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 Urwrongx1000 » Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:17 am

I'm the authority on Marx here, not you Sil, try again.

If anybody is serious about "Marxism", then do some homework, read some history, connect-the-dots between French Imperialism, Russian Communism, both World Wars, Western Worker Unions, the Frankfurt School, THEN AND ONLY THEN do you have the right to come back to me with your bitching and moaning.


Again, I'm not doing your homework for you. That's what this is all about, in the end. Sil, you are begging for free lessons and tutoring, because by evidence of this thread, you really need it.

Funny for such staunch advocates of "Marxism" to promote and purport things that you don't even know what you're promoting, LOL.

You're just a follower of an ideology. And Marx is long-since-dead.


Kind of religious, now that I think about it...
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:39 am

you're the authority on marx, kid?
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Oct 03, 2020 8:15 am

All the Symptoms of the same old bullshit are lining up. What does this mean? The Diagnosis is in.

Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:51 am

Socialism-Communism-Marxism in USA, let's see if Sil can respond to this "Green New Deal"...

Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:57 am

Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:45 am

Silhouette wrote:
phoneutria wrote:i am not disputing that profit is revenue minus expenses
i am saying that the reason things are worth more than what production expense is not labor
a cake is not worth more than a bag of flour because somebody worked to make it
it is worth more because it is delicious and people want to eat it
what creates value is not labor, it's use!


Labour is not what physically transforms the raw materials into the final product?
"Use" literally transforms these raw materials into the final product?
No.


would you listen to yourself?
don't be daft, sil

I just said right there
that the reason things are worth more than cost of production is not purely labor
value is not dictated by the labor employed to produce a thing
it's dictated by the market and it fluctuates based on supply and demand

"Use" is the instruction of what to do with raw materials - it informs the labour.

use is literally the point of labor
we don't work for amusement
we work to make things we need

Labour is what's paid (an expense to the company) for the service of actually causing the cake to exist, not the "user".


what's causing the cake to exist is a need for it
laborers don't produce things that are useless
before a labor is produced
first there is an assessment of what is needed
labor is not the origin of the process
need is
need, is what the user wants
when there is more users than that which they need, the price goes up
when there are fewer, the price goes down
the rate of profit fluctuates based on supply and demand
even when the amount of labor is the same

the labor theory of value is more than false
it's dishonest
it's the opposite of science
it starts with a conclusion
and then it fishes for a premise
in a bucket there there's only desired variables



You don't get any monetary reward as a consumer for preferring better cakes. The company that provides the better cake gets that reward. The labour satisfies the demand by supplying the better cake. "Profit" is the process of filtering off some of the value added by the labour instead of paying the labour in full for the value they added.

Basic accountancy.


so basic that it leaves out the fundaments of economy
you make me 2 cakes and I pay you $5 for each, 10 total
I'm going to sell the cake for $5 because ... dunno i guess as a capitalist i'm worthless so I get to work for free
i sold one for $5 and all is well in marxist world
but the next day a cake shop opened across the street from mine
literally all my clients go to the shop to check out the novelty
so I'm forced to lower my price to $4 to sell my cake
nobody came even though it's cheaper, the other shop put sprinkes on theirs
so now I have a cake that is 2 days old and is going to mold soon
and I paid $5 to make, but now I gotta price it at $2 to get any money back at all
so I sold it at $2
even though the labor value of it is $5
so what the fuck, karl?
i thought labor value was a LAW

what do we do, karl, when people just don't want to pay for the damn labor cost of a thing eh?
i'll tell you what we do
we mass exit that industry
asap
you know what industry we float toward?
the ones where the opposite tends to happen
you make a thing, you pay a labor cost of $5
and suddenly the next day there's so many people lining up to buy it that you can't keep up production
so someone in the crowd shouts I'll pay extra if you save me one!
and the value goes to $6
though the laborer just got $5 yesterday
and if he made another one today it would be the exact same labor
but the value of the cake went up
BECAUSE THE VALUE OF A THING IS NOT DICTATED BY LABOR


and this is all plain english that a high school student can understand
without needing to read anything fancy
but if you want to look at the theory
marx start with this piece of beauty here:

