>spiritual in that it deals with man's spirit

This isn't the type of spiritual i mean, and this still seems very geared towards labour, class and etc, like you can call this spiritual (looks gay to me because i can't understand it) but i'm talking about things such as ethnicity, society (not in the class way but moreso culture) and religion

this still is talking about work/economics one way or another

Depends on your definition of "genuine caring", mussolini threw all his syndicalist buddies under the bus for whatever reason and hitler only used the straser brothers to get their support and discarded them when he achieved his goals

mhm

Economics and politics going hand in hand is a product of our time. Prior to industrialization the ruling class didnt decide economic matters the way it did today, the Guilds were self regulating.

If Marxism gets the spirit wrong i doubt i can answer it issues

Its meaningful because Marxism works with the following premise

1) man is a limited being, defined by the objects of his needs in the material world of phenomena
2) man is conditioned by material realities; his thoughts will not deliver him that which he needs, and for this reason he must *labour* - it is precisely *labour* which is the mode of being in which man is at his most substantial, when not only he pursues objects of his needs, but he changes reality itself to suit his needs
3) man enters into social relationships because of the objects and subjects of his needs
4) and man's alienation from others (who are not part of his limited being but instead separate from it, despite being subjects of his needs and desires) is specifically ended when people *labour together,* pursue projects together, work to change life for the better and reality to accord with their will

This is deeply meaningful, and this to me is what the spirituality of 21st century should be like, focusing on human nature vs. the natural world, and man's relation to other men

I'm saying Communism would've probably gained support from nationalists and fascists if it talked about the importance of ethnicity or an ethno-plural world, fatherland, culture, religion in a positive light, or atleast mention it. This is my point, I don't have a problem with Communism being pretty much completley oriented on class and economics, because that's Communism, I like the ideology, but... I'm just saying the things I said would've attracted nationalists since most nationalists and fascists don't really seem to care about economics


The word I'm trying to come up with is that Communism is only preoccupied on the materialistic side of everything, as in critiquing most things from a materialistic point of view (and i'm not referring to materialistic as in muh stuff)

I honestly don't know why those things would be important, and have a feeling that if Marxism was like mainly about those things it wouldn't have piqued my interest

Like they are things that exist by their own merit

because of language, etc.

and for nationalists these things are extremely important to them

its not something that needs to be inherently focused on

It rly kinda does, or else languages, cultures and etc dies

marxism prioritizes the idea of a combined international workers force over the idea of nations, therefore marxism and fascism will never get along with one another.

Yes

but this is what i mean, communists are most of the time detached from these things, and these things ARE what give many people meaning or atleast a sense of belonging, if Communism were to have also talked about these things, or atleast have focused even a smidgen of these things, then you would've gotten something way fdifferent

@ImATomato you don't need to believe in nations in order to preserve culture

I mean we can see from history that the most visible patterns are those of struggle between nations and not within nations stratum

and not only this, Marxism argues that it is *literally impossible to take on capitalism* if you don't do internationalist praxis. That this is foundational, not even some value judgement or ideological tenet, but that by the virtue of capitalism being global the force combatting it must also be

> Marxism argues that it is literally impossible to take on capitalism if you don't do internationalist praxis. That this is foundational, not even some value judgement or ideological tenet, but that by the virtue of capitalism being global the force combatting it must also be

This is irrelevant to my point because it doesn-t concern culture

that its meaningless to talk about "anti-capitalism" via "nationalism"

oh

i was responding to the other guy

oh lol sorry

no no should've used @

np

why can't the species itself be the reference point for belonging and meaning @aymem

what species+

species+

fuck

😄

species¨

omg...

:DDDD

species?

>1) man is a limited being, defined by the objects of his needs in the material world of phenomena

reductionism of a man, he's nothing more than his wants and needs.

>2) man is conditioned by material realities; his thoughts will not deliver him that which he needs, and for this reason he must labour - it is precisely labour which is the mode of being in which man is at his most substantial, when not only he pursues objects of his needs, but he changes reality itself to suit his needs

his thoughts won't deliver anything, but the communism will. completely removing a chance for a man to mature and again reduce him to his wants and needs and never going through a struggle to achieve something greater than himself or his initial goal. You see labor as an obstacle I see it as a necessity.

>3) man enters into social relationships because of the objects and subjects of his needs

another reductionism similar to ancap reductionism of social interaction

>4) and man's alienation from others (who are not part of his limited being but instead separate from it, despite being subjects of his needs and desires) is specifically ended when people labour together, pursue projects together, work to change life for the better and reality to accord with their will

more wrong conclusions from an already flawed view

your view is not meaningful, it's utterly void of meaning. There's no other purpose but to satisfy ur own ego

not going to read that

but thank you

>You see labour as an obstacle, I see it as a necessity

cringe!!!

@Bird Wizard 1) not reductionism, man quite literally is the summation of his needs and his desires to a very, very large extent

2) so you agree with my point, that material realities are not changed by thoughts alone

3) man did enter to social relationships at the dawn of human beings for specifically this reason

4) not sure how that constitutes an argument