Religion doesn’t count. We’re on Lemmy, so neither does communism.
You must log in or register to comment.
Im not doing all that work just to get linux going
that work being run installer and then click the install software button and install steam/libreoffice/firefox.
Deceiver. If Linux was so simple Linux users wouldn’t constantly be posting for help to get shit running
windows users do this too people are just totally desensitized to it
Newbies would post about Windows and Mac if they didn’t come pre-installed. :beanis:
it happens anyway! on this topic people act like nobody ever has issues with windows but issues with windows are actually constant, people are just accustomed to dealing with them and posts about them are relegated to background noise.
I agree. I’ve fully been on Linux for almost a year now. Anyone who portrays Linux as being that straightforward and uncomplicated is being misleading and inaccurate. Linux is difficult. Getting it to do things you want is difficult. It takes time and energy and interest.
I’d still advocate to use it. Linux gets easier every year and long may that simplification continue. But don’t jump into using Linux if you’re not ready to.
I ran archinstaller, then installed plasma, and everything works. My media keys, function keys, suspend on close, all the basic tooling of userspace is there. I guess I had to read a paragraph on a wiki page to make the fingerprint scanner work but I literally just searched “thinkpad fingerprint arch” and installed fprint so hardly mystical.
I’m glad it worked smoothly for you and it sometimes is a smooth effortless experience for some people; but if you want to “convert” people then you’ve got to be honest about the fact that people commonly face difficulties. I’ve commented about my Linux issues before and I can paste the comment again here to give an example:
One of the first issues I had problems with was figuring out what was wrong with Street Fighter 6 giving ultra low frame rates in multiplayer, but working fine in single player. It needed disabling of split lock protections in the CPU.
A recent update in OpenSUSE made the computer fail to boot half the time and made the image on the right half of the screen garbled. I rolled back to before the update and am using it without updating for a few weeks to see if the GPU driver problem gets ironed out.
I installed VMware Horizon for my job’s remote work login and it fucked up my Steam big picture mode and controller detection. I didn’t bother trying to figure that out and just uninstalled VMware remote desktop.
I managed to install my printer driver, but manually finding the correct RPM file to install would not be tolerable for normies.
I still can’t get my Dualshock 3 controller to pair via Bluetooth despite instructions on the OpenSUSE wiki. I’ve stopped trying to troubleshoot that and use my 8BitDo controller instead.
I still can’t find a horizontal page scrolling PDF app.
Figuring out how to edit fstab to automount my secondary drives is not a process normies would be able to execute. I still can’t figure out how to use this to auto-mount my Synology NAS.
Plasma recently added monitor brightness controls to software and these seem to have disappeared for me now, and I can’t figure out why.
I can’t get CopyQ to launch minimised, no matter what I do.
My KDE Plasma task bar widgets for monitoring CPU/GPU temp worked till I reinstalled OpenSUSE, and I can’t figure out why they’ve decided to not work on this fresh install. System monitor can see the temperature sensors just fine still. Update: this seems to have fixed itself (maybe through am update?).
Flatpak Steam app wouldn’t pick up controllers for some reason. Minor issue, but unnecessary jankiness.
My laptop fingerprint reader plainly isn’t supported.
People do not tolerate this amount of jankiness. And this doesn’t include the discomfort with relearning minor design differences between OS’s when switching. Linux is a bit of a battle with relearning and troubleshooting things that would never be problematic on Windows.
Nah, I’m very computer literate, built my own PC, can troubleshoot most software and hardware on Windows and sometimes Mac… I’m not a genius but my family and friends consider me the ‘computer fixer guy’ of the group.
I’ve got Linux on my little laptop - constant troubleshooting. I want a specific program? Ah, well here’s this knock-off version that is almost totally functional but pretty inaccessible and the only tutorials for it are buried deep in some random forum, if at all. Oh, and you have to install these other versions and plugins, and it must be done via this specific command line. It’s just not accessible for easy use yet. Gaming? Oh, just use proton, except for this particular game, where you have to… go to some niche forum and follow a 25 step guide, and then it might work, depending on your graphics card. Come on, try it, don’t you have a spare 4 hours to set aside?
