this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2026
13 points (81.0% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

1349 readers
27 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Shaggy0291@lemmygrad.ml
GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml
SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml
QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
yogthos@lemmygrad.ml
13
Alright outgoing posts to Lemmy & Hexbear are not federating, where do you want me to put the removed withdrawal letter from the PSL on here? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by vyitnoomyr@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This whole network is p irritating and lowkey dead. Love the wiki ofc

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MarxOverflow@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like you aren't ready to do work that is necessary to understand the material conditions of the time period. Why should a socialist analysis of the flower power include the philosophy of psychologist, especially one as controversial as Jung? How can you expect to understand an event or even time period in history if you just dismiss all accounts from the period as dated?

[–] Maeve@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

That's quite a lot of extraneous words you just put into my mouth. I clearly understand the* article, and I didn't retype what I agreed with.

You asked:

I’m curious as to what was uninformed about it though?

That is what I answered.

I addressed the left, right, and centrist criticisms of him (a bit oversimplified),

foolhardy hope in the most basic goodness of humankind, one that perhaps I share with him

No, I don't want to intentionally cozy up to Nazis. Yes, at some point, if we believe in socialism, we will have to start working with and organizing ourselves with reactionaries.

The centrists may dismiss him for lack of familiarity.

And you, perhaps. Where exactly do you think the term "projection" has it's roots? What exactly do you think is being projected when people project?

That the liberals dismiss and even discourage utilizing his work ought make us pause and ask ourselves why. After all, the conservative right isn’t as cautious about establishing a public distance from those who have had a hope in known Nazis/adjacent as the left liberals. Perhaps liberals mock and discourage his work not only because it’s slow and doesn’t return people to the machine quickly enough, but also because it’s effective, if only the general populace has time, space, and most importantly, impetus to actually roll up the proverbial sleeves and do the time and labor intensive proverbial dirty work.

Sounds like you are projecting your unwillingness to examine yourself onto me as not being willing to understand blah blah blah. I clearly did understand it, since it was in my original question,

I’m wondering if it’s because there were largely disorganized and co-opted, and if there’s some reading you can point me to explain more.

Leaving out the doping was oversight.

[–] MarxOverflow@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Jung didn't have much to do with the flower power movement. I find his theories to be overly liberal and chauvinistic at best and lacking in any basis in material reality, as well as somewhat poorly worked through. I did think he was cool when I was in high school. But if you want Jungian analysis that's fine go find it.

Not trying to be overly snarky, but I have no desire to discuss philosophers and/or psychologist who struggles so much with empirical evidence. Marxism is based in material reality.

foolhardy hope in the most basic goodness of humankind, one that perhaps I share with him

If I didn't believe that there was basic goodness in humankind I would not have bothered to respond.

If you want to know more about the actual flower power movement look up Allen Ginsberg.

[–] Maeve@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Jung didn’t have much to do with the flower power movement.

Please copy and paste where I said that.

I find his theories to be overly liberal and chauvinistic at best

I would like to explore that. Can you give me some examples?

and lacking in any basis in material reality, as well as somewhat poorly worked through.

You can think that. I stopped smoking, doping, drinking, and using sexual relationships as a drug that way. I became much less reactive and reactionary. So have plenty of others.

Marxism is based in material reality.

So... Marx wasn't a philosopher? I guess Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist ML's have no place in your world.

Ideas aren't material, nor emotions, nor ideas.

If I didn’t believe that there was basic goodness in humankind I would not have bothered to respond.

Ok?

[–] MarxOverflow@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I would like to explore that. Can you give me some examples?

As I have previously stated I don't wish to continue talking about him, it seems to get in the way of a civil conversation.

Marxism is based in material reality.

So… Marx wasn’t a philosopher? I guess Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist ML’s have no place in your world.

Of course Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist ML's are completely acceptable in my world view. It's just that as Marx said:

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Opiates can save lives and they can just as easily destroy lives. So religion must be handle with extreme care. Of course Marx was a philosopher, but all of his work is based on material reality. Every premise he states is based on observable evidence, such as the state of the British working class. Every conclusion he makes is backed up by logical proofs. MCM doesn't come from some feeling but is a description of an observable reality.

[–] Maeve@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I would like to explore that. Can you give me some examples?

As I have previously stated I don’t wish to continue talking about him,

So I am willing to consider your PO perspective (because I actually may agree), and you're talking about material evidence but want to drop this?

