and failure back then and its a joke and failure now, get a job
>>25232878Goddamn, how is it that hubris feeds on stupidity so much more often than intelligence?No where did Plato ever advocate that labor own and run capital.
>>25232889>I'm just going to re-define communism something its not because I'm retardedCommunism comes from the latin word "communis", you stupid fuck.You don't even know what you're talking about because you think Marx invented communism.Imagine calling yourself a communist, and not even knowing the basics about your ideology's history. Retard.
>>25232902I know what the word comes from. Marx made a firm distinction between the ideology of "utopian socialism" and what he was talking about, which was the resolution of the union of labor overthrowing the class above them
>>25232399dont read. just go to work, and interact with your coworkers. talk about each others conditions, and pay. confront your bosses. live it, don't read it.
>>25232917Karl Kautsky's own book "The Forerunners of Modern Socialism" cited Plato as one of first people who developed communism as a concept. A book that was cited by Engels, no less. Engels wrote an entire book on communist peasant revolts, and Marx regularly glazed Müntzer as a communist. You're so dumb and uneducated, you don't even know what you're talking about. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.
>>25232942Trying to shrink your worldview and class down to just your workers, doesn't work. Even if you have a union, as I do, it doesn't encompass your relationship will all the labor outside your union, all the society and world your labor is part of. Obviously if AREN'T in you union, you can't even go that far until your workplace votes to unionize
>>25232949This thread is specifically about dialectics. It is very specific. By communism in this context you clearly meant that. All you can do is seethe and name call because your criticism of Marx is so vapid, like criticizing some sort of airplane engineering because of a flying machine described in the past and how it was incorrect.
Even more retarded, you think the word "utopian" means these were forms of communism did not exist. I don't even think you know what Marx & Engels meant by utopian. Communist experiments, like communes, were very common and cited by Marx and Engels as being examples of existing communism. They called them "utopian", retard, because they were largely apolitical sects or even religious. Utopian doesn't mean "it didn't happen and didn't exist" , retard. Marx and Engels became communists because they mesmerized into it by man called Robert Owen who set up communist colonies all over New England. That's the only reason why they became communists in the first place.At least learn about what the fuck you are talking about retard before you discuss it.
>>25232965Nah, you're retard. You don't even know what you're talking about because you don't even understand the genealogy of communist ideas. And you're shilling an ideology that collapsed and died in the 20th century because it was a failure so profound that even philosophers over thousands of years ago new it would just by logic alone. Starvation jewish santa isn't going to save you lil bro, get a job
>>25232942>>25232954I think it's important to emphasize that we have "workers" but no "working class" in the sense of an organized political force. Workers can certainly advocate for themselves in the workforce via a union (regardless of your attitude towards unions), but this is not the same as advocating for themselves as a class per se.
Watching poltards getting bodied by Marxists every single time never gets old.
>>25232974Utopian is specifically in contrast to scientific, and those refer to the theory of socialism's place in society. Marx didn't have a "scientific" blueprint for running socialism, in fact that is something utopians often had. Rather he had a much more concrete idea of what and WHO would establish socialism on a widespread level and why
>>25232986All forms of communism are utopian. Marx calling his communism "scientific" doesn't mean a stateless, moneyless, and classes society is real or possible. Essentially when Marx's ideas were tested before and long after his death to only result in failure.
>>25232982We have a working class>but this is not the same as advocating for themselves as a class per se.That is called class consciousness. The understanding that one is part of labor class and this is closely linked to his interests and that they rise and fall together. The working class is submerged in false consciousness, or "ideology": a laborer does not think of himself as a member of the wage slave class most of the time, in fact he tries to forget it. Most of his media does not feature wage slave characters, he doesn't want to be reminded of being one because labor alienation hurts. By contrast, capitalists always know themselves as their class, the bourgeoisie, wherever they go and in all their media. So despite being their slave, the laborer likes to think of himself as a capitalist individual rather than as a prole.
>>25232994Thebes tried to abolish slavery and it collapsed, this doesn't make it impossible to have a society without slaves though it took thousands of years to actualize.
>>25232999This analogy doesn't even make any sense considering communism never, ever accomplished any of its goals so you can't even compare it to someone who did.
>>25233003You don't think any of the ten planks of communism has ever been accomplished?
>>25233008We actually have examples of slavery being abolished, in practice, being successful.We have no examples of communism being successful.What a dumb point to make.>You don't think any of the ten planks of communismDid any of those planks create a society without classes, money or the state?
>>25233012Now you're shifting the goalposts. Marx never wrote a manifesto for a society without a state. He theorized about the state withering away someday but he adamantly opposed anarchists on the point of communists abolishing the state by political fiat, that was not a goal he set out for the labor movement or one of the ten planks of communism
>>25233030>We implemented these policies because we believe they would achieve communism>They didn't implement communism, so that proves communism worksWhat goal post was pushed exactly. Pointing out communists never accomplished what they set out to do isn't "pushing the goal post." Its exposing your own failures and your inability to defend your ideas without lying.
