asdf32 posted:What's bluster? Which one of those things matters to Marxists? I'm not sure what you mean by that word, "things", and I have some questions about your use of the word, "matters" in this context.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Kinda dead, kinda not. You would think with global capitalism ascendant. Marxism would be dead but its not quite true. We're not really capitalist here in America. We have taken some advice here and there from socialists. We have social security and there are sectors where we would prefer not to have total private control. We have federal lands for instance. That's kinda marxist. Also Europeans have more socialism in how they do things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Kinda dead, kinda not. You would think with global capitalism ascendant. Marxism would be dead but its not quite true. We're not really capitalist here in America. We have taken some advice here and there from socialists. We have social security and there are sectors where we would prefer not to have total private control. We have federal lands for instance. That's kinda marxist. Also Europeans have more socialism in how they do things. This is similar to the libertarian thread where people confuse actual ancap ideology with conservatism. Marxism isn't the left, nor is it socialism (which has contemporary variants and proponents). Marxism is the anti-intellectual cult variant of socialsim complete with its own sacred text and founder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 06:35
|
|
asdf32 posted:This is similar to the libertarian thread where people confuse ancap ideology with conservatism. Marxism isn't the left, nor is it socialism (which has contemporary variants and proponents). Marxism is the anti-intellectual cult variant of socialsim complete with its own sacred text and founder. Hmm, now that we've disconnected words from descriptivism and prescriptivism in meaning, it looks like we're all stuck in a featureless grey void for eternity. God drat you to hell.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
where's marxism's grave so i can do the video like the guy dancing on reagan's grave?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 06:38
|
|
icantfindaname posted:where's marxism's grave so i can do the video like the guy dancing on reagan's grave? 
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
warcrimes-chan is so kawaii
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:This is similar to the libertarian thread where people confuse actual ancap ideology with conservatism. Marxism isn't the left, nor is it socialism (which has contemporary variants and proponents). Marxism is the anti-intellectual cult variant of socialsim complete with its own sacred text and founder. Yeah, I'm thinking of socialism as something that evolved from Marxism rather than actual Marxism. So in a way Marxism is dead but in another way it has evolved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:What's bluster? Which one of those things matters to Marxists? "Bluster" is immediately after you said something that's just foolishly untrue--that Adam Smith, among a bunch of other people, are no longer 'relevant', and were shown why this wasn't true at all, you immediately just fart out "History, data and academic consensus mean nothing to Marxists", a statement coming from nowhere and going nowhere. And all of those things matter to Marxists, pretty obviously. Though you're not going to find academic consensus on pretty much any soft subject, except in the most basic ways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 07:57
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Yeah, I'm thinking of socialism as something that evolved from Marxism rather than actual Marxism. So in a way Marxism is dead but in another way it has evolved. Socialism preceded Marxism, Marx is just the most important thinker in socialism. Think here in particular of Proudhon, Saint-Simon and Owen. In many ways Marx lost a lot of the arguments in western European political socialism, which became a democratic party-political movement; Marx's real legacy is in theory. The idea that Marx or Marxists didn't care about history or data can be flatly refuted by the slightest reference to any classic Marxist text. The question is more around interpretation.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:"Bluster" is immediately after you said something that's just foolishly untrue--that Adam Smith, among a bunch of other people, are no longer 'relevant', and were shown why this wasn't true at all, you immediately just fart out "History, data and academic consensus mean nothing to Marxists", a statement coming from nowhere and going nowhere. No I just didn't want to explain the difference between being a historical figure of note and being relevant in a contemporary sense again by, say, citing Freud for the 8th time (who undoubtedly is also still cited in textbooks). Disinterested posted:Socialism preceded Marxism, Marx is just the most important thinker in socialism. Think here in particular of Proudhon, Saint-Simon and Owen. In many ways Marx lost a lot of the arguments in western European political socialism, which became a democratic party-political movement; Marx's real legacy is in theory. Marx cared about history. Marxists haven't cared about history since Marx.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No I just didn't want to explain the difference between being a historical figure of note and being relevant in a contemporary sense again by, say, citing Freud for the 8th time (who undoubtedly is also still cited in textbooks). You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. quote:Marx cared about history. Marxists haven't cared about history since Marx. Would you mind expanding on this, maybe with relevant examples? Right now it sounds like you saying something incredibly stupid with a false air of authority concerning a topic of which you are extremely ignorant. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. By definition they consider Marx to be the pre-eminent source of capitalist critique. As opposed to anything that's come since (I.E. anything written since the rise of the middle class, modern finance, modern state regulation, economic data, and the rise and fall of actual Marxist inspired states). Example "Marx isn't outdated" from one page ago: HorseLord posted:Money and wage labour are still the same thing they always were, private property is still the same thing it always was, financial wealth still has the same relationship to political power it always did. Nothing in the time since his death has changed in such a way as to invalidate Marx, either his work alone or it's descendants. Claiming Marx is outdated is like trying to claim a brick is. Surprise, rear end in a top hat, you still live in a house.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 17:04