Marx wrote:Nevertheless, the exchange value of a commodity is not determined by its value in use. In fact, its precise extent or magnitude bears no systematic relationship with the importance that a commodity has for the well-being of an individual. Disconnected from the subjective wants, desires and perceptions of acting individuals, it is instead an objective property of a commodity. And like other objective properties such as height, weight, etc. it is “intrinsic” to a commodity, “inherent in it,” and is “inseparably connected with it”


you see he pulled that right out of his ass
that a thing's value is equivalent to a things weight as if it was an intrinsic property
that's so false it couldn't be more obvious
a thing's value is much MUCH higher when you don't have it
and you want it
so you gotta buy it
then you just put it on a shelf
and don't care about it anymore
you want the other thing now, that you still don't have
so you sell the thing 3 months later at a loss
just so you can gather some more money to buy the other thing
duh karl

besides,
you know what he used to justify that hypothesis?
a quote by aristotle
“There can be no exchange, without equality, and no equality without commensurability”
Marx wrote: Every act of exchange, in other words, involves an equality of value; the units of the two commodities being exchanged possess equal exchange value. And, if this is the case, there must be some “common element” of “identical magnitude” that exists in the “two different things” being exchanged that determines this equal exchange value


that is false
you don't exchange for equivalent value
you exchange for higher value
you don't want the thing you're holding anymore
you want the other thing
naturally the other thing is worth more to you
if it wasn't worth more, you wouldn't do the trade
karl seriously?
you're going to base an entire economic theory on THIS?
and then use it to call for violent revolution?
damn son

ok
so let me get more specific with this
marx sets out to try to find out what composes the value of a commodity
has to be something useful that is made for exchange
and the exchange is always between two things of the same value
so to abstract the thing into an equivalence
you have to throw out the actual use value of the thing
and then what you have left is labor
so labor becomes the common element of equivalence
abstract human labor as an unit of measurement
that, is the law
BUT except not lazy or unskilled laborers that just take longer to do the thing
BUT also not stuff done with cheap materials, i mean, man you can't consider that equivalent
so OK that is the law minus these two exceptions
(lol)
no wait i got one more exception, prices fluctuate
but he proposes the fluctuation will happen around this labor value
because it is a law
like the law of gravity
he literally compared this to the law of gravity ok?

ok so if the value of the thing is determined by it's abstract human labor
if you're getting more money when you sell than you paid the laborer
where is this "surplus value coming from?"
labor exploitation :o


1. that equivalence thing is false as explained above
2. even if the equivalence thing was right
did marx do a good job of explaining that the equivalence is defined in terms of labor?
cuz it sounds like he wanted to arrive a labor
and he was just coming out with ways to rule other things out
i mean, if a commodity is a useful thing created by labor and exchangeable
does that mean a piece of land is not a commodity?
does it mean that a piece of land with a gold in it has no trade value?
whatcha smoking karl?
3. if labor can be made into an abstract unit of measurement
excluding all of the inconvenient exceptions, why can't the same be done for use value?
4.do prices even fluctuate around labor value?
is this "law" real aka actually explaining phenomenon?
cuz listen, lets say if the abstract labor is the same cost to make a cake and to make a pie, $5 worth of labor/time
but the cost of the materials is $1 to make a cake and $3 to make a pie
and they're both selling at $6
the profit rate will be much higher for the cake shop
even though the surplus value is the same
then...
Marx wrote:very different rates of profit arise in the various spheres of production,(...)capital withdraws from a sphere with a low rate of profit and invades others, which yield a higher profit”


yes, karl, nicely put
then prices don't fluctuate around labor value after all, karl?
instead the fluctuate around rates of profit?
yeah sounds about right
cuz you know, you were saying before very adamantly that value is based on labor and labor alone
you know that thing you said about commodities which embody the same amount of labor
that they must exchange for each other
that it's a law like gravity
and you based your entire theory of exploitation on top of it
glad you changed your mind about that
thought you were more dumber
but it's nice when people admit that they were wrong
even when they're already dead when they wrote it
though you realize that was the start of the whole theory, right?
that was the thing you based your law on
so if that's false
can... can we just... put this down and one of the biggest mistakes in history
alongside with every evil that it caused alongside that damn manifesto
and move the fuck on?
can we?
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Sun Oct 11, 2020 1:54 pm

just checking in to hear to the sound of pins dropping in this thread
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby robolutionary » Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:45 pm

Lurker here, I have been following this thread and finally couldn't help creating an account and jumping in! Thank you all for being a sort of alternative to a newspaper (not for news, just that same kind of enjoyment!)! Now without further ado.

