what Marxism really is.....

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
381

Come on Meno, I did not present it in glowing terms. I said it was sloppily handled, for example, and was not talking about communism in general or what happens when people are going overseas, etc. Elsewhere I said I did not like. In other threads, I have been more blunt about communism. Why assume I have a glowing idea of C? My point was simply that he was presenting a binary picture of communism and capitalism. That there is no ownership in Communism and anyone can take anything from anyone. That’s what I could have called bullshit. Go to Moscow and try that yourself, try it in front of the police. These are tough discussions. It doesn’t help to have an idiot like unwrong (who thinks he is, by the way, the best philosopher in the world, though he hasn’t said this in a while) making everything binary. Just as ownership in capitalist nations is not pure, and there are all sorts of degrees of rights in relation to property and also a commons and also rights of governments and other to take what many consider to be ‘theirs’, communist countries, do not have some complete lack of property. People who want two possibilities and these possibilities utterly and perfectly opposed to each other. Absolute Good vs. Absolute Evil, the Tolkeinism of interpretation, are

ADDING

to the problems, making it even harder to agree on anything, and I would guess just in love with getting to hate anyone they disagree with.

AS SAID to unwrong. I have no glowing image of communism as it has generally been lived out. The Soviet Union was a monstrosity in many ways and it was better than some other communist nations.

I don’t, however, have to choose between the two bullies offered to me as the only choices. Also pointing out idiocies in the criticism of something
does
not
mean
I have a glowing image, let alone presented one.

People have a very hard time with that. If you criticism, let’s say fiat banking or corporate power undermining democracy, then idiots like Unwrong and sometime idiots like Pezer will say you are a communist - a labeling they often confuse with philosophy. They think there are two choices. They think it is black and white. They think that no one should criticize the good (to them) daddy. They cannot face, in the slightest any

moment of cognitive dissonence.

They deny their fear, channel everything into rage,
deny any confusion or ambivalence
and attack and smack, and preen and label

and do nothing at all, really, except add to the hate and gaps.

I think though I am not sure, they love the perfection of hating and being victimized

the perfection of it.

The standing on the sidelines being utterly sure (pretending they are).

At the state level, the politicians and bureaucrats who do this justified all sorts of atrocities. What would have happened is some of the smaller communisms had not be embargoed and economically violated and had troops sent into them and been cia buttfucked. They were really scared that some kind of hybrid communism limited capitalism (heck, not unlike what it used to be like in scandanavia) would have worked or seemed to.

No, everything black and white, enemy or friend, smash, kick, hyperventilate, everthing possible is already known.

Bullshit. The creativity of my toaster.

The toasters have too much influence on policy and online discussions.

A toaster is great at making bread. On toasting, off not toasting.

But they shouldn’t be taken seriously in philosophical discussions.

And Meno, cricizing someone’s argument against X, should not be taken that one is in love with X.

That’s just basic integrity in philosophy and life.

A couple more things: my mentioning Scandanavia and the fears of the elites in the US of anything that socialist happening in, say, Latin America, does not mean that that what I want is that form of government and economics. I am just saying what I say: they were afraid, so they fucked with Cuba, they took out the Sandanistas, they allowed and encouraged, armed and trained dictators to torture and commit genocidal-ish acts to prevent anything, including in between forms of economy.

Further if you notice my response to Von River about whether we should take Bezos money or not, I focus elsewhere on the abuse of power allowed by current Western governments. I make not a single anti-capitalist or communist suggestion. I suggest we stop allowing the undermining of democracy and other abuses of power committed by power corporations. And see what things are like after. You can have and would have capitalism, after such changes.

Most people think they know all the answers, and most of those think they are pure and simple, in their world of pure good and pure evil. I wish they could have their own planet to hate each other on.

382

You’re just mad that you’ve been called out on your bullshit and need to walk it back.

No brain = No ideology.

Try again.

And personal Ad Hominid attacks don’t mean much to me. Reason, Rationality, Logic, you’ll need these to persuade me of anything, not emotional manipulation (like Von vainly attempts, because he has nothing to add to this conversation).