>>25233035Marxists never set out to abolish the state, so what are you even talking about?
>>25233037>Marxists never set out to abolish the state,Are you retarded? Communism calls for the abolition of the state. How do you not know this?
>>25232949>Karl Kautsky's own book "The Forerunners of Modern Socialism" cited Plato as one of first people who developed communism as a concept. A book that was cited by Engels, no less.Nta, but how is a book that came out in the 1890s, a book that, if anything, Engels influenced, decisive on the subject? That anon is arguing sensibly that the communism of the Republic (which itself owes something to how Sparta was politically organized) isn't the same as Marxist communism: the "communism" in the Republic is a communism of a community of women and children, and communism of property applies only to the two upper classes, since the lowest class is in control of the productive arts and are allowed to own wealth like gold and silver and private property forbidden to the upper classes. This is like arguing that Aristotle's "energeia" and the modern concept of energy in physics are the same because the latter is descended from and sorta kinda resembles the former.
>>25233058>but how is a book that came out in the 1890s, a book that, if anything, Engels influenced, decisive on the subject? Because Karl Kautsky and Fredrick Engels are the principle theorists of your ideology. Shouldn't you at least know what they believed before you profess their beliefs?>isn't the same as Marxist communism: the "communism" in the Republic is a communism of a community of women and children, and communism of property applies only to the two upper classes, since the lowest class is in control of the productive arts and are allowed to own wealth like gold and silver and private property forbidden to the upper classesIt is the same because they are both utopian strands of thought with the same results in practice. You're essentially just against the historical record of communism despite calling yourselves historical materalists. Neither Plato's Republic or Marx's "communism", both which advocated for communism were ever fruitful, or realistic ideas because they are both idealistic conceptions of society and never worked in practice. If communism never worked on a smaller scale, as Plato predicted (as many smaller, utopian communist experiments failed in history), how the fuck could it ever work on the international scale Marx called for. This is pretty basic, logic and common sense. Like, you're acting like Marx's ideas weren't tried in the Soviet Union and Maoist China with the large scale abolition of private property and other retarded shit like centralized planning.
>>25233046Anarcho-communism does. Not Marxist communism
>>25233109Wrong, they both do, in different ways.Both are retarded.
>>25233122No they don't. You haven't read Marx. You are just making things up and guessing
>"The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state."No, you're just retarded and don't know what you're talking about lol
>>25233131This isn't an imperative, "calls for". This is Engels writing after Marx died on what he believed Marx saw as the ultimate destination of communism
>>25233078>they are both utopian strands of thoughtI didnt know hobbes was a communist
>>25233142>conflating Thomas More with Thomas Hobbes
>>25233138You must be ESL. He explicitly says communism abolishes the state.
>>25233150Lmao, this is the level of "Marxist" we're dealing with here.These people are fucking retards. No wonder they think communism doesn't abolish the state or don't even know a fucking thing what they're talking about
>>25233154By making everything state property it abolishes the state as the instrument used to enforce property rights. He isn't talking about anarchism, which Marx wrote extensively against. But then there is a reason you are ignoring everything Marx wrote and preferring to stick to a paragraph from Engels after his death commenting on what he wrote
>>25233163And history shows that despite Marx and Engels calling for the abolition of the state, and saying that would abolish the state, it did not. It just led to the most tyrannical states in history.>anarchismNo one said anything about anarchism, retard. You have the same goals of anarchists, who are just as stupid as you. You believe the state will abolish itself if you just give complete control to a single entity that will force everyone to hold hands and sing kumbaya until the state abolishes itself forever retarded reason. You lack pretty basic critical thinking skills. You think like someone who took the short bus to school.
>>25233183Nothing in the Communist Manifesto says "abolish the state!"You keep shifting your goalposts. First it is, "They could not accomplish a single plank," then it's, "they could not accomplish this thing Engels felt would happen in the future and he mentioned in passing," the it's, "well by accomplish it I mean in my idiosyncratic romanticist sense divorced from all the terminology and concepts Engels is reflecting on." Soon it will be, "They couldn't make replicators like in Star Trek communism."
>>25233194Marx wrote the Paris Commune wasn't a state in the strictest sense. Why would he write that if he didn't believe in the abolition of the state?Why would the fuck would he publish the Communist Manifesto, which called for the abolition of nationalities, said workers have no country, wasn't for the abolition of the state?You're literally retarded. Nobody is buying this non-sense but you. You're just really bad at lying and its too easy to expose you for being a pseud.You're the same retard who confused Thomas Moore with Thomas Hobbes dude. Stop being a clown.
