what Marxism really is.....

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Aug 25, 2020 12:34 am

Urwrong wrote:And it is so, because we have demonstrated it as such (Fixed, Myself, Phone, etc).


What exactly have you demonstrated?

I'd like to see that post of yours.

(The same goes for Fixed but we can ignore him for now.)

However, those of us who know Marxism (better than you and Sil apparently), repeatedly gave more context. It's not just "Marxism in his own words". It's about real-life. It's about history. It's about Communism and Lenin and Mao and Socialism, etc. Reality is the point. You are not giving context, nor is Sil. Because once you do, your "Marxism" evaporates.


The definition of the word "Marxism" is found in Marx's books. It's found nowhere else. And though you are free to define words any way you like, that's not what this thread is about. This thread is entirely about what Marx wrote in his books. That's the subject of this thread. What happened in practice is only relevant to the extent that it helps clarify what Marxism is and what it isn't.

And if you want to criticize Marx, you need to do two things 1) read and understand him, and 2) test his theories. It's not enough to live in a communist state (nope, that doesn't earn you any special points) nor to be otherwise familiar with various historical developments (nope, that doesn't earn you any special points either.) You actually need both (as stated by Silhouette pages ago.)

Given that you're utterly incapable of understanding what other people are saying (something that anyone can witness here in this thread), the probability that you understood Marx is very low.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:11 am

How about this: Marxism for Kids :lol:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38525
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:20 am

von Rivers wrote:
phoneutria wrote:the sense of ownership|private property is very strong in society
and since there is no consensus
there can be no rule revoking that right


that is what a tax is
--a rule revoking your right to what's yours, some %. or on your property.
and then everyone else spends it, their representatives do, on their platform
on things like schoolshospitalspolice
and investing in basic research that is far from a market application
because investors won't
and museums
and sometimes welfare, because 25,000 people starve to death per day
fucking social justice warriors
and sometimes wasting it in abuse
because what do you expect

should public or private own means of production?
there is not a country that is not a mixture
and any that wasn't would collapse egregiously
why are people making caricatures out of themselves?
why are people argumentum ad passiones-ing against caricatures
the answer is clearly #3

look at data to see what balance you like, and where.
economic data, opening of new businesses, competition,
health data, etc.
compare your country to others with a different balance
and notice when you suck at something, and why
it's not against your nature, ..you're also tribal
no evolutionary shift, from one caricature to another


we're not discussing anything other than marxism in this thread
so I am not discussing anything about what I think is right
i've been talking about what i think is not right
because that is my opinion of marxism

off topic stuff:

I can say that I am not completely anti-tax and anti-regulation
I don't want to be taken for a radical, I am not
what I'm against is double taxation
if we already pay tax on everything that we buy
we should not be taxed on income
plus there's yearly property tax on vehicles and estate
and on that subject
most services that you mentioned are afforded by the states
state taxes are a rather dignified spending
it's like a membership fee to a club, i am cool with that
cuz you pay a fee and you get services
with federal taxed you pay a fee and you get zip
education is just over 6% of the discretionary federal spending
for the whole fucking country
science takes a whooping 3.5%
military spending is nearly 54%
and most of these soldiers are not securing the borders
they're fighting wars on the other side of the planet
and these are percentages from the discretionary budget
which is just 30% of the gdp
if you compute in the mandatory spending
those percentages nearly disappear in the charts
taxes in murica are not about servicing the people
if you want to stop this absurd scheme of funneling public money out to corps
in exchange for political power and influence
you do that by defunding the federal government
and by taking their power away
but none of this is a conversation for this thread
i won't reply here because I don't want a derailing
if you want to start a thread on what capitalism really is or whatever
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby von Rivers » Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:39 am

i did not take anything off topic
your criticism of marxism did
it applies broadly

there is a spectrum; marxist on one end, capitalist on the other
caricatures are hurling accusations from both ends
and they are landing on sensible people's heads, somewhere not at the extremes
sensible people, like... just me, and karpel
so i say
"settle down, caricatures"

is usa high on standard of life metrics? i don't know.
I am Canadian, eh
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5852
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Meno_ » Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:42 am

But that caricature disserved the millions and millions who passed from it's cause.