383

dude I don’t like when the arguments get anecdotal like this
because all that does is make me judge the fuck out of you
instead of furthering a point
it just makes me think that you’re the privileged only son of an upper middle class family in a 1st world country
who has never felt anything lacking or never had to compete for anything in your life
and as a consequence of that you’ve developed a superior brain
that puts you above such petty animalistic whims as the rest of us savages
that’s how you make it sound
well if that is the case, good for you man

i don’t talk about my life because it just sounds like it’s all made up
and in the end it doesn’t matter

keeping it to facts
your being much closer to buddhist monkdom than the rest of mankind does not bear very heavily on the fact that
as stated before by prom
our physical bodies are very much the same as they were 80K years ago
trust me
the fact that a lot of people go vegan
does not make our bodies any less desiring of meat
creating policy that forbids people access to what they desire does not make them not desire it
it’s just an imposition of foreign values

as you seem to agree that nature varies
any imposition in the form of policy is unethical
as to voluntary action
heck
i don’t think that there are any rules against business owners voluntarily giving away their means of production
in fact I think that if their hearts compel them to do so, they should go for it
and I think you should lead by example

384

Again a truism, but based on replacing the nominal argument with the hyperbolic , shows the inequality spreading eagle, ar the edge of the thin wings, the super rich presents a unique graph.

Unless you are concerned with the super rich, who can hold on to policy throughout, and the point is inheritance, the rest of us can only suffice with insignificance as hand me downs.

So earning what you keep is not substantially different within or without differing ideologies.

The incorporation through corporate structure, and through state ownership do not really matter as much as it is put out to be.

For the average joe, the bequest of some estate or another os spent by the second generation, wasted for not having to have word for it. Unless real brainy, vested by IQ, they may not have capacity to interfere with policy.

385

unfortunately the large majority of people advocating these ideas
are just out to make social justice with other people’s money

and I’m all for protecting rich people’s money
cuz I can’t commission caravaggio to paint priceless eternal works of art
but I can pay the $10 or whatever it costs me to go see it at the museum
all of the great masters, you name them
it wasn’t the people’s republic of fuck-it-all who commissioned all that stuff
what these republics are really good at is making rectangular cement boxes
that can hold the maximum amount of mindless workers in them
and at certain times in history
pile up the wealth of culture and beauty of a people
and burn it to ashes
no, it was rotten rich old people who can’t even count how much they have
and now we get to have art our world and look at it
stuff that is so beautiful that it makes you want to cry
shit that makes life meaningful
that bridges the abyss of our existential meaninglessness
that connect us with ourselves
stuff that po ass nobodies like us could never imagine ever having access to
all placed into beautiful works of architecture and open for public viewing
brought to you by old money
fuck
let them have it

386

also

holy shit man don’t let a russian catch you saying this
he’ll tell you they had already invented the toilet while you were still learning to shit

also, if you can count germany as “less developed”, i wonder what a properly developed society would be, in your book

387

For a very quick quicky, art for art’s sake does life imitate.

But the point is not as illusive as all that, the corporate state and the state of the politburo are really complex yet. vastly more similar bedfellows, then that.

Reagan said to Gorbachev back in Reykjavik that Gorby shouldn’t complain, the latter’s black sea villa is a lot better than his in beverly hills makeover.

388

That is basic
Pragmatism and utility do not necessarily clash within a matrix of correlations of value, that connects to a three dimensional series with families of venues, such as communes, pork barrels , interest groups, majority shareholders, etc., etc

389

You got it wrong (once again.)

Not quite. But let’s ignore the fact you’re wrong. Let’s say you’re right. Does that mean what I said in that post of mine is wrong? Not really.

This thing right here still stands:

So yes, you are what I said you are in my preivous post. You are someone who spots and corrects mistakes that are not only insignificant but also imaginary.

Nothing means anything to you since you’re not listening.

The rest is you accusing others of your own guilt.

390

So single-cell organisms have a central nervous system, brain, memories, thoughts, and an ideology.

This is your “position”, not mine.

And you’re wrong. You and Sil are both very wrong.

No brain = No ideology,

Try again.

391

No, that’s not my position, that’s your misinterpretation of my position.

