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 iambiguous » Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:57 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
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.


On the other hand, given my own political prejudices, it never occurred to you that perhaps I was laughing at you? You and all of the other Kids here.

You know, those rabid partisans turning ILP into their very own rendition of Romper Stomper.

Look, it's not the "arguments" you make but what I construe to be the utter lack of intellectual depth supporting them. Huffing and puffing about a Good vs. Evil world you reduce down to cartoon characters. An extremist caricature of political debate.

As opposed to, say, the ideological bent of folks like Satyr at KT. He may be an objectivist in my view but at least he displays evidence of having actually thought out his own set of assumptions in a philosophy forum.

Now, sure, I am often quick to point out my own objections to "serious philosophers" here who don't bring their technical prowess to assessments of events unfolding in Portland or D.C. or on Wall Street.

But, in my personal opinion, your own outbursts here are even farther removed from the actual complexity of the world we live in.

And, as well, I recognize that some will insist that in my own way I am equally unqualified to post here.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39650
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:26 pm

lamb, no offense, but you're so dumb and dense that everybody pretty much ignores you and nobody gives you respect. You rarely, or never say anything interesting or relevant. The fact that you laugh at the cold-blooded, murder in the street going on, further confirms this. You're a non-entity, and one that supports the Liberal-Left. No effort is required on my part. I'm only displaying what has already happened, but people (including you) try to hide and sweep under the rug. Your laughter is representation of the Liberal-Left, causing this violence and also believing you are 'innocent' and "not part of it". Although you are a part of the Cause, not the Solution.

Dangerous games, and your ignorance is not interesting to me. You don't need to respond. What can you possibly say at this point that will matter to anybody but yourself?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4280
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:28 pm

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

Murderers.


I might be directly responsible for that poor beggar's death but you are certainly responsible for spamming in this thread.
"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: 4784
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:29 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:I might be directly responsible for that poor beggar's death but you are certainly responsible for spamming in this thread.

It humors me that you don't even deny it.

This thread keeps proving me right, is that "spamming"?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4280
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:41 pm

Why should I?
"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: 4784
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:33 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:lamb, no offense, but you're so dumb and dense that everybody pretty much ignores you and nobody gives you respect. You rarely, or never say anything interesting or relevant. The fact that you laugh at the cold-blooded, murder in the street going on, further confirms this. You're a non-entity, and one that supports the Liberal-Left. No effort is required on my part. I'm only displaying what has already happened, but people (including you) try to hide and sweep under the rug. Your laughter is representation of the Liberal-Left, causing this violence and also believing you are 'innocent' and "not part of it". Although you are a part of the Cause, not the Solution.

Dangerous games, and your ignorance is not interesting to me. You don't need to respond. What can you possibly say at this point that will matter to anybody but yourself?


What always fascinates me about Kids is that it never even occurs to them they should feel embarrassed to be posting this sort of sanctimonious cant...in a philosophy forum.

They actually take themselves seriously!

Well, unless of course I'm wrong.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39650
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:34 pm

America is still dominated by Patriots, who most of the guns. At the end of the day, I'm not worried.

It's just sad that other people are going to pay a huge price for your ignorance, Magnus. You're a spoiled child, just as well as the rest of the Marxist crew on this forum.

Spoiled children.


At least Prom knows what an honest day's work looks like. That's his saving grace. Yours? You haven't shown any redemptive qualities... can you even learn or argue a point?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4280
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:35 pm

iambiguous wrote:Well, unless of course I'm wrong.

Aren't you though?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4280
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:38 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Well, unless of course I'm wrong.

Aren't you though?


This is the Kid version of riposting. :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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39650
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:42 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:America is still dominated by Patriots, who most of the guns. At the end of the day, I'm not worried.

It's just sad that other people are going to pay a huge price for your ignorance, Magnus. You're a spoiled child, just as well as the rest of the Marxist crew on this forum.

Spoiled children.


At least Prom knows what an honest day's work looks like. That's his saving grace. Yours? You haven't shown any redemptive qualities... can you even learn or argue a point?