Pretend they would be here to respond, inatead of.leaving a scarlet attain in a remote ground.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7607
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:45 am

none of what i said is a caricature

and i've stated previously at one point that karpel was leaving little to be said in the thread
so maybe you're the one who is making caricatures

enough about that
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:55 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:What exactly have you demonstrated?

I'd like to see that post of yours.

Like you would ever be capable of reading what people who disagree with you say. Start on Page One. I'm not doing your homework for you, same goes for Sil.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3276
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:55 am

von Rivers wrote:blah blah blah

Still waiting for you to post anything relevant to the thread, Tinkerbell.

Just kidding, I'm not waiting, because I know you Von. You're utterly useless to philosophy. Continue cheerleading for Marxism.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3276
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby von Rivers » Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:57 am

phoneutria wrote:"there can be no rule revoking that right...not until there is a very large shift, literally an evolutionary shift


It is not a stretch to take this as: "no tax, unless us monkeys transform to bees".
So, my point was, every tax is a "rule revoking ownership to property"
---by degrees

i am somewhat guilty of making caricatures.

And just what do you think you are doing, Mr. Smee?
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5852
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Tue Aug 25, 2020 3:11 am

i didn't say no tax a single time in this thread
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby von Rivers » Tue Aug 25, 2020 3:22 am

I'm reading "rule revoking ownership" as tax
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5852
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Tue Aug 25, 2020 3:54 am

when what I'm actually talking about is the idea that a business owner should lose his business to the employers
or that a house owner should lose his house to a tenant
as evidenced by ... literally what we've been talking about
if you just read the words
instead of reading the words "as"
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby von Rivers » Tue Aug 25, 2020 4:04 am

ok i misinterpreted. my bad.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5852
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Aug 25, 2020 4:23 am

Urwrong wrote:Start on Page One.


Let's take a look at your first post in this thread.

What exactly have you demonstrated here?

The post mostly consists of assertions.
(And assertions aren't demonstrations.)

It's one assertion:

Not true, at all. [Referring to Kropotkin's explanation of what Marxism is.]


After another assertion:

Marxism is, and always was, about Class Warfare.


After another:

It's about instigating and manipulating those at the bottom, to rebel and revolt against those at the top.


After yet another:

It has little-to-nothing to do with workers, economics, or unions.


And it goes on and on, like so:

Although the Marxist and Communist ideology does crossover, here and there, to worker unions, it ultimately fails as a working man's ideology.


Capitalism is 100-times superior.


You, Prom, and the other Commies should have learned this from day one. But you choose ignorance over enlightenment.


The following is the only argument in the entire post:

The difference is between Employee and Employer. The employee is not responsible for the success (or failure) of the business. As Wendy already, wisely, pointed-out, the Employee presumes no real investment in the business or enterprise. The Employee enters into the work-relationship with little-to-no Risk. The Employer, on the other hand, holds all the risk. Because of this, he should, and does enjoy the reward.


The problem with it is that it misses the point. I'm not aware of a single person posting in this thread who actually thinks that risk taking shouldn't be rewarded. The question is: by how much? You never tackled this question. (Other people did, such as phoneutria, but you yourself never did.)

And of course, at the end of your post, there's the most important assertion:

You [Kropotkin] and Prom are still philosophical beginners, compared to the likes of me.


This is what it boils down to.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby WendyDarling » Tue Aug 25, 2020 5:01 am

Sil wrote
Given what PK has to say about people not having a clue what Marxism is, I'm curious as to what you think "radical Communist" means - specifically?