It’s almost inevitable given that the computing monopolies don’t optimise for Linux at all. It’s a hostile environment, and to me it’s still more hassle than it’s worth.
I think if I had a day or so to set it all up with a Linux expert they’d have me on the right course, but as far as plug and load goes, in a time when I don’t have any time at all, Windows just works. Of course, it’s being enshittified faster and faster. I expect I’ll have to switch to Linux some day properly.
You might say: ‘MaoTheLawn’, you’re a stupid moron, its totally easy, just read the right guide! If it was, I would be saying it was! It just isn’t a simple enough switch for someone who has a million and one other things going on in their life.
Maybe I just haven’t found the right Linux version for me yet.
understandable, have a nice day
I must have just lucked out with my hardware or something. I’ve never had a problem and everything just works. Much better experience than installing and running Windows. I also run a Mac with OSX too though.
Just use Bazzite.
https://bazzite.gg/Or Bluefin/Aurora for the non-gamers. Least friction ‘distro’ there is.
Linux is for computer hobbyists and tech hipsters you can’t change my mind.
Y’all love arguing about the best distro we get it
I’ll tell you a little secret: desktop linux is not very good and it’s not getting better. Don’t believe anyone who tells you they found a perfect operating system
Stfu 2025 is going to be the year of the Linux desktop
My unpopular tech opinion is Windows Subsystem for Linux is good enough for people that want to tinker with Linux without dealing with OS and/or driver problems. Same for Apple computers that are functional BSD machines without the headaches.
yeah WSL made my dual boot setup redundant. I can just develop for linux now without ever leaving windows
People here should read more right wing theory. I think its very easy to get the impression that the only right wingers that exist are Shapiro or Alex Jones types and so when people on the left encounter a right winger who isn’t a total moron/grifter they can be overly impressed and more easily swayed by them.
Case in point being Aleksandr Dugin. While he’s not as influential since the ACP was founded, I used to hear some his talking points on here a whole lot. He explicitly talks about using internet marxists as a 5th column to push right wing ideas. So inoculate yourselves.
There’s a not uncommon tendency among leftists, and especially MLs where they want to consume the “right” kind of information, as though reading anything that isn’t the most pure, anti-imperialist, regionally specific Chinese news paper will taint them with liberalism.
No baby girl, you need to read liberal, reactionary, and other leftist sources in earnest, with a principled Marxist analysis, and genuinely understand them.
Tbh, I think this tendency is a manifestation of the western left’s pseudo-Christian purity obsession.
sometimes i think the western left has basically entered the “early middle age Irish monks preserving the classics and also drawing anthro bunnies” phase
the purity stuff comes from the marginalization and effort to just keep the lights on right now
Oh yeah don’t get me started on the left’s residual Christian thinking. The amount of barely veiled protestant thinking is too damn high. The obsession with splitting is a perfect example.
I think also whispers Hayek did actually have some valid critiques of managed economies. I believe there are solutions to these problems tbc, but you can’t just hand-wave the critique, even if he was an evil pos.
I don’t think I’ve ever personally conversed with a right winger who has actually engaged with ‘the good stuff’ from the Right tradition however, so it’s important to understand that the cultural impact of this stuff is negligible compared to e.g. Rand
Definitely agree on Hayek. He’s one of the grandfathers of contemporary complex systems theory and has some stuff that’s worth reading from that angle too. It’s also worth knowing your enemy.
Certainly of Soviet style planned economies. Though just the existence of computers refutes a lot of his so called problems.
Theoretically literate right wingers don’t go around proselytizing because that would go against their theory of power. You don’t teach the peasants, you use them. I would argue that policy wise the popular ‘theorists’ are only now making in roads because no one reads anything anymore, left or right.
There is a podcast that tackles this very subject.
The Black and Red Book Review
Highly recommend, though production quality is not exactly great.
Maybe I’ve just not read the “correct” stuff, but I’ve largely found fascist propaganda to be incoherent and a waste of time.
Well there’s more to the right than just fascism. Catholic integralism is a hot topic right now. For a real head scratcher try George Fitzhugh. He was a pro slavery anti-capitalist who liked socialism because he thought it was the ultimate form of slavery.