K: ah, right wing logic, if you own a gun, you are a Patriot...I saw a interesting number
about those who own guns..... only 17% of Americans own guns... so under UR theory,
they are the only Patriots in America.....

so out of 330 million Americans, roughly 56 million Americans own guns, the only
"true" Americans...... so he has disqualified roughly 274 million Americans from
being "true" Patriots....

Kropotkin
PK IS EVIL.....
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8886
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:58 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:It's just sad that other people are going to pay a huge price for your ignorance, Magnus. You're a spoiled child, just as well as the rest of the Marxist crew on this forum.

Spoiled children.

At least Prom knows what an honest day's work looks like. That's his saving grace. Yours? You haven't shown any redemptive qualities... can you even learn or argue a point?


This thread isn't about me.
"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: 4784
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Sep 01, 2020 7:45 am

People (like you) who push and advocate for Marxism, Marxists, are culpable and partially responsible for this, yes.

It is about you and your posse. Socialists are a cancer to Western Civilization. You're a foreign entity, and don't belong here.

You take advantage of this system of freedoms, taking from others without contributing yourself.



A parasite.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4280
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Sep 01, 2020 8:25 am

Urwrong wrote:It is about you and your posse.


Nope.
"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: 4784
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:02 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:Nope.

Yes, this is what "Marxism really is", you and your posse push and advocate for it.

So how are you not responsible? This is your ideology, not mine. Explain yourself.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4280
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:18 pm

Petition for urwrong to be entirely ignored until he starts behaving like an adult.
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:21 pm

urwrong you be nice to your friends or no alt-right youtube channels for one week
and go to your room to think about what you've done
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:27 pm

I just don't like random people being executed in the streets in the United States, for literally no reason.

I guess that's just me though.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4280
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:41 pm

phoneutria wrote:Petition for urwrong to be entirely ignored until he starts behaving like an adult.


Note to urwrong:

As with Satyr, phoneutria may well be just another objectivist here. She may actually believe not only that is there a way to describe what Marxism really is, but that her own description here proves it.

But: at least her assessment above is clearly proof that she has thought this through. And well beyond the level of the ranting Trumpworld Kids here. There is an actual sophisticated mind deliberating behind her insights.

I know, I know: how then do I explain the fact that she has foed me here?

All I can do is to speculate: that she is in fact an objectivist and recognizes what is at stake for her arguments [however sophisticated they might be] if my own insights into dasein, conflicting goods and political economy are perhaps more reasonable than her insights into Marxism.

What if her own "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do" is instead just another existential contraption rooted in "I"?

Go ahead, someone, ask her.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39650
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Silhouette » Wed Sep 02, 2020 12:16 am

phoneutria wrote:Petition for urwrong to be entirely ignored until he starts behaving like an adult.

Retroactively signed.

If he weren't a caricature of the bottom half of a head - a (large) mouth with maybe a half deaf right ear that only responds to the loudest of shouters, it might have occurred to him that nobody here is in favour of "people being executed in the streets in the United States" (or anywhere).

Regrettably I don't think that what the emerging consensus on this forum is gently trying to tell him about himself will register for a second. But in the meantime, at least his intermittant lashings-out are a reliable indicator of the exact opposite of what's actually the case. So until he accepts the truth about how he's being, there's only really one solution: good petition.

iambiguous wrote:phoneutria may well be just another objectivist here. She may actually believe not only that is there a way to describe what Marxism really is, but that her own description here proves it.

You seem to be quite keen to discuss objectivity, or at least Objectivism (not in the Randian sense I think I can safely assume) - with relation to the "really" in the thread title.

If I might make a snide observation, which I'm sure you've considered before and for which I'm sure you have a well-rehearsed response: that a rejection of objectivity invalidates any objectivity behind your rejection of objectivity.

To avoid the other extreme where each person's experience of dasein is so absolutely peculiar that common ground is rendered impossible, do you at least allow for the possibility of non-arbitrary consensus? Surely it means something for Marx's words to be the same whoever reads them? Would you class me as an objectivist if I supported the notion that Marx's words are a primary objective hub against which to gauge relative truth about what Marxism is - to the largest degree to which "really" can be measured on this matter?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4513
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Wed Sep 02, 2020 3:23 am

Silhouette wrote:it might have occurred to him that nobody here is in favour of "people being executed in the streets in the United States" (or anywhere)

Oh really???