The government NWO, not elected but appointed by mysterious factions, controls all freedom (limits speech and free thought, right to peacefully assemble, right to defend yourself, etc) while under 24/7 surveillance and you are brainwashed to report your friends and families to the state for any infractions, 24/7 curfews under martial law, controls movement of people, movement of goods, goods manufactured, how much food you can eat in a day, how much electricity you can use, how much water you can use, how often you can seek medical care and the type of care, allocation of living space (size, number of rooms, number of windows, number of doors, bathrooms, color of walls), how you move, when you move, where you move, where you work, what you are paid (you don't get to negotiate or seek employment elsewhere), they will score your participation in everything the government wants you to do such as how you follow social correctness and governments laws (already being done in China), if you can marry, if you can reproduce, if you can enjoy any entertainment. Everybody works for the government, but only a few or one unelected official decides the fate of all of mankind, violence and fear control the masses. Radical communism is 100 times worse than 1984.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7757
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:05 am

Brewing in Argentina now.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby WendyDarling » Tue Aug 25, 2020 6:40 pm

phoneutria wrote:Brewing in Argentina now.

On the horizon of all Western countries as well. But The United States must be completely destroyed first, democracy and freedom curtailed before the globalist left agenda can really spread unchecked. The wild wild West must be obliterated from the inside out, hence the lies and the brainwashing.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7757
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:56 pm

There's nowhere left to run:

Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3276
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm


Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Silhouette » Wed Aug 26, 2020 1:12 am

phoneutria wrote: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

Yeah, fair. It's generally not my style to get anecdotal.
Also, don't worry about me - I care precisely zero if people "judge (the fuck out of) me".
I just wonder to myself what value you get from your judgment? Do you think your guesses were close? Would they affect the logic of my arguments if they were or weren't? I don't see the point, but please feel free to judge to your heart's content.

Anecdotes do have their small niche in logical analysis - to disprove proposed general rules, as with your appeal to nature e.g. the urge to mark your territory.
They don't do much in terms of degree, but they do accomplish the simple task of showing a generality isn't 100% universal.
My use of them simply served to counter the distinct notions of "human nature" that you were trying to push - as at least prevalent amongst humans if not universal (you do say "you seem to agree that nature varies" so I take it you agree that human nature isn't uniform). My position is that human nature isn't infinitely variable, but it is significantly variable such that no one shoe fits all. I think this is much of the traditional left-right disagreement. The right evaluate the left according to their nature, and the left evaluate the right according to their nature - and they too easily create straw men if they fail to understand different human natures.
That's why political discussions are so rarely fruitful - and why I made such an effort to get people to stick to the words that Marx actually wrote, which are the same whoever is reading them. Value judgments cloud the whole thing in biases and corrupt any constructive progress, as do interpretations. History is largely factual, but necessarily contains significant interpretation. So in the interests of coming to an agreed conclusion about what Marxism really is, history can't be ignored, but if it contradicts the actual words, the actual words ought to take precedence and the historical contradiction examined in light of this. By the same token, history admittedly gets far closer to the practical application than the theory alone, but there is a far superior method of evaluating practice compared to historical record - and that is science.

I do stress that the prospect of scientific experiment is particularly iffy when it comes to testing Marxism, seeing as uncontrolled experiments that have assumed the Marxist banner went so horribly wrong. That can't happen again.

However, I do know that an actually exhaustive controlled study would benefit all by finally putting the question to rest.
Otherwise it's the right's interpretations of the history versus the left's interpretations of the texts forever and ever in the same tedious limbo.

I'm interested in the possibility of safely testing economic alternatives scientifically and in a controlled environment - the same as for all scientific experiments. Fully marxist or no, with only cherry picked elements of Marxism or none at all - just so long as it can be legitimately defined what's going on, because as certain as everyone is presenting themselves to be with their "opinions" on Marx, it's a fact that nobody actually knows. They just judge themselves to sufficiently know and from there too easily call it quits.

phoneutria wrote: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

I agree that our physical bodies are very much the same as they were 80k years ago, but it's not insignificant that our material conditions are so different from 80k years ago that it seems almost impossible to contemplate just how different they are - and the proclivities of our physical bodies to adapt to changing material conditions are also very much the same as they were 80k years ago. Humans, like all animals, are very much a product of BOTH genetics and environment. Even if the former were exactly the same, humans have changed by approximately a fuck-ton in the last 80k years.