Marx and Engels clarified many of their ideas through their critical readings and polemics.
I can’t recall where — I think a preface to one of Marx’s works — Engels describes how the publishing of the work was not important in the end; that the important thing was the clarification of their own ideas through the effort of refuting their opponents. I think it was against Proudhon or Stirner… can’t remember…
If your “strongly held belief” can’t survive scrutiny or contact with intelligent argumentation it doesn’t deserve to be a “strongly held belief.”
Regularly examining your own assumptions and attacking your own point of view will not only help you better solve real problems, it will allow you to better recognize and answer specious arguments as they arise.
I was watching a China special on teleSUR a couple of nights ago and got my first taste of Dugin. I honestly have no idea why he was a part of it. He didn’t even talk about China, but was harping on about how all of Africa must unite to struggle against American imperialism. He didn’t put forth a single idea regarding how that can be achieved. As if all of Africa is some monolith. And this nonsense was immediately preceded by a pretty good Radhika Desai lecture. Needless to say, I was not impressed.
Yeah. Listening to JD Vance of all people talk eloquently and with a populist message about the east Palestine train derailment really took me by surprise. The guy - our future far right VP - sounded like Bernie sanders.
I think the political parties are doing a really weird shift and most people haven’t caught on yet.
I kinda hate that one of the few people on the left I’ve heard talk about this phenomenon is Joshua Cittarella who is far too comfortable with taking the next step into “maybe the fascists have a point.”
I mean they don’t call them National socialists for nothing. I’m not the least bit surprised that fascists are talking socialist adjacent talking points but rebranded. IIRC even the Nazis had some redeeming social welfare programs (for good aryan Germans, fuck everyone else) that were adjacent to socialism… to capture the interest of those who would vote for real socialists.
Kinda like how Starbucks has decent workers benefits compared to their competitors - to prevent unionization. Or how FDR enacted the new deal to prevent actual socialists from gaining power.
I hope I’m getting my point across…
Yeah I get your point but all that stuff is completely empty. The Nazis still privatized everything and worked with big German and foreign capitalists to fund the Holocaust. When fascists say all the populist crap they don’t mean it.
When fascists say all the populist crap they don’t mean it.
Yup that’s why I used it as an example
i recall C. Derick Varn making a similar point and it’s mostly true. that’s why i’m personally annoyed when people still do the “right-wingers are stupid” bit
If it’s stupid and it keeps beating you, how stupid is it really? Things can be evil and smart at the same time.
Pokemon is boring
True!
So are all “comfy” games, but that’s why I like it!
That’s fair. Pokemon is boring to me in a way that isn’t comfy, I just find it very very dull
Not when you’re 6 years old!
…wait
I think cis people should transition just for a little bit so they can understand what gender dysphoria is like
Children do this experimentation naturally but are shamed out of it and railroaded into their sex assignment even though you’d get the same result for 90% of kids by just letting it run its course. The fact that there are adults who haven’t experimented with their gender before is a sign of major societal repression.
This would also have the benefit of catching trans people who didn’t know they were trans
Mine is similar: You can only be true cis if you are confronted and in contact with all faces of your sexuality. Everything else is compensation and/or unhealthy.
Yeah, I think the first time I “experienced gender” was that period of time when my kid knew “mom” but not “dad” and even though he meant it in a gender neutral way, I still felt strongly that it is wrong.
I can’t agree with this one but I do sympathise deeply with the desire to just rub cis people’s faces in it, a bit, as a treat.
deleted by creator
I actually don’t respect religion at all and could never be 100% compatible with a religious person
Religious people, on the whole, have a fundamentally illogical and deeply problematic view of the most basic facts about our metaphysical reality, morality, and history. Even if they don’t use their religious views to justify deeply immoral behaviors, etc. Gotta have some sort of common ground to connect with a person.
For this place?
Cars are badass. They make crazy noise and you can do sick ignorant shit in them. Slamming one around a parking lot whipping shitties and spending ur paycheck to see how even dumber it can get fuckin rules.
It’s bad to be forced to have a car. Nobody should HAVE to have one. Cars themselves are cool as fuck.