Where's the disdain and condemnation from your side? Where are those speaking out?



Only me, on this forum. The record is already settled. Only me who is outraged.

I'm the minority, One versus all of you (Marxists).



What have you got to worry about? The mob is on your side, for now. Maybe, someday, more will join my side. I'm against it. But I don't think you are. You say you aren't. But actions speak louder than words.

Quit being a coward, say you condemn it. Agree with me.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4280
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:37 pm

iambiguous wrote:phoneutria may well be just another objectivist here. She may actually believe not only that is there a way to describe what Marxism really is, but that her own description here proves it.


Silhouette wrote: You seem to be quite keen to discuss objectivity, or at least Objectivism (not in the Randian sense I think I can safely assume) - with relation to the "really" in the thread title.


Well, this will be the third time on this thread that I have attempted to explain my own thinking to you:

1]

Silhouette wrote: Of course Marxism is something. It's a set of ideas that Marx and those working with Marx came up with and wrote down. The words exist and they describe points and concepts for anyone to read and understand just like with any book.


iambiguous wrote: More to the point [mine] are the different interpretations of "what Marxism [really] is" that precipitated actual historical events that precipitated actual historical consequences that changed the lives of millions. For example, for better or worse.

So, a crucial aspect of this debate revolves around the actual facts that can be aggregated into a more or less reasonable assessment of any particular context. You can't just make up your own historical facts about it. Though that won't stop some here of course. Especially those hell bent on hammering facts into their own objectivist political agendas. Or the cherry pickers.

Or [of course] the Kids.


Silhouette wrote: There's a Postmodernist criticism to the whole idea of reading and understanding a text at all, but you're going to have to confirm if you're going for that one or not - but even if you are, it doesn't apply to Marxism any more or less than any other subject, even Postmodernism itself.


iambiguous wrote:Anyone who actually thinks that Marx's assessment of political economy relating to the historical evolution of, among other things, the means of production revolves solely around a "text" is, well, a fucking idiot.

Anyone here like to make that claim?


Silhouette wrote: But assuming you're not trying to lose everything by going down that rabbit hole, the main points are perfectly well explained in the texts - and that's what Marxism is, just the same as any "ism" attributed to a particular person is explained and explainable by their own writing. Rational men and women aren't "obligated" to understand the words and concepts, but insofar as they are rational they are perfectly able to agree with each other as to the contents and sense of any writings including Marxist ones.


iambiguous wrote:Actually, my point revolves less around what Marx argued in the texts and more around the extent to which he believed that his own assessment of human interactions in those texts reflected either the optimal or the only rational assessment of the human condition.

That, in my view, is what makes people moral and political objectivists. Not what they claim is true about Marxism but that they insist a claim of truth can be made. In other words, the belief that here an individual can actually come to grasp his or her own "true self". And then this "real me" can deduce and/or establish empirically that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe about such things as Marxism.

And, indeed, this may be the case. So, that's when I invite the objectivists to explore this given the assumptions I make about identity, value judgments and political power in my signature threads.


Silhouette wrote: Why the hell would rational men and women not want to believe that all rational men and women can come to an understanding of what Marxism is based on the ideas he wrote down to explain himself? Why should anyone trust you on this without any explanation as to why? You talk about fecklessness...


iambiguous wrote:Because that's what I do here. After all, to the extent that someone does believe that Marxism reflects the optimal or the only rational truth, they may be inclined to prove it. Folks like, say, Lenin and Stalin and Mao.

And over and again I admit flat out that my own arguments here are no less existential contraptions rooted in dasein. Leaving me, for example, "fractured and fragmented".

Meaning I don't have the comfort and the consolation of knowing that at least I'll go to the grave being absolutely certain about what Marxism is.

And, for some here, everything else.


2]

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 to phoneutria

iambiguous wrote: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.


