The Drama of Historical Materialism - Revision history

Santiago Pinault at 22:11, 28 August 2020

2020-08-28T22:11:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:11, 28 August 2020
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Bernard Shaw is not a Marxist. Jevons’s theory of value fixes the doctrine of enjoyment in a system, corresponding to his utilitarian questioning, while Marx’s work-abstraction means nothing to him. He does not understand class theories. Here, too, they are brought up in English relations: Fabianism from above and Unionism from below indicate the framework of its revolution. He is socialist, but he does not understand continent theory in part, he partly refuses it. But while he rejects the doctrine, the criticism is all the more consistent with it. He does not, therefore, deny the problem, but without recognizing the material substrate of actual development, it is a utopian necessity and it is also one of the darkest, individual fantasies. This is how his theory was created, the doctrine of the redeemer '' Superman '' ('' Übermensch ''), who, however, was born not of a new morally fertilized society (which Nietzsche longed for) but of a conscious and purposeful organization of the whole to carry out racial selection. The Übermensch created by ethical selection replaces Superman’s physiologically determined production as a program.		Bernard Shaw is not a Marxist. Jevons’s theory of value fixes the doctrine of enjoyment in a system, corresponding to his utilitarian questioning, while Marx’s work-abstraction means nothing to him. He does not understand class theories. Here, too, they are brought up in English relations: Fabianism from above and Unionism from below indicate the framework of its revolution. He is socialist, but he does not understand continent theory in part, he partly refuses it. But while he rejects the doctrine, the criticism is all the more consistent with it. He does not, therefore, deny the problem, but without recognizing the material substrate of actual development, it is a utopian necessity and it is also one of the darkest, individual fantasies. This is how his theory was created, the doctrine of the redeemer '' Superman '' ('' Übermensch ''), who, however, was born not of a new morally fertilized society (which Nietzsche longed for) but of a conscious and purposeful organization of the whole to carry out racial selection. The Übermensch created by ethical selection replaces Superman’s physiologically determined production as a program.

	Articles by M. Beer (''Neue Zeit'') and Ed. Bernstein (''Sozialistische Monatshefte'') deal with the ~~thinking~~ Shaw. However, both make a mistake that becomes fatal in our understanding of Shaw’s dramas: they ~~emerge~~ from the unity of the playwright and the thinker…. Beer ~~allegedly~~ explained its world of thought from Shaw’s plays: but this is only a literary appearance. He really only matured from his dramas as much as he could see through the glasses of Shaw's views and theories. However, this is not much. Because the essence and greatness of ~~his~~ acting is that he does not give theory, does not systematize and does not build, but criticizes. He dissects and describes. And we intact to show that he has created insights with an intuitive blink of an eye that contain a complete refutation of his own thoughts. The conjecture with which he constructed his loose dramatic works was seen in a peculiar way more sharply than the self-conscious analysis with which he constructed his system.		Articles by M. Beer (''Neue Zeit'') and Ed. Bernstein (''Sozialistische Monatshefte'') deal with the thinker Shaw. However, both make a mistake that becomes fatal in our understanding of Shaw’s dramas: they start from the unity of the playwright and the thinker…. Beer is said to have explained its world of thought from Shaw’s plays: but this is only a literary appearance. He really only matured from his dramas as much as he could see through the glasses of Shaw's views and theories. However, this is not much. Because the essence and greatness of acting is that it does not give theory, does not systematize and does not build, but criticizes. He dissects and describes. And we intact to show that he has created insights with an intuitive blink of an eye that contain a complete refutation of his own thoughts. The conjecture with which he constructed his loose dramatic works was seen in a peculiar way more sharply than the self-conscious analysis with which he constructed his system.

	Its work of fiction is completely filled with a critique of today's order. This unit of content stands out from all his writings even with the brittleness that denies the genre. His aphoristic act is just more of a dramatic paradox. But neither this nor his genre. Wilde, the new Merlin, entertains his enthusiasm by sparking the endless and surprising possibilities of colorful and rich judgments in front of him, but at the crucial moment his nervously squeezing pocket is whispered by the magician who whispers, “It’s not a flame, it’s just a fire. It’s all impossible: it’s not true! ” Because the paradox is not a style but an object of Shaw’s art.

