Thread Reader

Share this page!

×

Post
Share

Email

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

×

Unroll Thread
You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom

Click again on or Share Via icon

Click on Copy Link to Tweet

Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!

More info at Twitter Help

Karim Ghazi 🔳

Subscribe

@KARIMAXXING

May 14 •
100 tweets • 17 min read •

Read on X

Bookmark
Save as PDF

@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.

Your little Greek funkopops will indeed be completely destroyed.

False: that’s liberalism. Marxism is radical Christianity. Marx actually ACCUSED the bourgeoisie of participating in this paganism. This cult of Mammon and this freemasonry.

This paganism is nothing but ideology - an ideological justification of the status quo to oppose the development of the productive forces. Communists don’t want equality with “mother Earth”, they want to destroy mother Earth.

They want to completely transform “mother Earth” into the image of Man. Engels:

This mother Earth garbage is what BAP people actually believe in, even if they position themselves as against it, they actively go out of their way to defend “preserving nature”, “vegetarianism” and get extremely violent at any mention of development, industry, etc.

This is what YOU believe and you are projecting it into Marxism.

As I said at the start, this is cope because he realized Ray Peat was Marxist-Leninist. Ray Peat says Soviet philosophy of science is much greater than the West and he directly links it to Marxist dialectical materialism.

He thinks the best work in the philosophy of science was Lenin’s Empirio Criticism. He thinks Marx was a world-historical poetic genius. He thinks Stalin was the greatest leader of 20th century. He thinks China is the future of humanity. Some quotes, here:

"It is exactly as science should be, and exactly what science isn't working as right now" - Dr. Ray Peat on Dialectical Materialism and the works of Lenin.

"Lysenko represents the truly materialist scientific methodology. Western genetics represents the rationalist reductionist view of reality. This is why they had to remove him." - Ray Peat

"China has the vitality of lots and lots of intelligent, well-educated people developing economic power. So I don't think it's going to be very easy to eliminate them from their program." - Ray Peat

"China is the closest to our ideal of rich generality, especially its Taoist tradition with a dialectical awareness and emphasis on body, energy, and life." Ray Peat

"People like Blake, Higgins, and Marx have realized that there are different ways of being, that one is fragmented and diminished, and the other is whole, alive, and growing" - Ray Peat, Generative Energy

"The fact is that both Lenin and Stalin were remarkable intellectuals who believed it was their political responsibility to be very well informed about cultural and scientific matters. It is this same attitude which makes the Soviet scientist likely to choose problems with social significance, and to interpret his work in terms 40 of a large historical framework. While an American scientist undoubtedly does work within a definite intellectual framework, the framework is mostly tacit, and serves to justify the collection of "mere facts." The whole analytical and skeptical tradition of British philosophy has not been taken very seriously by the Slavic and Latin* cultures, and Marxism has enabled the Russians further to disregard many of the formulations and proscriptions of Anglo-American thought" - Ray Peat, Mind and Tissue

You know what’s incredible about this message? The complete non-sense of the babble words he is using. “Dialectic materialism”? “Labor history”? What the fuck are you talking about?

This isn’t a mere issue of semantics or slip-ups but it is proof of his profound level of ignorance on the subject of Marxism. Anyways, in this case, he already has an idealized vision of the Marxist in his head which he uses to criticises.

But a true Marxist has no discontinuity between him and this QAnon Boomer. This tweet presents a classical Marxist step; the consciousness of the working class is often dissatisfied but not scientific. How then is it made to be sharp? This is where the Communist comes in.

The “boomer” here could indeed have revolutionary potential and often have a very good concrete understanding of his situation, but his anger can never get him to transcend his state of dissatisfaction if he stays at his present level of consciousness.

A very recent proof of this was January 6th. Yes, there was revolutionary dissatisfaction but it did not amount to anything. Why? Because it was not SCIENTIFIC, i.e, it did not locate the objective grounds of its dissatisfaction and how to gain POWER from those grounds.

That’s what the Marxist is supposed to provide.

If the boomer disatisfaction was channeled by pointing out how his disatisfaction is common to the working class and how the working class holds true power over the bourgeoisie by its very power of labor, the actions of the boomer would completely change.

