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 promethean75 » Wed Sep 02, 2020 5:53 pm

@ phoneutria, tldr
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3999
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Meno_ » Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:13 pm

Essentially, without an autharian center colectivisation tends to fall apart. Take the Communist international, the hippy experiment, the protestant revolution qua TV evangelism, to oligarchial despotism taking the place of the aristocracy, the whole nine yards failed again and again.

Human nature has developed through the passage of significant markers, and these contradict Marx's essential dialectical conversion.

It all reduces to basic universal principles, the subjective overcomes the objective signifier of the intersubjective.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8024
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:22 pm

promethean75 wrote:@ phoneutria, tldr


tldr: lifehacks - take the means of production from capable executives and put them in the hands of people who have no fucking idea what they're doing as a quick an easy way to starve an entire nation

(note: you cannot object to this statement out of refusal to read the actual causal chain of events which i posted)
Last edited by phoneutria on Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:22 pm

promethean75 wrote:@ 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.

Politics isn't only about Marxism.

What's your point?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4280
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:30 pm

his point is you are stating the obvious and not really providing any arguments
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 Karpel Tunnel » Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:04 pm

phoneutria wrote:
promethean75 wrote:@ phoneutria, tldr


tldr: lifehacks - take the means of production from capable executives and put them in the hands of people who have no fucking idea what they're doing as a quick an easy way to starve an entire nation

(note: you cannot object to this statement out of refusal to read the actual causal chain of events which i posted)
Of course what you cited was a very specific top down and radically fast shift in the organization and culture of agriculture in a specific country. There's an interesting movement in NGOs which I think is called language for development, when the idea right from the beginning is that if anyone is to be helped (supposedly) they have vast input into the process of change, just to avoid such things. It is silly to eliminate expertise. On the other hand in the agricultural systems at that time there had been a long practice of witholding knowledge from people. Obviously they should have thought about motivation, knowledge continuity and a whole mess of other issues. But there is no binary choice here: feudalism vs. complete collectivization. There are sorts of compromise and no in between type solutions. You can also come at the situation with a focus on power and opportunity.

Executives sounds like we are talking about modern businesses. Which means the workers will have high school diplomas even college, are able to vote, some are in unions, they have freedom of speech and assembly, etc. The foundation for education in the transition and knowledge dispersal is very different. Further people have to, at least in most urban situations and even most rural ones, be able to navigate a number of types of relationships (to the state, to other people, to other subcultures, to a variety of organizations) a flexibily the serfs at that time had little experience with. Not that I am suggesting that simply taking away the control of production from executives would be a good thing, but it seems to me an entirely different situation. Ripping feudalism into full on communism is not the only option we have now, not that you've said this.

there facets of tsarist russia that were capitalist, but not so much in the serfs world, and the capitalist aspects bear little resemblance to what we have now.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:15 pm

not that i've said that
this thread is about marxism after all
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 Silhouette » Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:57 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
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.

I am against dumb cunts executing people.
Executing random people in the streets in the United States makes you a dumb cunt.

I mean, doesn't that go without saying?
Doesn't matter if you do it in the name of Marxism or Leftism or whateverism - I'm not on the same "side" as these people, the "mob" isn't on my side.

You say actions speak louder than words, well I've never killed a person in my life so...
Aside from what you've assumed by trying to wayyyy over-generalise me (and others/the whole world) beyond recognition, you literally never had any reason to think I was ever any different to what I'm saying here.

Of course I agree with you that murder is shitty, you are way less alone against the world than you like to think of yourself - and most of that is completely a result of your own imagination, maybe the romantic tragedy of this perception of yourself appeals? I dunno, but until you drop whatever's going on there, there's really no reason to entertain it.
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 8:23 pm

I'm convinced that you, Prom, Magnus, PK, Von, etc. are simply naive.

You have these 'ideological' and purely academic impressions of Marxism. BUT. When the mobs form, admit that they are "Marxists", execute random people in the street, applaud and cheer it, and push for more ...then it's on you to disavow yourself. Of course, we all know the coming response: "But but but, that's not real Marxism!" Yes, it is real. It's the realest-Marxism there is, now, and historically, as-if this is only the first incarnation, when it is merely the most recent and closest within the US???

You've been fooling yourself, thinking you have some 'truer' or "more accurate" sense of Marxism, as-if it does not necessitate and require the violence involved in these current insurrections??