			His work of fiction is completely filled with a critique of today's order. This unit of content stands out in all of his writings with a denial that even denies the genre. His aphoristic act is just more of a dramatic paradox. But neither this nor his genre. Wilde, the new Merlin, entertains the bourgeoisie by sparking the endless and surprising possibilities of colorful and rich value judgments in front of him, but at the crucial moment his nervously squeezing pocket is whispered by the magician who whispers, “It’s not a flame, it’s just a fire. It’s all impossible: it’s not true! ” Shaw's aphorism is not a fiery chrysanthemum rain, but a "frog," followed by a boiling stench of sulfur and the boasting of the grinning Mephistopheles, "Behold, all things are impossible and impossible, and yet true!" Because the paradox is not a style but an object of Shaw’s art.

			Why this is so is explained in Shaw’s drama. That, too, is just an appearance. Because it is not drama that does not discuss the will of the individual to act, in which leadership is not taken by “persons” but by “time” and “stage”. And already at Shaw, the individual does not take the initiative, does not shape the relationships with which Harera wins or fails. The “individual” in his case is mostly a bugger who, on a frame of life cushioned with comfortable views (ideology), wants to enjoy its tranquility and he never disturbs the “relationships” if only the “relationships” leave him alone! But the relationship is starting to get unsuitable due to some complication. They take on unusual and uncomfortable figures: the “view” only sets in for a merry or sad tragedy: relationships unfold, shift, frustrate until that much-suffered view, the empty bladder, finally bursts mournfully… So the only reality is the invisible and an intangible world that drives us into a vehicle, while any material world of thought of an individual is normally filtered through a false refraction of views and only a shallow idealism remains. This is how Shaw created the passive drama. But just as Marx’s conception is not mechanistic, so is it not a doomed drama. '' A life force '' (a force of biological inactivity, especially in a woman) is a spring that blindly encourages the maintenance of individual existence. But the impersonality of today’s legal and social movement of society, the will, is a social bond: it is the mantinelle that throws back the invading individual invisibly but with physical regularity. The image of this passive bowling game is provided by Shaw in human action.

	== Text Informations ==		== Text Informations ==

Santiago Pinault at 21:30, 28 August 2020

2020-08-28T21:30:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:30, 28 August 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Hungarian into English}}		{{Hungarian into English}}

	Bernard Shaw is not a Marxist. Jevons’s theory of value fixes the doctrine of ~~pleasure~~ in a system, corresponding to his utilitarian questioning, while Marx’s work-abstraction means nothing to him. He does not understand the ~~theory~~ of ~~class hare~~. He is socialist, but he does not understand continent theory in part, he partly refuses it. But while he rejects the doctrine, the criticism is all the more consistent with it. He does not, therefore, deny the problem, but without recognizing the material substrate of actual development, it is a utopian necessity and it is also one of the darkest, individual fantasies. This is how his theory ~~is born~~, the doctrine of the redeemer ''Superman'' (''Übermensch''), who, however, is not ~~born~~ of a new morally fertilized society (which Nietzsche longed for), but a conscious and purposeful organization of the whole to carry out ~~species~~ selection. The Übermensch created by ethical selection replaces Superman’s physiologically determined production as a program.		Bernard Shaw is not a Marxist. Jevons’s theory of value fixes the doctrine of enjoyment in a system, corresponding to his utilitarian questioning, while Marx’s work-abstraction means nothing to him. He does not understand class theories. Here, too, they are brought up in English relations: Fabianism from above and Unionism from below indicate the framework of its revolution. He is socialist, but he does not understand continent theory in part, he partly refuses it. But while he rejects the doctrine, the criticism is all the more consistent with it. He does not, therefore, deny the problem, but without recognizing the material substrate of actual development, it is a utopian necessity and it is also one of the darkest, individual fantasies. This is how his theory was created, the doctrine of the redeemer '' Superman '' ('' Übermensch ''), who, however, was born not of a new morally fertilized society (which Nietzsche longed for) but of a conscious and purposeful organization of the whole to carry out racial selection. The Übermensch created by ethical selection replaces Superman’s physiologically determined production as a program.