They would operate on a new sphere; how can I organise the working class into using its leverage as a class to gain power, since the source of my dissatisfaction is the State’s expropriation of my social labor power for the sakes of imperialist ventures, etc.

Ahhh, now it makes sense. He read the manifesto at 14. That’s the only thing he has ever read. I feel bad now. I must continue nonetheless.

Let’s make it easy for this one. I'll give textual proof of the contrary.

Marx called the bourgeoisie pedereasts, sexual degenerates and said this was inherent in their class composition:

This strategy was already proposed by multiple crackheads online. This is the most laughable advice you can possibly give to Marxist-Leninists if you knew what Marxism even entails.

This “advice” completely cuts the HISTORICAL standpoint of Marxism, which is an integral part of its analysis since it positions itself in REFERENCE to that History. The issue is not the word itself but the whole CHAIN of signifiers connected to that word.

It completely cuts any socio-cultural link to the movement of communism, which would make the working class completely unaware of its situation.

However, to DEFEND the word communism would make the working class even more REVOLTED, for it would show how the ruling class explicitely LIES about communism, how it CRUSHED communism in the past, how their struggle has a historical basis and how communism concretely ANSWERS…

…America’s fundamental history. On purely propagandist grounds, the redeeming of a WORD is the strongest tool you can use to UPHEAVE the masses.

Just like at the modern phenomena of religious conversion to Islam; it is the very fact that Islam was HATED that made people convert to it.

No, it was Frederich Engels which came up with the theory that Early Christianity was socialist:

Marxism has claim to every single good figure of the past. It defends the past historical revolutions; the bourgeois revolutions, the religious revolutions and the peasant revolutions. No other methodology defends all these figures.

Here are some comments by historical Marxist-Leninists on the American revolution for example:Lenin:

Lenin:

Marx to Abraham Lincoln:

Stalin on the bourgeois revolutions:

Mao on Washington:

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of dialectics. Marx said: that struggle is all life is. Marxism says “Yes” to the humanity of the proletariat. Fascism does not affirm life, it affirms decay, sexual degeneracy and failure. That’s all fascism has ever accomplished.

And what has Marxism accomplished? Civilisational states (USSR, China) rivaling the capitalist centers of the world, cultivating philosophy, culture, human flourishement and development.

This continues on the last comment on the “natural Order”. Now that we have established that Marx recognized Orders as real, we can respond to this. This is a classical misconception. Marx and Engels talked about a NEW morality after communism, a NEW humanity, a NEW History.

Here’s the quotes from Engels:

On the “really human morality” of communism:

Engels called communism the leap from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom:

They did not talk about the abolition of those realities but their REDEEMING. And this is simply seen in Marx and Engels’ humanism. Their faith in the proletariat is a real and DEFINITE faith.

It does not refer to some abstract “destruction of all norms” (this is bourgeois degeneracy) but refers to the real Order of the proletariat. The One of the proletariat which protests.

Thus, Marxism can NOT possibly “go against all norms” since it ASSERTS the norm of the proletariat above and against the degenerate bourgeoisie you defend. Thus, the nationalism of the USSR is not a surprise but is to be expected.

Marx said the struggle will necessarily be NATIONAL in form. So no, the USSR wasn't "fascist", they had a proletarian REVOLUTION, something fascism never had. Stop trying to claim the victories of communism. Why are fascists always like this? Muh Stalin fascist, China fascist.

What he says here might seem true when you look at dogmatic Marxists (Trotskyists, left-coms, etc). But a true Marxist is completely open to History and integrates even his failure into his theory (in fact, failure is inherently part of any critique).

But failure is the only way to interact with reality. It is actually what defines a true scientific methodology (non-scientific methodologies don't even have a chance at failure in the first place).

The integration of failure into revolutionary theory is the mark of an authentic dialectical materialist (and this is the Hegelian critique of Kant - where he integrated the condition of impossibility, the thing-in-itself, as a condition of possibility). The goal of a Marxist is

…not to “map reality into his complex ideological system” but to trace back reality to understand where it came from. A Marxist wants to understand the development of reality and not merely its existence - which can be illusory.

A Marxist wants to understand the necessary form of the illusion - why does reality appear in this manner and not another? There’s nothing “fake” about labor and there’s nothing “fake” about Capital accumulation. Those are the starting points of Marxists.

