Overthrow

  First, they accuse Marxists of being reductionists. Marx said that class is a social relation, that a worker is someone who has no capital (means of production or the command of others labor-power in order to make money grow) who has to sell their own labor-power as a commodity. They can either use their brain or hands, it doesn't matter. Capitalism itself is interested in labor as a socially average abstraction. That is, labor is reduced to something homogenous and abstract. Marx talked about Women in the textile industry, clerks in warehouses, people in India making pottery and Shellac, Chinese railroad workers, freed black cotton pickers and on and on. Already, it's noticeable that the working class is rather diverse in its composition, and workers are competing against each other. Of course, the "traditional industrial factory worker" is also a worker, but Marx never made this so-called reduction to begin with. And it's precisely for this reason that he'...

The message is always the same: "everyone who isn't a true American has it so easy! They get everything for free and I get nothing! I work hard, and where's my welfare check!"  Already from the start a competitive comparison of who deserves what. Let the oppression Olympics begin. "I don't care if someone has fled war or famine, it's not my problem! I'd prefer if I didn't have to hear about it, and if MY government didn't make it their concern!" At the same time: "I am not a lazy scounger! I would never take help from the government! I work 80 hours a week for $22 an hour! I toil to the bone for everything I have! But the government takes taxes and gives it to people -- who in my entitled opinion -- have no right to be here or anywhere really! Defense spending? That's necessary and good. How else could I work without missiles? Being an American is an amazing blessing, but also I do nothing but complain about how difficult it is l...

 'In order to have any arguments for the priority of consciousness, one would need to take a cinema film of the history of the world, and to run it backwards. Since this cannot be done, the conclusion is irresistible. We know for certain that until a particular period in the development of the earth, there was no life on it. We know for certain that life arose. We also know for certain that the presence of life became a fact before human beings appeared. We know for certain that human beings arose out of other types of animals. Initially, life was little pieces of living protein with rudimentary forms of the so-called "psychic" among its properties. Are we being ordered to consider this the great "World Reason," "God," and so on? What rubbish! The same rubbish as the teleology that Goethe mocked wittily in his Xenia, with the ironic assertion that cork oaks were created so that corks could be made for bottles. It is obvious that such primitive views of...