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? ;)


iambiguous wrote: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?


iambiguous wrote: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.


iambiguous wrote: 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.


Now this post:

Silhouette wrote: To avoid the other extreme where each person's experience of dasein is so absolutely peculiar that common ground is rendered impossible, do you at least allow for the possibility of non-arbitrary consensus?


Of course. And here [again] the distinction I make -- that anyone can make -- is between what someone believes is true about Marxism "in their head" and the extent to which they are able to demonstrate that rational men and women are obligated to believe the same in turn. After all, what else is there?

Then the further distinction: between truth given the historical facts able to be garnered pertaining to Marxism/socialism/communinism/capitalism etc., in the either/or world and political prejudices rooted in individual value judgments rooted [in my view] in dasein in the is/ought world.

Silhouette wrote: Surely it means something for Marx's words to be the same whoever reads them? Would you class me as an objectivist if I supported the notion that Marx's words are a primary objective hub against which to gauge relative truth about what Marxism is - to the largest degree to which "really" can be measured on this matter?


Again: from my own subjective point of view, an objectivist is someone who believes that his or her moral and political value judgments are derived from the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do". And from this they then proceed to divide the world up between "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys].

You either concur with their own assessment of what Marxism really is or you are wrong. Period. End of discussion.

So, does this describe you?

But here's the thing...

This frame of mind is no less derived from my own assumptions. Assumptions sustaining a conclusion I am no more able to demonstrate as that which rational men and women are obligated to believe. It reflects merely my own subjective political prejudices rooted in dasein.

And, assuming I do possess some measure of free will [and leaving aside the gap between what I think I know about Marxism and all that there is to be known going back to the complete understanding of existence itself], I have to acknowledge that according to my own thinking, new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas [in a world teeming with contingency chance and change], "I" may well come to see things from an entirely different point of view.

I merely suggest that this is also true of everyone else.

And, for the objectivists among us, if my frame of mind here is reasonable, well, what of their own precious objectivist conclusions about, well, everything, right?
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39650
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby promethean75 » Wed Sep 02, 2020 5:29 pm

There are certainly facts about what marxism is that exist independently of what we believe it to be in our heads. The fact that someone might be mistaken, or that there might be disagreement among people discussing what marxism is, does not detract from the fact that marxism IS SOMETHING, and we need not get caught up in solipsistic arguments about the nature of reality.

On the other hand, VALUE JUDGEMENTS made about marxism once a person has an 'opinion' about what they think they know it to be, ARE entirely subjective. And to the extent that you have agreement about a particular opinion, you still dont get an objective truth. Just several subjective preferences that happen to be mutual.

In any case there is nothing vague or physically contraptive about... say, the workers owning the means of production. Now that this hasn't yet happened does not mean it's an inconceivable impossibility in the same way that determing objectively and once and for all, whether or not marxism is 'good', is an inconceivable impossibility.

You cant mistake objective statements about what marxism might or might not be, with value judgements about it. The former isnt defacto an intellectual contraption and we can very well imagine, objectively, what marxist activity and environments might be like.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3999
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Wed Sep 02, 2020 5:35 pm

promethean75 wrote:There are certainly facts about what marxism is that exist independently of what we believe it to be in our heads. The fact that someone might be mistaken, or that there might be disagreement among people discussing what marxism is, does not detract from the fact that marxism IS SOMETHING, and we need not get caught up in solipsistic arguments about the nature of reality.

On the other hand, VALUE JUDGEMENTS made about marxism once a person has an 'opinion' about what they think they know it to be, ARE entirely subjective. And to the extent that you have agreement about a particular opinion, you still dont get an objective truth. Just several subjective preferences that happen to be mutual.

In any case there is nothing vague or physically contraptive about... say, the workers owning the means of production. Now that this hasn't yet happened does not mean it's an inconceivable impossibility in the same way that determing objectively and once and for all, whether or not marxism is 'good', is an inconceivable impossibility.

You cant mistake objective statements about what marxism might or might not be, with value judgements about it. The former isnt defacto an intellectual contraption and we can very well imagine, objectively, what marxist activity and environments might be like.