I think this thread is largely missing the point of communism, for which Marx attempted to put forward a coherent financial theory. First, while Marx has been great at legitimizing and empowering the communist cause, I wouldn't call him the central pillar. And that's more important than you might think. The main point of communism, the main purpose, and this Marx knew as much as anybody, is the unlocking of true human potential and fullness of experience.

If you read Marx's writings carefully, both the Capital and the Manifesto with Engels, as well as various essays, the main point is never finding the optimal economic set up for a given country or even humanity at large. Marx had an insight that humans are capable of a lot more than what they were devoting their lives to during his time and still today. That the human phenomenon is immensely rich and full of potential, in a way that is evident and evidently not on par with its output. So he gave himself to determining the cause of this. He instantly seized on Hegel's dialectics as being a sound expounding on the bedrock of philosophy, being Plato. Dialectics is the core of philosophy since for ever. Through it, and inspired by the active socialist movement of his time, he excellently described that the cause of the phenomenological poverty of humanity was what he called the material dialectic of history, or more straightforwardly, some group of humans constantly seizing on another larger one to generate material wealth for them. The main point of communism, then, and also Marx, is to liberate the human race from this dialectic, this oppression, and unleash humanity's full philosophical potential, if you will. To throw off the yoke, to put it more succinctly.

this also addresses many of the points put forward against communism: the various attempts at communist governments past and present. If it were true that communism's main task was the optimal financial model for a society, this criticism might have some weight. However, the goal of communism is deeper: to throw off the yoke of material exploitation. Whether it be the bourgeoisie, feudal lords, or Sumerian theocrats. In that sense, we could have 10, 50, 1M failed attempts of any scale of consecuence, and this would not put a dent on the revolutionary impulse. Nothing is proven wrong regarding the communist struggle. Even if it turns out that Marx's economic theory of capital is inaccurate, this is not an indictment of communism. It also takes nothing from Marx, as the labour of putting a sound theory of finance for the meterial dialectics forward is incredibly important, and Marx did an excellent job.

I think, given any amount of good faith in reading his works, that it can fairly be said that Marx's main achievement was not the description of the dynamics of capital and surpluss value, invaluable as it is, but his description of the true reasons for religion, government, and those very capitalistic dynamics of finance: to prevent humanity's excercice of its full humanistic potential and co-opt that energy towards the material wealth of the exploiting class.

As a revolutionary, my concern is not the optimal efficiency of state finance, but the creation of the New Man, which is nothing but the most ancient of men having gone through the long dialectic process of exploitation. To this point, as well, my comrade's relentless focus on the reinterpretations of traditional concepts and values, such as gender, all derived from some exploitative model, while being admirable to no end and providing much wealth of revolutionary work, is only a small hair on the large body of change that cannot be produced under current circumstances. Only once the dialectics of historical materialism have been resolved by the ultimate overthrow of the last exploitative class can a true liberation of humanity be achieved, and true reinterpretations thus be produced effortlessly, as a natural consequence.

In short, while all communist models have so far failed, the revolution will continue. This does not even mean that those attempts were not "true communism." Simply that, so far, the capitalist enemy has been able to thwart us.
robolutionary
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:20 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby robolutionary » Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:13 pm

Since my last message is being held pending review, in the interest of full disclosure, it was posted around 8:10 a.m. Sunday UTC, and the last message before that was this one (let's see if I can figure this out...):

phoneutria wrote:just checking in to hear to the sound of pins dropping in this thread
robolutionary
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:20 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:11 am

phoneutria wrote:just checking in to hear to the sound of pins dropping in this thread

You played into Sil's hand, thereby conceding your position.

Bad move rhetorically and philosophically.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Silhouette » Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:28 am

phoneutria wrote:just checking in to hear to the sound of pins dropping in this thread

Nice though, no?
Not having to wade through all the dumbdumbs dropping their litter all over the place?