Mashing the gas and breaking the tires loose is just… Fun.
It’s bad in so many ways, but damn if it isn’t a good ass time. Something primal about it.
Vroom
bscccccccch stutututu
Horses used to live hard lives driving industrial equipment and warfare until the internal combustion engine freed them for the pasture. I imagine cars will follow a similar path, where enthusiasts can play around with them while we all have mass transit for the day-to-day.
We’re on Lemmy, so neither does communism.
I’M IN POLAND, IT’S DEFINITELY COMMUNISM.
I’m so sorry for your loss
IT’S OK I’M USED TO IT
The godfather does insist upon itself
im with peter on this one
the godfather is too short and too economical, no scenes have any room to breath
Maybe not mooost controversial, but the legend of korra is not only worse than ATLA, but it is pretty much garbage. Lib garbage, too.
missing the crucial appeal of the series, which is that lesbians will watch anything with lesbians in it
That is true. I liked the lesbianism. It was based of them to make korra gay and I thought they were very cute together for being lib trash. Critical support.
Disappointed in my fellow lesbians
season 3 was good and I liked the flashback episodes in season 2
1 didn’t understand it’s own politics and 4 was abysmally bad
season 1 was anti communist and season 4 was fascist apologia
yeah, but it was anti-communist in a weirdly liberal way. Like, it established that, yes, the equalist’s have real greivences against benders and a political system that makes them second class citizens. But! Their leader was a Hypocrite (the worst thing you can be), and so everyone went home and did something else with their lives. Like, what? You’re just leaving it there? They didn’t even finish the story they wrote!
Their leader was a Hypocrite
More to the point, he was a class traitor
Just like a massive amount of actual revolutionaries
anti communist
Fascist apologia
I love Christmas time and Christmas movies. I’m an atheist, but since we don’t celebrate saturnalia this is the closest I’ll ever get. I like giving people gifts and when someone gets me something thoughtful it makes me feel special.
Also, I enjoy that the ostensibly religious holiday has been eaten by capitalism. Because when someone complains you can just go “tsk, yeah, capitalism man.” And even the hardcore hogs are forced to agree.
Because when someone complains you can just go “tsk, yeah, capitalism man.” And even the hardcore hogs are forced to agree.
Christmas is winning the War on Christmas, but at what cost?!
Big Chungus is funny
Humanity is doomed. People are too easily manipulated and kept in line by the wealth and power of the most evil individuals to ever be alive, never having been taught to be critical of the thoughts that have been implanted within them. People can’t even reach the realization that problems which require extremes to resolve exist in the first place.
I want to see a world where it’s a tragedy for even a single person to be denied the basics of food, shelter, healthcare, etc. Instead I see a world where someone’s lack of any of those things is “justified”.
Maybe if a few more CEOs get blasted I’ll change my mind.
Hey, there’s always China. Are they perfect? No, nobody is. But they were good enough Fidel thought the strategy could work
Not a controversial opinion on Hexbear lol
We don’t talk enough about how much society openly despises teenage girls and the things that they like. It’s one of the purest, most distilled forms of misogyny.
God forbid a color or a pattern or a beverage or a game or a show or a musician or a style becomes associated with teenage girls, the circlejerk shitting on it never goes away.
The last vestiges of Twilight hate are still out there, it’s truly eternal.
My partner recently watched the movies and is reading the books for the first time. They’re still hesitant to admit they like them because of the stigma. We’ve both watched worse slop on YouTube and I’m not allowed to make fun considering I’m out here reading stuff like Rage of Achilles to get my romance fix.
i hate twilight because its worshiping abusive relationship dynamics and written by a white mormon woman
Romance is a goofyass genre, we’re allowed to be a lil silly with it :3
On some level I think society feels it has to hit the gas hard on misogyny during a girls transition into womanhood, just to really rub it in and cement that stuff early on, so they get an outsized proportional response of that hatred.
PSL goes hard
Most people - including Marxist thinkers and people here on Hexbear - do not understand what idealism is and subscribe to a critique of it that says that Platonism and most versions of religious idealism - probably the most popular examples of idealist schools of thought - are not idealist schools of thought.