Not going vegan is largely indefensible, but I still eat meat anyway because like you say, people often still desire meat. I have my arguments to "excuse" me from veganism, but that's not a hill I'm going to die on. The relevance to the thread is that these days there's hardly any difference between vegan and meat diets in terms of what's available and what can be nice to eat and nutritious to some reasonable standard - we can choose between animal or plant murder practically arbitrarily. Growing up into what we have now just doesn't present any innate necessity to cling to meat anymore, and the same thing goes for many aspects of what our nature would have been growing up into a 80k year old society. The appeal to how we were back then is only valid insofar as our bodies aren't that different, but at best that's barely even half the whole picture of what else we are. As a whole, humans have moved on so far from how we used to be that most of the norms back then would probably be unrecognisable to us now unless we intentionally tried to get back into how we reckon it used to be.

phoneutria wrote: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

Imposition in the form of policy is meant to answer a question of perceived "fairness". Obviously everyone is different, and you could imagine as a thought experiment how it would be to be able to live according to policies specifically taylored to ourselves - but I would bet most people would still get jealous and intolerant of the decisions of others, especially given the fact that we can't all live in a bubble and our actions have repercussions on the rest of us and our shared environment. But even if I lost that bet, you could also imagine the personal intrusion and violation of privacy involved in a third party determining our unique tailor-made policies if any verification process was involved. Otherwise it'd just be everyone determining whatever policy they wanted themselves - which could either be interpretted as what most people already do in some relative (socially moderated) way, or a permenant state of infantile hedonism where we pursue only our basest and most "natural" selfish desires in some absolute way. I doubt the success of the latter except maybe in some virtual future simulation way, the third party verification way would be dystopian, and the jealousy way hardly ideal. So we resolve to the largely self-actualised way that we have now, but socially tempered since our decisions affect others and we even prefer interaction with others in various social ways. That's why imposition in the form of policy is relatively ethical, at least given our current material limitations/technologies.

Of course there's no rules against being charitable. But it's quite evident from practice that when it's left up to the individual, too little charity goes to too few channels - and usually where it does go has some selfish reason for it and not towards worthy sources that irrational biases put people off giving to. And it's often through a for-profit business... Charity under Capitalism is in a sense absurd: the system operates to make a few people very much more rich than the majority, so that they can give back to the majority in some targetted fashion and in such a way that doesn't remotely disrupt the few continuing to get much more rich than the majority. It's like trying to splash a waterfall back up to the top - but doesn't it seem to assuage all that guilt all the same, eh? If capitalists really wanted to be charitable they'd change the system that essentially "donates" the majority of charity up to them by default. Only they won't, not least because they assume other capitalists won't either - precisely because they don't have to. They have all that initial-idea-pay, and initial-organisation-pay, and self-fulfilling-risk-pay to continually extract from the continued work of their employees long after the equivalent wage for the same labour (of delegated ideas/organising/handling risk) is paid for. Charity under Capitalism is taking plenty with one hand and giving back little with the other.

phoneutria wrote:also
sil wrote: It's no wonder when less developed societies "try Marx" that they end up annihilating each other


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

Lol why would I care if anyone heard me say that?

I kept telling you I'm not a Marxist fanatic, just a Marxist by virtue of his analyses of Capitalism and a few other concepts of his such as his theory of alienation.
However radical that makes me in your eyes for just agreeing with some of him, it doesn't make me agree with all of him (in the same way as I did right at the start of this thread) - but that's not even the title of the thread. The thread isn't what anyone thinks about him, simply WHAT he really is. Only then can anyone begin to perform evaluations. And I stated at the start of this thread how best to arrive at this.

WendyDarling wrote:Sil wrote
Given what PK has to say about people not having a clue what Marxism is, I'm curious as to what you think "radical Communist" means - specifically?