*edit: fuck. Typed too soon. Can't even leave it a week apparently...

phoneutria wrote:I just said right there
that the reason things are worth more than cost of production is not purely labor
value is not dictated by the labor employed to produce a thing
it's dictated by the market and it fluctuates based on supply and demand

In a consumer/capitalist driven economy like ours, yes, value is decided in part by market demand - but as I was saying that "service" is free of charge. People will want what they want for free. They have nothing to do with the cost of production. Their "consultant fees" don't exist - they inform what the labour actually does and makes into a reality. Value is also decided by supply, but that ultimately depends on how necessary the product or service is for survival in the quantities that are available - a natural limitation. Beyond that basic level it's decided by how much money people have to burn (disposable income) - even something completely without inherent value can become fetishised. Either way the consumers demand for free, and the labour supplies for a cost.

And in line with this, labour are the ones who are paid, and they're paid for the value of bringing the free intel into reality. It's easy to want something, it's hard to make it happen, so the only cost is to the people taking on the hard part: the labour. So theirs alone is the cost of production. The materials, overheads and the means of production they use are in turn the labour of suppliers. The fact that things along the way are (in name) "owned" by some guy is irrelevant to this process of consumer supply/demand (for free) and labour actually doing the making of everything involved (for a cost).

phoneutria wrote:use is literally the point of labor
we don't work for amusement
we work to make things we need

In practice, work isn't for amusement so much any more, yes. Some people still get to work for amusement, but they are the very rare few.
I say "any more" because it was more apparent before the industrial revolution and the adoption of mass production, that people "making the things we need" to "use" had a much more immediate connection to their craft. In medieval times there were artisans devoting themselves to becoming famous masters - every piece of work they were involved in was at least in part tempered by their own individual style and there could be pride and free creativity to innovate without legal standardisation requirements. The same still somewhat happens in less developed countries today - but at the risk of romanticising what were undoubtedly shittier times and places for standards of living - I merely want to highlight that use is NOT the only point of labour.

Like I brought up before, everyone works in much the same way as what I just described in their spare time - lest they suffer from mental ill-health as a result of being put off or cut off from their natural creativity that all children start with. To an extent, the "mass production" of schooling children in standard ways "to force them to compete" in visible, easily measurable ways "to ensure quality" ends up having the opposite effect - and that goes for both public and private schooling: they're all trying to compete with each other in the same dehumanising ways. It's the few innovative projects that get the real results from schooling children. The vast majority alienate kids from who they are etc. (in all the ways I already covered with Marx's Theory of Alienation), but actually quite appropriately, this stealing of souls prepares children quite in line with what's required from them to join workforces that utilise mass production on industrial scales. If they're lucky they retain a sense that work can be fun outside of "paid work", satisfying, rewarding, an end in itself. That's the real nature of work, but due to alienation in the world of "paid work", this is as standard sucked out of work such that it now much more resembles a punishment, a chore, a sacrifice.

I seem to remember that pointless work has been used to break spirits in times of war: it's a really powerful tool to mess with the human mind - to mess with work and render it barren. It's a real problem of contemporary mental health that the customer is always right. You MUST work else you will not receive any income and therefore not be able to spend on anything because it's all protected by private property rights - but you MUST work to fulfill whatever the customer needs. When it comes to the actual operating of a mass production line, without which all the produce wouldn't be brought into real being, the less fun, fulfilling and independent you work the better. The more you resemble the machines you operate, the more is made, the better and more employable you are. And the ones doing all the thinking and innovation have to justify their luxury of being less alienated, similarly detracting from expressing their humanity to produce something, anything, to prove they're worthy to express at least some humanity.

All "use"? No "amusement"? Only "work to make things we need"? It's not as simple as that. Consumers are workers too and vice versa - in one role they matter and in another they don't?

The up-side of all this is that mass production and industry is much more efficient. We can bung all that necessary stuff into the hands of much less people, meaning there's much more other people's hands to bung other stuff into - more gets done and this staves away real former fears of scarcity. Making everything consumer based forces all this industry to compete to make better versions of what they were mass producing before. Great. How well does this scale though?
At what point do we stop wanting more and more better and better stuff at the cost of more and more alienation in our roles as workers? Surely at some point things aren't just for use alone? Surely at some point the worker's suffering starts to matter and the consolation of being rewarded with more and more better and better stuff rings hollow?