So you've got to choose. How much of a Marxist do you want to be? A little, or a lot?


Or do you want to keep the comforts, pampering, security, standard-of-living, as provided by this Capitalist System, State, and Establishment?

The reason that Civil War is beginning, is because "The Establishment" is finally shifting from the liberal-left to the conservative-right, as the DNC has called to defund the police, replace them with Brown Shirt hit-squads, terrorists, brutalizers, and enforcement gangs. The DNC also uses MSM to straight-up lie, censor, defame ...and then defend the Brown Shirt thugs when they're caught. Biden and Harris offer them bail-money and legal defense. How is this not insurrection, by self-admitted "Marxists"?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4280
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Wed Sep 02, 2020 8:25 pm

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

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:01 pm

reminder that capitalism is responsible
for the number of people in absolute poverty to have dropped
by a billion in the last 40 years

marx predicted that the poor would get poorer as the rich get richer
he assumed a transfer of wealth from one place to another
he didn't account for the creation of wealth from market growth
simply by making products accessible to more people by making them cheaper
which is brought to you by the glorious powers of free market
and that this growth would be distributed across all layers of society

which is one of the reasons why it surprises me how
smart people such as sil and prom
are able to hold the belief that the remaining parts of his analysis were right
there was little known about capitalism back then
his predictions were awfully pessimistic and did not come to fruit
and at the same time is proposed solution has time and time again
shown to be much worse than the problems it attempted to solve
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 » Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:30 pm

what marxism really is:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c

- from the communist manifesto, chapter 2

i don't know how you can say with a straight face
that soviet russia and china are not what marxim really is
y'all should be ashamed of yourselves for making apology for this garbage
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 iambiguous » Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:39 pm

phoneutria wrote:what marxism really is:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c

- from the communist manifesto, chapter 2

i don't know how you can say with a straight face
that soviet russia and china are not what marxim really is
y'all should be ashamed of yourselves for making apology for this garbage


Next up: What capitalism really is.*

* upon imagining an economist from the Chicago School reading Ayn Rand's The Romantic Manifesto
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 Magnus Anderson » Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:59 pm

Silhouette wrote:I mean, doesn't that go without saying?


One has to keep in mind that nothing goes without saying when it comes to Urwrong. (Indeed, nothing goes with saying either.)
"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 Silhouette » Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:39 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:I'm convinced that you, Prom, Magnus, PK, Von, etc. are simply naive.

You have these 'ideological' and purely academic impressions of Marxism. BUT. When the mobs form, admit that they are "Marxists", execute random people in the street, applaud and cheer it, and push for more ...then it's on you to disavow yourself. Of course, we all know the coming response: "But but but, that's not real Marxism!" Yes, it is real. It's the realest-Marxism there is, now, and historically, as-if this is only the first incarnation, when it is merely the most recent and closest within the US???

You've been fooling yourself, thinking you have some 'truer' or "more accurate" sense of Marxism, as-if it does not necessitate and require the violence involved in these current insurrections??

So you've got to choose. How much of a Marxist do you want to be? A little, or a lot?

Actually I was going to point out that all mobs are like that. Marxist, Anarchist, even soccer spectators - you name it. Even plenty of frustrated pro-Capitalists have the capacity to turn to that kinda shit should the opportunity/impetus present itself. It's not like Marxists were the first ever mobs - FAR from it. And it's not like Marxists "specifically" are some kind of alien species, altogether completely different from other people - no matter how hard you try to think of them and paint them that way. They're just people who happen to have reason to think differently from how you do.
I disavow myself from mob mentality - not a fan. You're right that I don't disavow myself from the academia of Marxism, but not out of naivety. The psychology of mobs is a very real concern, but the most naive thing you can think is that people can't (economically or otherwise) organise themselves in a different way without mob mentality. That's disproven every day. Mob mentality is the exception to the rule, and is little more than an excuse to release pent up frustration that's not least resulting from the injustices of the current economic system. I am anti that, especially if it leads to stupid murderous action. I don't want the current economic system to continue to inspire social uproar. You don't need to do any thinking at all to fight to keep things the same - but it's quite another challenge to consider how to make things better. Achieving that without envoking mob mentality is a challenge, but it's cowardly to let a challenge get in the way of progress.

phoneutria wrote:it surprises me how
smart people such as sil and prom
are able to hold the belief that the remaining parts of his analysis were right

It surprises me how smart people such as yourself are able to hold the belief that someone has to be completely right or completely wrong.