|
|
asdf32 posted:By definition they consider Marx to be the pre-eminent source of capitalist critique. As opposed to anything that's come since (I.E. anything written since the rise of the middle class, modern finance, modern state regulation, economic data, and the rise and fall of actual Marxist inspired states). More blustering. If you're at the point of saying people disregard history because they don't hold with the cult of the new, then you're in full intellectual retreat and on the verge of an academic rout. EDIT: Really, couldn't you have come up with a formulation that isn't fundamentally equal to "physicists disregard history"?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:By definition they consider Marx to be the pre-eminent source of capitalist critique. As opposed to anything that's come since (I.E. anything written since the rise of the middle class, modern finance, modern state regulation, economic data, and the rise and fall of actual Marxist inspired states). So you are simply ignorant. Let me relieve you of your ignorance. Marxists believe Marx to be the foundational material for class struggle and materialist view of history dialectic. Since Marx, there have been many thinkers contributing to and building on Marxist thought. Glad I could help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:More blustering. If you're at the point of saying people disregard history because they don't hold with the cult of the new, then you're in full intellectual retreat and on the verge of an academic rout. Wait, do I need to explicitly connect the dots between the things I listed and the potential implications for Marxism? I'm not saying we need to throw out newton because he's old. I'm saying we should re-evaluate newton if it turns out apples fall up. archangelwar posted:So you are simply ignorant. Let me relieve you of your ignorance. Marxists believe Marx to be the foundational material for class struggle and materialist view of history dialectic. Since Marx, there have been many thinkers contributing to and building on Marxist thought. Glad I could help. So wait, Marxists and socialists are the same thing? Or are Marxists a strain of socialists who put special emphasis on Marx.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 17:28
|
|
asdf32 posted:Wait, do I need to explicitly connect the dots between the things I listed and the potential implications for Marxism? You said, specifically, that the relationship between wealth and political power, the nature of wage labor, the essential nature of money, and the understanding of private property- that any or all of these have been fundamentally changed since Marx's day because the middle class is larger, we've invented the stock option, the USSR existed, and "economic data". Not that Marx was wrong about any of those, but that money circa 2015 is a fundamentally different thing than money circa 1865.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:So wait, Marxists and socialists are the same thing? Or are Marxists a strain of socialists who put special emphasis on Marx. Neither. Marxists are adherents to a philosophical tradition. Socialism is a sociopolitical school of thought where some adherents have used Marxist tradition as philosophical underpinning for their position.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
If Marxists spent a fraction of the time and energy they spend fighting other Marxists over what is Marxism, they might be somewhere outside of academia. As the saying goes, academic arguments are so vicious and rancorous because so little is at stake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:If Marxists spent a fraction of the time and energy they spend fighting other Marxists over what is Marxism, they might be somewhere outside of academia. As the saying goes, academic arguments are so vicious and rancorous because so little is at stake. Where else would they be? Winning elections in Greece, perhaps? quote:As chief economist of Syriza, the far-left party that has sent markets into a tailspin as it edges ever closer to power in Greece, the academic has had a prominent role in devising the group’s financial manifesto. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:If Marxists spent a fraction of the time and energy they spend fighting other Marxists over what is Marxism, they might be somewhere outside of academia. As the saying goes, academic arguments are so vicious and rancorous because so little is at stake. I guess this would make sense if you thought that the USA was the only country that exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I guess this would make sense if you thought that the USA was the only country that exists. I've been to Cuba and Laos, both true beacons to humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Where else would they be? Winning elections in Greece, perhaps? Of course Syriza are Marxist, until True Marxists denounce them for failing in Greece. But Real Marxists (Reformed) will know that's because of Imperialism, or Racism, or Bourgeois Decadence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:25
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Of course Syriza are Marxist, until True Marxists denounce them for failing in Greece. But Real Marxists (Reformed) will know that's because of Imperialism, or Racism, or Bourgeois Decadence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkJwKwk-L2c
