Workers compete just as well unless they realise they are a class and choose solidarity.

Capitalists have an organisational advantage of beeing organizers in practice anyways though

Accepting it is a choice with practical consequences. We should work on understanding what is to change and how and focus on doing it.

Making prophecies about what “Eventually” happens is self handicapping, wich does not help :)

We don’t exist as a whole, wich is the political challenge I would like people to focus on.

I think in post religious thinking it’s not about “deserve”

Edit (cant properly edit on jerboa rn) … your base argument is right.

Of course your base argument - capitalist economy is ecolocically destructive and dysfunctional regarding the needs of the many.

“Until there is noone left to fulfill their orders” thats the kind of “justice” i’m talking about. Like, Homoestasis will put them down in the end. Justice will be served. But that’s deceptive satisfaction.

Don’t go down the “natural balance” kind of revenge fantasy. It only makes one comfy in passivist boundedness. Also the guy in the picture is far more likely do do just fine in a climate catastrophy than you. Gaia nature god lady won’t bring you any justice, at all.

Fatalism is in that mix, too. A very easy way to meet political complexity

Never too late for a first time

You should read the Feuerbachthesen!

As it seems your goal when applying the activity of thinking is to travel the realms of mind and soul. Mine is to understand the world so I can change it for the better. As long as this persist, we will have different opinions. Not genuinly because of truth, but because of why we decide to think.

Have a nice day though.

What you talk about is a mechanistic kind of materialism, basically the over the top variant in wich the other side of the dialectics get lost.

And yes, things came into existence for no reason and no cause. Big bang, evolution, emergence of culture. No reason, no plan, no mechanistic predictable process, no god, no teleological history. Just interplay of material and ideas.

“Male = objective” is idealist, since it doesnt understand the interplay of the politics of gender

In your example this means idealists think the worth of a coin comes from itself, while materialists ask for the social processes that this property “worth” emerges from. This would have to be analysed both economically and in termns of constructivism

No you got that mixed up. Materialism (sometimes called neo-materialism) is well compatible with the constructivist arguments you are referring to.

It just says the world of ideas develops dialectical with the world of things and acts.

Idealists imagine ideas to have their own realm of existence with a mystical source of power, indepentend from said dialectic.

I messed up putting my answer here and I cant delete stuff cause jerboa/android 8. Please see below

All of y’all need to get into the original meaning of that word. Radical basically just means “take a problem by it’s roots”.

The interesting part is what type of society/politics makes that some kind of slur.

Materialism is thinking of things and their development on the grounds of history and causality, like a play of material and its organisational emergent forms (like ideas and their neurons). Whereas Idealism means imagining some kind of methaphysical structure or idea behind thins, like a god or ghost (Geist, Hegel, Kant…).

Utopia refers to an imagined, but possible world. When well done/thought, it is what you think and feel about how things could be. By definition this seems impossible regarding the currwnt state of affairs, and utopia will never come put as you imagined it. History is too complex for that. It is still necessary to be able to think utopia somewhat, otherwise one cannot hope and everything is eiter determined or irrelevant.

If you seek emancipation of anyone or anything by critique, you should read up what others wrote down, that had or have the same goal.

Otherwise your are individualistically and egoistically sabotaging the very project you want to contribute to.

Saying the most edgy thing to feel yourself “being on the right side” will not do good to anyone except yourself.

Yeah… another way to say it would be:

Giving things (especially means of production) the attribute of property, “being property of X”, is a contingent human decision. It’s ONE specific way of organizing the handling of things (tightly connected to the idea that the “owner” uses the given thing for his*her own benefit).

Another way of organizing things, aka mode of decision making regarding ressources (nature, labour, and its products), production, distribution would be having a king that tells everyone what to do. Another option would be democracy: “Oh dang, we got a tractor over here. Let’s see how we can use it best to fulfill the next important need”

That way you are right, your community (feat. You) would decide what to do with your tractor. Depending on how long capitalism would be gone at that time, people just might look at you a bit puzzled when you call it “yours”. You know, since the idea of you being given the power to decide over a tractor you didn’t build and can’t consume, is quite weird ;)

If your question refers to it: Marxism is an analysis of the social structure of market economy. It doesn’t work as a guidebook for individual behaviour inside of market economy, but for collective emancipation from a social order that results in exploitation.

Doing so would mean decide collectively/democratically over the collaborative use of the means of production.

“I’m buying some means of production with my money” and “their fields” is a market economy situation.

You don’t go from caputalism to socialism by individually changing your personal economic behaviour, but by changing social order.

Ah yes, disney making things to raise awareness and safe the world

Ah yes, aquarium fishes being captured in the wild