>>25233199I'm the guy who corrected him, and now you: it's More, not MooreI am not going to deal with le "I'm just inferring, guessing, thinking, perhaps..." Glenn Beck bullshit with you. The Communist Manifesto is very straightforward as a communist platform and you don't read
>>25233202Dude, you're just stupid. You started this argument saying planks of the Communist Manifesto was proof that communism worked despite none of these ideas, which were implemented, led to communism anywhere on the planet.Where is the stateless, moneyless, classes Marx talked about, retard? Where is the abolition of classes and the wage system?You're just going in circles of your own delusions because you don't live in reality.Get a job dude and stop being a loser shilling dead, failed ideologies on the internet
>>25233204You started it here>>25233003You said communism never accomplished any of its goals, which are the 10 planks
>>25233208Those weren't the goals of communism, retard.The goals of communism were to implement a stateless, classless, and moneyless society by abolition national borders, the wage system and private property.If those were the goals of communism, then the US is already communist and there's no reason for you to be a communist, idiot.You're arguing against yourself.
>>25233216I don't think you know anything about communism. You should read more. Probably starting with the communist manifesto instead of /pol/ memes
>>25233220>Hates Glen Beck>Thinks communism is when the government does stuffMarxist btw
>>25233223My advice stands especially in light of the board you are on.
>>25233228You should get a job. There's no way you'll never do anything remarkable with your life. You're on /lit/ trying to shill people into your retarded atheist cult. Thank god you will never have any kids.
>>25233229I have a job but I hardly consider myself better than people who don't. I refrain from having kids because I don't want to have them without ensuring they will have a great life.
>>25233266You refrain from having kids because no one loves you. You are a miserable, communist piece of shit that no one would ever want to pro-create with.Why don't you have your communist revolution so we can just shoot you like we did Luxembourg and get it over with?You don't have a legacy to leave behind or any kids, just get it over withOr just commit suicide so at least you have some use to the world as fertile soil.
>>25233278I have been with multiple girls who wanted to have a kid with me. You sound like you're hyperventilating.
>>25230587>dude reality HAS to be rational dude>and like, that's why history has a direction, because it must be rationalI don't know maybe I'm missing something but this doesn't seem all that justifiable. From my understanding, a lot of Hegelian thought rests on rejecting traditional formal logic in favor of a more "totalizing" view of the object studied, which would seemingly grant more capabilities for the subject studied.So, on the topic of history for instance, instead of accepting that you cannot with certainty provide an explanation for what causes change, you analyze change itself, look at the conditions required for it, and seek which elements reproduce it.But, if that's your method of analysis, it just seems akin to a less rigorous method of inquiry, as opposed to traditional metaphysics and formal logic. Your position is still not granted certainty, and the reasoning is still very much "logical", albeit contextualized. It looks a lot like a method for applying logic itself to different objects rather than an entirely different strand of thinking>>25232399Read "Karl Marx" by Lenin. It's on marxists.org and provides a good intro to marxist thought in general.>>25232399If you posit labor as the source of dialectical struggle you're arguing from an erroneous anthropology
Communism is retardedPeople who believe in communism are the same people who believe in MLM scams and Nigerian Princes
>>25233295Maybe you should read the OP
Explain to a smart 13 year old what Aufhebung IS and what it DOES
>>25233738Imagine pure light, so pure you cannot see any color. Imagine pure darkness. So pure that you cannot see any color. They are functionally the same. Suddenly you dim the blinding light a tiny bit and colors, shapes, shades and so on, start to appear. Now you can actually "see the light". This is light's Aufhebung of darkness. Or think of adding a light to the pure darkness bit-by-bit until colors and shapes and shades emerge so that now you can actually "see" darkness; this is the darkness's Aufhebung of light.This isn't my example, it is the one Hegel used in last week's reading.
>>25233078>Because Karl Kautsky and Fredrick Engels are the principle theorists of your ideology. Shouldn't you at least know what they believed before you profess their beliefs?I'm not a Marxist, I'm just a classicsfag, but appeal to Kautsky is lame because you're looking at a theorist writing a history almost 5 years after the Communist Manifesto was published, and just granting that author his point when he's restrospectively trying to give his preferred ideology authority after the fact by appeal to older philosophers.>It is the same because they are both utopian strands of thought with the same results in practiceThey're not the same; appealing to the "utopian" character only establishes that they're utopian, not the contents of the Republic's communism nor that of ancient Sparta's system are the same as Marxist communism. I'll make a further example similar to my energy example: it's like reading Machiavelli and saying his "virtu" is the same as the treatment of virtue in Aristotle's Ethics, simply because of the word virtue. But doing so ignores all differences in content, just as you're doing with Marx's communism and the "communism" in Plato's Republic. If you try to compare but won't talk about their contents, then you might not understand either.>Neither Plato's Republic or Marx's "communism", both which advocated for communism were ever fruitful, or realistic ideas because they are both idealistic conceptions of society and never worked in practice. If communism never worked on a smaller scale, as Plato predictedWrong, Plato DOESN'T predict communism will work; this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of the Republic. It's presented in the Republic as laughable and ridiculous to most people, *and as implausible*, and as soon as it's introduced, one of the characters of the dialogue, Glaucon, asks Socrates whether such a regime could actually be put in practice, and Socrates point blank tells him it's beside the point of their discussion (because they're really only trying to work out what justice is and whether it's good), and practically ends the dialogue by emphasizing being concerned with one's own soul rather than in actually founding such a city.