I did not say that single-cell organisms have a central nervous system and a brain. At best, what I said is that single-cell organisms can be (and some of them, such as Physarum polycephalum, already are) intelligent (and also, that organisms such as Physarum operate according to certain ideology; and yes, Phasyrum does have memory and, in a sense, it has thoughts/ideas/beliefs.) (But of course, in order to understand what I’m saying here, you’d have to understand the manner in which I define “intelligence”, “ideology”, “idea”, “brain” and “nervous system”. It’s too easy to misunderstand what I mean by those terms and accuse me of contradicting myself and saying things that aren’t true.)

Most importantly, what I did is I took a popular term that is "ideology’ and changed its meaning to a simpler one that is good enough to solve the problems presented in this thread. (If a concept is simple enough, it’s easier to teach and understand. The official definition of the word “ideology” is too complicated and a lot of its complexity is unnecessary in order to make the point that Silhouette originally wanted to make.)

Ideology = a set of beliefs on how one ought to act in order to maximize one’s chances of attaining one’s goals.

Therefore, the following statement is an ideological one:

“He who has started a company has a right (i.e. ought to have the freedom) to earn from that company as much as he can even if he no longer has anything to do with it (i.e. he’s no longer one of its employees); and he can share its profits so as long the company exists i.e. there are no limits.”

It’s an ideological statement because it’s a statement about how one ought to act in order to maximize one’s chances of attaining one’s goals (even though that’s not explicitly stated.)

This is ideology, my friend, and whether or not single-cell organisms are intelligent can’t change that fact.

No need to try again. Everything has been said. It’s up to you now to start listening. Of course, if you want to. If you don’t, you are free to stay in your bubble.

Off-topic stuff inside the appendix (for those curious enough):
[tab]The word “brain”, as I define it, refers to that thing that is commonly found inside human skulls. It looks sort of like this.

The word “intelligence”, on the other hand, I define as the ability to solve problems (i.e. the ability to find the path connecting any given point A and point B’ that is at the shortest possible distance away from any given point B.) By definition, intelligence is not something that necessitates brain. Snails are intelligent even though they are brainless. They do, however, have a nervous system (which is the source of their intelligence.) But not even nervous system is a definitional requirement of intelligence. Robots and single-cell organisms such as Physarum polycephalum are intelligent despite the fact they have no brain and no nervous system.

In the same exact way, the word “goal” need not be (but of course, it can be) defined to refer to something that exists strictly within the brain. The same applies to words such as “beliefs” and “memories”. Ultimately, it also applies to the word “ideology”.

So yup, depending on how one defines those terms, one can say that even Physarum polycephalum operates according to certain ideology (since it has an idea about what should be done in order to, say, find food.) These things have goals, and since they have goals, they also have ideas about how they can attain them. Thus, they operate according to certain ideology. (I am, of course, not saying that this is the official definition of the word “ideology”. I’ve made it clear in the previous post this is my own definition, a provisional one made for the sake of this thread, in order to resolve certain problems presented in it.)[/tab]

392

Course, this is a case of Occam’s Razor.
And whether the understanding of the meaning is definitive , literally, or by description( by way of action, has long past haunted me.

For instance, the ability of HIV viruses to mutate for developing immunity toward certain drugs, can measurably signal a kind of intelligence.

On the other hand, usage generally would exclude it as meaningful , currently.

Its uncertain, I believe, as of yet, if Covid19 has similar kinds of potential behavior.

393

Ok, prove it.

Oh wait, you can’t…

Because even a child in Biology class, knows that you’re spewing bullshit. Why are you? Because your “point” and defense of Marxism (and you are a Marxist), is so depraved, perverted, and corrupt, that you need to claim that simple-cell organisms are ‘intelligent’, to make an argument.

You should have apologized for your embarrassment pages ago. But you dig the hole deeper.

Now you have proven how ignorant you really are. It’s common-sense. No brain = No ideology.

Go ask a dog if it owns a bone. Does it? What did the dog tell you? bark! bark!

No brain = No ideology.

Anything else, or are you finished embarrassing yourself?

394

You think I made this up?

No, I haven’t. It’s science.

A couple of quotes from Wikipedia, just for you:

[tab]

[/tab]

All you had to do is just Google it. But you’re too stupid to do that.

So children you speak of are smarter than Hokkaido University biophysicists who discovered that Physarum can learn?

No need to make such a claim. It’s a peripheral point. (It is you who assumed it’s the central point and that’s because you’re an idiot.)