I'm fully in favour of supporting partly correct theories insofar as they are right. I'm not going to apologise for this.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4513
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:57 pm

Read that again and get back to me.
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 Silhouette » Thu Sep 03, 2020 8:59 am

I read and re-read my posts several times over before I post them, and I just did it again just for you. Can't you just state your issue? I still have no idea what it could be.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4513
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:42 pm

phoneutria wrote:which is one of the reasons why it surprises me how
smart people such as sil and prom
are able to hold the belief that the remaining parts of his analysis were right
there was little known about capitalism back then
his predictions were awfully pessimistic and did not come to fruit


future predictions are a complicated thing to base yourself on
because as much as you may supplement them with existing data
you can not account for changes to the environment
and hidden variables
when a thinker wants to embark on making predictions about the future
at some point these predictions need to show that they were pointed in the right direction
so when it becomes evident that some predictions of a set are not becoming true
what basis is there to sustain the subsequent stages of those predictions?

are you going to debate the fact that the whole of the world population is wealthier?
that the middle class has not disappeared, and has instead grown higher and wider?
that the number of people who rose from absolute poverty in the world just in the last 40 years is not about a billion?
that the quality of life and work conditions of the poor have drastically increased in the west
to the point where 1800s conditions seem unthinkable?
which is why it is so comical for people to be calling for revolution of the proletariat
on the fucking internet
from their fucking iphones
(not saying that you are sil, but this thread is about marxism, and modern day marxists are hilarious)

anyway, are you going to debate these things?
because at that point, you're just arguing against facts
and I have no time for that kind of lunacy

but if you want to make a case for his other predictions being right
i'm still waiting for it
like
i think you were suppose to help us understand how the state would wither away
i'll wait
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 Dan~ » Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:15 pm

Free market is almost anarchic. When the government taxes business, that is socialistic.
Personal property is one of the main laws of all civilization.
It does more good than harm, as far as I can tell.

If Marx was still alive today, I'd ask him how many options we have.
There is clearly more than one option.
But people make it out to be that communism is the ONLY answer.
That is not very smart.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
Image
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10482
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Canada Alberta

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Silhouette » Sun Sep 06, 2020 3:49 am

phoneutria wrote:future predictions are a complicated thing to base yourself on
because as much as you may supplement them with existing data
you can not account for changes to the environment
and hidden variables
when a thinker wants to embark on making predictions about the future
at some point these predictions need to show that they were pointed in the right direction
so when it becomes evident that some predictions of a set are not becoming true
what basis is there to sustain the subsequent stages of those predictions?

Yeah I'd agree with that.

phoneutria wrote:are you going to debate the fact that the whole of the world population is wealthier?
that the middle class has not disappeared, and has instead grown higher and wider?
that the number of people who rose from absolute poverty in the world just in the last 40 years is not about a billion?
that the quality of life and work conditions of the poor have drastically increased in the west
to the point where 1800s conditions seem unthinkable?
which is why it is so comical for people to be calling for revolution of the proletariat
on the fucking internet
from their fucking iphones
(not saying that you are sil, but this thread is about marxism, and modern day marxists are hilarious)

I totally respect and am grateful for any role that our current economic system can have and has had.
It totally has its place, and its many advantages.
The problem is not that Capitalism has its plus points, but that some (enough) of its consequences get to a point where they do more harm than good - and even if the effect as a whole isn't terrible for a lot of people, it at least appears to be easily improvable.
Hey I might be wrong that an arrangement cannot be bettered forever and evermore - like you say in what I quoted just before: "future things are a complicated thing to base yourself on".
The question is: "is there reason to think that the current arrangement can be bettered?"
My proposition is yes.

phoneutria wrote:anyway, are you going to debate these things?
because at that point, you're just arguing against facts
and I have no time for that kind of lunacy

but if you want to make a case for his other predictions being right
i'm still waiting for it
like
i think you were suppose to help us understand how the state would wither away
i'll wait

Well the rationale is quite basic, it's just contingent.

Step 1: Do a thing that makes the State redundant
Step 2: Everyone realises this is better
Step 3: The State withers away

The contingency is obviously with Step 1.
Marx laid out a way in which he thought he could bring about Step 1.
Turns out it's not as foolproof as he predicted it rationally would be.