Ok.

it seems to get in the way of a civil conversation.

For whom?

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

I largely agree, but it's not going to be a cold-turkey abstention.

Opiates can save lives

First I've heard of this.

So religion must be handle with extreme care.

Agreed.

Of course Marx was a philosopher, but all of his work is based on material reality. Every premise he states is based on observable evidence, such as the state of the British working class. Every conclusion he makes is backed up by logical proofs.

And I presented some for my argument.

MCM doesn’t come from some feeling but is a description of an observable reality.

MCM? Also what I just said.

[–] MarxOverflow@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

So I am willing to consider your PO perspective (because I actually may agree), and you’re talking about material evidence but want to drop this?

I don't like talking about dead people I don't like.

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

I largely agree, but it’s not going to be a cold-turkey abstention.

That completely depends on the addiction and the substance. Gabor Mate has written and spoken a great deal about it. There's actually a 20 minute audio clip comparing his approach to addiction treatment with Jung's, I'm not sure of it's origin. Gabor Mate's theory on addiction has ace (adverse childhood experience) scores to back it up.

Opiates can save lives First I’ve heard of this.

Anesthesia is the first one that comes to mind for me. I think surgery would be far more dangerous without the use anesthesia. There's this recent study that shows opioids may no longer be needed for that though.

MCM? Also what I just said.

MCM (money->commodity->money^) refers to the capitalist ability to grow their money supply by using their money to by commodities (often including labour) and resell it for more than they paid for it. The difference in what they paid vs what they sell for is the surplus that they take from the workers and buyers. I think it's like chapter 9 of Capital vol 1. It's pretty easy to compare that to the workers general relation to money and commodities. Worker tend to use CMC, commodity money commodity. Sell labour for money, use money to buy groceries.

[–] Maeve@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I don’t like talking about dead people I don’t like.

So for you. Ok, so much for material analysis.

That completely depends on the addiction and the substance. Gabor Mate has written and spoken a great deal about it. There’s actually a 20 minute audio clip comparing his approach to addiction treatment with Jung’s, I’m not sure of it’s origin. Gabor Mate’s theory on addiction has ace (adverse childhood experience) scores to back it up.

There's the dead guy you don't like. Afaik, ACE theory is just from the last ~30 years, so obviously that wasn't developed to discuss yet. So I'm not impressed by an 1969 article, you're not impressed by the comeback of a century old psych theory. Fair enough.

MCM (money->commodity->money^) refers to the capitalist ability to grow their money supply by using their money to by commodities (often including labour) and resell it for more than they paid for it. The difference in what they paid vs what they sell for is the surplus that they take from the workers and buyers. I think it’s like chapter 9 of Capital vol 1. It’s pretty easy to compare that to the workers general relation to money and commodities. Worker tend to use CMC, commodity money commodity. Sell labour for money, use money to buy groceries.

Thanks you. I knew the idea, not the abbreviations. So the exchange wasn't entirely wasted. I appreciate you confirming my suspicion on the hippie generation, and defining the abbreviation for me. I hope you have a good night and great sleep.

[–] MarxOverflow@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There’s the dead guy you don’t like. Afaik, ACE theory is just from the last ~30 years, so obviously that wasn’t developed to discuss yet. So I’m not impressed by an 1969 article, you’re not impressed by the comeback of a century old psych theory. Fair enough.

In the realm of the hungry ghost is 15 years old. Adults of any age can report an ace score, things like divorce and cps file are hard evidence. Psychology is a science and science evolves, history does not. Even when people distort it, what happened, happened. All the same I can agree that it's fair enough.

Thanks you. I knew the idea, not the abbreviations. So the exchange wasn’t entirely wasted. I appreciate you confirming my suspicion on the hippie generation, and defining the abbreviation for me. I hope you have a good night and great sleep.

Hope you have a good night too.

[–] Maeve@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

15? A Tennessee public health doctor was advocating for it around the turn off the century, but if course he was fired, records were scrubbed. Nice Tibetan Buddhist reference. In fact, I highly recommend reading the Bardo Thotle. Lots of allegory, allusion, metaphor, and simile, like any religious precursor to any psychological theory -- including the pioneers, Freud et al. 😉

Hope you have a good night too.

Thanks. Nothing wrong with a friendly exchange, even banter.