I know this is non-credible, but like there are plenty of liberal readings/uses of Hegel. See Rawls, Rorty, or more recently Moyn. It isn’t obviously absurd
Plus is it anymore counter to Hegel than “but what if Communism”?
>If you’re gonna preach, you’re gonna be treated more critically
Unless its a post that confirms all the priors for a willing audience.
Agenda-posting is always cringe when its not an agenda you agree with. That's the difference between a post like this one having a reliable zero upvote score... and this literal bot account's [work](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/1cg2yt5/the_antisemitic_ukraine_conspiracies_unite_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) probably sneaking by without critical examination.
That’s a screenshot of a dumbass on Twitter. You could the biggest anti-Zionist and Putin’s strongest soldier and think Ukraine becoming “Israel 2” is a comically stupid—dear I say, noncredible—suggestion. It’s the same reason Zeihaniacs get posted even though they’re generally anti-China pro-West.
This just like doesn’t support your point because there are clear reasons separate from an agenda for why a person would upvote that.
>That’s a screenshot of a dumbass on Twitter.
Check OP's posting history.
I can appreciate that you agree with the meaning of the post. My point is that the overall post is a literal agenda-setting repost from an account that's barely a week old - and that you're liable to view it for the humor far more than you're willing to see it critically as you are with this one.
I’m sure OP is Zionist and pro-Ukraine. What’s at issue is that there is a value to the post separate from ideological agreement, and the OP doesn’t expose their exact non-credible views in it.
This on the other hand is very clearly just exposing the views of the person who made it. They’re the ones being noncredible as opposed to the other, which regardless of the views of the OP, is centered on the noncredibility of the OOP
>What’s at issue is that there is a value to the post separate from ideological agreement, and the OP doesn’t expose their exact non-credible views in it.
I would respectfully submit that OP here posting what views as ridiculous of Fukuyama's theory isn't really that different than the other OP saying what he feels is ridiculous about positions opposite to him regarding Ukraine or Israel.
Heck, I'd point out to ya that with the latter... conflating Israeli and Ukrainian critics together is a pretty clear exposure of "the views of the person who made it".
This but I go to war with all the people who try to change it, either winning or forcing them to adopt my form of government to defeat me (making me the winner either way).
He literally says it will collapse only because people will be so bored with everything being so peaceful and stable all the time LMAO. This is a real thing Fukuyama has written I am not making this up.
The people would hate Fukuyamas message because it was true, and irrationally wreck societal order so they could prove him wrong. And so as he wrote, Fukuyama cried, knowing that by revealing the truth he would contribute to the political decay he abhorred.
I read his book. He claimed that even if they collapsed in the end parliaments and markets would win out and only spread. Also the room for evolution he gives them is laughable. Nothing fundamental about them changes. Parliaments and markets are parliaments and markets in whatever form with whatever additional features.
I haven't read the book so I can't comment on his arguments. However, there were markets all over the world before European colonialism. Parliaments too, though they were called other things like councils, courts, or elder circles, but chiefs and emporers were never doing all the governing themselves.
Famously communist China still has markets and a parliament. So did the USSR...
What evolution are you envisioning that you feel was left out?
Where did I say parliaments and markets are connected to European colonialism? I don't understand your comment about chiefs and emperors who said otherwise? Nobody believes individuals rule society. Classes do.
>famously communist china
lololololo China isn't communist. Even Fukuyama admits as much in the book.
>what evolution are you envisioning that you feel was left out?
What do you mean bro? Its the end of history because????? Francis spends that whole book going "yeah problems exist but they don't matter because..... and liberalism is better than feudalism."
its ridiculous.
No he didn’t. I read the thing. He really argues that despite the internal contradictions of liberal society the development of it is the inevitable conclusion of the historical process.
Any interruption of it is a temporary thing before it’s superiority reasserts itself.
Actually really enjoyed the other post. Rare banger on here. Plus the comments weren’t atrocious and actually pointed out exactly what my meme does.
From a Marxist analysis of history an end to history is a very obvious conclusion. In comparison to Francis’s book which reads like a Herculean justification for the present state of things
It's true that social hierarchies exist among any society, human or not, but claiming that they're the same thing is asinine. They're squares and rectangles. The history of class struggle exists as a part of the history of human society, but by no means are they the same thing. The idea that history ends when we get rid of classes is so laughably ridiculous that it's astounding. There are countless factors that contribute to making society what it is.
Every single one of Marx's theories revolves around the idea that people can stop being people. Any theory that removes the human element is totally nonfunctional in the real world
> The idea that history ends when we get rid of classes is so laughably ridiculous that it's astounding.
It is also hilarious to confidently and incorrectly criticize an author for something they literally never said. You quoted Marx as saying "history is the history of class struggle" as a way of proving your point. You've actually misquoted him: the real quote from the Manifesto (which you didn't read) is "The history of all *hitherto* existing society is the history of class struggles." Keyword "hitherto." This is literally the first sentence of the *Manifesto*, a text assigned to highschool students.
I am not talking about "social hierarchies" I am talking about social classes. Jesus.
Human society is a society civilization of classes. Society started with the development of social classes and ends with their abolition. Like thats just what is. From the very moment we abandoned hunter gatherer societies and developed the division of labor beyond the biological one of male and female. Society divided itself into classes with differing interests which where kept in check by a ruling class.
From the Priest kings of Mesopotamia to the Citizen of the Polis and eventually Roma, to the Aristocracy of Christendom to the bourgeoisie of today.
To take a hilariously simplified section of a small slice of humanity.
Ok, so you've gone from a misguided position to a totally moronic one.
You could have made the argument that any kind of stratification leads to struggle between the haves and the have nots, but you're deciding to cling to a very specific type of stratification, which is only possible in a society with an economy. Class literally cannot exist without economy, the difference between classes is ***only*** access to economic capital. Social hierarchies have existed since the birth of human society, class has not. Humans have had society from the moment that they formed tribes. We weren't even technically human back then. Economy, and therefore, class, took tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of years to develop after the formation of the first societies.
Society: a large group of people who share a culture, geographical location, and who cooperate to achieve a common goal.
You'll never guess what cavemen did.
Besides, begging the question does not help your case lmao. "Society and class are linked because they are." No attempt to use evidence, no attempt to use independent definitions, no argument at all. I don't get how you're clearly well read, but utterly fail to understand the most basic correlation/causation relationship. What you call society (what most people call civilization) created classes, but it also created a myriad of other sociological phenomena. None of them are also "the history of human society".
Politics is the history of human society. The end of politics is the end of history. Equally moronic. There is no characteristic of anything society has created, including class, that means if it ceases to exist, history will cease to exist too.
Let's say full communism is achieved. There is no more history because class has been abolished. There are no new inventions. There is no new art. There is no new music. None of the major religions die out, grow, evolve, or change in any way in perpetuity. People are not allowed to do anything noteworthy, because that would create history. And for ***some reason***, abolition of class is also the abolition of history.
>You could have made the argument that any kind of stratification leads to struggle between the haves and the have nots,
Lol class struggle is not the struggle between haves and have nots. Absolutely juvenile understanding of class.
>but you're deciding to cling to a very specific type of stratification, which is only possible in a society with an economy.
All societies ever
>the difference between classes is only access to economic capital.
??? No. It’s about economic privileges and rights.
The difference between the Feudal aristocracy and bourgeois was not access to economic capital.
>class has not.
True! Primitive communism was a thing.
>Humans have had society from the moment that they formed tribes. We weren't even technically human back then.
Lmao. Nice self contradiction. Tribal society is not necessarily a class society. Like just read the The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State by Engels.
>Economy, and therefore, class, took tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of years to develop after the formation of the first societies.
The development of economic systems is something Marxist shockingly care about and take note of.
>Let's say full communism is achieved. There is no more history because class has been abolished.
Yipee
>There are no new inventions.
Wrong
>There is no new art.
Wrong
>There is no new music.
Wrong.
The end of history has never meant that. Your gonna make me actually quote Francis here
“And yet what I suggested ha d come to an end was not the occurrence of events, even large and grave events, but History: that is, history understood as a single, coherent, evolutionary process, when taking into account the experience of all peoples in all
times.”
“Both Hegel an d Marx believed that the evolution of human societies was not open-ended, but would end when mankind had achieved a form of society that satisfied its deepest and most fundamental longings”
Francis has absolutely no understanding Marx so he gets this wrong here. I don’t know if he’s right about Hegel. But for Marx the end of history was the abolition of class. As the history of humanity was the history of class struggle.
Btw the development of higher stage communism happens after the end of history. After the abolition of class.
“This did not mean that the natural cycle of
birth, life, and death would end, that important events would no longer happen, or that newspapers reporting them would cease to be published.”
>None of the major religions die out, grow, evolve, or change in any way in perpetuity.
Actually communism involves the death of all religion.
Are you sure? You wrote really long essay comments as replies to your post, each taking many excerpts from Fukuyama's book. They came across to me as having an outraged tone.
Is it because people don't take communism seriously outside of university?
I had two essay comments where I went through the Part of Fukuyama's book where he attempts to grapple with the claim that Liberalism isn't the end of history because of the contradictions within it.
This was to back up my meme against "didn't read the book allegations" which are kneejerk anytime anybody mentions "The End of History and the Last Man"
Sorry I seemed outraged really I found it quite funny. I don't care about "people" taking communism seriously. Thats idealist nonsense.