I already said what it is on the first page: class warfare, originally and historically designed to overthrow French Imperialism (royalty, bourgeois), which later morphed into Communism, and through the Frankfurt School into Post-Modern Socialism.

Silly how not even you Marxists have disagreed with me on my first response to this thread....?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4280
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Wed Sep 02, 2020 5:50 pm

Here's an idea, get rid of all the rich farmers and let the farmlands be run as a commune type thing, where it's just the workers working, without some farm owner just heaping the profits of the operation without doing any of the work. What could go wrong?


Despite the intense state campaign, the collectivization, which was initially voluntary, was not popular amongst peasants: as of early 1929, only 5.6% of Ukrainian peasant households and 3.8% of arable land were collectivized. In early 1929, the methods employed by the specially empowered authority UkrKolhozcenter changed from a voluntary enrollment to an administrative one. By October 1, 1929, a plan for the creation of kolkhozes was "outperformed" by 239%. As a result, 8.8% of arable land was collectivized.[62]

The next major step toward "all-over collectivization" took place after an article was published by Stalin in Pravda in early November 1929.

While initiated by a November 10–17 meeting of Communist Party Central Committee Twenty-Five Thousanders only trained at special short courses, the main driving force of collectivization and dekulakization in Ukraine became a "poor peasants committee" (komnezamy) and local village councils (silrady) where komnezams members had a voting majority.

The USSR Kolhozcenter issued the December 10, 1929, decree on collectivization of livestock within a three-month period (draft animals 100%, cattle 100%, pigs 80%, sheep and goats 60%). This drove many peasants to slaughter their livestock. By January 1, 1930, the percentage of collectivized households almost doubled to 16.4%.

Despite the infamous January 5, 1930 decree, in which the deadline for the complete collectivization of the Ukrainian SSR was set for the period from the end of 1931 to spring 1932, the authorities decided to accelerate the completion of the campaign in autumn 1930. The high expectations of the plan were outperformed by local authorities even without the assistance of the 7,500 Twenty-Five Thousanders,[63] and by March, 70.9% of arable land and 62.8% of peasant households were collectivized. The dekulakization plan also "over-performed". The first stage of delukakization lasted from second half of January until the beginning of March 1930. Such measures were applied to 309 out of 581 total districts of Ukrainian SSR, which accounted for 2,524,000 of 5,054,000 peasant households. As of March 10, 61,897 peasants households (2.5%) were dekulakized, while in 1929, the percentage of dekulakized households was 1.4%.[64] Some of the peasants and "weak elements" were arrested and deported "to the north". Many arrested kulaks and "well-to-do" farmers resettled their families to the Urals and Central Asia.[65] The term kulak was ultimately applied to anybody resisting collectivization as many of the so-called kulaks were no more well-off than other peasants.

The fast-track to collectivization incited numerous peasant revolts in Ukraine and in other parts of the Soviet Union. In response to the situation, Pravda published Stalin's article "Dizzy with success", which blamed overeager Party members and declared that "collective farms must not be established by force".[66] Soon, numerous orders and decrees were issued banning the use of force and administrative methods. Some of those dekulakized were declared to have been labeled mistakenly and received their property back, and some returned home. As a result, the collectivization process was rolled back. On May 1, 1933, 38.2% of Ukrainian SSR peasant households and 41.1% of arable land had been collectivized—by the end of August these numbers declined to 29.2% and 35.6% respectively.[citation needed]

A second forced-voluntary collectivization campaign was initiated in the winter of 1931, with significant assistance of the so-called tug-brigades composed of kolkhoz udarniks. Many kulaks, along with their families, were deported from the Ukrainian SSR.

According to declassified data, around 300,000 peasants in Ukraine were affected by these policies in 1930–1931. Ukrainians composed 15% of the total 1.8 million kulaks relocated Soviet-wide.[67] Beginning in summer 1931, all further deportations were recommended to be administered only to individuals.[68]

This second forced-voluntary collectivization campaign also caused a delay in sowing. During winter and spring 1930–1931, the Ukrainian agricultural authority Narkomzem issued several reports about the significant decline of livestock caused by poor treatment, the absence of forage, stables, and farms, and "kulak sabotage".[citation needed]

According to the first five-year plan, Ukrainian agriculture was to switch from an exclusive orientation of grain to a more diverse output. This included not only an increase in sugar beet crops; other types of agricultural production were expected to be utilized by industry, including cotton, which was established in 1931. This plan anticipated a decrease in grain area and an increase of yield and area for other crops.