People also seem to unfortunately like to come to a conclusion first, and then try to fit the facts to match that conclusion, like when people try to argue that the PRC’s economy is currently socialist despite it featuring significant private property (and, thus, profit motive). (Going to note here that there is a room to argue that it isn’t capitalist on the grounds of the capitalist class not being sufficiently dominant, which I am not equipped to discuss right now, and why I do not call it such.)
like when people try to argue that the PRC’s economy is currently socialist
The easiest counter to this is that the PRC itself does not consider its economy to be socialist.
People also seem to unfortunately like to come to a conclusion first, and then try to fit the facts to match that conclusion
Exhibit A: The whole “Western Marxist” debate. A whole lot of people will look for someone else to blame before they blame themselves or their group.
What leads you to say that the PRC doesn’t consider its current economy socialist? I’ve only seen it referred to in official sources as the “socialist market economy” which they specify is a specific stage of socialist development but still socialist due to predominance of public ownership
most versions of religious idealism - probably the most popular examples of idealist schools of thought - are not idealist schools of thought.
This. I notice this is way more problem on reddit than here, a deprogram user once told me straight up that religion is materialist. I mean i know that human mind can hold conflicting ideas, but c’mon at least admit those are conflicting. More troubling result is support people give for let’s say liberation theology which is just old class collaboration idea don’t even pretending it will do any liberation whatsoever - if it was not religious, the same people would bash it heavily, but it’s a new version of clerical socialism from a Communist Manifesto - a holy water which priest sprinkles on heart of bourgeois.
Do you have any resources or examples that might clearly demonstrate what idealism is and isn’t?
Right now, I don’t have any sources ready, and I know for certain that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on idealism explicitly excludes non-recent branches of idealist schools of thought.
There are at least two definitions of ontological idealism (and two corresponding ones for ontological materialism) that I have seen. One of which characterises idealist schools of thought as positing that (some) non-material things have some sort of primacy over material things (note that non-material things are not limited to thoughts). Another definition is broader and simply requires idealist schools of thought to posit that non-material things exist (while the corresponding definition for materialism requires those schools to posit that only material things exist).
Contrary to popular perception, idealism does not require you to believe in magic, including that we can psychically change matter. Simply, for example, subscribing to the idea that math does not depend on matter is idealist.
Also, while religious idealism (most prominently Christian idealism) does require you to believe in magic, it also doesn’t require one to believe that it is thoughts that have any sort of primacy over matter.I am also pretty sure that I’m not alone in considering relevant disagreements to be at least mostly linguistic in nature. I have heard that Wittgenstein said something to the same effect, but have not checked.
My position, based on Engels. You gotta add Dialectics: material things can combine in such ways that are not singularly traceable to the material basic components, but instead rely on emergent components when they interact. Consciousness as we understand it IS material but is not understood through vulgar materialism which says that it can be broken down into electric signals/chemicals to be understood entirely. This is the way. Dialectics of Nature.
Nothing “idealist” exists, but things not understood in their complete totality do, and emergence is real. But emergence is material, not Magic. Trying to make a definition of “materialism” which says human consciousness is simple cells, chemicals, and electric is a straw man of good materialist analyses. These definitions are all based in a non-dialectical framework and that’s why they run into the same issues that Plekhanov ran into.
Are you insinuating that Wittgenstein’s position of linguistic disagreements is applicable to differences of idealism and materialism?
You gotta add Dialectics
Firstly, the word ‘dialectic’ doesn’t mean anything specific outside of context. At most, it carries the meaning of ‘something related to change’, and can refer to anything from people having an argument to a framework with theses, antitheses and syntheses of things. Do you refer exclusively to the dialectic of nature?
Secondly, that claim is yet to be substantiated. Why does one ‘gotta’ ‘add’ any particular dialectics?Nothing “idealist” exists
Taken at face value, you are claiming that idealist schools of thought do not exist.