It's not like he was the first person to think of a way to try and get rid of the State - that shit goes on all over the political spectrum.
His solution was on the surface much like Noam Chomsky's solution and many more people's solutions:
1) educate people on how they're getting fucked over
2) the State is complicit (but hardly the sole reason), so fuck that
3) people will actually do something about it

But deeper thought than that gets to the whole reason this obvious chain of events doesn't happen - because of ideology.
If people realised what ideology was and how it functions, things could be turned around.
As evidenced here, people have a lot of trouble with ideology - which is exactly the whole reason it works. Marx does a great job of picking apart ideology, even if he couldn't predict the entire future. That's why this thread is useful: "what Marxism really is" helps us all unravel at least part of the whole problem why things aren't getting better when it seems like they could be better.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4513
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:09 am

Silhouette wrote:I totally respect and am grateful for any role that our current economic system can have and has had.
It totally has its place, and its many advantages.
The problem is not that Capitalism has its plus points, but that some (enough) of its consequences get to a point where they do more harm than good - and even if the effect as a whole isn't terrible for a lot of people, it at least appears to be easily improvable.
Hey I might be wrong that an arrangement cannot be bettered forever and evermore - like you say in what I quoted just before: "future things are a complicated thing to base yourself on".
The question is: "is there reason to think that the current arrangement can be bettered?"
My proposition is yes.


no the problem is marxism being proposed as a viable alternative
can it be bettered?
probably
not by implementing the dim-witted ideas of a filthy resentful drunk who was himself a complete parasite to society

Gustav Techow wrote:I am convinced that everything good in him has been devoured by the most dangerous personal ambitions. He laughs at the fools who repeat after him his proletarian catechism, just as he laughs at [other] communists ... and also at the bourgeoisie ...


also... more harm than good??

Well the rationale is quite basic, it's just contingent.

Step 1: Do a thing that makes the State redundant
Step 2: Everyone realises this is better
Step 3: The State withers away

The contingency is obviously with Step 1.
Marx laid out a way in which he thought he could bring about Step 1.
Turns out it's not as foolproof as he predicted it rationally would be.


hahahaha "do a thing"
at least i got a good laugh out of this after all

anyway that's a fucking understatement if i've ever heard one
expectations vs reality
1. state becomes absolutely powerful
2. everyone realizes this is shit
3. everyone gets purged

It's not like he was the first person to think of a way to try and get rid of the State - that shit goes on all over the political spectrum.
His solution was on the surface much like Noam Chomsky's solution and many more people's solutions:
1) educate people on how they're getting fucked over
2) the State is complicit (but hardly the sole reason), so fuck that
3) people will actually do something about it


here you go again saying things like "on surface"
you can't do on surface analysis when people's lives are involved dude
all the little details and repercussions of when you "do a thing" matter a lot

But deeper thought than that gets to the whole reason this obvious chain of events doesn't happen - because of ideology.
If people realised what ideology was and how it functions, things could be turned around.
As evidenced here, people have a lot of trouble with ideology - which is exactly the whole reason it works. Marx does a great job of picking apart ideology, even if he couldn't predict the entire future. That's why this thread is useful: "what Marxism really is" helps us all unravel at least part of the whole problem why things aren't getting better when it seems like they could be better.


marx didn't pick apart shit
he created himself an ideology
to enable resentful loses such as himself to feel justified in their desire to take shit that isn't theirs
while completely ignoring natural laws and human physiology
and literally failing at everything that he ever said or did

you've had ample opportunity in this thread to go into "deeper thought than that"
I'm still asking you for it
all I got so far is that you gotta "do a thing"

I'll be here waiting to hear about all these things I need to give marx credit for
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 Silhouette » Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:32 pm

phoneutria wrote:no the problem is marxism being proposed as a viable alternative
can it be bettered?
probably
not by implementing the dim-witted ideas of a filthy resentful drunk who was himself a complete parasite to society

From the start my point has been to first establish what Marxism really is, to properly evaluate which parts are better than others, and explore the possibility of improving the whole thing in light of this evaluation.
Basically: use the scientific method.

Contrast this with the approach of Anti-Marxists: "Marxism is all the worst parts of attempts to bring about his ideas in practice, and it is only those parts" to which the solution is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Have you any idea where science would be if that same attitude was applied? Butt-fuck nowhere.

