|
asdf32 posted:And you've spent a good chunk of your posting complaining about me. And an even greater chunk trying to constructively address you. I'm now trying to make up for my naivete. asdf32 posted: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 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Is Marxism dead? One the one hand all my white liberal friends believe it's cool and edgy to quote Zizek and think the words "neoliberalism" and "ideology" basically mean "anything that I, as a very smart and educated person, do not like". On the other hand the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles and the internal contradictions of capitalism are more than ever pulling us towards crisis sooooooo
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:And an even greater chunk trying to constructively address you. I'm now trying to make up for my naivete. Besides a dog graphic saying so, what defines whether something is ideology or science in your mind? There's an answer, but it's not as significant as you seem to think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Effectronica posted: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. No you're just bitter because you're probably underemployed and don't appreciate how much better you have it than the average Third-Worlder. This invalidates your stridently anti-imperialist worldview somehow. If you truly appreciated the vastness of global inequality, you would embrace your lot as a "Sandwich Artist" (lol u fukkin' pleb) and also capitalism or something I guess because Good Cop Liberalism is the best you're going to get because otherwise I'LL BUST YOUR loving human being MOUTH GOD DAMMIT I HATE YOU loving PEOPLE SO loving MUCH.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:There's an answer And you don't know it. Now be quiet to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:On the other hand the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles This turns out to have been incorrect, I'm sorry to report.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:55
|
|
Pope Fabulous XXIV posted:No you're just bitter because you're probably underemployed and don't appreciate how much better you have it than the average Third-Worlder. This invalidates your stridently anti-imperialist worldview somehow. If you truly appreciated the vastness of global inequality, you would embrace your lot as a "Sandwich Artist" (lol u fukkin' pleb) and also capitalism or something I guess because Good Cop Liberalism is the best you're going to get because otherwise I'LL BUST YOUR loving human being MOUTH GOD DAMMIT I HATE YOU loving PEOPLE SO loving MUCH. Hey, are you a man or a woman? I need to know if I should add a pink or black triangle to my killcount.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
I list my killcount like Wedge Antilles, ie: my uniform displays how many TIE Fighters, Star Destroyers, and Death Stars I have destroyed, and Coruscants I have liberated. My uniform is currently blank. I also have no uniform. Majorian fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This turns out to have been incorrect, I'm sorry to report. Ok do you mean that there exists historical societies have been structured primarily along lines that have nothing to do with class divisions, or maybe that sometimes societies transition in their organization for reasons that have nothing to do with conflict between classes? Or do you mean something more like "sometimes other things happen in history like a volcano erupts", or "sometimes someone different becomes the king in a feudal society"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Ok do you mean that there exists historical societies have been structured primarily along lines that have nothing to do with class divisions, or maybe that sometimes societies transition in their organization for reasons that have nothing to do with conflict between classes? Eh, it's more an objection to the base/superstructure dichotomy and especially the Orthodox Marxist belief that economics/class struggle is the only causal driving force throughout all of human history. I've never found that worldview to be terribly convincing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Eh, it's more an objection to the base/superstructure dichotomy and especially the Orthodox Marxist belief that economics/class struggle is the only causal driving force throughout all of human history. I've never found that worldview to be terribly convincing. I'd argue you're right to be unconvinced. That's the classic "economic determinism" interpretation, and it's one Marxists (orthodox or otherwise) dismiss as being based on a naive/reductionistic materialism. The dialectical materialist perspective is more in line with those that view reality as stratified, emphasizing emergence of a system's more complex properties from its less complex properties. So, the relationship of base to superstructure might be compared to the relationship of, say, biology to chemistry. The former supervenes upon the latter; in this, a whole new set of biological laws emerge that cannot be directly reduced to chemical laws, but nor can they violate the laws of chemistry. By that same measure, political and ideological mechanisms spring from those of economics, but economic mechanisms don't suffice to explain all historical events any more than chemistry alone can explain all the events in the life of a simple organism. Rather, economic, political, and ideological events (et al.) all contribute in no fixed proportion to historical events. So, it's not a question of base determining superstructure in a direct and unicausal fashion; it's more to say the way superstructural events function is shaped, conditioned, and constrained by economic considerations in the last instance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:I'd argue you're right to be unconvinced. That's the classic "economic determinism" interpretation, and it's one Marxists (orthodox or otherwise) dismiss as being based on a naive/reductionistic materialism. The dialectical materialist perspective is more in line with those that view reality as stratified, emphasizing emergence of a system's more complex properties from its less complex properties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 11:32
|
|
Majorian posted:Eh, it's more an objection to the base/superstructure dichotomy and especially the Orthodox Marxist belief that economics/class struggle is the only causal driving force throughout all of human history. I've never found that worldview to be terribly convincing. AKA Vulgar Marxism.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:And you don't know it. It doesn't really matter though. I think you think Marxism hits a few checkboxes that make it a science and you think this is important. You think it shields you from claims of ideology and that people like me are obviously illegitimate hacks for not recognizing your protection. This is like a few other instances where you place outsized importance on certain academic technical distinctions (including your affinity for definitional discussions in general). It's a fallacy to begin with. Climate science provides a trivial example. It's a real science, but it's practitioners are by no means shielded from claims of ideological bias because of this. And also interesting is the fact that you've been calling me ideological all thread. So what checkboxes do you think you have that I don't?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:I agree with your (probable) point but I don't like your analogy. The move from chemical to biological laws is only chaotic. This means your analogy means different things depending on how much your audience knows about chemistry. I'm no chem expert, so the break seems straightforward enough to me. And the analogy is a common one (see, for instance, this paper I linked a couple months ago). The point I'm aiming for should obtain regardless of the precise generative mechanisms giving rise to more complex mechanisms. E.g., the chemical structure of DNA explains biological inheritance, rather than the other way around, but biology still leaves traces on the nonbiological world. That said, can you point to any good sources on the chaotic relationship you're describing? As I said, I'm not particularly well grounded in chemistry but I have a great deal of conceptual interest in this sort of thing. Aeolius fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:And also interesting is the fact that you've been calling me ideological all thread. So what checkboxes do you think you have that I don't? I could wile away the hours Conferrin' with the flowers Consultin' with the rain And my head I'd be scratchin' While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