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You said, specifically, that the relationship between wealth and political power, the nature of wage labor, the essential nature of money, and the understanding of private property- that any or all of these have been fundamentally changed since Marx's day because the middle class is larger, we've invented the stock option, the USSR existed, and "economic data". Not that Marx was wrong about any of those, but that money circa 2015 is a fundamentally different thing than money circa 1865. Because of your wording I don't fully understand what you're saying. There is no ahistoric spiritual nature to private property or wage labor. The relationship between a 21st century middle class worker with labor rights and their employer is of a different nature than that between a Lowell Ma mill worker and capitalist circa 1830. As capitalism has transformed the reality for the average person the nature capitalism has itself changed. Modern finance and corporate structure has similarly and drastically altered how ownership actually works and modern economic data has helped shed light on all of this. The fact that Marxism rejects outright the possibility of these changes because of a pseudo religious notion of their intrinsic nature is one of my biggest contentions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:33
|
|
asdf32 posted:Because of your wording I don't fully understand what you're saying. There is no ahistoric spiritual nature to private property or wage labor. The relationship between a 21st century middle class worker with labor rights and their employer is of a different nature than that between a Lowell Ma mill worker and capitalist circa 1830. As capitalism has transformed the reality for the average person the nature capitalism has itself changed. Modern finance and corporate structure has similarly and drastically altered how ownership actually works and modern economic data has helped shed light on all of this. The fact that Marxism rejects outright the possibility of these changes because of a pseudo religious notion of their intrinsic nature is one of my biggest contentions. Ok, so in order: This is you agreeing with Marxism, this requires justification, this doesn't have anything to do with what I've said as you've written it, this requires clarification and then probably justification, and that depends on all the other things. Finally, your last statement requires justification, but asking you to provide it would be needless cruelty.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The fact that Marxism rejects outright the possibility of these changes because of a pseudo religious notion of their intrinsic nature is one of my biggest contentions. See, what is funny is that this statement is the exact opposite of reality and depicts your deep ignorance of the source material. The fact that you speak with such false authority is quite telling. You are more invested in being considered correct rather than actually understanding the truth. The materialist view of history is actually an embrace of the fact that conditions change, and was a specific rejection of the type of thinking of which you are accusing Marxism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:See, what is funny is that this statement is the exact opposite of reality and depicts your deep ignorance of the source material. The fact that you speak with such false authority is quite telling. You are more invested in being considered correct rather than actually understanding the truth. So what evidence or data guides the Marxist to their conclusions of what is or isn't exploitation? What forms of private ownership are acceptable? Answer: None, ever. Exploitation is exploitation by definition and due to the nature of the relationship between owner and laborer. No data, thinking or analysis required. History and outcomes can't change anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:12
|
|
asdf32 posted:So what evidence or data guides the Marxist to their conclusions of what is or isn't exploitation? What forms of private ownership are acceptable? Answer: None, ever. Exploitation is exploitation by definition and due to the nature of the relationship between owner and laborer. No data, thinking or analysis required. History and outcomes can't change anything. Okay, what are the situations in which non-socialists would accept banning markets or private property?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, what are the situations in which non-socialists would accept banning markets or private property? If banning private property or markets was better or necessary. Which it already is in plenty of circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:15
|
|
asdf32 posted:If banning private property or markets was better or necessary. Can you outline a situation, without embracing socialism and maintaining capitalism, that could plausibly happen, because I could always say that exploitation would be okay if it turned out that wealth didn't actually matter to anything and not really concede anything meaningful. asdf32 posted:Which it already is in plenty of circumstances. Okay, generally. A general ban on private property, a general ban on the market.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:So what evidence or data guides the Marxist to their conclusions of what is or isn't exploitation? What forms of private ownership are acceptable? Answer: None, ever. Exploitation is exploitation by definition and due to the nature of the relationship between owner and laborer. No data, thinking or analysis required. History and outcomes can't change anything. But could you explain to us what data and evidence guides your conclusions of what is or isn't a market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:So what evidence or data guides the Marxist to their conclusions of what is or isn't exploitation? Exploitation is a descriptive term of an observed phenomena. This is like saying "what evidence or data guides the English teacher to their conclusions of what is or isn't a noun." Have you ever thought that you are simply incapable of grasping this simple concept? quote:What forms of private ownership are acceptable? Answer: None, ever. False. Real life Marxists are in the business of determining what forms of private ownership are acceptable as we speak. Just because many Socialists believe that elimination of private property is the best result does not mean they are incapable of conceiving alternatives. Edit: See Lenin -> State Capitalism quote:Exploitation is exploitation by definition and due to the nature of the relationship between owner and laborer. No data, thinking or analysis required. History and outcomes can't change anything. This doesn't even make sense. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