Marx could have been the shittiest person who ever lived and that wouldn't change the validity and soundness of his arguments one iota. The ad hom fallacy doesn't get us anywhere on the subject of "what Marxism really is". You might as well start a thread called "Who Marx really was" for that instead, which we all already know or could easily find out without any philosophical analysis at all.

phoneutria wrote:hahahaha "do a thing"
at least i got a good laugh out of this after all

anyway that's a fucking understatement if i've ever heard one
expectations vs reality
1. state becomes absolutely powerful
2. everyone realizes this is shit
3. everyone gets purged

Well I'm glad I could get you to chill out a bit.

My irreverence with "step 1" was just to abstract "any given philosophy that is anti-State", Marxism included, to answer your simple question about how the state could wither away.
The effectiveness of this strategy is obviously contingent upon the quality of the "any given philosophy that is anti-State".
What Step 1 is, specifically, is what this thread is about: we establish "what Marxism really is", and then we assess how well that leads to "step 2" in order to get to the state withering away.

I'm interested in how a State can become absolutely powerful - as in your step 1 of "reality" - when Marxism is fundamentally anti-State. But more than that, I'm interested in how an absolutely powerful State could be avoided after implementing an anti-State strategies like we find in Marxism.

With respect to Communism, which is defined as stateless, given that an absolutely powerful State put an end to "Marxism", it's reasonable to assume that something went wrong on the way to Communism.
This is as opposed to the problem being with Communism itself.
This is another not-so-insignificant detail often glossed over by Anti-Marxists.

There's so many questions still open about the whole thing, it's just bizarre how swiftly so many are willing to act like it's a closed case. What is it about the scientific method that prevents it from being applied to alternative economic models? Is it really absolutely every single detail about Marxism that necessarily leads to the unacceptable consequences that we've seen so far? If you really think so, then refer to every single detail in Marxism first: explore what Marxism really is. I don't have any reservations about accepting a legitimate argument that actually does this work.

phoneutria wrote:here you go again saying things like "on surface"
you can't do on surface analysis when people's lives are involved dude
all the little details and repercussions of when you "do a thing" matter a lot

You misunderstand my use of "on the surface".
Quite to the contrary of your interpretation that I'm recommending we stick to the surface - I'm recommending the exact opposite.
I couldn't agree more that surface alone is insufficient, and that details and repercussions matter a lot when there's lives on the line - that's why I'm recommending getting into the details of "what Marxism really is" in order to sufficiently analyse the repercussions in light of these details. I cannot emphasise enough that I want the whole thing to be sufficiently explored without risking lives.

phoneutria wrote:marx didn't pick apart shit
he created himself an ideology
to enable resentful loses such as himself to feel justified in their desire to take shit that isn't theirs
while completely ignoring natural laws and human physiology
and literally failing at everything that he ever said or did

you've had ample opportunity in this thread to go into "deeper thought than that"
I'm still asking you for it
all I got so far is that you gotta "do a thing"

I'll be here waiting to hear about all these things I need to give marx credit for

Again with the ad hom, but whatever.
You may have noticed that I wrote more in my posts so far on this thread than "do a thing". I understand how humour can be lost in this medium of communication, especially when I'm so serious nearly all the time, but it's a little odd for you to jump on a casual joke as the only thing I've said so far in seriousness...

When I said "deeper thought than that" I was referring to ideology. Yes, on the surface it might seem enough to educate people on the facts about how they're getting fucked over, but my point was that beneath the surface there's the harder part to deal with that is ideology. Education on simple undeniable facts like "financial profit = paying people less than what they earn you" ought to be simple enough, but underneath that is the ideology that serves to "justify" this simple undeniable fact - with the invalid arguments that you presented. The "risk" one is self-fulfilling: it requires itself to sustain itself. Without the consequences of the excuse of "risk", there is nothing to risk. The "idea creation" one, and the "business management" one, are just standard business skills routinely assigned to employees, who are required to act on these skills simply to keep the business producing, serving and progressing. The initial work at best justifies the same wages as you'd pay an employee to do the same, and only for as long as the benefits of initial ideas and management are effective. Businesses grow far beyond this point, potentially to a point that's nothing like its origins. Why does any initial idea creation and management continue to reap rewards far beyond employee compensation for doing the exact same thing? This is just economic rent. A private business is nothing more than decentralised dictatorship that cannot operate or even survive without the exploitation of employees on the grounds that the business owner has all the power to pay others much less than what others earn them. They could NOT do anywhere near the same work without the employees, and often they couldn't even do the work at all that many employees do - making them 100% necessary to the whole enterprise. The fact that someone set up the whole thing is meaningless if it can't operate.

