100
"My main issue with Marxism is that it isnt idealist"
(thelemmy.club)
tweto https://x.com/souljagoyteller/status/2085558616992444753
more takes
Natural rights are what guides my politics. The social contract exists to both protect people and protect their rights, and governments should be toppled when they void said rights. The thing that separates man from animal is that God delivered us with the privilege of basic rights
other poster: where do these natural rights come from?
sami gold: 1. God 2. Human existence
Gotta be a debate bro about it cause he's pretending to be intellectual. Marx has a pretty famous saying regsrding philosophy and whether its duty is to describe pr change society. So im pretty sure Marx himself would have some degree of leeway regarding where someone came from if they agree with his prescriptions.
I don't see why him saying that the purpose of philosophy is to change rather than just interpret the world operates as any kind of defense for what this guy is saying besides that it is the category of ethics and political philosophy and therefore has concrete prescriptions.
Its not a defense at all. It was a criticism. He can disagree with a Marxist description as long as he's with the prescription, this should not be a sticking point to him and based on the quote I quoted, I think Marx himself would agree, i'd prefer someone get there via materialism but someone doing a Marxism means infinitely more.than someone believing a Marxism
If you are acting on the basis of fantastical prescriptions that you believe God etched into your soul based on a natural rights framework, you will inevitably fall against Marxist conclusions because different analytical frameworks generally don't have identical outputs across most cases.
To give a slightly more concrete explanation, a major problem with natural rights (besides those rights being totally made up by the person speaking or whoever that person arbitrarily agrees with) is that they are an attempt to depoliticize legal rights in the sense of claiming that people's "true" rights precede any social decision, i.e. they are not constructed politically. This has notoriously been used to question-beg the rights that the speaker is personally interested in (Locke does this flagrantly with supposedly self-evident private property rights, for example) rather than observing the reality that we decide what rights are and the most functional answer changes in different circumstances, because human governance is constrained by material reality.
I dont wanna give them position on the fucking politburo, im just willing to take a willingly useful idiot where I can. Im not philosophically consistent anymore at all. Im.goal oriented.
The main point of useful idiocy here is that he is correct that these two frameworks contradict and doesn't have the guile to mask how absurd his side is.
Revolutionary movements require revolutionary theory. I don't think your argument is exactly tailism, but it functionally has a similar problem, because if you are goal-oriented then you should want to have and promote a framework oriented toward achieving those goals and, as I explained above, his framework will frequently contradict those goals, so his framework should be opposed by socialists. Can you not see how "we should follow these arbitrary commandments because I say that God said so" being treated as equivalent to dialectical materialism in terms of legitimacy is probably not good for a communist movement?
Your argument reminds me of what dem-aligned people say about only caring about results but then sacrificing everything that is the basis for achieving those alleged results because they mistakenly think (or lie and pretend) that it'll make reactionaries into helpful allies. Obviously I think you are being honest, but you've fallen for the same trap some of the supporters of those politicians have.
I want better results and dont have any interested tied up in the current system. Simple as.