>>25233964>looking at a theorist writing a history almost 5 years*50 years
>>25233964>I'm not a Marxist, I'm just a classicsfag, but appeal to Kautsky is lame because you're looking at a theorist writing a history almost 5 years after the Communist Manifesto was published, aKautsky himself was referred to as the "Pope Of Marxism" he was endorsed and groomed by Marx and Engels as their successor. You're just too ignorant about socialist history and have no idea what you're talking about. You're not a Marxist (as you've said), you clearly have no background in the history necessary to discuss the topic at all (its shows), so, why are you even giving your uninformed opinion in the first place? It's of no value here.>But doing so ignores all differences in content, just as you're doing with Marx's communism and the "communism" in Plato's Republic. If you try to compare but won't talk about their contents, then you might not understand either.You're intentionally being obtuse and slow here. Plato and Marx foremost were political theorists who wrote practical political theories and they genuinely believed their political ideas could be replicated in real life. You seem to be very confused here, and not understand this, maybe you need to familiarize with Marx's own personal life, as well as Plato's life as a political advisor to Dion of Syracuse. Your analogy here just shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is being discussed and argued here. Plato and Marx weren't devising political ideas for shits and giggles, retard. They were articulating political systems they thought were viable in practice, and that were testable in practice. Both failed in practice because they share a similar thought of abolition of property and other misconceptions of human nature that is apparent with genetics and culture. For example, the Soviets themselves wrote how difficult it was to collectivize Ukrainians, Siberians because of how individualistic their culture was. Traditionally Ukrainians were rowdy people, simple commodity farmers, as opposed to Russians who had a history of communal farming-with like a serf like mindset , such as the Obshchina, but still that did not stop the communists from implementing their moronic ideas of abolishing private property, in Ukrainian countryside , to disastrous effects. Communism, just as in Plato's Republic and Marx, made the same fundamental mistake that humans are some tabula rasa, blank slate that can easily be morphed into any being at will with the right amount of planning and coercion by those at the top. History shows that never has, and never will, be the case, no how many times you wish it to be true. >Wrong, Plato DOESN'T predict communism will work; this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of the Republic.Marxian communism and Platonic communism are no different because they are both systems that are fundamentally idealistic. The point went over your head. Why do you think I called it a joke? You seem really slow and intentionally not understand things.
>>25234034Curing smallpox is idealistic. Supporting smallpox is stupid
Also>he's restrospectively trying to give his preferred ideology authority after the fact by appeal to older philosophers.This is generally a dumb point to make. Even outside of communist theorists, Plato was considered a socialist. Frederick Nietzsche saw Plato as a socialist because he knew his Republic well, and Aristotle ridiculed Plato for his communist ideas. For a classicfag, you don't seem to know very much about genealogy. Plato is the father of western political thought, and many different forms of politics were discussed in The Republic, communism being one of them.
>>25234034>tired ass muh human nature justification for bootlicking
>>25234064>Calls boot lickers>Supports murderous dictators like Stalin, Pol Pot and LeninWhat?Also>There's no such thing as human natureIQ, behaviors that induce crime have been shown to be inheritable Niggers are violent criminals not because muh socioeconomic conditions lil bro, I'm sorry that hurts your feelings, but that's just the truth
>>25234034>Kautsky himself was referred to as the "Pope Of Marxism" he was endorsed and groomed by Marx and Engels as their successor. You're just too ignorant about socialist history and have no idea what you're talking about. You're not a Marxist (as you've said), you clearly have no background in the history necessary to discuss the topic at all (its shows), so, why are you even giving your uninformed opinion in the first place? It's of no value here.You cited him as an authority on behalf of declaring Plato a communist of the same type as Marx against the other anon, which struck me as riseable since Marx himself doesn't chain his views or understanding of communism to Plato, but to Enlightenment philosophy. That's the whole point. I don't have to be an expert in Marxism to fairly call that argument specious.>You're intentionally being obtuse and slow here. Plato and Marx foremost were political theorists who wrote practical political theories and they genuinely believed their political ideas could be replicated in real life. Marx, sure, but Plato? Absolutely not. Only his Laws comes close to something that could be put into practice, but the point of the Laws is an investigation into legislators and their activity, which in dialogues like the Statesman, Republic, and Cratylus, are likened to philosophers. Plato didn't believe in revolutionary political change, which is why even in the only text discussing the period of his life where he was closest to affecting change in politics, the Seventh Letter, he says that he thought the most he could change is one man's opinions *at best*.>Marxian communism and Platonic communism are no different because they are both systems that are fundamentally idealisticThis doesn't speak to the point at all. In Marx and in the Republic, what is communism of, and to who does it apply? Those differences are crucial. If you compare Marx to ancient "communists" in practice, like the Spartans, the big point that stands out is that the Spartans existed on top of a large slave population. If you abstract from concrete differences like that, you can make anything seem like anything else, but you also won't be getting anywhere in a discussion.