That should have been you.

Nah, you’re just an idiot. (Indeed, one of the biggest idiots I’ve ever met on the Internet.)

The irony.

395

You have a point.

Intelligence is relative. Relative to you, simple-cell organisms are “intelligent”. But to me, and 99.99% of the human population, they are not intelligent. Cats nor Dogs are “intelligent” too.

Again, to you, I can see how you believe they are. Because they are more intelligent than you or any other Marxist.

396

Explain to me the “ideology” of dog and cat ownership.

Just kidding, I can only imagine the childish rationality you have, like a 5-year-old anthropomorphizing animals and simple creatures with human traits and qualities.

Everything is becoming clear though. It’s amazing how much Marxists must twist, warp, and bend reality, in order to justify your beliefs. Truly amazing.

397

Nope, that’s not the reason I consider Physarum intelligent. (That’s merely you being an idiot several times in a row.) The true reason I consider such organisms intelligent (and it’s not only me, you keep ignoring there are scientists out there who think the same) is because they behave in a way that fits the way I define the word “intelligence”. And I define it broadly enough – as the ability to solve problems. Anything that can solve problems is intelligent. Period. The extent to which something is intelligent is a separate concern, so saying something is intelligent does not mean it’s particularly intelligent.

Of course, one can define the word “intelligence” in the same exact way that you do, such that Physarum does not fit it. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s merely irrelevant (you being too stupid to realize that.)

Your problem consists in your inability to understand what other people are saying. (Not the first time I’m telling you this.) Part of it is your inability to understand how other people define words. You cannot help but interpret other people’s statements using YOUR language rather than THEIRS. This naturally leads to misunderstandings. And it’s precisely misunderstandings you’re after (subconsciously though), since that’s the only way you can perceive yourself as better than others (a need that completely dominates you, since you’re a total loser in real life.)

398

What have I misunderstood exactly? You, and the other Marxist (Sil), suggested and claimed that “ownership is ideology”.

You were soundly and quickly refuted. Instead of backing down, which would have been wise, you kept going with the point, to first insinuate, and now outright claim, that lowly organisms have “ideologies”, as a desperate means to defend your weak, weak point. But, you’re still wrong. Single-cell organisms do not have “ideology” nor do cats, nor do dogs. If you should ever enter puberty, and become a teenager, then you may learn this lesson. Humans have ideologies. Simple animals do not. So you are merely Anthropomorphizing animals, imbuing them with non-existent traits, in order to defend your destroyed assertion, that “ownership is ideology”, so that animals have a sense of ownership, that they don’t really have.

A dog or cat doesn’t understand “ownership” outside of a few simple concepts, such as, territory. Defending their territory from competing predators, and maintaining a source of prey, water, safety, and resources.

But because you cannot demonstrate simple Biological nor Anthopological facts, then you don’t have an argument. You certainly won’t convince anybody of anything.

If you cannot compare human ‘Ownership’ with a cat, with a bacteria, with a fish, then you’ve lost the plot.

However, most in this thread already know the underlying Premise. Marxism is just a means, a first-step, to justify stealing from others. That’s why you’re so determined to twist and bend your point, that animals have some sense of ‘Ownership’ that can be manipulated, when it can’t.

Do animals “own themselves”, or, are they “slaves”? Is an animal the Property of its owner? Now, some will respond stupidly with, “but cats own the human”. No, this is just pubescent word-twisting, same as you are doing. Animals do not “own” humans; but humans do own animals.

Admit this, and then apologize for your behavior, then we can move forward.

399

A much better question: did you understand anything?

Nope. That’s you asserting your false beliefs over and over again (with nothing to back them up) all the while complaining about others not presenting any arguments.

Have you even understood the manner in which I define the word “ideology”?

Can you prove it?

Again, prove to me that you understand what I’m talking about.

Nope. Prove to me that you understand what I’m talking about and that you’re not merely hallucinating (as you usually do.) Only THEN can we move forward. But I doubt you will. You never did such a thing and there’s no indication that you ever will. You’re too caught up in your ego.

400

Ah yes, now you wish to redefine “ideology” so it, conveniently, applies to every living organism instead of humans.

Pathetic.

Humans have ideologies. Animals do not.

Try again.