The difference with Marxist analysis is that it understands its own limitations since it is both dialectical and historical.

The dialectical standpoint provides the absolute logical limits of a category and the historical standpoint provides its concrete instantiation, i.e its premise. Marx set up very precise conditions for his theory. His theory applies only up until capitalism collapses.

The conditions of capitalism’s collapse, capitalism’s nature and its premises are thus what he analyzed. Hence, you must keep in mind, all of Marx’s categories, such as labour, class, wages and even the nation-state are historically specific.

They have a specific era to which they apply. Therefore, Marxists still talk about labour, class, wages, imperialism, capitalism, etc because these are all real existing premises that have not ended yet (at least formally speaking).

Capitalism still exists in some dying form, Imperialism still exists, Nation-states are being dissolved but still persist, etc. Even if these categories start to collapse (for example: some would argue wage labour does not exist anymore), only Marxists can understand the…

…necessary form of their collapse. This is because only Marxists are *historical* in their analysis. Thus, as long as those categories exist, there is nothing “fake” about Marxist analysis.

In fact, even if every single Marxist theory ABOUT any of those categories was disproven, this wouldn’t render Marxist analysis any more “fake” since Marxist analysis is a METHOD and a PROCESS.

Thus, failures actually only make Marxist analysis stronger whereas it would collapse other “theories of reality”. But now the question Landshark and his riders would ask is: but what justifies class in the first place?

Why does Marx think it is a fundamental category of capitalism then? Doesn’t it seem like class does not explain (some) reality?To understand what class is in Marxist theory, we must understand how it is derived. In

Marxist analysis, categories are not merely empirically borrowed from history, “reality”, the TV, the “institution” or whatever have you.

They must be derived from these existing premises - and this is the mark of Hegelian Logic in Marxist theory (Hegel derived the categories of Logic instead of assuming them like Kant).

The theorists before Marx merely observed these categories - they empirically concluded class, value and labour were absolute forms of capitalism.

However, Marx derived these categories (which thus logically links all of them) - which is what makes his analysis historical and not trans-historical (as Adam Smith or Ricardo who thought their conditions applied to all History). How did Marx derive the categories?

Well, first, he observed the existing forms of reproduction that humanity practiced. He observed labor as the condition for existence and he observed Capital as a condition for existence. From labor, he found Capital and from Capital he found labor.

For, if we look at labour as a category, we find that, in modern society, it is caught up in an act of exchange - we labour for something. We do not labour directly for what we eat but indirectly.

This new attachment to labour is inherent in modern labour itself (contrary to feudalism, indirect exchange is necessary because of the development of technology and the division of labour, etc). Thus, labour only has meaning as long as it is a commodity, as long as it works…

…for this object of exchange that retro-actively defines its activity. We have now derived two new categories; commodity and money.

But now, reality splits into two - necessarily, some people have to sell their labor-power and others have to sell the object of labor (the commodity). But you say: no problem, I will do both at the same time! If everyone does this, everyone will win! But you missed something.

The moment the selling of labour was made necessary was the moment your labour got “lost in the sauce” as they say. The only thing that sustains your labour is now the one that sells you its products.

Naturally, the price will gravitate towards the most you can afford for you to continue labouring. Thus, the choice naturally splits society into those who labour for a living and does who sell labour products for a living.

The latter enriches themselves since their form of accumulation augments at every circuit of Capital, the better machinery, the more labour time they can extract and ad infinitum.

Thus, class analysis is actually the most advanced possible analysis you can have of present society since it locates the necessary form of interaction humanity has with itself and nature (in the form of labour itself).

All the contingencies of modern society must relate BACK to this fundamental form of labour - since it is the main activity of modern Man. If this fundamental form of activity would change, Marxism would ajust necessarily in the manner I have outlined above.

Thus, Marxism isn’t about explaining how INDIVIDUALS act but about explaining what is the plane of POSSIBILITY where those individuals can act. Very different.

This completely debunks any argument about Marxism being a “mapping” into reality since it doesn’t deal with its contingencies but its necessities.