Communism is dead in the water. 99% of western laborers live cushioned lives with fridges and ac and TV and beer+football every Sunday night and they aren't going to be whipped into throwing everything away and shooting at cops because of some marxoid drivel about surplus value extraction.
>>25234051Nietzsche, in his notebooks, outright thought Plato didn't believe what he presented, and Aristotle's complaint isn't about communism as such, but about treating cities as complete unities.And communism isn't discussed in the Republic as a "form of politics"; the communism in it is part and parcel with the Kallipolis of books 2-7, with Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny being the other forms of politics.Now, I'm going to substantiate my overall point about the Republic via the text itself, starting with the explanation for why they approach justice via justice in a city:Book 2, 368c-369b"It looks to me as though the investigation we are undertaking is no ordinary thing, but one for a man who sees sharply. Since we're not clever men," I said, "in my opinion we should make this kind of investigation of it: if someone had, for example, ordered men who don't see very sharply to read little letters from afar and then someone had the thought that the same letters are somewhere else also, but bigger and in a bigger place, I suppose it would look like a godsend to be able to consider the littler ones after having read these first, if, of course, they do happen to be the same.">"Most certainly," said Adeimantus. "But, Socrates, what do you notice in the investigation of the just that's like this?">"I'll tell you," I said. "There is, we say, justice of one man; and there is, surely, justice of a whole city too?">"Certainly," he said.>"Is a city bigger than one man?">"Yes, it is bigger," he said.>"So then, perhaps there would be more justice in the bigger and it would be easier to observe closely. If you want, first we'll investigate what justice is like in the cities. Then, we'll also go on to consider it in individuals, considering the likeness of the bigger in the idea of the littler?">"What you say seems fine to me," he said.>"If we should watch a city coming into being in speech," I said, "would we also see its justice coming into being, and its injustice?">"Probably," he said.>"When this has been done, can we hope to see what we're looking for more easily?" .>"Far more easily.">"Is it resolved that we must try to carry this out? I suppose it's no small job, so consider it.">"It's been considered," said Adeimantus. "Don't do anything else."
>>25234078Re: the city's actualization, part 1Book 5, 471c-473a>"Let it be given," he said. "And this and what went before are fine. But, Socrates, I think that if one were to allow you to speak about this sort of thing, you would never remember what you previously set aside in order to say all this. *Is it possible for this regime to come into being, and how is it ever possible? I see that, if it should come into being, everything would be good for the city in which it came into being.* And I can tell things that you leave out-namely, that they would be best at fighting their enemies too because they would least desert one another, these men who recognize each other as brothers, fathers, and sons and who call upon each other using these names. And if the females join in the campaign too, either stationed in the line itself, or in the rear, to frighten the enemies and in case there should ever be any need of help--l know that with all this they would be unbeatable. And I see all the good things that they would have at home and are left out in your account. Take it that I agree that there would be all these things and countless others if this regime should come into being, and don't talk any more about it; rather, let's now only try to persuade ourselves that it is possible and how it is possible, dismissing all the rest.">"All of a sudden," I said, "you have, as it were, assaulted my argument, and you have no sympathy for me and my loitering. Perhaps you don't know that when I've hardly escaped the two waves you're now bringing the biggest and most difficult, the third wave. When you see and hear it, you'll be quite sympathetic, recognizing that it was, after all, fitting for me to hesitate and be afraid to speak and undertake to consider so paradoxical an argument.">"The more you say such things,'" he said, *"the less we'll let you off from telling how it is possible for this regime to come into being.* So speak, and don't waste time.">"Then," I said, "first it should be recalled that we got to this point while seeking what justice and injustice are like.">"Yes, it should," he said. "But what of it?"
>>25234071>>25234078i'm not reading any of this shit but notice how these long marxist debates never have anything to do with economics, finance, or management? it's always just some kind of vibes based shit relying on emotional language like "misery" and "exploitation" etc.
