Marxism is an Aristocratic Philosophy of Time

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
Marxism is aristocratic and heroic in its worldview. By this I mean that is sees time as linear, i.e. heroic. In philosophical terms, Marxism has an eschatological worldview. It sees man as struggling towards some heroic end, and it regards the past and present in terms of this heroic struggle. The heroic understanding of time belongs to the warrior elite of the nomadic pastoral tribes - such as the Aryan tribes who invaded Europe during the Bronze Age. This is the worldview of Cúchulainn, who goes out actively seeking encounters with death, so as to carry out noble deeds for the eternal glory of his name and the name of his race. The warrior elite also includes the priests and philosophers of the tribe, who heroically face death on the battlefield of ideas. Merlin of Arthurian legend is one of the great Celtic examples of this kind of warrior philosopher. Fionn Mac Cumhail is also a warrior philosopher, who faces death in his visions of the future.

In complete contrast, the sedentary aboriginal farmers of Europe had a cyclical conception of time. Nothing really ever happened, because time just repeated itself over and over again, as the sun rises every morning, and the spring follows every winter. To be sure, sometimes the cycle of time needed some help, and this was the job of the shaman, who repaired time. To emphasize this point, among the peoples of this type it was forbidden to store surplus production for the next year. Seeds were kept for replanting, but grain was not kept for future consumption. All surplus production had to be destroyed in ritual sacrifice. And such tribes and practices still exist today. To store surplus production would be to tell the Virgin Spring that Her return was not needed again. Heroic ideas of struggle for some idealistic end is entirely alien to the worldview of such people.

Well, the thing is that the cyclical idea of time remains the idea of time of the vast majority of Europeans today. They know about dates and the calander, and that Napoleon lived before Hitler, but that is just stuff learned off and not part of their real comprehension of the world. Europeans don't expect anything to really change, and they don't want anything to really change. The task of Marxism was always to give the ordinary person an heroic view of time, i.e. to effectively change the sedentary underclass of Europe into intellectual aristocrats. This was the task James Connolly set himself. One can hardly imagine any event in all of history that was more aristocratic and heroic in its conception and practice than the 1916 Rising.

On the other hand, Liberalism also has the cyclical view of time - as Francis Fukuyama pointed out. Because Liberalism itself comes from the sedentary underclass who worked their way up to being the bourgeois servants of the aristocrats. The Liberal thinks that the world was always a liberal marketplace, and always will be a liberal marketplace, and his only role in life is to keep his head down and accumulate what he can. And an extreme example of that is Chuck Feeney - or Bill Gates. They nibble and gnaw their lives away accumulating billions - and then - like the good old neolithic farmers - they give it all away so that they get right back to where they started. And this is why Liberalism is so much easier for the average person to understand than Marxism is - and why so many real aristocrats have always been fascinated by Marxism. Marxism is, after all, the language of the aristocrat.
 


ergo2

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
14,067
Marxism is aristocratic and heroic in its worldview. By this I mean that is sees time as linear, i.e. heroic. In philosophical terms, Marxism has an eschatological worldview. It sees man as struggling towards some heroic end, and it regards the past and present in terms of this heroic struggle. The heroic understanding of time belongs to the warrior elite of the nomadic pastoral tribes - such as the Aryan tribes who invaded Europe during the Bronze Age. This is the worldview of Cúchulainn, who goes out actively seeking encounters with death, so as to carry out noble deeds for the eternal glory of his name and the name of his race. The warrior elite also includes the priests and philosophers of the tribe, who heroically face death on the battlefield of ideas. Merlin of Arthurian legend is one of the great Celtic examples of this kind of warrior philosopher. Fionn Mac Cumhail is also a warrior philosopher, who faces death in his visions of the future.

In complete contrast, the sedentary aboriginal farmers of Europe had a cyclical conception of time. Nothing really ever happened, because time just repeated itself over and over again, as the sun rises every morning, and the spring follows every winter. To be sure, sometimes the cycle of time needed some help, and this was the job of the shaman, who repaired time. To emphasize this point, among the peoples of this type it was forbidden to store surplus production for the next year. Seeds were kept for replanting, but grain was not kept for future consumption. All surplus production had to be destroyed in ritual sacrifice. And such tribes and practices still exist today. To store surplus production would be to tell the Virgin Spring that Her return was not needed again. Heroic ideas of struggle for some idealistic end is entirely alien to the worldview of such people.

Well, the thing is that the cyclical idea of time remains the idea of time of the vast majority of Europeans today. They know about dates and the calander, and that Napoleon lived before Hitler, but that is just stuff learned off and not part of their real comprehension of the world. Europeans don't expect anything to really change, and they don't want anything to really change. The task of Marxism was always to give the ordinary person an heroic view of time, i.e. to effectively change the sedentary underclass of Europe into intellectual aristocrats. This was the task James Connolly set himself. One can hardly imagine any event in all of history that was more aristocratic and heroic in its conception and practice than the 1916 Rising.

On the other hand, Liberalism also has the cyclical view of time - as Francis Fukuyama pointed out. Because Liberalism itself comes from the sedentary underclass who worked their way up to being the bourgeois servants of the aristocrats. The Liberal thinks that the world was always a liberal marketplace, and always will be a liberal marketplace, and his only role in life is to keep his head down and accumulate what he can. And an extreme example of that is Chuck Feeney - or Bill Gates. They nibble and gnaw their lives away accumulating billions - and then - like the good old neolithic farmers - they give it all away so that they get right back to where they started. And this is why Liberalism is so much easier for the average person to understand than Marxism is - and why so many real aristocrats have always been fascinated by Marxism. Marxism is, after all, the language of the aristocrat.