So even if you can get someone to accept a simple mathematical fact, you have to get past all the ideological nonsense that justifies the current economic mechanisms. This will only be proven if all I can get from you on these facts is emotional backlash without any acknowledgement whatsoever that there's something to my arguments.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4513
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Meno_ » Mon Sep 07, 2020 7:36 pm

"marx didn't pick apart shit
he created himself an ideology"

Yes, and from what basis did that evolve? It really is the origin of major shift in the ideal-ology from the ideal formative state of social suppression, that retained the logical progression of resolving opposites through a synthesis that retained elements of the old.

The old regime quantified the qualification through figurative means, through substantial manifestations.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8024
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Meno_ » Mon Sep 07, 2020 7:37 pm

Phoneutria said:

"marx didn't pick apart shit
he created himself an ideology"

Yes, and from what basis did that evolve? It really is the origin of major shift in the ideal-ology from the ideal formative state of social suppression, that retained the logical progression of resolving opposites through a synthesis that retained elements of the old.

The old regime quantified the qualification through figurative means, through substantial manifestations.


The point is that the societal structure determined the coming of Marxism.The ideology was a potential , essential possibility, which created Marx.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8024
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:25 pm

"Marxism is all the worst parts of attempts to bring about his ideas in practice, and it is only those parts" to which the solution is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


no my approach is that all the parts of marxism are the worst parts
it's unusual for me to draw such a clear line as i do on this matter
because i'm well capable of complex opinions
unlike the polarized extremes on any given subject
but on this one in particular
i am an anti-marxist
by all means drown that damn baby
kill t with fire

i am by the way as mentioned before
not against taxation entirely
nor am against regulation entirely
i'm even in favor of quite a deal of socialistic ideas
like the "absurd" concept that the people's money should be used to provide services to the people
which is why the other side of this discussion likes to call me a commie
it is all very funny to me

Marx could have been the shittiest person who ever lived and that wouldn't change the validity and soundness of his arguments one iota. The ad hom fallacy doesn't get us anywhere on the subject of "what Marxism really is". You might as well start a thread called "Who Marx really was" for that instead, which we all already know or could easily find out without any philosophical analysis at all.


it's actually a tu quoque
btw long live the tu quoque
if someone wants to shit out resentment in the form of policy
i'm gonna fucking call them out on it
you want to change society
fix your fucking life first

though I'll grant you regarding ad homs
that if marx was an upstanding member of society
that would not change the lack of validity and soundness of his theory
it'd still be shit

I'm interested in how a State can become absolutely powerful - as in your step 1 of "reality" - when Marxism is fundamentally anti-State. But more than that, I'm interested in how an absolutely powerful State could be avoided after implementing an anti-State strategies like we find in Marxism.


by all means, refer to the communist manifesto
an exerpt of which you can read on this very page
but I'll put it on here twice again
in case you miss it again
if you need me to make the connection between this recipe and an all-powerful state
please let me know, i'll do that for you
but I think you're capable on your own
i did put some stuff in green there just in case

marx-engels wrote:The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (pho: to be collected by whom?)
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (pho: to be collected by whom?
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (pho: to be passed on to who?
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (pho: to be collected by whom?
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. (pho: whose hands?
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c (pho: ok so no child labor, instead we'll turn schools into factories, kewl


i'm actually interested in reading this strictly anti-state strategies you mentioned
i may have missed them somewhere in the middle of all this blatantly state-promoting text
but i'm admittedly not nearly as much a connoiseur of marx as you are
do point it out

otherwise put it to rest this repeated claim
that communism was not a direct implementation of marxist theory
i'm not glossing over it
you are
like it's so hard a truth to admit that you'd rather not look at it at all

I don't have any reservations about accepting a legitimate argument that actually does this work.


we can go through the manifesto line-by-line if you want to

i caught the humor, btw
i even laughed

part two of my response will take a bit more space
so here's a neat break
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users