The dialectic of Marxists: Strict, rigid religious adherents to a specific set of uniform, identical beliefs; torn asunder by infighting, debate, and disagreement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
For another example, alienation would be false if the majority of people were actually happier with minimal control over their lives, and I urge orthodoxonomists to endorse this loudly and as often as possible.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Can you outline a situation, without embracing socialism and maintaining capitalism, that could plausibly happen, because I could always say that exploitation would be okay if it turned out that wealth didn't actually matter to anything and not really concede anything meaningful. If we largely eradicate private capital that basically is socialism. I can see this plausibly happening at some point in the future in a post scarcity world. Note that it won't likely be post goods scarcity but probably post labor scarcity instead. This would come about as a reaction to actual contemporary circumstances and have no relationship to Marx. Because, again, Marxism isn't actually relevant outside the history books. (Though marxists have a penchant for trying to adopt any and all criticisms of capital, see pinckney. But that's desperation not reality). That said, while I do think we'll eventually transition to something better understood as socialism I lack the creativity to envision circumstances where we need a total ban on markets and private capital. (The beauty of not adopting a strict ideology is that I can advocate markets where I want markets and [not markets] where I want [not markets]. Likewise for private capital) Effectronica posted:For another example, alienation would be false if the majority of people were actually happier with minimal control over their lives, and I urge orthodoxonomists to endorse this loudly and as often as possible. If there was ever an example of something suited for subjective rather than definition analysis, I think the feeling of alienation would be it. Legal definitions of owner/not owner do not define it. Heh also, existing socialist states have not been known for individual empowerment. archangelwar posted:Exploitation is a descriptive term of an observed phenomena. This is like saying "what evidence or data guides the English teacher to their conclusions of what is or isn't a noun." Have you ever thought that you are simply incapable of grasping this simple concept? Deciding to define it in technical terms such that any subjectivity is stripped away is a choice. A bad one. And not the choice of definition adopted by most people. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. *cue attempt to resolve asdf32's confusion — on page 57 of a thread in which he has nearly 200 imperious, dismissive posts without any trace of epistemic modesty — on the difference between "Marxist" and "socialist"* The problem isn't that he doesn't know what he's talking about; it's that he doesn't care to, because he's Right and we're Wrong and that's that. "No data, thinking, or analysis required." Certainly no understanding of the subject matter, because poo poo, Marx lived like what, a thousand years ago? And every work in his tradition since has been nothing more than Biblical exegesis using Capital, with no reference to data or history. Right? This is what asdf32 actually believes. You are attempting to impart understanding to someone whose study habits consist of guzzling the Lethe between making posts. There are way better uses for a Saturday afternoon. IMO a nippy day like today calls for hot cocoa with cool people. (Also vanguardism~) Aeolius fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:*cue attempt to resolve asdf32's confusion — on page 57 of a thread in which he has nearly 200 imperious, dismissive posts without any trace of epistemic modesty — on the difference between "Marxist" and "socialist"* And you've spent a good chunk of your posting complaining about me. It's really a bummer if a personality problem is preventing us from hearing more about the ideology that can save us from alienation, exploitation and economic collapse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:And you've spent a good chunk of your posting complaining about me. It's really a bummer if a personality problem is preventing us from hearing more about the ideology that can save us from alienation, exploitation and economic collapse. Watch it, he is invincible with his Vanguard T-shirt ($25 at Urban Outfitters) on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:09 |
|
asdf32 posted:And you've spent a good chunk of your posting complaining about me. It's really a bummer if a personality problem is preventing us from hearing more about the ideology that can save us from alienation, exploitation and economic collapse. Agreed, you should stop posting so that your personality problems don't get in the way. TheImmigrant posted:Watch it, he is invincible with his Vanguard T-shirt ($25 at Urban Outfitters) on. Reading your posts about how you've traveled all over the world in conjunction with your complete lack of any coherent thinking about anything suggests you're the Ugliest American that ever touristed. Heh.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 21:58
|
|