Silhouette, you went from “let me explain what Marxism is” to “well, he seemed to kinda make sense to me.” And the next day you forgot all about it and went back to considering yourself an expert.
You leftists always think that you should lecture people who have actual experience with something on that topic when you have read about in college, or heard some guy scream in a demonstration. Or read some sign or slept with someone who was an enthusiast.
this is the psychology of the Antimarxist first of all - an extreme loathing of pretentious dumb people.
Its funny Im sure to spectators with no horse in the race, no values at stake - you can keep showing with extreme precision that Marx bases his rhetorical points on mistakes (free associations, enthusiasm) he made on opium, but it just doesn’t matter. He is the great Head of the Movement after all.
Why would a Marxist read Marx? They already know he is right, as they’ve been told by their college professor, who also hasn’t read him -
I went from “can anyone stick to the topic of the thread?” to “wait, does anyone actually know a basic concept of Marxism, which doesn’t require any expertise whatsoever, to justify their extreme opinions against him?” to “Well at least phoneutria can demonstrate having actually read any Marx whatsoever, but can she please stick to the topic of the thread?”
None of that involves me being an expert, and Marx still makes just as much sense to me as before with regard to the aspects of his actual words that I agree with. You’re reading things into this whole debacle that aren’t there - is that the psychology of an antimarxist?
You can tell yourself you’re the expert on Marx all you like, but you still seem to consistently fail to use his actual words to back up your points, as well as failing to correctly answer a simple question about “the State” according to Marxism that “obviously the only one here who has read Marx” and “Ive read so much Marx” and “I am the Antimarxist because perhaps no one knows Marx better than I do” presumably ought to know…
I’m willing to grant that you know far more about Marx than I do, if only you’d use his actual words to give all your grandiose claims any credence whatsoever. You’re claiming all this philosophical prowess and logic to see so much more deeply than a guy who’s just trying to get things on topic to allow philosophy to begin at all… but it amounts to nothing if it turns out it’s all in direct contradiction with the actual words written by the very guy who’re trying so hard to protect us all against.
I read Marx on my own accord, I didn’t need to go to college before I was able to pick up a book, I don’t listen to guys screaming at demonstrations, and the people I’ve slept with unfortunately haven’t been that interested in Marx - but I have read some signs so maybe that’s it… you got me.
I just wanted to have a normal discussion about “what Marx really is” on the thread and the “psychology of an Antimarxist” on this thread, but honestly the kind of reception they’ve had from others such as yourself has just been… disappointing.
I know you can bring out some actual Marxist words from all these books you’ve read - I believe in you! Imagine having a normal conversation about the actual words written on the topic without all this tribalistic dry-heaving about how much better you are… - does such a scenario not appeal to the psychology of an antimarxist?
"And not unlike others , the misinterpretations whirl about, and the core values become anathema. Psychologically more definitive clues to this current ones analogously form looser associations of the periphery . If a predisposition of the core of the personality can relate in some sense to a political disposition, where does the impetus of party affiliation begin?
Can the media merely accent such dispositions, rather then forming more deeply hidden sources?
Or in fact, can the message of the media have overwhelming effects on actual orientations of changing opinions?"
I don’t doubt what you saw - I bet you’ve seen a lot.
That’s gonna be ingrained in your mind as “what Marxism really is” - I bet. This is perhaps as opposed to something like “this is what a failure to make something positive out of Marxism looks like” - or something to that effect. What you saw was undeniably what it was, but like with all experiences that we go through there’s a wide variety of interpretation of what the raw sensory data really means - which is only really constrained by your imagination.
You can tell the unimaginative people from how thinly and shallowly they are “only” able to understand the world, right? The ideologues who can only see the world in one strict way, for example.
By the same token, you don’t need me to tell you that there’s also countless ways to interpret the world which are completely insane - clearly you have a lot of very strong opinions on what these are.
So we have what you saw with your own eyes, and any degree of interpretation of what that really means.
What’s the benchmark against which to assess these interpretations?
The declared intentions of the people involved?
How do you accurately identify and/or classify what you saw with your own eyes?
We know it was pretty shitty, so what bits of the practice match which bits of which theory? Which parts were achieved, what circumstances allowed that, what aspects could have been different and what differences would the net effect of those changes have made? Was the experiment that you saw with your own thoroughly explored inside and out in all possible permutations? Or was the permutation that you experienced just kinda shitty? Theories can explain away all possible permutations as inevitably turning out like the one that you saw. The psychological question here is whether you turn to those theories and regard them as sufficient, or whether you turn to theories that leave open unanswered questions that risk also turning into something just as shitty… or perhaps something even more terrifying than that: into something that’s actually a lot better.
Marxism is fairly simple, it is a flatlined prophetic necessity to ultimately acknowledge the necessity to differentiate between the brain and the mind.
I see no need to account consciousness between that basic difference and the ones to follow through post structural signs.