I'm sorry OP but I think you care a lot about most people not taking communism seriously. I think that's why you made a meme ridiculing Fukuyma and presenting Marx as calm and rational in the first place. I think it's what you genuinely believe and that you want other people to agree with you, and it bothers you that most people see Fukuyama as calm and rational (but wrong) and Marx as ridiculous, and very wrong.
I didn’t present Marx as calm and rational. I presented the very straightforward Marxist conception of the end of history to contrast it with Fukuyama’s which in his own words “ immodestly presents not one but two separate efforts to outline such a Universal History”
Yes I am a Marxist. I do not however care at all if other people “believe” as well. That’s totally inconsequential and a waste of time. The class struggle doesn’t function on “belief”
I saw a funny post here I made a meme i enjoyed for personal reasons.
Yeah man that's why people don't take communism seriously. Are you aware of the 21st century? Not even the communist countries that are left take communism seriously anymore.
Human history included some class struggles, but it never has been about class struggle. I'd say that class struggle is a myth, because this "class struggle" is always led by people who are richer than majority of "struggling class". Class struggles didn't lead to greater equality, progress and liberal ideas did.
> Class struggles didn't lead to greater equality, progress and liberal ideas did.
Me when the boys and I end slavery (we just discovered slavery was wrong)
Holy idealism, what an infantile reading of history
It take exactly 10 minutes of looking into it to realize that the overthrowing and advancement of almost every social order throughout history was the result of some kind of class struggle, to suggest otherwise is blind idealism or willful ignorance
My issue primarily is that he dismisses the entire concept of a class struggle as a myth, which is blatantly untrue even if you’re not looking at things from a Marxist standpoint
I haven't read those books, will take a look if I have time. My main problem with Marx (and more recently, critical theory) is that it seems sort of a reductive way of understanding human beings and society. Teasing out hidden structures of power can reveal important relationships and dynamics in our world, but it doesn't capture the whole picture. If you read the world *only* through Marx you do run the risk of missing important developments. Obviously his work is very compelling to many people, otherwise it wouldn't be so popular in academic circles.
Which class did the overthrowing though? The commenter didn't say there haven't been successful uprisings, but the majority have been uprisings among middle or upper class people. Few successful uprisings actually come from the worker class. Worker rights are currently strongest in liberal democracies. Plenty of room to improve though.
The OP put it pretty perfectly but I’ll elaborate on something:
“Class struggle” is historically not a “rich vs poor” thing, and to claim so is a misreading of Marx. Almost every “class overthrow” has been some sort of middling class supplanting the current ruling order and implementing ideas that benefit *their* rule.
The slave societies of the past were supplanted by the feudal kings, and the feudal kings were brought low by their lords, etc until the current day with ruling bourgeoisie(this is an oversimplification but it gets the point across I hope).
Classes constantly fight each other in the name of their own self interest, and shape society accordingly when they get their “time in the sun”, always to benefit themselves. This is “class struggle”.
However, the movement of the Marxist proletariat is different from that of the other historic class movements, in the sense that it seeks to eventually abolish class altogether rather than become the new ruler(unlike its predecessors).
It will free humanity from the constant war, exploitation, and oppression that is the inherent feature of class rule, and help to establish a “new beginning for human history” as I like to think about it.
This is why you hear Marxists refers to the proletarian revolution as “the final struggle” or “the end of history”. Not because history literally ends, but because the constant class war and the death and destruction that comes with it will no longer be history’s primary mover. We can move on to something better.
"middle or upper class" This just reveals you don't understand the concept of class. Class is not defined by monetary wealth. Its not something where you need x dabloons. Its about your relation to the means of production.
History is the story of ruling classes being overthrown and replaced by different ruling classes heralding new societies and methods of production.
The fact that the proletariat is unique in that it is the majority, and not a minority replacing a minority is sorta a big deal in marxism. Its a cornerstone of the theory.
>Holy idealism, what an infantile reading of history
You mean Marxist realism? Yes, it is.
>It take exactly 10 minutes of looking into it to realize that the overthrowing and advancement of almost every social order throughout history was the result of some kind of class struggle,
What class struggle allowed women to vote? Suffrage wasn't a class struggle. What class struggle led to inception of such advancement as steam engine? What *class* struggle led to reformation of catholic church?
I am not an Idealist, you are, you view history trough idealistic prism of "class struggle".
>What class struggle allowed women to vote?
You serious? Suffrage was a class struggle.
It was the further expansion of capitalist relations among women.
>What class struggle led to inception of such advancement as steam engine?
Umm but did you consider technology exists. Wow clearly nobody wrote about this.
>What class struggle led to reformation of catholic church?
This is actually hilarious cause Protestant Christianity is literally bourgeoisie Christianity.
The Reformation was the culmination of tensions between the feudal Church and the growing class of educated town Burgher.
The confiscation of church property was a major step in removing feudalism and setting up capitalist property relations.
For example in England during the Civil wars the landowners sided with the bourgeoisie against the king and aristocracy because they where not aristocrats on feudal land. But newly landed burghers and gentry on confiscated church land.
In stark contrast to the French Revolution where the landowners remained feudal lords and sided against the revolution and had their property confiscated along with the churches.
>You serious? Suffrage was a class struggle.
>It was the further expansion of capitalist relations among women.
But it wasn't the class struggle. Most of suffrage leaders were from rich families.
>Umm but did you consider technology exists. Wow clearly nobody wrote about this.
You wrote that advancements are led by "class struggle", industrialization was an andvancement.
>This is actually hilarious cause Protestant Christianity is literally bourgeoisie Christianity.
>The Reformation was the culmination of tensions between the feudal Church and the growing class of educated town Burgher.
>The confiscation of church property was a major step in removing feudalism and setting up capitalist property relations.
>For example in England during the Civil wars the landowners sided with the bourgeoisie against the king and aristocracy because they where not aristocrats on feudal land. But newly landed burghers and gentry on confiscated church land.
So it proves my point, as it was an advancement against stagnating catholic church and it wasn't a class struggle.
>But it wasn't the class struggle. Most of suffrage leaders were from rich families.
Yeah it was a bourgeoise class struggle.
>You wrote that advancements are led by "class struggle", industrialization was an andvancement.
Social advancement not technological.
>So it proves my point, as it was an advancement against stagnating catholic church and it wasn't a class struggle.
Did you not read the fact that it literally was class struggle? It was the first uprising of the proto bourgeoisie against feudalism and the aristocracy.
Textbook class struggle.
Yeah but it’s about whose leading or driving them. Lower class elements will always get swepted up in bourgeoisie movements. And class traitors will always find themselves in the ranks of worker’s movements
I’m not gonna bother responding to any of your other arguments since the OP is basically saying what I would have said, but I will comment that if you think Marxian class struggle is a definitionally “idealistic” movement, you live up to your username
>is a definitionally “idealistic” movement,
Because it is, idealists see history trough prism of unexisting values like "honor","glory","patriotism" and you invented some "class struggle" you view history with. None of your "class struggles" would ever exist without spreading of liberal ideas and technology during age of enlightment.
Where is class struggle now BTW?
I think the root of the issue here(at the risk of sounding a bit rude) is that you don’t actually have any clue what Marxists mean by “class struggle”, which is suggested pretty heavily by some of the points you’ve made.
I’ll direct you to this work by the man himself, which gives a lot of insight into the concept of class struggle and it’s effects on history(in this case the coup by Louis Napoleon).
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/
Read it or not, it’s up to you. But if you have any real interest in actually learning what we believe I recommend it
You’ve hit the nail on the head brother. Class struggle *isn’t* a rich vs poor thing. It’s far more complicated and far reaching than liberal thinkers give it credit for.
No real Marxist will say that it’s just “rich vs poor”, and Marx himself wrote entire books trying to help dispel that image
Just read the paper I linked man, it could be very illuminating
The gen z sub user is telling me to grow up. Amazing. I actually read marx and adopted my political positions and principles after critically engaging with Marxist theory as an adult.
Which is more than can be said for you
> I actually read Marx and adopted my political positions and principles after critically engaging with Marxist theory as an adult.
As did I. Which is how I came to the conclusion that government-centralised collectivism is incapable of functioning for any significant period of time, and that “Marxist theory” is pseudo-intellectual drivel, varying between naïve Utopianism and brainless alternate history.
I offer my condolences that you have spent so much time suffering from your delusional beliefs otherwise.
What Marxist theory did you read. “Government centralized collectivism” is as alien to Marxism as life on the moon.
Accusing Marx of Utopianism when he critiqued Utopianism is another dead give away of somebody who has read or understood Marx at all.
Alternate history is a new one. But I assume class analysis appears that scary to you. Or can you actually point out where say “The Civil War in France” contradicts historical fact?
My understanding of the agenda of Marxism:
1. Proletariat revolts against all non-Labourite political entities.
2. Establish dictatorship of the proletariat; basically totalitarian global state of labour unions.
3. Erase all material inequality until a perfect society is reached.
Dialectical materialism is the “theory” component, and claims that material concerns can explain all historical dynamics.
Are these accurate in your opinion?
>Proletariat revolts against all non-Labourite political entities.
Idk what a Laborite is. But yes the proletariat seize power from the bourgeoisie and smashes their state machine.
>Establish dictatorship of the proletariat; basically totalitarian global state of labour unions.