If you mean that non-material things do not exist, then you subscribe to a linguistic framework that, among other things, makes engaging with math without compromising on your principles basically impossible, and also means that things like capitalism, social relations in general, numbers, functions, logic (none of which consist of matter) exist.Trying to make a definition of “materialism” which says human consciousness is simple cells, chemicals, and electric is a straw man of good materialist analyses
This seems rather silly. If defining terms is ‘a straw man (of good materialist analyses)’, then I’m sorry, but how do you expect to communicate what materialism and idealism are? If you actively refuse to explain what you mean by certain words that are not used in a colloquial manner, how do you expect other people to understand you? The same criticism I actually have of philosophers in general as well, as the entire field seems to be actively resistant to properly defining their terms and being understood with minimal ambiguity.
materialist analyses
Also, a pet peeve of mine is how ‘materialist analysis’ is almost always better characterised as ‘political-economical analysis’ in socialist spaces. In particular, my basis for the claim is that such analysis can be done just fine within idealist frameworks, but also because it never actually draws any conclusions from materialism - rather, such analyses draw conclusions from understanding of economic base and superstructure, understanding of private property, understanding of classes.
why they run into the same issues that Plekhanov ran into
What issues did Plekhanov run into?
Are you insinuating that Wittgenstein’s position of linguistic disagreements is applicable to differences of idealism and materialism?
As I have stated, I have not investigated the matter as of yet.
What have you read that made you come to these conclusions? It sounds like you read the encyclopedia entries for these ideas and that’s your basis. Also pulling lots of ‘debate-bro’ tactics, which I don’t appreciate and is influencing the way I’m trying this interaction
Defining materialism as ‘nothing immaterial exists or has any impact on us as material beings’ is fine and correct. But the way you discuss them takes that definition and applies it In a straw-man. ‘nothing immaterial’ doesn’t mean that consciousness is simple electric and chemicals. That’s my point. Complexity and emergence are still material and part of a materialist philosophy once the dislectic is accepted as the relation between and within material
I’m not replying to the rest. Not worth our time
i personally thought the most common form of idealism was summed up as this: “humans cannot perceive reality perfectly, they perceive things to their human limit and see appearances of things”
or, alternatively: “humans have experiences that trascend humanity itself and can’t be fully understood by humans”
For Marx in particular, he saw any theory divorced from practical experience as a slipperly slope towards idealism - I’m still working through this argument myself, though, and I believe I misunderstood his point. I’m not very strong on my Young Hegelian critiques, truthfully
i personally thought the most common form of idealism was summed up as this: “humans cannot perceive reality perfectly, they perceive things to their human limit and see appearances of things” or, alternatively: “humans have experiences that trascend humanity itself and can’t be fully understood by humans”
It is definitely not that. The points about imperfection of perception are not relevant to either of idealism and materialism themselves.
For Marx in particular, he saw any theory divorced from practical experience as a slipperly slope towards idealism
I have not encountered Marx saying so, but that would be silly, as idealism isn’t some sort of a detachment from practice, and I would argue that there are no serious incompatibilities between idealism and Marxism (at the very least, nobody has managed to bring any of such to my attention, so far).
You want to pin down absolute definitions of idealism vs materialism, capitalism vs socialism, but the precise meanings of these words are not agreed by all thinkers if they are consciously defined at all. Many thinkers who are called idealist did not self-identify as such, same for capitalist economists.
These terms ought to be considered as post-hoc groupings of an eclectic set of philosophies, even contradictory ones. So what definition of idealism are you applying?
there are no serious incompatibilities between idealism and Marxism
How can this be? Marx wrote a bunch of polemics against idealism. The German Ideology notably, but also the Gotha Critique, Theses on Feuerbach, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844). Are you defining Marxism as the school that emerged after Marx, or Marx himself?
You want to pin down absolute definitions of idealism vs materialism
I want rigour in this stuff, rather than operating on vibes.
Also, I am myself a mathematical Platonist, meaning that I am an ontological idealist myself, and, given how many other socialists both at least claim to subscribe to materialism (which, I would argue, is not always a true claim) and at least claim that Marxism and idealism have significant incompatibilities (which I have not managed to encounter so far), I’d rather resolve this lack of coherence. Either my understanding is incorrect, or a lot of other people are being incorrect. I am fine with the matter being resolved with me being proven incorrect, but so far people have not managed to bring up any relevant incompatibilities.
but the precise meanings of these words are not agreed by all thinkers if they are consciously defined at all
That does not mean that we should avoid defining terms or explain understandings of words. Furthermore, a person can be aware of multiple incompatible linguistic frameworks and try to understand something by attempting to apply each of them. In particular, I brought up the fact that I am aware of multiple definitions for the terms ‘idealism’ and ‘materialism’.
