Cowbee

It's specifically a conversation surrounding misunderstandings of Dialectical Materialism, the example given being one such example.

Give me an example or explain yourself without resorting to insults, please.

The last time there was a specifically anti-Hexbear thread, the moderator locked the post and left the explanation I linked, just as a assume an anti sh.itjust.works or anti lemmy.world or anti lemmy.ml post would be here.

I think it's more a consequence of this being an out of context snippet.

I saw a review of Paul Barth's book [Die Geschichtsphilosophie Hegels und der Hegelianer bis auf Marx und Hartmann] by that bird of ill omen, Moritz Wirth, in the Vienna Deutsche Worte, and this book itself, as well. I will have a look at it, but I must say that if "little Moritz" is right when he quotes Barth as stating that the sole example of the dependence of philosophy, etc., on the material conditions of existence which he can find in all Marx's works is that Descartes declares animals to the machines, then I am sorry for the man who can write such a thing. And if this man has not yet discovered that while the material mode of existence is the primum agens [primary agent, prime cause] this does not preclude the ideological spheres from reacting upon it in their turn, though with a secondary effect, he cannot possibly have understood the subject he is writing about. However, as I said, all this is secondhand and little Moritz is a dangerous friend. The materialist conception of history has a lot of them nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history. Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the French "Marxists" of the late [18]70s: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist."

The Base, ie the Mode of Production, is the primary mover. Capitalism is the creator of Liberalism, not the other way around. However, upon acknowledging this, some people fail to "close the loop," seeing the Superstructure, ie culture, merely as a "projection" from the Base, a constant emittance, rather than 2 components that develop each other dialectically, in spirals.

As Capitalism decays, fascism and Socialism/Communism rise among the Bourgeoisie/Petite Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat/Lumpenproletariat respectively. It's only going to get worse and more polarized, hence the necessity to organize.

If Trump actually tries to do away with elections, you still wouldn't lift a finger to stop him, just accept it and go on with your day. Genocide wasn't enough to get you to abandon the DNC and GOP, so neither will Trump.

Not people, the Mode of Production. Capitalism projects cultute that supports it, like Liberalism, but the French "Marxists" didn't loop that back to Liberalism influencing Capitalism, and then that newly influenced Capitalism projecting new forms of Liberalism. This is why it develops in "spirals," dialectically.

Nope, but it delegitimizes the Electoral system, abandoning Electoralism is important for revolution, as well as firmly standing against genocide.

Yes, they failed to understand the Base and Superstructure having the ability to impact each other.

To be clear, Marx was anti-ideology, it didn't mean he was against his own framework of analysis nor that "Marxists" are going against Marx by referring to themselves as such, it's just a funny anecdote.