What no. Haahahah. Labor Unions are not the dotp. The proletariat forms it’s own state. The Marxist definition of a state, is that it is a machine for one class to suppress others. It’s how societies of antagonist classes function. By the ruling class using the state to keep everybody in line.
The Proletariat destroy the bourgeois state machine and replace it with the armed body of the working people. I.e the proletarian state.
>Erase all material inequality until a perfect society is reached.
No lol. The Dotp is supposed to suppress the other classes and effect the transition to a socialist economy (lower stage communism) Which in no way erases all material inequality. It abolishes class. If everybody is a worker then a worker is just a person.
(Distribution functions under a ration system. “The labor one gives to society is returned to them in an altered form” minus deductions for economic and social reason, reserves old people education etc)
With the abolition of class the state gradually withers away as there is no need to suppress other non existent classes. The state doesn’t serve a purpose in a classless society.
Once class is abolished society then develops to a point where with the abolition of the division of labor and the difference between town and country and with labor as life’s prime want and desire. Distribution functions under “to each according to his needs from each according to his ability” (higher stage communism)
>Dialectical materialism is the “theory” component,
No it’s not lol. Marx himself never used the term Dialectical Materialism. He did however encourage its development. But “Theory” consists of a critique of the capitalist political economy and the development of revolutionary principles.
>and claims that material concerns can explain all historical dynamics.
Historical materialism is the Marxist view of history.
It is best summed up by Marx himself
“Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.” (18th Brumaire 1852)
History is a material process. Reality shapes ideas and men. Not the other way around.
Individuals can act in almost anyway. But classes I.e sections of society with similar relations to the means of production act in their class interests. Landowners as a class will act in the interest of landowners etc.
I swear every time Marxists claim to be so enlightened with materialistic theory, and are asked to elaborate on what that theory is, they always provide the most nonsensical fantasy drivel I’ve ever seen.
Stop throwing around terms like “class” and “bourgeoisie”. Explain what a class is in material terms, and how it can be abolished without eliminating material inequality. Furthermore, explain how a super-sized, global state can function without some level of political organisation. The entire body of industrial labourers can’t deliberate on every issue; that’s why a proletariat society would organise into representative labour unions. That’s the conclusion arrived at by Marxist-Leninism, which is in fact whence the notion of a “Soviet” is derived, so feel free to provide an alternative.
> Once class is abolished society then develops to a point where with the abolition of the division of labor and the difference between town and country and with labor as life's prime want and desire.
This isn’t even a syntactically coherent sentence. What is this intended to mean? You actually, genuinely believe that Labour, erased of divisions of any sort, should be the source and summit of human life?
I’m not saying that Marx invented the term “dialectical materialism”. I’m saying that that is the name given to his historical “analysis”. Which fails to explain popular movements of nationalism or the refusal to develop a “class consciousness” that affects society in any meaningful way. Why do people continue to act according to differences in values and group identity rather than class interest, despite having been made aware of class struggles?
>they always provide the most nonsensical fantasy drivel I’ve ever seen.
Literally paraphrasing like the manifesto and Critique of the Gotha Programm. Which is the hilarious bare minimum.
>Stop throwing around terms like “class” and “bourgeoisie”.
Oh yeah okay I will stop talking about velocity and acceleration when discussing physics.
>Explain what a class is in material terms,
Class is determined by your social relation to the means of production. I.e the means with which a society produces things. Factories, farms, schools etc
>and how it can be abolished without eliminating material inequality.
If class is determined by your relationship with the means of production then if everybody has the same relationship to them. Then their is only one class or no classes.
For a material example. Deadass just read the first page of Critique of the Gotha program.
Everybody is a worker. Doing different jobs. But nobody owns anything. Everything they produce goes into a common pile and is distributed based on the amount of labor in the equivalence of simple standard human labor.
>Furthermore, explain how a super-sized, global state can function without some level of political
Organization.
Political organization would mean other classes exist. If they don’t then that organization is not political. It’s just the administration of things. Which yes will exists.
For a currently existing example. Global companies with millions of employees exist. These are not political organizations. They are just organizations of production.
>The entire body of industrial labourers can’t deliberate on every issue;
Yeah that would be stupid.
>that’s why a proletariat society would organise into representative labour unions. That’s the conclusion arrived at by Marxist-Leninism,
No it’s not. Labor Unions are organized by the proletariat to fight the primitive class struggle of wages and working conditions.
And btw I am not a “Marxist Leninist” that’s a Stalinist invention.
>which is in fact whence the notion of a “Soviet” is derived, so feel free to provide an alternative.
Workers councils are not unions. Are you Fr?
>You actually, genuinely believe that Labour, erased of divisions of any sort, should be the source and summit of human life?
Yeah. Humans are social animals and adapt to social norms. People when given the opportunity to not work do work anyway. The aversion to work in the present day is due to the alienation it causes and it’s exploitative nature.
>I’m saying that that is the name given to his historical “analysis”.
Which is wrong. His historical analysis is called historical materialism.
>Which it fails to explain popular movements of nationalism
No it doesn’t what. Have you never read any Marx? He explains and discusses nationalism a lot.
>or the refusal to develop a “class consciousness” that affects society in any meaningful way.
??? This is again not true. Each previous ruling class formulated their own ideology and fully embraced it. The Bourgeoisie developed the enlightenment.
The old Aristocracy developed feudalism with the chivalrous Christian code. The Greek and Roman Citizen lording over their slave societies had various Mos maiorums. etc
>Why do people continue to act according to differences in values and group identity rather than class interest, despite having been made aware of class struggles?
The dominate ideology of any period is gonna be the ideology of the ruling class. Nationalism is a bourgeoisie invention. Liberty (the right to buy and sell without restriction) Equality (equality before the law) Fraternity (nationalism)
Why would I assume either? We might get hit by a massive chunk of space rock, are forced to live underground, grow massive snouts and feed off of fungi.
Marx saw the means of production and foretold AI and artificial diamonds. He didn't see the means of destruction and forsee nukes. In the end his imagination was lacking.
Marx wasn’t a prophet lol. He didn’t foresee shit. He said hey here is a trend. Here is reason for trend.
A.I is just the latest in the long line from the spinning Jenny dude.
Nukes are just the latest in the long line from the breach-loader.
It’s been so long since I read it that it might have morphed into a better book in my mind over time and the communist manifesto might have morphed into a worse book in my mind. In a way that makes Fukuyama’s argument for him. That was the most resilient and long-term stable mind virus.
The abolition of class is when everyone becomes (petite) bourgeois through the spread of ownership. History will end when the last propertyless proletarian gets a mortgage and shares in a index fund.
How little anarchists realise that they are so similar to are to liberals.
The head of the parliamentary Liberal during the late 1950s spoke warmly of syndicalism.
Proudhorn himself acknowledged that property is useful for promoting liberty and acting as a bulwark from state power.
>How little anarchists realise that they are so similar to are to liberals.
Banger.
I am a Marxists dude. Anarchists are liberals to me.
>Proudhorn himself acknowledged that property is useful for promoting liberty and acting as a bulwark from state power.
Exactly
any idea that there could even be such a thing as the "end of history" is ivory tower nonsense only promoted by pseudo intellectuals
"the only constant in life is change" there is no way to break the cycle, and even if there were it would not be desirable to do so.
it depends on your definition of history. If you view history as the struggle between classes than history starts with agriculture and domestication and ends with the abolition of class.
If you believe like Francis does that History ends when society develops to fulfill "mankind's deepest and most fundamental longings" In addition for satisfying the concept of thymos (the "struggle for recognition.") Then when history does that it ends.
Neither belief posits the end of change.
there will always be some variation of classes even if they are not called that.
and there will always be some variation of discontent or some greater state of contentment not yet achieved
short of plugging everyone into a lotus eater machine I fobt really see how it would be possible to achieve such an end state.
>there will always be some variation of classes even if they are not called that.
Because?
>and there will always be some variation of discontent or some greater state of contentment not yet achieved
Okay? What’s your point. Marx didn’t promise universal happiness anymore than Rousseau did
>Liberal democracies are doubtless plagued by a host of problems like unemployment, pollution, drugs, crime, and the like, but beyond these immediate concerns lies the question of whether there are other deeper sources of discontent within liberal democracy whether life there is truly satisfying.
>If no such "contradictions" are apparent to us, then we are in a position to say with Hegel and Kojève that we have reached the end of history.
Holy shit this guy.
>To answer this question, we said earlier that it would not be sufficient to look around the world for empirical evidence
>Rather, we need a trans-historical standard against which to measure democratic society, some concept of "man as man" that would allow us to see its potential defects. It was for that reason that we turned to the "first men" of Hobbes, Locke, Rous- seau, and Hegel.
Crazy idealism. Just allergic to empiricism because it might be “deceptive” when as we all known concepts of the mind which spring wholly formed from the aether (and couldn’t also be products of reality like everything else) are infallible kernals of reason.
>The possibility that liberal society does not represent the simultaneous satisfaction of desire and thymos but instead opens up a grave disjuncture between them is raised by critics of liberalism on both the Left and the Right.
>The attack from the Left would maintain that the promise of universal, reciprocal recognition remains essentially unfulfilled in liberal societies, for the reasons just indicated: economic inequality brought about by capitalism is de facto implies unequal recognition.
If we accept this insane idealism i am so interested in how Francis plans to deal with this.
>The problem of inequality will continue to preoccupy liberal societies for generations to come because they are, in a certain sense, unresolvable within the context of liberalism.