I think I have covered everything. This is what I was listening to while writing. Thank you for reading.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh

Post
Share

Email

Keep Current with
Karim Ghazi 🔳

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Add to "My Authors"

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Save this thread as PDF

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"

@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KARIMAXXING

Karim Ghazi 🔳

@KARIMAXXING

Mar 3

"Flowers of the Red Army"

A response to @KeithWoodsYT's recent article and the disillusionned right-wing's critique of Marxism - 🧵

Recently, I have been engaging with a lot more right-wingers… and what a revelation! They have no idea what they are doing as much as the current left! Their critiques of Marxism are outdated while they're being outpaced by figures such as Hinkle.

Keith Woods, your favorite white nationalist, published a new article criticizing Marxism. Let us respond.

-Marxism is failed ideology

The first and immediate right-wing impression of Marxism is that it is a “failed ideology”. As Keith Woods says:

Read 50 tweets

Karim Ghazi 🔳

@KARIMAXXING

Feb 21

To this day, the liberal scientific establishment vehemently hates Soviet biology. Wonder why?

Introducing American biologist Ray Peat.

He used the Soviet dialectical method to completely shift the American paradigm of biology, discovering the cure to cancer in the process -🧵

First off, we have to understand Raymond Peat as an inherently revolutionary thinker. His thought makes no sense without the overall critical aspect of it (here I mean critical in the philosophic and revolutionary sense of the likes of the German idealists).

His insight is first and foremost a revolution in the philosophy of science.

He is a biologist of WHOLENESS as opposed to the Western paradigm of substance.

Read 40 tweets

Karim Ghazi 🔳

@KARIMAXXING

Feb 6

How Islam is perfect continuity with the Prophets:

🧵

https://twitter.com/AncestralVril/status/1754944218596880535

Islam is a competing universalism against Christian universalism. In the same way Christianity interprets the whole of History leading up to the sacrifice of the Messiah - Islam upholds a COMPETING claim that all of History is the History of Submission to God.

Christianity understands many of the Old Testament verses as prophecising the crucification and trinity. However, because the sons of Israel - which were the ones who received Revelation - did NOT interpret it as such, the door is open.

Read 30 tweets

Karim Ghazi 🔳

@KARIMAXXING

Oct 9, 2023

How Hamas completely debunked the Bronze Age Mindset - 🧵

There has been a lot of discourse among the American Right about the recent Hamas attack on Israel. This specific attack has caught this attention of the "vitalist Nietzschean" sphere of the Right, often followers of Bronze Age Pervert.

This sphere is known to be against moralizing and all "slave morality" coming from either the liberal establishement, the left or religion. An example of this would be the meme culture of the BAP sphere, which openly celebrates murder, rape and death.

Read 14 tweets

Karim Ghazi 🔳

@KARIMAXXING

Aug 16, 2023

The Bronze Age Mindset is a book that has divided the right wing and revived interest in the Nietzschean outlook.

But, there is a specter haunting it - a fatal crack in its worldview...

Here's the complete and fatal critique of the Bronze Age Mindset -🧵

The kernel of this critique will be biology, since it is the basis of BAP's understanding of society. The logic of the biological outlook will help us make a broader critique of the book.

Before starting, to get an understanding of where this is going, here's the guiding outline:

Read 83 tweets

Karim Ghazi 🔳

@KARIMAXXING

Jul 31, 2023

I hate the word "egalitarian" to describe communism.

Communists want a COMMON, not "equal", basis for humanity. Bourgeois society is one that wants equality before the Law.

In that sense, communism is the most radically anti-egalitarian methodology there is. -🧵

And also following that logic, Nazism would be the most radically "egalitarian" ideology as it wishes to formally regulate *individuals* instead of the content of society.

It is perverted as it claims to touch the *social* human essence that goes through production directly.

For the Nazi is the logical conclusion of the bourgeois logic of the law; equality of Men becomes equality for the Aryan; a mere exclusion of the logic.

Communists REJECT formal human equality; they leave it to the violence of History to regulate that.

Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E
copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi
copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Post
Share

Send Email!

×

Email the whole thread instead of just a link!

Separate emails with commas
Message

Here's a great thread you should read right now!
Send Thread As Email!

Email Successfully Sent!

Help |
About |
TOS |
Privacy |
Twitter Files