The government NWO, not elected but appointed by mysterious factions, controls all freedom (limits speech and free thought, right to peacefully assemble, right to defend yourself, etc) while under 24/7 surveillance and you are brainwashed to report your friends and families to the state for any infractions, 24/7 curfews under martial law, controls movement of people, movement of goods, goods manufactured, how much food you can eat in a day, how much electricity you can use, how much water you can use, how often you can seek medical care and the type of care, allocation of living space (size, number of rooms, number of windows, number of doors, bathrooms, color of walls), how you move, when you move, where you move, where you work, what you are paid (you don't get to negotiate or seek employment elsewhere), they will score your participation in everything the government wants you to do such as how you follow social correctness and governments laws (already being done in China), if you can marry, if you can reproduce, if you can enjoy any entertainment. Everybody works for the government, but only a few or one unelected official decides the fate of all of mankind, violence and fear control the masses. Radical communism is 100 times worse than 1984.

I see.

What passages of Marx's writings detail each of these requirements of Communism, exactly?

iambiguous wrote:So, let's focus in on what you believe that Marxism most Is and discuss it given a particular context in which to examine, for example, political economy, commodity fetish, or the alienation of labor.

So, consult the celestial bodies and decide.

A new thread perhaps?

What's wrong this this thread? The one that is entitled "what Marxism really is"?
We don't have to make our own personal dasein threads in addition to this one do we? ;)

Even if we did, what might make you think they won't suffer the same fate as this one, getting overrun by Smee et al. patting each other on the back about how right and great they are?

All things considered though, there's still some distinct effort on the part of an appreciated few sticking to the relevant topics in good enough faith - so in spite of the noise it's still a marked step forward for ILP as of recently.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 26, 2020 4:48 am

Silhouette wrote:Also, don't worry about me - I care precisely zero if people "judge (the fuck out of) me".
I just wonder to myself what value you get from your judgment? Do you think your guesses were close? Would they affect the logic of my arguments if they were or weren't? I don't see the point, but please feel free to judge to your heart's content.


That's the beauty of discussing "what Marxism really is" in a philosophy forum. All we are judging here is each other's intellectual contraptions. What did Marx say and what did he mean? We can start perhaps by pinning down the definitions of all the words he used to bridge the gap between what he thought was going on all around him in his world and all that others living very different lives thought otherwise instead.

Then the task becomes sifting through all these subjective/subjunctive, existential points of view and determining what in fact all rational folks are obligated to think about it all.

Ah, but on this thread tempers flare up over any number of things. Why? Because the actual history of Marxism precipitated all manner social and political and economic contexts -- upheavals -- that generated all manner of consequences that enhanced the lives of some and crumpled the lives others. Literally millions of men, women and children died as a result of actual flesh and blood human beings interpreting what "Marxism really is". In Russia, China, Vietnam and through any number of Third World counties where Marxist/socialist/communist rebellions were fought.

Here though the "judgments of others" are easily shrugged off because ILP is just a forum for exchanging words only. No actual bullets or bombs or gulags or re-education camps or government policies to deal with.

iambiguous wrote:So, let's focus in on what you believe that Marxism most Is and discuss it given a particular context in which to examine, for example, political economy, commodity fetish, or the alienation of labor.

So, consult the celestial bodies and decide.

A new thread perhaps?


Silhouette wrote: What's wrong this this thread? The one that is entitled "what Marxism really is"?
We don't have to make our own personal dasein threads in addition to this one do we? ;)


Yes, in my view, we do. And that is because my argument revolves precisely around the existential relationship between our reaction to things like Marxism and the lives that we lived. And at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political economy. And to the extent that Marx believed that his Manifesto reflected the most rational understanding of the human condition is the extent to which he becomes another objectivist. A very sophisticated and perceptive objectivist but nonetheless just one more rendition of this: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Silhouette wrote: Even if we did, what might make you think they won't suffer the same fate as this one, getting overrun by Smee et al. patting each other on the back about how right and great they are?