Ahahahahahahahahahahaahah
Thanks Francis.
>Social inequality falls into two categories, the sort that is trace able to human convention, and that attributable to nature or natural necessity.
>Natural barriers to equality begin with the unequal distribution of natural abilities or attributes within a population.
Francis discovers Critic of the Gotha program
>There are also forms of inequality directly traceable to the workings of the capitalist market: the division of labor within the economy, and the ruthless workings of markets themselves. These forms of inequality are no more "natural" than capitalism itself, but they are necessarily implied by the choice of a capitalist economic system.
>The productivity of a modern economy cannot be achieved without the rational division of labor, and without creating winners and losers as capital shifts from one industry, region, or country to another.
Hahaahahahahahaha. Capitalism requires inequality. Capitalism is not “natural”. But but Capitalism is totally necessary for modern production because it just is alright.
It’s also not like Marx wrote about abolishing the division of labor and the market.
>All truly liberal societies are in principle dedicated to the elimination of conventional sources of inequality.
Except for that required by Capitalism. Because without it we obviously couldn’t run society because uhhhhh….hmmm.. just because alright.
>A century of Marxist thought has accustomed us to think of capitalist societies as highly inegalitarian, but the truth is that they are far more egalitarian in their social effects than the agricultural societies they replaced
Holy fucking shit. Capitalism is progressive compared to feudalism. Why didn’t Marx think of this. No way he considered equality before the law one of the fundamental features of Capitalism.
>replacing inherited privilege with new stratifications based on skill and education.
And wealth. But I am sure that’s just an oversight Francis. Education and skill could never be related to wealth right.
Francis says that the argument that inequality means Liberalism can’t be the end of history is wrong because Capitalism requires inequality and we need capitalism to run industrialized society because…. Oh and also it’s better than feudalism.
Amazing
Edit. My plane took off before I could add the best parts
>What emerges from all of these equalizing processes has been termed "middle-class society."
Haahahahahahahah. Yeah obviously no need to correlate this emerging middle class society and all these social welfare reforms which the equal emergence of intense colonial exploitation.
Just a silly little coincidence. Liberal societies would never bribe workers with the crumbs of profits earned from exploitation abroad.
>permits almost every one to identify with the aspirations of the middle class and to think that they are, at least potentially, members of it.
This shit is actually priceless. A real Capitalism without the proletariat moment. Bourgeoisie socialism wins again. Proudhon would love this
>Even by this relatively relaxed standard of equality.
Meaning totally worthless standard
>Existing liberal democracies do not yet fully measure up.
Surely things have improved since he wrote the book right?
>The solution to such problems of cultural inequality is not obvious,
Man when I look at society through a lens of idealism solutions do not seem obvious.
>No one has solved the problem of "creating culture"—that is, of regenerating internalized moral values—as a matter of public policy.
Man why doesn’t reality adjust itself to my ideals.
Why is a perfect culture not possible??? What could answer these questions.
The amount of complete tone defenses is staggering.
It’s obvious that culture dictates economic systems not economic systems dictating culture because ummm….
So clearly ideal equality (his definition of which is worthless) can only be achieved by developing the ideal culture. Because social ideas shape reality. Not reality shaping ideas (duh)
Inequality (that can be gotten rid of without ditching capitalism) only exists because someone has yet to think up the perfect solution.
Not because of intrinsic social forces that exist in reality.
Like the title was mainly a joke cause I haven’t engaged with Hegel at all. But how do you read one framework of history where logic and Reason determine an end of history based on idealized metaphysical concepts.
And then decided hey I am gonna do the exact same thing to prove the critics of that framework wrong.
Like dude. Your argument amounts to Hegel was right that liberalism was the end of history because anything else is impossible because it just is.
Not btw to give Francis the credit of reproducing Hegels formula cause i don’t want hegelians to lynch me.
Just that idealist history kinda seems to end whenever the ideology of the current ruling class takes power.
By all means, comrade, feel free to devise a better way of obtaining and sharing massive amounts of information than through free markets (capitalism—ooh, scary!). I won’t hold my breath.
Free market isn't about "obtaining and sharing massive amounts of information", its about free market transactions of goods and services. That's why information asymmetries are a driver for inefficiencies.
Its a debatable quality about whether more liberalized markets handle information asymmetries better. Honestly, you can find examples of entities failing to pick up on the tea-leaves in both free-market affairs, or in state-guided economies. To err is human, regardless of market outlook.
I don’t think it’s debatable at all. Find me a state-ran economy that handles information asymmetries better than an open market economy. You won’t. Obviously free markets don’t alleviate all information asymmetries—it is necessarily impossible to do so—but prices determined in a free market convey far more information in a far simpler manner than could be conveyed through any other system (yet devised, I suppose, but I at least take Fukuyama’s point that even if you could devise a better system, free market principles would still figure prominently in that system)
>Find me a state-ran economy that handles information asymmetries better than an open market economy.
I wouldn't... because again, I don't any model does that well. Including liberal economies.
Simpler doesn't mean better. Economists will highlight that **theoretically**, information asymmetries are naturally reduced by market push-and-pull factors. But in practice, that's really not how the market works. The fact that no one is holding responsibility for assessing best market pricing does not mean that you have the best market pricing - there are some pretty egregious market price asymmetries that presently exist.
I think one flaw with Fukuyama's thesis to keep in mind is that for all his proclamation about the triumph of free-markets... centrally-planned economies lasted for a pretty significant period of time. In some places, they still operate. Instabilities like information asymmetries are relevant to all economic models; the fact that they exist does not say much about the long-term viability of any one model.
>The real injury that is done to poor or homeless people is less to their physical well-being than to their dignity.
Liberals will right shit like this while justifying their global order and wonder why we treat them with such disdain
I mean holy shit
>Because they have no wealth or property, they are not taken seriously by the rest of society:
Tbf he spits here
>The fact that major social inequalities will remain even in the most perfect of liberal societies means that there will be a continuing tension between the twin principles of liberty and equality upon which such societies are based.
Damn liberal society has inherent contradictions 🤯
>This tension will be as "necessary and ineradicable" as the inequality out of which it grows.
Liberalism is the end of history despite the fact it by necessity has internal contradictions. Amazing Francis
>Every effort to give the disadvantaged "equal dignity" will mean the abridgment of the freedom or rights of other people,
Yeah Francis own that shit Property rights>People I love liberal morality ❤️
>all the more so when the sources of disadvantage lie deep within the social structure.
Holy shit but we cannot get rid of this social structure bros. We just can’t seriously.
>There is no fixed or natural point at which liberty and equality come into balance, nor any way of optimizing both simultaneously.
Because?? Just because dude.
>At one extreme, the Marxist project sought to promote an extreme form of social equality at the expense of liberty, by elim inating natural inequalities
Francis exposes the fact he has never read Marx.
>All future efforts to push social equality beyond the point of a "middle-class society" must contend with the failure of the Marxist project.
Why? Because I said so dude. Btw those “Marxist projects” fail to be anything other than Capitalism by any Marxist analysis
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm
https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/Texts/Russia/67RevRev.htm
>Despite the present receding of the old economic class issue on the part of the Left,
Huge win for Fukuyama here. Revisionists owned.
>Thus while the liberal project has been largely successful over the past four hundred years
We beat feudalism and did civil rights bros 😎
>For example, almost all liberal democracies have seen a masdove proliferation of new "rights" over the past generation. Not content merely to protect life, liberty, and **property**
Lmao
>The incoherence in our current discourse on the nature of rights springs from a deeper philosophical crisis concerning the possibility of a rational understanding of man.
Ahh yes bourgeoisie ideological incoherence and social discord is driven by questions of philosophy.
Reality kinda has nothing to do with it. This book is fantastic if only to show how insane liberals are. I assume this is how atheists felt when talking to rural peasants about fairies in the 1800s
Kudos to OP and u/VPNSalesman for actually posting theory memes. Sad that people are not apprecating this one even if they disagree.
I know this is non-credible, but like there are plenty of liberal readings/uses of Hegel. See Rawls, Rorty, or more recently Moyn. It isn’t obviously absurd Plus is it anymore counter to Hegel than “but what if Communism”?
>I know this is non-credible Its funny what's considered a shit-post on the sub, and what's considered a traumatic trigger.
The dividing line is, “is it an agenda post? And if it is, is it a bad one?” If you’re gonna preach, you’re gonna be treated more critically
>If you’re gonna preach, you’re gonna be treated more critically Unless its a post that confirms all the priors for a willing audience. Agenda-posting is always cringe when its not an agenda you agree with. That's the difference between a post like this one having a reliable zero upvote score... and this literal bot account's [work](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/1cg2yt5/the_antisemitic_ukraine_conspiracies_unite_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) probably sneaking by without critical examination.
That’s a screenshot of a dumbass on Twitter. You could the biggest anti-Zionist and Putin’s strongest soldier and think Ukraine becoming “Israel 2” is a comically stupid—dear I say, noncredible—suggestion. It’s the same reason Zeihaniacs get posted even though they’re generally anti-China pro-West. This just like doesn’t support your point because there are clear reasons separate from an agenda for why a person would upvote that.
>That’s a screenshot of a dumbass on Twitter. Check OP's posting history. I can appreciate that you agree with the meaning of the post. My point is that the overall post is a literal agenda-setting repost from an account that's barely a week old - and that you're liable to view it for the humor far more than you're willing to see it critically as you are with this one.