Did many aristocrats survive in marxist countries?

And what happened to that dictum about the state withering away?
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,272
I would have thought a liberal view of things is more steady state than "cyclical". A liberal rarely takes much interest in history in terms of applying the lesson in the present. The whole celtic tiger for instance was premised on a plateau instead of getting that economics is cyclical by nature even if you cant time them.
 

Levellers

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
14,040
Why did Marx only drink herbal tea?

Because proper tea is theft.





Trotsky the barsteward!!
 
Last edited:

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
[/B]

Did many aristocrats survive in marxist countries?

And what happened to that dictum about the state withering away?
I would say there's a difference between being legally an aristocrat and having an aristocratic mentality. Most so called aristocrats these days are just bourgeois in their minds.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
[/B]

Did many aristocrats survive in marxist countries?

And what happened to that dictum about the state withering away?
The second Russian Revolution cannot be properly understood without understanding the first, that of Tsar Peter the Snake, to begin with. By the time of Tsarina Catherine the Boyars had been utterly westernized and bourgeoisified. Than the Decemberist Insurrection happened with terrified the life out of them and they began to prop up Russian Orthodoxy as opposed to seeking to undermine though all the while the New Rite Orthodox Hierarchy remained in Babalyonian capitivity to the State (the Old Ritualists who have now among their ranks the greatest political philosopher are a whole other story). By backing the class of people who FG represents and acting as their servants the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland undermined and ultimately in many cases destoryed the Faith in Christ that their Martyric forbears clung to- well something extremely similar happened in the Russian 19 th century.
 

loaf

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,230
I wouldn't say Fukuyama pointed out that time was cyclical. His infamous declaration was that we had reached 'the end of history' - which seems like quite the opposite.

In other words, not so far from Marxism. They both agreed that History would inevitably reach its end point. They just disagreed what that end point would look like.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
I wouldn't say Fukuyama pointed out that time was cyclical. His infamous declaration was that we had reached 'the end of history' - which seems like quite the opposite.

In other words, not so far from Marxism. They both agreed that History would inevitably reach its end point. They just disagreed what that end point would look like.
But cyclical time is the end of history. You don't have history in cyclical time. So much so that some tribes believed that the son was the reincarnation of the grandfather etc. and the system of relations was built on that understanding. When I say cyclical I mean having no beginning point and no end point, but constantly repeating the same. I think that would pretty much sum up Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil policy.
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,296
Our resident fascist nut job writing a nonsensical convoluted post on a topic he hasn't a clue about (indeed couldn't understand t f he tried).

The zoo would actually be too good for it :roll:
 

realistic1

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
11,253
Our resident fascist nut job writing a nonsensical convoluted post on a topic he hasn't a clue about (indeed couldn't understand t f he tried).

The zoo would actually be too good for it :roll:
History gives us all a clear understanding of Marxism, and what I, and many others cannot understand is that individuals still advocate Marxism as an answer to all our problems.
 

loaf

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,230
But cyclical time is the end of history. You don't have history in cyclical time. So much so that some tribes believed that the son was the reincarnation of the grandfather etc. and the system of relations was built on that understanding. When I say cyclical I mean having no beginning point and no end point, but constantly repeating the same. I think that would pretty much sum up Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil policy.
Re the difference between cyclical time and 'end of history' time. Yes, the symptoms are the same (nothing will ever truly change). But 'end of history' theories claim we have reached a 'destination'. I wouldn't say they imply 'no beginning point' - they simply proclaim that all previous history were stages towards what we have now - which is the best possible situation mankind can achieve.

Agreed that this is theory is the dominant ideology of our times - see Fianna Fáil / Fine Gael. And it is ironic that leftists are often sneerily dismissed as 'utopians' by people who genuinely believe humanity has achieved its apogee.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,531
Our resident fascist nut job writing a nonsensical convoluted post on a topic he hasn't a clue about (indeed couldn't understand t f he tried).

The zoo would actually be too good for it :roll:
There's no need for that, it was actually a very well thought out and intellectual op.

Does everything on p.ie have to be dragged into the gutter?
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
Our resident fascist nut job writing a nonsensical convoluted post on a topic he hasn't a clue about (indeed couldn't understand t f he tried).

The zoo would actually be too good for it :roll:

That's the second time you've suggested one of my threads be put in the zoo. Unfortunately for you, it was the most popular thread of the day. Meanwhile, when was the last time the United Left Alliance forum was updated? Oh yes, the ULA is now defunct - just like yourself.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,906
[video=youtube;me-5egOwOwY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me-5egOwOwY[/video]
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,564
Twitter
No
Marxism is aristocratic and heroic in its worldview. By this I mean that is sees time as linear, i.e. heroic. In philosophical terms, Marxism has an eschatological worldview. ....

A 6 syllable word on p.ie. Who the freak.

"Linear" time is circular as well... it's all an illusion.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,906
A 6 syllable word on p.ie. Who the freak.

"Linear" time is circular as well... it's all an illusion.
Imagine his views on antidisestablishmentarianism .:shock:
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
History gives us all a clear understanding of Marxism
From a bourgeois perspective Marxism must always be a failure - since success for the bourgeois means being able to accumulate private wealth and live an atomized existence in his own private universe.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top