By July 1, 1931, 65.7% of Ukrainian SSR peasant households and 67.2% of arable land were reported as collectivized, while the main grain and sugar beet production areas were collectivized at levels of 80–90%.[69]

The decree of Central Committee of the Communist Party on August 2, 1931 clarified the all-over collectivization term—in order to be considered complete, the all-over collectivization did not have to reach 100%, but could not be less than 68-70% of peasants households and 75-80% of arable lands. According to the same decree, all-over collectivization was accomplished in the following areas: Northern Caucasus (Kuban), with 88% of households and 92% of arable lands collectivized; Ukraine (South), with 85% and 94% respectively; Ukraine (Right Bank), with 69% and 80%; and Moldavian ASRR (part of Ukrainian SRR), with 68% and 75%.[70]

As of the beginning of October 1931, the collectivization of 68% of peasant households, and 72% of arable land was complete.[71]


Article from a Soviet newspaper with the first version of a plan for grain collections in 1932 for kolkhozes and peasants—5,831.3 thousand tons + sovkhozes 475,034 tons
The plan for the state grain collection in the Ukrainian SSR adopted for 1931 was over-optimistic—510 million poods (8.4 Tg). Drought, administrative distribution of the plan for kolkhozes, and the lack of relevant general management destabilized the situation. Significant amounts of grain remained unharvested. A significant percentage was lost during processing and transportation, or spoiled at elevators (wet grain). The total winter sowing area shrunk by ~2 million hectares. Livestock in kolkhozes remained without forage, which was collected under grain procurement. A similar occurrence happened with respect to seeds and wages awarded to kolhoz members. Grain collection continued until May 1932, but reached only 90% of the planned amounts. By the end of December 1931, the collection plan was 79% accomplished. Many kolkhozes from December 1931 onwards suffered from lack of food, resulting in an increased number of deaths caused by malnutrition, which were registered by OGPU in some areas (Moldavian SSR as a whole and several central rayons of Vinnytsia, Kiev, and North-East rayons of Odessa oblasts)[72] in winter, spring and early summer 1932. By 1932, the sowing campaign of the Ukrainian SSR was implemented with minimal drafht power, as most of the remaining horses were incapable of working, while the number of available agricultural tractors was too small to fill the gap.

The Government of the Ukrainian SSR tried to remedy the situation, but it had little success. Administrative and territorial reform (oblast creation) in February 1932 also added to the mismanagement. As a result, Moscow had more details about the seed situation than the Ukrainian authorities. In May 1932, in an effort to change the situation, the central Soviet Government provided 7.1 million poods of grain for food for Ukraine and dispatched an additional 700 agricultural tractors originally intended for other regions of the Soviet Union.[citation needed]

By July, the total amount of aid provided from Central Soviet Authorities for food, sowing and forage for the agricultural sector totaled more than 17 million poods.

Speculative prices of food in the cooperative network (5–10 times more compared to neighboring Soviet republics) brought significant peasant "travel for bread", while attempts to handle the situation had very limited success. The quota on carried-on foods provision was lifted by Stalin (at Kosior's request) at the end of May 1932. The July GPU reports for the first half of 1932 mentioned the "difficulties with food" in 127 out of 484 rayons and acknowledged the incompleteness of the information for the regions. The decree of Sovnarkom on "Kolkhoz Trade" issued in May fostered rumors amongst peasants that collectivization was rolled back again, as it had been in spring 1930. The number of peasants who abandoned kolkhozes significantly increased.