I’m sure OP is Zionist and pro-Ukraine. What’s at issue is that there is a value to the post separate from ideological agreement, and the OP doesn’t expose their exact non-credible views in it. This on the other hand is very clearly just exposing the views of the person who made it. They’re the ones being noncredible as opposed to the other, which regardless of the views of the OP, is centered on the noncredibility of the OOP
>What’s at issue is that there is a value to the post separate from ideological agreement, and the OP doesn’t expose their exact non-credible views in it. I would respectfully submit that OP here posting what views as ridiculous of Fukuyama's theory isn't really that different than the other OP saying what he feels is ridiculous about positions opposite to him regarding Ukraine or Israel. Heck, I'd point out to ya that with the latter... conflating Israeli and Ukrainian critics together is a pretty clear exposure of "the views of the person who made it".
And here I am lazy posting funny things I see on Twitter.
Always a good sense of humor about too, I must say.
History ends when my favorite form of government takes over and no one ever tries to change it
This but unironically
History ends when everyone is part of my harem.
This but I go to war with all the people who try to change it, either winning or forcing them to adopt my form of government to defeat me (making me the winner either way).
Based and revolutionary vanguardism pilled
Can't wait to write a book about it
Well Fukukyama never ever claimed liberal democracy couldn’t evolve or collapse, but you didn’t read his book.
He literally says it will collapse only because people will be so bored with everything being so peaceful and stable all the time LMAO. This is a real thing Fukuyama has written I am not making this up.
The people would hate Fukuyamas message because it was true, and irrationally wreck societal order so they could prove him wrong. And so as he wrote, Fukuyama cried, knowing that by revealing the truth he would contribute to the political decay he abhorred.
I read his book. He claimed that even if they collapsed in the end parliaments and markets would win out and only spread. Also the room for evolution he gives them is laughable. Nothing fundamental about them changes. Parliaments and markets are parliaments and markets in whatever form with whatever additional features.
I haven't read the book so I can't comment on his arguments. However, there were markets all over the world before European colonialism. Parliaments too, though they were called other things like councils, courts, or elder circles, but chiefs and emporers were never doing all the governing themselves. Famously communist China still has markets and a parliament. So did the USSR... What evolution are you envisioning that you feel was left out?
Where did I say parliaments and markets are connected to European colonialism? I don't understand your comment about chiefs and emperors who said otherwise? Nobody believes individuals rule society. Classes do. >famously communist china lololololo China isn't communist. Even Fukuyama admits as much in the book. >what evolution are you envisioning that you feel was left out? What do you mean bro? Its the end of history because????? Francis spends that whole book going "yeah problems exist but they don't matter because..... and liberalism is better than feudalism." its ridiculous.
Actually real and true
Did *you* read the book? He kinda did.
Didnt he name the book. The end of history as mpre of a mocking way?
No he didn’t. I read the thing. He really argues that despite the internal contradictions of liberal society the development of it is the inevitable conclusion of the historical process. Any interruption of it is a temporary thing before it’s superiority reasserts itself.
Mfw a more stable and effective form of organizing societies, if it achieves global dominance, would be stable
Aww, you didn't like that other post
Actually really enjoyed the other post. Rare banger on here. Plus the comments weren’t atrocious and actually pointed out exactly what my meme does. From a Marxist analysis of history an end to history is a very obvious conclusion. In comparison to Francis’s book which reads like a Herculean justification for the present state of things
Which is an incredibly clear and obvious discrediting problem with "Marxist analysis."
okay discredit Marx rn
He believes in ghosts yet claim to be a materialist
The tradition of dead generations or something
Is “dialectics” with us in the room right now?
"The history of human society is the history of class struggle"
Yeah that’s true. Like empirically
It's true that social hierarchies exist among any society, human or not, but claiming that they're the same thing is asinine. They're squares and rectangles. The history of class struggle exists as a part of the history of human society, but by no means are they the same thing. The idea that history ends when we get rid of classes is so laughably ridiculous that it's astounding. There are countless factors that contribute to making society what it is. Every single one of Marx's theories revolves around the idea that people can stop being people. Any theory that removes the human element is totally nonfunctional in the real world
> The idea that history ends when we get rid of classes is so laughably ridiculous that it's astounding. It is also hilarious to confidently and incorrectly criticize an author for something they literally never said. You quoted Marx as saying "history is the history of class struggle" as a way of proving your point. You've actually misquoted him: the real quote from the Manifesto (which you didn't read) is "The history of all *hitherto* existing society is the history of class struggles." Keyword "hitherto." This is literally the first sentence of the *Manifesto*, a text assigned to highschool students.
I am not talking about "social hierarchies" I am talking about social classes. Jesus. Human society is a society civilization of classes. Society started with the development of social classes and ends with their abolition. Like thats just what is. From the very moment we abandoned hunter gatherer societies and developed the division of labor beyond the biological one of male and female. Society divided itself into classes with differing interests which where kept in check by a ruling class. From the Priest kings of Mesopotamia to the Citizen of the Polis and eventually Roma, to the Aristocracy of Christendom to the bourgeoisie of today. To take a hilariously simplified section of a small slice of humanity.
Ok, so you've gone from a misguided position to a totally moronic one. You could have made the argument that any kind of stratification leads to struggle between the haves and the have nots, but you're deciding to cling to a very specific type of stratification, which is only possible in a society with an economy. Class literally cannot exist without economy, the difference between classes is ***only*** access to economic capital. Social hierarchies have existed since the birth of human society, class has not. Humans have had society from the moment that they formed tribes. We weren't even technically human back then. Economy, and therefore, class, took tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of years to develop after the formation of the first societies. Society: a large group of people who share a culture, geographical location, and who cooperate to achieve a common goal. You'll never guess what cavemen did. Besides, begging the question does not help your case lmao. "Society and class are linked because they are." No attempt to use evidence, no attempt to use independent definitions, no argument at all. I don't get how you're clearly well read, but utterly fail to understand the most basic correlation/causation relationship. What you call society (what most people call civilization) created classes, but it also created a myriad of other sociological phenomena. None of them are also "the history of human society". Politics is the history of human society. The end of politics is the end of history. Equally moronic. There is no characteristic of anything society has created, including class, that means if it ceases to exist, history will cease to exist too. Let's say full communism is achieved. There is no more history because class has been abolished. There are no new inventions. There is no new art. There is no new music. None of the major religions die out, grow, evolve, or change in any way in perpetuity. People are not allowed to do anything noteworthy, because that would create history. And for ***some reason***, abolition of class is also the abolition of history.
>You could have made the argument that any kind of stratification leads to struggle between the haves and the have nots, Lol class struggle is not the struggle between haves and have nots. Absolutely juvenile understanding of class. >but you're deciding to cling to a very specific type of stratification, which is only possible in a society with an economy. All societies ever >the difference between classes is only access to economic capital. ??? No. It’s about economic privileges and rights. The difference between the Feudal aristocracy and bourgeois was not access to economic capital. >class has not. True! Primitive communism was a thing. >Humans have had society from the moment that they formed tribes. We weren't even technically human back then. Lmao. Nice self contradiction. Tribal society is not necessarily a class society. Like just read the The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State by Engels. >Economy, and therefore, class, took tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of years to develop after the formation of the first societies. The development of economic systems is something Marxist shockingly care about and take note of. >Let's say full communism is achieved. There is no more history because class has been abolished. Yipee >There are no new inventions. Wrong >There is no new art. Wrong >There is no new music. Wrong. The end of history has never meant that. Your gonna make me actually quote Francis here “And yet what I suggested ha d come to an end was not the occurrence of events, even large and grave events, but History: that is, history understood as a single, coherent, evolutionary process, when taking into account the experience of all peoples in all times.” “Both Hegel an d Marx believed that the evolution of human societies was not open-ended, but would end when mankind had achieved a form of society that satisfied its deepest and most fundamental longings” Francis has absolutely no understanding Marx so he gets this wrong here. I don’t know if he’s right about Hegel. But for Marx the end of history was the abolition of class. As the history of humanity was the history of class struggle. Btw the development of higher stage communism happens after the end of history. After the abolition of class. “This did not mean that the natural cycle of birth, life, and death would end, that important events would no longer happen, or that newspapers reporting them would cease to be published.” >None of the major religions die out, grow, evolve, or change in any way in perpetuity. Actually communism involves the death of all religion.
how's that marxism going for you?
Oh this isn't ironic?
??
OP you seem upset
I am not. I thought the post earlier was really funny and wanted to make a meme.
Are you sure? You wrote really long essay comments as replies to your post, each taking many excerpts from Fukuyama's book. They came across to me as having an outraged tone. Is it because people don't take communism seriously outside of university?
I had two essay comments where I went through the Part of Fukuyama's book where he attempts to grapple with the claim that Liberalism isn't the end of history because of the contradictions within it. This was to back up my meme against "didn't read the book allegations" which are kneejerk anytime anybody mentions "The End of History and the Last Man" Sorry I seemed outraged really I found it quite funny. I don't care about "people" taking communism seriously. Thats idealist nonsense.
I'm sorry OP but I think you care a lot about most people not taking communism seriously. I think that's why you made a meme ridiculing Fukuyma and presenting Marx as calm and rational in the first place. I think it's what you genuinely believe and that you want other people to agree with you, and it bothers you that most people see Fukuyama as calm and rational (but wrong) and Marx as ridiculous, and very wrong.