If one refuses to explain what they mean by their words, then they should not expect to be understood, I would also argue.So what definition of idealism are you applying?
I provided relevant explanations elsewhere in this tree of comments, but the one that I consider to be a ‘better’ understanding of the word ‘idealism’ is one that characterises idealist schools of thought as positing that non-material stuff (not necessarily mental non-material stuff) has primacy over material stuff.
How can this be? Marx wrote a bunch of polemics against idealism
Well, just because somebody says something doesn’t mean that they are correct. This might seem unwarrantedly harsh, but we do know that Marxist thinkers (obviously, not just them, but only they are relevant here) did not always make tested claims. Some of those claims were tested after being put into works, and some are yet to be tested (like Lenin’s anti-parliamentarism from, IIRC, State and Revolution).
IIRC, Marx tried to define idealist schools of thought as positing that mental stuff has some sort of primacy over matter. That definition is bad at least because, according to it, schools of thought like Platonism (and its offshoots) and most variations of religious idealism - famous examples of idealist schools of thought - are not idealist schools of thought, which is silly.
I do not currently have time to delve into those works, as I have thousands of pages of dense reading material to go through that are much more important for me right now.So, if there are incompatibilities between idealism and Marxism (however you understand what Marxism is), I’m all ears.
Are you defining Marxism as the school that emerged after Marx, or Marx himself?
I am making rather broad strokes here, but I’m pretty sure that what most people here would understand as Marxism doesn’t actually have significant incompatibilities with idealism.
Empirical idealists are certainly not divorced from practice for example. Not that strict empiricism makes sense, but we do use practice is a criterion of truth.
this is definitely controversial, you got that down
you’re arguing for something extremely non-conventional among philosophers themselves - without sufficient arguments to make anyone believe you. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong, it just means people won’t take you as seriously
one thing i would say, where you would likely agree, is that most people calling themselves Marxist are not well-versed enough to argue for their Marxist or Marx-influenced philosophy - if Lenin wasn’t confident in his Marxism without starting to understand Hegel’s Greater Logic… I think we all know what I’m implying here
What you’re arguing for here sounds like something that requires several months of studying philosophers from their own works. You can go even further and argue something like Derrida, that maybe we’ve all been reading philosophers who misread their contemporaries who misread their contemporaries and so on and so forth.
This isn’t something I myself am well-versed enough to do, so all I can do is wish you luck on this one
Lenin admits that it’s true though lol. He just says practically it very strong appears and works that the real substance that is subjectively experienced can be interacted with very functionally with materialistic assumptions. From practice (scientific and political) we know that diamat is the most functional system if not necessarily perfect.
Most communists organisations are absolutely dogshit at communication. Get a nice professionally looking website. Get a SoMe strategy. Get a consistent visual identity. Do some SEO. It doesn’t have to be hard or expensive. This is what Lenin would have done. And stop writing in that horrible jargon that makes everything sound like a resolution from your 1976 congress, normal people find it weird and off-putting.
You don’t have to be a theory nerd to be a real Marxist. Not everyone has the time, energy or personality to sit in a book club for hours. And that is fine. You can understand plenty without having to feel you’re back in school doing homework. If communist movements wants any kind of success they have to make theory accessible, relevant to what people are going through and attractive enough that people will want to engage with it.
I don’t care whether you put pineapple on your pizza or not. I really don’t.
I think some people in niche communities (such as communist groups in this example) actually want the group to stay insular and personal. They like feeling part of a special little group, and if it started letting just anyone in then that would be lost.
I just heard about missionaries being forced to be annoying so their converts are fanatical and they get to feel persecuted by everyone else and ingrain that perspective.
Coming to terms with the fact that just because I’m autistic about communism doesn’t mean the average person I get to sympathize will read a fraction of the theory I do.