>>25234084Part 2, cont. from the same passage:>"Nothing. But if we find out what justice is like, will we also insist that the just man must not differ at all from justice itself but in every way be such as it is? *Or will we be content if he is nearest to it and participates in it more than the others?"*>"We'll be content with that," he said.>*"It was, therefore, for the sake of a pattern," I said, "that we were seeking both for what justice by itself is like, and for the perfectly just man, if he should come into being, and what he would be like once come into being;* and, in their turns, for injustice and the most unjust man. Thus, looking off at what their relationships to happiness and its opposite appear to us to be, we would also be compelled to agree in our own cases that the man who is most like them will have the portion most like theirs. *We were not seeking them for the sake of proving that it's possible for these things to come into being."*>"What you say is true," he said.>"Do you suppose a painter is any less good who draws a pattern of what the fairest human being would be like and renders everything in the picture adequately, but can't prove that it's also possible that such a man come into being?">"No, by Zeus, I don't," he said.>"Then, what about this? *Weren't we, as we assert, also making a pattern in speech of a good city?"*>"Certainly.">"Do you suppose that what we say is any less good *on account of our not being able to prove that it is possible to found a city the same as the one in speech?">"Surely not," he said.>"Well, then, that's the truth of it," I said. "But if then to gratify you I must also strive to prove how and under what condition it would be most possible, grant me the same points again for this proof.">"What points? .>"Can anything be done as it is said? Or is it the nature of acting to attain to less truth than speaking, even if someone doesn't think so? Do you agree that it's so or not.>"I do agree," he said.>*"Then don't compel me necessarily to present it as coming into being in every way in deed as we described it in speech. But if we are able to find that a city could be governed in a way most closely approximating what has been said: say that we've found the possibility of these things coming into being on which you insist.* Or won't you be content if it turns out this way? I, for my part, would be content."
>>25234087Socrates emphasizing the goal of the Republic:Book 4, 443c-44a:>"But *in truth* justice was, as it seems, something of *this* sort; however, *not with respect to a man's minding his external business*, but *with respect to what is within*, with respect to what truly concerns him and his own. He doesn't let each part in him mind other people's business or the *three classes in the soul* meddle with each other, but really sets his own house in good order and rules himself; *he arranges himself*, becomes his own friend, and harmonizes the three parts, exactly like three notes in a harmonic scale, lowest, highest and middle. And if there are some other parts in between, he binds them together and becomes entirely one from many, moderate and harmonized. Then, and only then, he acts, if he does act in some way--either concerning the acquisition of money, or the care of the body, or something political, or concerning private contracts. In all these actions he believes and names a just and fine action one that preserves and helps to produce this condition, and wisdom the knowledge that supervises this action; while he believes and names an unjust action one that undoes this condition; and lack of learning, in its turn, the opinion that supervises this action."
>>25234091And, finally, Socrates re-emphasizing his point at the end of book 9:Republic, Book 9, 591d-592b>"Rather, *he looks fixedly at the regime within him*," I said, "and guards against upsetting anything in it by the possession of too much or too little substance. In this way, insofar as possible, he governs his additions to, and expenditure of, his substance.">"That's quite certain," he said.>"And, further, with honors too, he looks to the same thing; he will willingly partake of and taste those that he believes will make him better, while those that would overturn his established habit he will flee, in private and in public.">"Then," he said, "if it's that he cares about, *he won't be willing to mind the political things*.">"*Yes*, by the dog," I said, "*he will in his own city*, very much so. However, perhaps *he won't in his fatherland* unless some divine chance coincidentally comes to pass.">"I understand," he said. "*You mean he will in the city whose foundation we have now gone through, the one that has its place in speeches, since I don't suppose it exists anywhere on earth*.">"But *in heaven*," I said, "perhaps, a pattern is laid up for the man who wants to see and *found a city within himself* on the basis of what he sees. *It doesn't make any difference whether it is or will be somewhere*. For he would mind the things of *this city alone, and of no other*."
>>25234086I don't disagree, but I'm making a particular point to that anon. I don't rate Marx as a thinker, for what it's worth.