	Articles by M. Beer (''Neue Zeit'') and Ed. Bernstein (''Sozialistische Monatshefte'') deal with the thinking Shaw. However, both make a mistake that becomes fatal in our understanding of Shaw’s dramas: they emerge from the unity of the playwright and the thinker…. Beer allegedly explained its world of thought from Shaw’s plays: but this is only a literary appearance. He really only matured from his dramas as much as he could see through the glasses of Shaw's views and theories. However, this is not much. Because the essence and greatness of his acting is that he does not give theory, does not systematize and does not build, but criticizes. He dissects and describes. And we intact to show that he has created insights with an intuitive blink of an eye that contain a complete refutation of his own thoughts. The conjecture with which he constructed his loose dramatic works was seen in a peculiar way more sharply than the self-conscious analysis with which he constructed his system.		Articles by M. Beer (''Neue Zeit'') and Ed. Bernstein (''Sozialistische Monatshefte'') deal with the thinking Shaw. However, both make a mistake that becomes fatal in our understanding of Shaw’s dramas: they emerge from the unity of the playwright and the thinker…. Beer allegedly explained its world of thought from Shaw’s plays: but this is only a literary appearance. He really only matured from his dramas as much as he could see through the glasses of Shaw's views and theories. However, this is not much. Because the essence and greatness of his acting is that he does not give theory, does not systematize and does not build, but criticizes. He dissects and describes. And we intact to show that he has created insights with an intuitive blink of an eye that contain a complete refutation of his own thoughts. The conjecture with which he constructed his loose dramatic works was seen in a peculiar way more sharply than the self-conscious analysis with which he constructed his system.

Santiago Pinault at 21:11, 28 August 2020

2020-08-28T21:11:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:11, 28 August 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Hungarian into English}}		{{Hungarian into English}}

	Bernard Shaw is not a Marxist. Jevons’s theory of value fixes the doctrine of ~~the edge version~~ in a system, ~~neglecting~~ his utilitarian questioning, while Marx’s work-abstraction means nothing to him. ~~Class theory theories do~~ not understand. He is a socialist, but ~~elutitized by~~ the ~~continent~~, the more ~~he agrees~~ with ~~him in criticism~~. He does not deny ~~tcha~~ the ~~pro-~~problem, but without recognizing the material substrate of actual development, he is a utopian necessity and he is also one of the darkest, individual~~-fantasists~~. This is how his theory, the doctrine of the ~~redeeming~~ Superman (Übermensch)~~, was created~~, who, however, ~~was~~ not born of a new ~~moral~~ society (which Nietzsche longed for), but of a conscious and purposeful organization of the whole. The Übermensch created by ethical selection replaces Superman’s physiologically determined production as a program.		Bernard Shaw is not a Marxist. Jevons’s theory of value fixes the doctrine of pleasure in a system, corresponding to his utilitarian questioning, while Marx’s work-abstraction means nothing to him. He does not understand the theory of class hare. He is socialist, but he does not understand continent theory in part, he partly refuses it. But while he rejects the doctrine, the criticism is all the more consistent with it. He does not, therefore, deny the problem, but without recognizing the material substrate of actual development, it is a utopian necessity and it is also one of the darkest, individual fantasies. This is how his theory is born, the doctrine of the redeemer ''Superman'' (''Übermensch''), who, however, is not born of a new morally fertilized society (which Nietzsche longed for), but a conscious and purposeful organization of the whole to carry out species selection. The Übermensch created by ethical selection replaces Superman’s physiologically determined production as a program.