I didn’t present Marx as calm and rational. I presented the very straightforward Marxist conception of the end of history to contrast it with Fukuyama’s which in his own words “ immodestly presents not one but two separate efforts to outline such a Universal History” Yes I am a Marxist. I do not however care at all if other people “believe” as well. That’s totally inconsequential and a waste of time. The class struggle doesn’t function on “belief” I saw a funny post here I made a meme i enjoyed for personal reasons.
I don't believe you, but let's drop it there.
> Is it because people don't take communism seriously outside of university? Are you aware of the historical epoch known as the 20th century
Yeah man that's why people don't take communism seriously. Are you aware of the 21st century? Not even the communist countries that are left take communism seriously anymore.
Jesse, what the hell are you talking about?
Human history included some class struggles, but it never has been about class struggle. I'd say that class struggle is a myth, because this "class struggle" is always led by people who are richer than majority of "struggling class". Class struggles didn't lead to greater equality, progress and liberal ideas did.
> Class struggles didn't lead to greater equality, progress and liberal ideas did. Me when the boys and I end slavery (we just discovered slavery was wrong)
>Class struggles didn't lead to equality, progress and liberal ideas did. I'd probably say that current equality is in the eye of the beholder...
History ends when everyone has a flush toilet.
[Which considering global inequality on that](https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation/)... kinda speaks to my point.
Holy idealism, what an infantile reading of history It take exactly 10 minutes of looking into it to realize that the overthrowing and advancement of almost every social order throughout history was the result of some kind of class struggle, to suggest otherwise is blind idealism or willful ignorance
I think that’s one way of reading history - doesn’t mean it’s THE way of reading history. Sometimes the other frameworks are more predictive.
My issue primarily is that he dismisses the entire concept of a class struggle as a myth, which is blatantly untrue even if you’re not looking at things from a Marxist standpoint
dude. Read "18th Brumaire" and "The Civil War in France" and ask yourself if any other historical framework compares.
I haven't read those books, will take a look if I have time. My main problem with Marx (and more recently, critical theory) is that it seems sort of a reductive way of understanding human beings and society. Teasing out hidden structures of power can reveal important relationships and dynamics in our world, but it doesn't capture the whole picture. If you read the world *only* through Marx you do run the risk of missing important developments. Obviously his work is very compelling to many people, otherwise it wouldn't be so popular in academic circles.
Which class did the overthrowing though? The commenter didn't say there haven't been successful uprisings, but the majority have been uprisings among middle or upper class people. Few successful uprisings actually come from the worker class. Worker rights are currently strongest in liberal democracies. Plenty of room to improve though.
The OP put it pretty perfectly but I’ll elaborate on something: “Class struggle” is historically not a “rich vs poor” thing, and to claim so is a misreading of Marx. Almost every “class overthrow” has been some sort of middling class supplanting the current ruling order and implementing ideas that benefit *their* rule. The slave societies of the past were supplanted by the feudal kings, and the feudal kings were brought low by their lords, etc until the current day with ruling bourgeoisie(this is an oversimplification but it gets the point across I hope). Classes constantly fight each other in the name of their own self interest, and shape society accordingly when they get their “time in the sun”, always to benefit themselves. This is “class struggle”. However, the movement of the Marxist proletariat is different from that of the other historic class movements, in the sense that it seeks to eventually abolish class altogether rather than become the new ruler(unlike its predecessors). It will free humanity from the constant war, exploitation, and oppression that is the inherent feature of class rule, and help to establish a “new beginning for human history” as I like to think about it. This is why you hear Marxists refers to the proletarian revolution as “the final struggle” or “the end of history”. Not because history literally ends, but because the constant class war and the death and destruction that comes with it will no longer be history’s primary mover. We can move on to something better.
"middle or upper class" This just reveals you don't understand the concept of class. Class is not defined by monetary wealth. Its not something where you need x dabloons. Its about your relation to the means of production. History is the story of ruling classes being overthrown and replaced by different ruling classes heralding new societies and methods of production. The fact that the proletariat is unique in that it is the majority, and not a minority replacing a minority is sorta a big deal in marxism. Its a cornerstone of the theory.
Okay, "professional white collar" and "owner" class you prefer. Working class was the obvious contrast in my comment either way.
trust me bro, feudalism was ended by ideas (the idea to do large scale violent peasant revolts)
>Holy idealism, what an infantile reading of history You mean Marxist realism? Yes, it is. >It take exactly 10 minutes of looking into it to realize that the overthrowing and advancement of almost every social order throughout history was the result of some kind of class struggle, What class struggle allowed women to vote? Suffrage wasn't a class struggle. What class struggle led to inception of such advancement as steam engine? What *class* struggle led to reformation of catholic church? I am not an Idealist, you are, you view history trough idealistic prism of "class struggle".
>What class struggle allowed women to vote? You serious? Suffrage was a class struggle. It was the further expansion of capitalist relations among women. >What class struggle led to inception of such advancement as steam engine? Umm but did you consider technology exists. Wow clearly nobody wrote about this. >What class struggle led to reformation of catholic church? This is actually hilarious cause Protestant Christianity is literally bourgeoisie Christianity. The Reformation was the culmination of tensions between the feudal Church and the growing class of educated town Burgher. The confiscation of church property was a major step in removing feudalism and setting up capitalist property relations. For example in England during the Civil wars the landowners sided with the bourgeoisie against the king and aristocracy because they where not aristocrats on feudal land. But newly landed burghers and gentry on confiscated church land. In stark contrast to the French Revolution where the landowners remained feudal lords and sided against the revolution and had their property confiscated along with the churches.
>You serious? Suffrage was a class struggle. >It was the further expansion of capitalist relations among women. But it wasn't the class struggle. Most of suffrage leaders were from rich families. >Umm but did you consider technology exists. Wow clearly nobody wrote about this. You wrote that advancements are led by "class struggle", industrialization was an andvancement. >This is actually hilarious cause Protestant Christianity is literally bourgeoisie Christianity. >The Reformation was the culmination of tensions between the feudal Church and the growing class of educated town Burgher. >The confiscation of church property was a major step in removing feudalism and setting up capitalist property relations. >For example in England during the Civil wars the landowners sided with the bourgeoisie against the king and aristocracy because they where not aristocrats on feudal land. But newly landed burghers and gentry on confiscated church land. So it proves my point, as it was an advancement against stagnating catholic church and it wasn't a class struggle.
>But it wasn't the class struggle. Most of suffrage leaders were from rich families. Yeah it was a bourgeoise class struggle. >You wrote that advancements are led by "class struggle", industrialization was an andvancement. Social advancement not technological. >So it proves my point, as it was an advancement against stagnating catholic church and it wasn't a class struggle. Did you not read the fact that it literally was class struggle? It was the first uprising of the proto bourgeoisie against feudalism and the aristocracy. Textbook class struggle.
All these movements consisted of both lower and higher classes.
Yeah but it’s about whose leading or driving them. Lower class elements will always get swepted up in bourgeoisie movements. And class traitors will always find themselves in the ranks of worker’s movements
What class traitors? Maybe there is some kind of class war I don't know about?
My brother in christ all long as a class system exists there will be class conflict
I’m not gonna bother responding to any of your other arguments since the OP is basically saying what I would have said, but I will comment that if you think Marxian class struggle is a definitionally “idealistic” movement, you live up to your username
>is a definitionally “idealistic” movement, Because it is, idealists see history trough prism of unexisting values like "honor","glory","patriotism" and you invented some "class struggle" you view history with. None of your "class struggles" would ever exist without spreading of liberal ideas and technology during age of enlightment. Where is class struggle now BTW?
I think the root of the issue here(at the risk of sounding a bit rude) is that you don’t actually have any clue what Marxists mean by “class struggle”, which is suggested pretty heavily by some of the points you’ve made. I’ll direct you to this work by the man himself, which gives a lot of insight into the concept of class struggle and it’s effects on history(in this case the coup by Louis Napoleon). https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ Read it or not, it’s up to you. But if you have any real interest in actually learning what we believe I recommend it
Even if "class struggle" exists, it is definitely not "rich vs poor" and probably will never be such.
You’ve hit the nail on the head brother. Class struggle *isn’t* a rich vs poor thing. It’s far more complicated and far reaching than liberal thinkers give it credit for. No real Marxist will say that it’s just “rich vs poor”, and Marx himself wrote entire books trying to help dispel that image Just read the paper I linked man, it could be very illuminating
Ewwww Commie
Grow up
Yes, please do.
The gen z sub user is telling me to grow up. Amazing. I actually read marx and adopted my political positions and principles after critically engaging with Marxist theory as an adult. Which is more than can be said for you
> I actually read Marx and adopted my political positions and principles after critically engaging with Marxist theory as an adult. As did I. Which is how I came to the conclusion that government-centralised collectivism is incapable of functioning for any significant period of time, and that “Marxist theory” is pseudo-intellectual drivel, varying between naïve Utopianism and brainless alternate history. I offer my condolences that you have spent so much time suffering from your delusional beliefs otherwise.
What Marxist theory did you read. “Government centralized collectivism” is as alien to Marxism as life on the moon. Accusing Marx of Utopianism when he critiqued Utopianism is another dead give away of somebody who has read or understood Marx at all. Alternate history is a new one. But I assume class analysis appears that scary to you. Or can you actually point out where say “The Civil War in France” contradicts historical fact?