>>25234097carry on
>>25232287Medieval dialectic is just logic. True dialecticians today are the analytical philosophers
>>25234071>You cited him as an authority on behalf of declaring Plato a communist of the same type as Marx against the other anon, which struck me as riseable since Marx himself doesn't chain his views or understanding of communism to Plato, but to Enlightenment philosophy.Are you ESL? I didn't say Marx got his communism from Plato. I said communism, as an ideology, has genealogy that stems from people who came before Marx like Plato. How did you get that interpretation from what I said? Maybe you don't know what the word genealogy means? You, even before this conversation, seemingly thought Marx was invented communism or that communist thought did not have a history before him. Like again, you are ill-informed or just dumb on purpose?Nor did Marx get his understanding of communism from enlightenment thought. He became a communist because he was induced to the ideas of Robert Owen, a socialist, by one Owens followers. When Marx talks about communism, especially in Capital, he discusses it as as solution to pauperism, a problem socialists before him were wrestling with (like Owen) in their day, driven the effects of industrial revolution normalizing the wage system, urban poverty that displaced the handyman and the independent farmer that could not compete with large scale industry.These ideas appealed to Marx because he never had the skills, or even the health really, to be a proletarian. He was also noted by his parents to be lazy and unproductive. Like, do you honestly think Marx became a socialist, by chance, and nothing in his real life influenced? How can you be this stupid. Philosophers, and their ideas, are always a product of their circumstances. >This doesn't speak to the point at all. In Marx and in the Republic, what is communism of, and to who does it apply?Again, you're being obtuse. Plato's communism was a simplistic system of sharing property that was real. These types of mini communistic experiments were very common, even in his time, and were popularized by Christians who were among the poor. Many of these little communes even exist/existed in the United States (which Engels and Marx noted,and they consistently failed for ideological reasons because they weren't sustainable without indoctrination. Most people don't want to work on a shitty commune and share their wealth or give up their property. They want material satisfaction from their work. These contradictions were even apparent in the USSR and Maoist China where agricultural collectivization, was a failure, until they allowed the creation of private plots. Like, again, you are seemingly stupid on purpose. Plenty of examples of real life implementations of communism, have been given, based on both their ideas, yet, you just totally ignore them because you don't have a point to make. You lack the ability do comparative thought, or even analysis, because you want to ramble about your so called "knowledge" on the subjects being discussed when you clearly dont have any.
>>25233748Ah I think I get it, making use of the opposite to define the phenomena in the first place. So darkness aufhebs light to actually reveal what darkness IS in a practical context.
>>25234078>Nietzsche, in his notebooks, outright thought Plato didn't believe what he presented,No, you're just making shit up. He considered Plato a socialist, and ironically he predicted what communism, socialism would lead to:>"Socialism in respect to its means. Socialism is the visionary younger brother of an almost decrepit despotism, whose heir it wants to be. Thus its efforts are reactionary in the deepest sense. For it desires a wealth of executive power, as only despotism had it; indeed, it outdoes everything in the past by striving for the downright destruction of the individual, which it sees as an unjustified luxury of nature, and which it intends to improve into an expedient organ of the community. Socialism crops up in the vicinity of all excessive displays of power because of its relation to it, like the typical old socialist Plato, at the court of the Sicilian tyrant;11 it desires (and in certain circumstances, furthers) the Caesarean power state of this century, because, as we said, it would like to be its heir. But even this inheritance would not suffice for its purposes; it needs the most submissive subjugation of all citizens to the absolute state, the like of which has never existed. And since it cannot even count any longer on the old religious piety towards the state, having rather always to work automatically to eliminate piety (because it works on the elimination of all existing states), it can only hope to exist here and there for short periods of time by means of the most extreme terrorism. Therefore, it secretly prepares for reigns of terror, and drives the word "justice" like a nail into the heads of the semieducated masses, to rob them completely of their reason (after this reason has already suffered a great deal from its semieducation), and to give them a good conscience for the evil game that they are supposed to play."Wasn't a difficult thing to predict either, and he wasn't the only one, you can just predict this based on the psychology of socialists (envy) and what they call for in practice (unlimited state power and centralization)>And communism isn't discussed in the Republic as a "form of politics"; the communism in it is part and parcel with the Kallipolis of books 2-7, with Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny being the other forms of politics.No, this is also wrong.In the Republic, the guardians abolish private property and hold property in common among their community, which is communism. You don't know what the communism means, do you? You don't even know the etymology of communism it seems.
>>25234078>Aristotle's complaint isn't about communism as such, but about treating cities as complete unitiesNo, Book II of Aristotle's Politics of a critique of common property, communism, as discussed in the Republic and pretty much as a concept in general.>"We will begin with the natural beginning of the subject. Three alternatives are conceivable: The members of a state must either have (1) all things or (2) nothing in common, or (3) some things in common and some not. That they should have nothing in common is clearly impossible, for the constitution is a community, and must at any rate have a common place- one city will be in one place, and the citizens are those who share in that one city. But should a well ordered state have all things, as far as may be, in common, or some only and not others? For the citizens might conceivably have wives and children and property in common, as Socrates proposes in the Republic of Plato. Which is better, our present condition, or the proposed new order of society. "
>>25234117>Are you ESL?Are you? You're in a thread arguing with one anon about communism and conflating all kinds of communism with Marx's specific brand. You're motte and baileying all over the place for your argument. Review the thread:>>25232862>some anon (OP?) makes a comment about specifically Marx's brand of communism via dialectical materialism>>25232878>you conflate Marx's communism with the communism of Plato's Republic>>25232889>that other anon clowns on that since the communism of the Republic and Marx's variety aren't the same>>25232902>you double down for no good reason>>25232917>other anon reasonably points out that Marx distinguishes his communism>>25232949>you double down further and appeal to authority, still missimg the actual pointAnd here we are. If you don't know the concrete differences between what in Plato's Republic we call "communism" today and what Marx characterizes his communism as, fine, whatever, but this isn't any kind of argument that gets to the core of anything at all, and you're wasting not just everyone else's time, but your own by trying to die on this hill.>Again, you're being obtuse. No, you.>Plenty of examples of real life implementations of communism, have been given, based on both their ideas, yet, you just totally ignore them because you don't have a point to make.Tell me that you neither actually followed the thread and read my posts without telling me that you did neither. Again, is Marx's communism the same as that in the Republic or in Sparta? No, it's not. Is it a species of the same kind of schtick? Sure, but once you're pretending Spartaan communism grounded in helot slavery isn't different from Marx's common ownership of the means of production and what that entails, you're just shitting in he punchbowl instead of talking about people were actually talking about.