As a result, the government plans for the central grain collection in Ukraine was lowered by 18.1% compared to the 1931 plan. Collective farms were still expected to return 132,750 tons of grain, which had been provided in spring 1932 as aid. The grain collection plan for July 1932 was adopted to collect 19.5 million poods. The actual state of collection was disastrous, and by July 31, only 3 million poods (compared to 21 million in 1931) were collected. As of July 20, the harvested area was half the 1931 amount. The sovhozes had only sowed 16% of the defined area.

Beginning in July 1932, the Ukrainian SSR met with difficulty in supplying the planned amount of food to the rationing system (implemented in early 1928) to supply extensively growing urban areas with food. This system almost became the sole source of food delivery to cities, while the alternatives, cooperative trade and black market trading, became too expensive and undersupplied to provide long-range assistance. By December 1932, due to faulty grain procurement, daily rationing for the rural population was limited to 100–600 grams of bread, with some group of rural citizens completely withdrawn from the rationing supply.[27][72]

This disparity between agricultural goals and actual production grew later in the year. An expected 190 thousand tons of grain were to be exported, but by August 27, 1932, only 20 thousand tons were ready. Taking into account the situation with the harvest at right bank Ukraine, Stalin lowered procurement plan for the Ukrainian SSR by 40 million poods at the end of August 1932.[73] By October 25, the plan for grain collection was lowered once again. Nevertheless, collection reached only 39% of the annually planned total.[74] A second lowering of goals subtracted 70 million poods but still demanded plan completion and 100% efficiency. Attempts to reach the new goals of production proved futile in late 1932. On November 29, in order to complete the plan, Ukraine was to collect 94 million poods, 4.8 million of them from sovkhozes. On January 2, targets were again lowered to 62.5 million poods. On January 14, the targets were lowered even further to 33.1 million. At the same time, GPU of Ukraine reported hunger and starvation in the Kiev and Vinnytsia oblasts, and began implementing measures to remedy the situation. The total amount of grain collected by February 5 was only 255 million poods (compared to 440 million poods in 1931), while the numbers of "hunger and malnutrition cases" as registered by the GPU of Ukrainian SSR increased every day.[75]

Whilst the long-lasting effect of overall collectivization had an adverse effect on agricultural output everywhere, Ukraine had long been the most agriculturally productive area, providing over 50% of exported grain and 25% of total production of grain in the Russian Empire in 1913. Over 228,936 square kilometres (56,571,000 acres), 207,203 square kilometres (51,201,000 acres) were used for grain production, or 90.5% of total arable land. This degree of dependency on agriculture meant that the effects of a bad harvest could be almost unlimited. This had been long recognized, and while projections for agricultural production were adjusted, the shock of limited production could not be easily managed. While collections by the state were in turn limited, there were already clear stresses. The 1932 total Soviet harvest was to be 29.5 million tons[vague] in state collections of grain out of 90.7 million tons in production. But the actual result was a disastrous 55–60 million tons in production. The state ended up collecting only 18.5 million tons in grain.[76] The total Soviet collections by the state were virtually the same in 1930 and 1931 at about 22.8 million tons. For 1932, they had been reduced significantly to 18.5 million tons, with even lower figure in Ukraine. These were the total estimated outcomes of the grain harvests:[76]

Peasants' reaction Edit
Another potential factor contributing to the situation in spring 1933 was that the peasants' "incentive to work disappeared" when they worked at "large collective farms."[77] Soviet archival data for 1930–32 also support that conclusion. This is one of the factors for reducing the sowing area in 1932 and for significant losses during harvesting.[52] By December 1932, 725,000 hectares of grain in areas of Ukrainian SRR affected by famine remained uncollected in spring 1933.[78]

A second significant factor was "the massacre of cattle by peasants not wishing to sacrifice their property for nothing to the collective farm."[79] During winter and spring 1930–1931, the Ukrainian agricultural authority Narkomzem issued several reports about the significant decline of livestock and especially draft power caused by poor treatment, absence of forage, stables, and farms, and "kulak sabotage".[80]
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby promethean75 » Wed Sep 02, 2020 5:52 pm

@ urwrong, Well I think you missed sil's point earlier, one which he made just for you. Physics isnt only about rocket propulsion, is it?

Take your time.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3999
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users