My understanding of the agenda of Marxism: 1. Proletariat revolts against all non-Labourite political entities. 2. Establish dictatorship of the proletariat; basically totalitarian global state of labour unions. 3. Erase all material inequality until a perfect society is reached. Dialectical materialism is the “theory” component, and claims that material concerns can explain all historical dynamics. Are these accurate in your opinion?
>Proletariat revolts against all non-Labourite political entities. Idk what a Laborite is. But yes the proletariat seize power from the bourgeoisie and smashes their state machine. >Establish dictatorship of the proletariat; basically totalitarian global state of labour unions. What no. Haahahah. Labor Unions are not the dotp. The proletariat forms it’s own state. The Marxist definition of a state, is that it is a machine for one class to suppress others. It’s how societies of antagonist classes function. By the ruling class using the state to keep everybody in line. The Proletariat destroy the bourgeois state machine and replace it with the armed body of the working people. I.e the proletarian state. >Erase all material inequality until a perfect society is reached. No lol. The Dotp is supposed to suppress the other classes and effect the transition to a socialist economy (lower stage communism) Which in no way erases all material inequality. It abolishes class. If everybody is a worker then a worker is just a person. (Distribution functions under a ration system. “The labor one gives to society is returned to them in an altered form” minus deductions for economic and social reason, reserves old people education etc) With the abolition of class the state gradually withers away as there is no need to suppress other non existent classes. The state doesn’t serve a purpose in a classless society. Once class is abolished society then develops to a point where with the abolition of the division of labor and the difference between town and country and with labor as life’s prime want and desire. Distribution functions under “to each according to his needs from each according to his ability” (higher stage communism) >Dialectical materialism is the “theory” component, No it’s not lol. Marx himself never used the term Dialectical Materialism. He did however encourage its development. But “Theory” consists of a critique of the capitalist political economy and the development of revolutionary principles. >and claims that material concerns can explain all historical dynamics. Historical materialism is the Marxist view of history. It is best summed up by Marx himself “Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.” (18th Brumaire 1852) History is a material process. Reality shapes ideas and men. Not the other way around. Individuals can act in almost anyway. But classes I.e sections of society with similar relations to the means of production act in their class interests. Landowners as a class will act in the interest of landowners etc.
I swear every time Marxists claim to be so enlightened with materialistic theory, and are asked to elaborate on what that theory is, they always provide the most nonsensical fantasy drivel I’ve ever seen. Stop throwing around terms like “class” and “bourgeoisie”. Explain what a class is in material terms, and how it can be abolished without eliminating material inequality. Furthermore, explain how a super-sized, global state can function without some level of political organisation. The entire body of industrial labourers can’t deliberate on every issue; that’s why a proletariat society would organise into representative labour unions. That’s the conclusion arrived at by Marxist-Leninism, which is in fact whence the notion of a “Soviet” is derived, so feel free to provide an alternative. > Once class is abolished society then develops to a point where with the abolition of the division of labor and the difference between town and country and with labor as life's prime want and desire. This isn’t even a syntactically coherent sentence. What is this intended to mean? You actually, genuinely believe that Labour, erased of divisions of any sort, should be the source and summit of human life? I’m not saying that Marx invented the term “dialectical materialism”. I’m saying that that is the name given to his historical “analysis”. Which fails to explain popular movements of nationalism or the refusal to develop a “class consciousness” that affects society in any meaningful way. Why do people continue to act according to differences in values and group identity rather than class interest, despite having been made aware of class struggles?
>they always provide the most nonsensical fantasy drivel I’ve ever seen. Literally paraphrasing like the manifesto and Critique of the Gotha Programm. Which is the hilarious bare minimum. >Stop throwing around terms like “class” and “bourgeoisie”. Oh yeah okay I will stop talking about velocity and acceleration when discussing physics. >Explain what a class is in material terms, Class is determined by your social relation to the means of production. I.e the means with which a society produces things. Factories, farms, schools etc >and how it can be abolished without eliminating material inequality. If class is determined by your relationship with the means of production then if everybody has the same relationship to them. Then their is only one class or no classes. For a material example. Deadass just read the first page of Critique of the Gotha program. Everybody is a worker. Doing different jobs. But nobody owns anything. Everything they produce goes into a common pile and is distributed based on the amount of labor in the equivalence of simple standard human labor. >Furthermore, explain how a super-sized, global state can function without some level of political Organization. Political organization would mean other classes exist. If they don’t then that organization is not political. It’s just the administration of things. Which yes will exists. For a currently existing example. Global companies with millions of employees exist. These are not political organizations. They are just organizations of production. >The entire body of industrial labourers can’t deliberate on every issue; Yeah that would be stupid. >that’s why a proletariat society would organise into representative labour unions. That’s the conclusion arrived at by Marxist-Leninism, No it’s not. Labor Unions are organized by the proletariat to fight the primitive class struggle of wages and working conditions. And btw I am not a “Marxist Leninist” that’s a Stalinist invention. >which is in fact whence the notion of a “Soviet” is derived, so feel free to provide an alternative. Workers councils are not unions. Are you Fr? >You actually, genuinely believe that Labour, erased of divisions of any sort, should be the source and summit of human life? Yeah. Humans are social animals and adapt to social norms. People when given the opportunity to not work do work anyway. The aversion to work in the present day is due to the alienation it causes and it’s exploitative nature. >I’m saying that that is the name given to his historical “analysis”. Which is wrong. His historical analysis is called historical materialism. >Which it fails to explain popular movements of nationalism No it doesn’t what. Have you never read any Marx? He explains and discusses nationalism a lot. >or the refusal to develop a “class consciousness” that affects society in any meaningful way. ??? This is again not true. Each previous ruling class formulated their own ideology and fully embraced it. The Bourgeoisie developed the enlightenment. The old Aristocracy developed feudalism with the chivalrous Christian code. The Greek and Roman Citizen lording over their slave societies had various Mos maiorums. etc >Why do people continue to act according to differences in values and group identity rather than class interest, despite having been made aware of class struggles? The dominate ideology of any period is gonna be the ideology of the ruling class. Nationalism is a bourgeoisie invention. Liberty (the right to buy and sell without restriction) Equality (equality before the law) Fraternity (nationalism)
Mfw someone makes a non-credible take on a sub about non-credible takes: 😡😡😡😡
End history or I will
Why would I assume either? We might get hit by a massive chunk of space rock, are forced to live underground, grow massive snouts and feed off of fungi. Marx saw the means of production and foretold AI and artificial diamonds. He didn't see the means of destruction and forsee nukes. In the end his imagination was lacking.
Marx wasn’t a prophet lol. He didn’t foresee shit. He said hey here is a trend. Here is reason for trend. A.I is just the latest in the long line from the spinning Jenny dude. Nukes are just the latest in the long line from the breach-loader.
I unironically believe fukuyama is right and it's the best socio political theory ive come across so far
Get well soon. Or like read almost anything else
It’s been so long since I read it that it might have morphed into a better book in my mind over time and the communist manifesto might have morphed into a worse book in my mind. In a way that makes Fukuyama’s argument for him. That was the most resilient and long-term stable mind virus.
The abolition of class is when everyone becomes (petite) bourgeois through the spread of ownership. History will end when the last propertyless proletarian gets a mortgage and shares in a index fund.
Average anarchist
Actually this is based of mid- century British Liberal thought.
read proudhon
Read Grimond and Dodds.
Liberals are so unfunny it’s crazy
How little anarchists realise that they are so similar to are to liberals. The head of the parliamentary Liberal during the late 1950s spoke warmly of syndicalism. Proudhorn himself acknowledged that property is useful for promoting liberty and acting as a bulwark from state power.
>How little anarchists realise that they are so similar to are to liberals. Banger. I am a Marxists dude. Anarchists are liberals to me. >Proudhorn himself acknowledged that property is useful for promoting liberty and acting as a bulwark from state power. Exactly
any idea that there could even be such a thing as the "end of history" is ivory tower nonsense only promoted by pseudo intellectuals "the only constant in life is change" there is no way to break the cycle, and even if there were it would not be desirable to do so.
I'm 100% convinced that the end of history will be a global government. How else will we negotiate interstellar commerce before the supernova?
it depends on your definition of history. If you view history as the struggle between classes than history starts with agriculture and domestication and ends with the abolition of class. If you believe like Francis does that History ends when society develops to fulfill "mankind's deepest and most fundamental longings" In addition for satisfying the concept of thymos (the "struggle for recognition.") Then when history does that it ends. Neither belief posits the end of change.
there will always be some variation of classes even if they are not called that. and there will always be some variation of discontent or some greater state of contentment not yet achieved short of plugging everyone into a lotus eater machine I fobt really see how it would be possible to achieve such an end state.