>>25234127>No, you're just making shit up.>34[179]>That there is a development of the whole of humanity is nonsense, nor is it to be wished. The fashioning of man, drawing out a kind of diversity from within him, breaking him to pieces when a certain type has passed its zenith - in other words, being creative and destructive - seems to me the highest pleasure that men can have. *Certainly, Plato was not really that kind of dullard when he taught that concepts were fixed and eternal: yet he wanted this to be believed.*>34[195]>The philosophers (I) have always had the miraculous capacity for contradictio in adjecto.>(2) their trust in concepts has been as unconditional as their mistrust of the senses: they have not reflected that concepts and words are our inheritance from days when things were very dark and unaspiring in men's heads.>NB. What dawns on the philosophers last of all: they must no longer merely let themselves be given concepts, no longer just clean and clarify them, but first of all must make them, create them, present them and persuade in their favour. Up to now, one generally trusted in one's concepts as a miraculous dowry from some miracle world: but in the end they were the legacies left us by our most distant, stupidest and yet cleverest forebears. This filial respect towards what is to be found in us is perhaps part of the moral component in knowing. *What's needed first is absolute scepticism towards all received concepts (something perhaps possessed by one philosopher - Plato: of course, he taught the opposite - -)*Be less of a faggot.
>>25234071>Absolutely not. Only his Laws comes close to something that could be put into practiceSaying a guy who worked as a political advisor wasn't writing political theory to put in practice is quite brain-dead.You say a lot of stupid shit, but I miss a lot of it because of 4chan's type limit. Plato was born into an aristocratic family, and aristocratic families in Greek times, were groomed specifically for a life in politics. That's why he wrote a lot of political theory in the first place. >Plato didn't believe in revolutionary political changeAgain, you are obtuse as fuck. Communism isn't revolutionary, nor does it have to be. Nor do you have to be a revolutionary in politics to pursue it. What an incredibly stupid thing to say, even when most socialists were never revolutionaries.>at he thought the most he could change is one man's opinions *Plato being inept at politics doesn't mean he wasn't a political theorist. Cato was inept roman senator, but doesn't mean he wasn't an advocate for republican politics within Rome.
>>25234127>No, this is also wrong.>In the Republic, the guardians abolish private property and hold property in common among their community, which is communism. You don't know what the communism means, do you? You don't even know the etymology of communism it seemsDo ypu not know what "form of politics" means? It means the characters of regimes, of which communism can be part of two of them, the Kallipolis and Timocracy. Pull your head out of your ass.
>>25234157>You're in a thread arguing with one anon about communism and conflating all kinds of communism with Marx's specific brand.If you're ESL, you would think this. You've demonstrated you don't know how to even read dude. You're obviously from a third world, shit hole country because you lack some really basic reading comprehension skills.
>>25234183You're spamming quotes and not even reading them. None of that refutes the argument that Nietzsche considered Plato a socialist. You're just dumb and can't read, lol.
>>25234149How about looking at the next chapter?>There are many other inconveniences to having women be common to all, but the reason for which Socrates claims that things ought to be legislated in this way manifestly does not even follow from his arguments. Further still, the end which he claims the city ought to have is, as was just said, impossible, and no qualifications are made about how one ought to interpret it. *I am speaking of the claim that it is best for the city to be entirely one to the greatest possible degree*, for Socrates adopts that hypothesis. And yet it is evident that by advancing and becoming more of a one it will not be a city. For a city is by nature a certain kind of multiplicity; by becoming more of a one it would turn from a city into a household and from a household into a human being. For we would claim that a household is more of a one than a city is, and a single person than a household; so even if someone were capable of doing this, it ought not to be done, since it would abolish the city.Which is my point,>Aristotle's complaint isn't about communism as such, but about treating cities as complete unities