All the modern ideologies want to be scientific while simultaneously denying that any of the other modern ideologies are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 17:52
|
|
BrandorKP posted:All the modern ideologies want to be scientific while simultaneously denying that any of the other modern ideologies are. No doubt related to the rise of the technocratic expert in our discourse.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:All the modern ideologies want to be scientific while simultaneously denying that any of the other modern ideologies are. Given that we seem to be conflating various subjects and topics, it is all really irrelevant labels anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:No doubt related to the rise of the technocratic expert in our discourse. Yes, and I also think it's just true. If the ideology is modern, you get "we're being scientific, they aren't". Even in something like fundamentalist evangelicals (and there were a bunch of examples from the Prester John thread). It's a weapon in the conflicts between ideologies: my beliefs are in-accordance with the empirical and objective your's are not. The science of Liberty, the science of Dialectic Materialism, a scientific literal interpretation of the bible. it's all over the place and it's just a thing that's part of modernity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Everyone believes their views are grounded in truth (apart from post-modernists who reject the concept of absolute truth), it's just in modern times that we believe truth is found in science rather than from the divine or in tradition. Everything from that is just politics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
This thread keeps dying. Maybe the title should be changed to "Marxism appreciation station. (We miss you!)"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Besides a dog graphic saying so, what defines whether something is ideology or science in your mind? The dog graphic is sufficient.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The dog graphic is sufficient. Speaking of you, I thought you had a great quote in the libertarian thread. Something about libertarians being the "pet" of the right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:18
|
|
asdf32 posted:This thread keeps dying. Maybe the title should be changed to "Marxism appreciation station. (We miss you!)"? It's because the premise is dumb. Every time it's revived, it's revived by some smug rear end in a top hat who is super sure Marxism is 'irrelevant' because [dumb reasons] [soviet union] [maoism] [20th century economics].
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:It's because the premise is dumb. Every time it's revived, it's revived by some smug rear end in a top hat who is super sure Marxism is 'irrelevant' because [dumb reasons] [soviet union] [maoism] [20th century economics]. Plus, as some have pointed out, a thread without so much as the benefit of a substantive OP sends a signal that this is a good site to bring one's ignorant bullshit and settle in for the annual strawman picnic. Then comes the two-step shuffle: First, steadfastly refuse to understand the foundational arguments well enough to restate them, then bitch about people being dogmatic and singularly focused on one text because they have to keep correcting your guesses as to what it probably says. (Incidentally, I had forgotten about this article, which addresses that issue at length.) I keep toying with the idea of starting a new thread more in the vein of the last one, which actually had a pretty good ratio of interesting discussion to bullshit, by D&D standards. I just haven't had a lot of headspace to devote to it lately. Maybe once life stabilizes a bit. Aeolius fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
The main reason the old thread had a more informative tone then what is usual in D&D is that the thread was in A&T.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
Say whaaat? That's... pretty hilarious, actually, though I don't recall it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:Plus, as some have pointed out, a thread without so much as the benefit of a substantive OP sends a signal that this is a good site to bring one's ignorant bullshit and settle in for the annual strawman picnic. Then comes the two-step shuffle: First, steadfastly refuse to understand the foundational arguments well enough to restate them, then bitch about people being dogmatic and singularly focused on one text because they have to keep correcting your guesses as to what it probably says. (Incidentally, I had forgotten about this article, which addresses that issue at length.) So by way of comparison do you fault Jrodfeld for not making people restate Rothbard, or the theoretical organization structure of a libertarian DRO in detail. Do you know these things? Do you need to know all the details in order to dismiss them? I'm guessing you don't, but you understand plenty enough to have good reasons dismiss them anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:So by way of comparison do you fault Jrodfeld for not making people restate Rothbard, or the theoretical organization structure of a libertarian DRO in detail. Do you know these things? Do you need to know all the details in order to dismiss them? I'm guessing you don't, but you understand plenty enough to have good reasons dismiss them anyway. That is normally enough. As opposed to arguments that only rely on strange stereotypes from the 60s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:It's because the premise is dumb. Every time it's revived, it's revived by some smug rear end in a top hat who is super sure Marxism is 'irrelevant' because [dumb reasons] [soviet union] [maoism] [20th century economics]. Or [any of the the other experiments in Marxism]. It'll be Different this time, I promise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:25
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Or [any of the the other experiments in Marxism]. Hey look, I predicted right!
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Hey look, I predicted right! Racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Hey look, I predicted right! So what's going to be different this time? Asking for a friend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:So what's going to be different this time? About what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:About what? I think he's under the impression that "Marxists," as a group, have a specific, unified program for what they're going to do when they take over the US or the world or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think he's under the impression that "Marxists," as a group, have a specific, unified program for what they're going to do when they take over the US or the world or whatever. Yet at the same time marginalized because of horrible infighting and factionalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Yet at the same time marginalized because of horrible infighting and factionalism. Yyyyyup, that's about the size of it. (I don't think TheImmigrant or wateroverfire know much about Marxism)
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
To be fair much of the revolutionary left is split because it's full of lovely, lovely egotistical idiots rather than serious political disputes over how to implement socialism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Yyyyyup, that's about the size of it. That's probably because you don't know how to explain it without killing someone with a heterodox idea of what it means.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 21:26
|
|