I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. But you know me: Note a particular set of circumstances in which an understanding of "what Marxism really is" is important, and reconfigure your point into that.

Silhouette wrote: All things considered though, there's still some distinct effort on the part of an appreciated few sticking to the relevant topics in good enough faith - so in spite of the noise it's still a marked step forward for ILP as of recently.


Same here. Note a context involving conflicting political prejudices, and let us examine what you mean by "sticking to the relevant topics" more substantively.

I have found from long experience dealing with objectivists [and not just the Kids] that when someone notes something like this, others are "sticking" or "not sticking" to the topic depending on the extent to which they share the objectivist's own point of view.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38525
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby von Rivers » Wed Aug 26, 2020 6:12 am

There is a binary conception of 'ownership'. ---You own X or you don't. For any given X, either the private individual owns it or else the public sphere does. Capitalist or a Socialist. So in proper classical logic, any movement toward one direction could only come from the polar opposite.

That is not how 'ownership' works as a concept.

To 'own' something is to have control over it. --Control to use, alter, destroy, sell, and exclude others from. Control comes in gradations. We protect control with rights, and limit it with responsibilities (e.g., regulations, taxes, laws, enviro protections). Since control is a matter of degrees, so is 'ownership'. A fuzzy logic suits this debate.

Unfortunately, when you think in binary, then any responsibility foisted on a property owner becomes the act of a totalitarian regime. It's a constraint on free market, after all. It seems like every election period there is someone tearing up on TV pointing to the direct line between a Democrat and Fidel Castro. Any imposition of values or limit to individual freedom is ...a totalitarian-style of evil. Nevermind that there are plenty examples of them that you could not live without. Nevermind that your personal rights mean responsibilities for others, and vice versa.

Likewise, when you think in binary, any contribution of a person's labour entitles them to full ownership---because they made it, after all. And if you use a thing, you must own it. Because if you didn't own it, you couldn't use it. But since you use it... it must be yours completely. So taking it back is justice.

Anyways, so there's another criticism of Marxism, and some of you.



There's an old oak tree near Toronto that stands next to a little house in the shadow of skyscrapers. This old oak tree is 300 years old, which is older than Canada. Unfortunately, the property owner cannot afford the maintenance fees of her tree. And the roots of the tree are breaking the foundation of her little house. She tried to get private donation to care for the tree, but there wasn't enough. But, if the tree is properly cared for, it may live another 200 years or more.

In a free market, this little house and old oak tree becomes another skyscraper. Gone. Because you can't make a profit on a tiny park.
In a commune, who knows what would happen. Maybe her house would be levelled to protect the tree, and she'd be moved to an apartment in the skycraper next door. Maybe it'd just be another skyscraper too.

When you think in binary, this would be all there is.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5852
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:17 pm

This is what Marxism really is:



It has come to bear fruit. The Liberal-Left represent the new Tyranny that must be toppled. They have pushed as far 'left' as possible. What's next, except the rise of the far 'right'?

You wanted a new Hitler, so you create and summon a new one. Your fears become reality. You are to blame, without realizing.


PK, Silhouette, Prom, Magnus, Von, these are your ilk, your kin, your kind, your kindred. Marxist, Communist, Socialist.

Murderers.




And then, the celebration, of a murdering a random-person on the street:

Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3276
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:43 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:This is what Marxism really is:



It has come to bear fruit. The Liberal-Left represent the new Tyranny that must be toppled. They have pushed as far 'left' as possible. What's next, except the rise of the far 'right'?

You wanted a new Hitler, so you create and summon a new one. Your fears become reality. You are to blame, without realizing.


PK, Silhouette, Prom, Magnus, Von, these are your ilk, your kin, your kind, your kindred. Marxist, Communist, Socialist.

Murderers.




And then, the celebration, of a murdering a random-person on the street:




Pick one:

:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38525
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:34 pm

iambiguous wrote:Pick one:

:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:

I pick: that you're sick and depraved. Your head is fucked. Laughing at somebody executed in the streets in cold-blood.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3276
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users