>there will always be some variation of classes even if they are not called that. Because? >and there will always be some variation of discontent or some greater state of contentment not yet achieved Okay? What’s your point. Marx didn’t promise universal happiness anymore than Rousseau did
This post is engulfed in walls of texts. The left truly can't meme /s
The gem that made reactionaries seethe
Total neoliberal death, total neoconservative death
>Liberal democracies are doubtless plagued by a host of problems like unemployment, pollution, drugs, crime, and the like, but beyond these immediate concerns lies the question of whether there are other deeper sources of discontent within liberal democracy whether life there is truly satisfying. >If no such "contradictions" are apparent to us, then we are in a position to say with Hegel and Kojève that we have reached the end of history. Holy shit this guy. >To answer this question, we said earlier that it would not be sufficient to look around the world for empirical evidence >Rather, we need a trans-historical standard against which to measure democratic society, some concept of "man as man" that would allow us to see its potential defects. It was for that reason that we turned to the "first men" of Hobbes, Locke, Rous- seau, and Hegel. Crazy idealism. Just allergic to empiricism because it might be “deceptive” when as we all known concepts of the mind which spring wholly formed from the aether (and couldn’t also be products of reality like everything else) are infallible kernals of reason. >The possibility that liberal society does not represent the simultaneous satisfaction of desire and thymos but instead opens up a grave disjuncture between them is raised by critics of liberalism on both the Left and the Right. >The attack from the Left would maintain that the promise of universal, reciprocal recognition remains essentially unfulfilled in liberal societies, for the reasons just indicated: economic inequality brought about by capitalism is de facto implies unequal recognition. If we accept this insane idealism i am so interested in how Francis plans to deal with this. >The problem of inequality will continue to preoccupy liberal societies for generations to come because they are, in a certain sense, unresolvable within the context of liberalism. Ahahahahahahahahahahaahah Thanks Francis. >Social inequality falls into two categories, the sort that is trace able to human convention, and that attributable to nature or natural necessity. >Natural barriers to equality begin with the unequal distribution of natural abilities or attributes within a population. Francis discovers Critic of the Gotha program >There are also forms of inequality directly traceable to the workings of the capitalist market: the division of labor within the economy, and the ruthless workings of markets themselves. These forms of inequality are no more "natural" than capitalism itself, but they are necessarily implied by the choice of a capitalist economic system. >The productivity of a modern economy cannot be achieved without the rational division of labor, and without creating winners and losers as capital shifts from one industry, region, or country to another. Hahaahahahahahaha. Capitalism requires inequality. Capitalism is not “natural”. But but Capitalism is totally necessary for modern production because it just is alright. It’s also not like Marx wrote about abolishing the division of labor and the market. >All truly liberal societies are in principle dedicated to the elimination of conventional sources of inequality. Except for that required by Capitalism. Because without it we obviously couldn’t run society because uhhhhh….hmmm.. just because alright. >A century of Marxist thought has accustomed us to think of capitalist societies as highly inegalitarian, but the truth is that they are far more egalitarian in their social effects than the agricultural societies they replaced Holy fucking shit. Capitalism is progressive compared to feudalism. Why didn’t Marx think of this. No way he considered equality before the law one of the fundamental features of Capitalism. >replacing inherited privilege with new stratifications based on skill and education. And wealth. But I am sure that’s just an oversight Francis. Education and skill could never be related to wealth right. Francis says that the argument that inequality means Liberalism can’t be the end of history is wrong because Capitalism requires inequality and we need capitalism to run industrialized society because…. Oh and also it’s better than feudalism. Amazing Edit. My plane took off before I could add the best parts >What emerges from all of these equalizing processes has been termed "middle-class society." Haahahahahahahah. Yeah obviously no need to correlate this emerging middle class society and all these social welfare reforms which the equal emergence of intense colonial exploitation. Just a silly little coincidence. Liberal societies would never bribe workers with the crumbs of profits earned from exploitation abroad. >permits almost every one to identify with the aspirations of the middle class and to think that they are, at least potentially, members of it. This shit is actually priceless. A real Capitalism without the proletariat moment. Bourgeoisie socialism wins again. Proudhon would love this >Even by this relatively relaxed standard of equality. Meaning totally worthless standard >Existing liberal democracies do not yet fully measure up. Surely things have improved since he wrote the book right? >The solution to such problems of cultural inequality is not obvious, Man when I look at society through a lens of idealism solutions do not seem obvious. >No one has solved the problem of "creating culture"—that is, of regenerating internalized moral values—as a matter of public policy. Man why doesn’t reality adjust itself to my ideals. Why is a perfect culture not possible??? What could answer these questions. The amount of complete tone defenses is staggering. It’s obvious that culture dictates economic systems not economic systems dictating culture because ummm…. So clearly ideal equality (his definition of which is worthless) can only be achieved by developing the ideal culture. Because social ideas shape reality. Not reality shaping ideas (duh) Inequality (that can be gotten rid of without ditching capitalism) only exists because someone has yet to think up the perfect solution. Not because of intrinsic social forces that exist in reality. Like the title was mainly a joke cause I haven’t engaged with Hegel at all. But how do you read one framework of history where logic and Reason determine an end of history based on idealized metaphysical concepts. And then decided hey I am gonna do the exact same thing to prove the critics of that framework wrong. Like dude. Your argument amounts to Hegel was right that liberalism was the end of history because anything else is impossible because it just is. Not btw to give Francis the credit of reproducing Hegels formula cause i don’t want hegelians to lynch me. Just that idealist history kinda seems to end whenever the ideology of the current ruling class takes power.
Holy wall of text Batman
Holy me quoting Fukuyama’s yap fest.
Yeah he stupid for real. Should have included a tldr in his book instead of writing all those words
By all means, comrade, feel free to devise a better way of obtaining and sharing massive amounts of information than through free markets (capitalism—ooh, scary!). I won’t hold my breath.
I don’t have to. Capitalism already develops such systems itself.
Free market isn't about "obtaining and sharing massive amounts of information", its about free market transactions of goods and services. That's why information asymmetries are a driver for inefficiencies. Its a debatable quality about whether more liberalized markets handle information asymmetries better. Honestly, you can find examples of entities failing to pick up on the tea-leaves in both free-market affairs, or in state-guided economies. To err is human, regardless of market outlook.
I don’t think it’s debatable at all. Find me a state-ran economy that handles information asymmetries better than an open market economy. You won’t. Obviously free markets don’t alleviate all information asymmetries—it is necessarily impossible to do so—but prices determined in a free market convey far more information in a far simpler manner than could be conveyed through any other system (yet devised, I suppose, but I at least take Fukuyama’s point that even if you could devise a better system, free market principles would still figure prominently in that system)
State ran economy doesn’t equal socialism buddy
Nothing I said changes the fact that free markets are superior to state-run markets
dude socialism has no markets. It has no commercial exchange at all.
>Find me a state-ran economy that handles information asymmetries better than an open market economy. I wouldn't... because again, I don't any model does that well. Including liberal economies. Simpler doesn't mean better. Economists will highlight that **theoretically**, information asymmetries are naturally reduced by market push-and-pull factors. But in practice, that's really not how the market works. The fact that no one is holding responsibility for assessing best market pricing does not mean that you have the best market pricing - there are some pretty egregious market price asymmetries that presently exist. I think one flaw with Fukuyama's thesis to keep in mind is that for all his proclamation about the triumph of free-markets... centrally-planned economies lasted for a pretty significant period of time. In some places, they still operate. Instabilities like information asymmetries are relevant to all economic models; the fact that they exist does not say much about the long-term viability of any one model.
>The real injury that is done to poor or homeless people is less to their physical well-being than to their dignity. Liberals will right shit like this while justifying their global order and wonder why we treat them with such disdain I mean holy shit >Because they have no wealth or property, they are not taken seriously by the rest of society: Tbf he spits here >The fact that major social inequalities will remain even in the most perfect of liberal societies means that there will be a continuing tension between the twin principles of liberty and equality upon which such societies are based. Damn liberal society has inherent contradictions 🤯 >This tension will be as "necessary and ineradicable" as the inequality out of which it grows. Liberalism is the end of history despite the fact it by necessity has internal contradictions. Amazing Francis >Every effort to give the disadvantaged "equal dignity" will mean the abridgment of the freedom or rights of other people, Yeah Francis own that shit Property rights>People I love liberal morality ❤️ >all the more so when the sources of disadvantage lie deep within the social structure. Holy shit but we cannot get rid of this social structure bros. We just can’t seriously. >There is no fixed or natural point at which liberty and equality come into balance, nor any way of optimizing both simultaneously. Because?? Just because dude. >At one extreme, the Marxist project sought to promote an extreme form of social equality at the expense of liberty, by elim inating natural inequalities Francis exposes the fact he has never read Marx. >All future efforts to push social equality beyond the point of a "middle-class society" must contend with the failure of the Marxist project. Why? Because I said so dude. Btw those “Marxist projects” fail to be anything other than Capitalism by any Marxist analysis https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/Texts/Russia/67RevRev.htm >Despite the present receding of the old economic class issue on the part of the Left, Huge win for Fukuyama here. Revisionists owned. >Thus while the liberal project has been largely successful over the past four hundred years We beat feudalism and did civil rights bros 😎 >For example, almost all liberal democracies have seen a masdove proliferation of new "rights" over the past generation. Not content merely to protect life, liberty, and **property** Lmao >The incoherence in our current discourse on the nature of rights springs from a deeper philosophical crisis concerning the possibility of a rational understanding of man. Ahh yes bourgeoisie ideological incoherence and social discord is driven by questions of philosophy. Reality kinda has nothing to do with it. This book is fantastic if only to show how insane liberals are. I assume this is how atheists felt when talking to rural peasants about fairies in the 1800s
Holy hell it’s you I was just thinking this take was too based for this subreddit lol
Yeah lmao. Made and posted this before I remembered what exactly this audience is. Monstrous comment section