			Articles by M. Beer (''Neue Zeit'') and Ed. Bernstein (''Sozialistische Monatshefte'') deal with the thinking Shaw. However, both make a mistake that becomes fatal in our understanding of Shaw’s dramas: they emerge from the unity of the playwright and the thinker…. Beer allegedly explained its world of thought from Shaw’s plays: but this is only a literary appearance. He really only matured from his dramas as much as he could see through the glasses of Shaw's views and theories. However, this is not much. Because the essence and greatness of his acting is that he does not give theory, does not systematize and does not build, but criticizes. He dissects and describes. And we intact to show that he has created insights with an intuitive blink of an eye that contain a complete refutation of his own thoughts. The conjecture with which he constructed his loose dramatic works was seen in a peculiar way more sharply than the self-conscious analysis with which he constructed his system.

			Its work of fiction is completely filled with a critique of today's order. This unit of content stands out from all his writings even with the brittleness that denies the genre. His aphoristic act is just more of a dramatic paradox. But neither this nor his genre. Wilde, the new Merlin, entertains his enthusiasm by sparking the endless and surprising possibilities of colorful and rich judgments in front of him, but at the crucial moment his nervously squeezing pocket is whispered by the magician who whispers, “It’s not a flame, it’s just a fire. It’s all impossible: it’s not true! ” Because the paradox is not a style but an object of Shaw’s art.



	== Text Informations ==		== Text Informations ==

Santiago Pinault at 13:44, 28 August 2020

2020-08-28T13:44:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:44, 28 August 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Hungarian into English}}		{{Hungarian into English}}

			Bernard Shaw is not a Marxist. Jevons’s theory of value fixes the doctrine of the edge version in a system, neglecting his utilitarian questioning, while Marx’s work-abstraction means nothing to him. Class theory theories do not understand. He is a socialist, but elutitized by the continent, the more he agrees with him in criticism. He does not deny tcha the pro-problem, but without recognizing the material substrate of actual development, he is a utopian necessity and he is also one of the darkest, individual-fantasists. This is how his theory, the doctrine of the redeeming Superman (Übermensch), was created, who, however, was not born of a new moral society (which Nietzsche longed for), but of a conscious and purposeful organization of the whole. The Übermensch created by ethical selection replaces Superman’s physiologically determined production as a program.

	== Text Informations ==		== Text Informations ==

Santiago Pinault: /* Text Informations */

2019-03-28T22:21:33Z

Text Informations

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:21, 28 March 2019
Line 3:		Line 3:
	== Text Informations ==		== Text Informations ==
	'''Reference''': 1907a<br />		'''Reference''': 1907a<br />
	'''Original Publication''': “[[A Történelmi materializmus Drámája]]”, ''Huszadik Század'', vol. 8, n°1, 1907, pp. 66-71<br />		'''Original Publication''': “[[A Történelmi materializmus Drámája]]”, ''Huszadik Század'', vol. 8, n°1, [[1907]], pp. 66-71<br />
	'''KPA''': [[01/01]]<br />		'''KPA''': [[01/01]]<br />
	'''Other Languages''':<br />		'''Other Languages''':<br />

Santiago Pinault: Created page with "{{Hungarian into English}} == Text Informations == '''Reference''': 1907a
'''Original Publication''': “A Történelmi materializmus Drámája”, ''Huszadik Száz..."

2019-03-22T17:39:53Z

Created page with "{{Hungarian into English}} == Text Informations == '''Reference''': 1907a '''Original Publication''': “A Történelmi materializmus Drámája”, ''Huszadik Száz..."

New page

{{Hungarian into English}}

== Text Informations ==
'''Reference''': 1907a 
'''Original Publication''': “[[A Történelmi materializmus Drámája]]”, ''Huszadik Század'', vol. 8, n°1, 1907, pp. 66-71 
'''KPA''': [[01/01]] 
'''Other Languages''': 
{|class="wikitable"
! Lg
! Name
|-
|DE
|
|-
|FR
| « [[Le drame du matérialisme historique]] »
|}