It's common for pro-Capitalists to accuse anti-Capitalists of just wanting more and more of other people's money - no.
Personally I just want much less alienation, and with all the surplus value of my sacrifice to the cause of "more and more better and better stuff" going to the already rich, I am crippled in my cause to retire from the machine-grade existence of paid work. I just want to be allowed to be a human and not just someone else's "resource" to get more and more better and better stuff.

phoneutria wrote:what's causing the cake to exist is a need for it
laborers don't produce things that are useless
before a labor is produced
first there is an assessment of what is needed
labor is not the origin of the process
need is
need, is what the user wants
when there is more users than that which they need, the price goes up
when there are fewer, the price goes down
the rate of profit fluctuates based on supply and demand
even when the amount of labor is the same

the labor theory of value is more than false
it's dishonest
it's the opposite of science
it starts with a conclusion
and then it fishes for a premise
in a bucket there there's only desired variables

I think I sufficiently cover this above.

phoneutria wrote:so basic that it leaves out the fundaments of economy
you make me 2 cakes and I pay you $5 for each, 10 total
I'm going to sell the cake for $5 because ... dunno i guess as a capitalist i'm worthless so I get to work for free
i sold one for $5 and all is well in marxist world
but the next day a cake shop opened across the street from mine
literally all my clients go to the shop to check out the novelty
so I'm forced to lower my price to $4 to sell my cake
nobody came even though it's cheaper, the other shop put sprinkes on theirs
so now I have a cake that is 2 days old and is going to mold soon
and I paid $5 to make, but now I gotta price it at $2 to get any money back at all
so I sold it at $2
even though the labor value of it is $5
so what the fuck, karl?
i thought labor value was a LAW

what do we do, karl, when people just don't want to pay for the damn labor cost of a thing eh?
i'll tell you what we do
we mass exit that industry
asap
you know what industry we float toward?
the ones where the opposite tends to happen
you make a thing, you pay a labor cost of $5
and suddenly the next day there's so many people lining up to buy it that you can't keep up production
so someone in the crowd shouts I'll pay extra if you save me one!
and the value goes to $6
though the laborer just got $5 yesterday
and if he made another one today it would be the exact same labor
but the value of the cake went up
BECAUSE THE VALUE OF A THING IS NOT DICTATED BY LABOR

It's perfectly acceptable to make allowances for unforeseen circumstances and the sunk costs of spoiled or depreciated products and irrecoverable debts. That's not profit though, just cost accounting. It's true that this is one of the few kinds of costs that doesn't directly correspond to someone's labour, and must be factored into the price, but if things go better than expected and the employer takes the surplus of these rainy day allowances? That's a no-no. If anything, it's owed back to the customers who have been paying too much for a product that the business was too paranoid about with their pricing.

Your next scenario assumes that the business must respond to opportunities to raise prices. This is what causes inflation. Printing money is commonly blamed for causing inflation because it's so easy to underthink the supply and demand conception of "how economics works" and argue that more money in circulation = money is less rare = more money is worth less = inflation. It completely overlooks the business response to money being less rare, because it's taken as self-evident that businesses will respond self-interestedly. More money in circulation means the same prices are less of a stress on your finances and wellbeing, things can relax because your money can go further and you can save and maybe even stand a chance of saving up for your own business. But no, the worst is assumed - that people will simply work less hard and produce less for capitalists to sell, their profit margin will be lower so they'll have to charge more to maintain them boohoo etc. Then if actually struggling businesses actually go under on this assumption that workers might work less, there will be less competition and "of course" it's self-evident that businesses will charge more because there's less alternatives for customers to turn to instead etc. Modern econonics requires and assumes maximum tension and pressure throughout all of society as an unequivocal good. I disagree.

Further, your scenario yet again favours the richest with the most disposable income. It looks innocent on the scale of cheap $5 cakes, but when you apply the same to things like healthcare etc. things necessary for survival inflate out of control fast, and yet again the poor have to sacrifice more than the rich would, when the poor are more at risk of ill health - completely backwards. When things get genuinely scarce, modern econonics sorts out the rich first. When things get bad there's got to be some kind of rationale for rationing rations, but it's backwards to prioritise the least needy first.

But to your point about value and labour - yes price can be influenced by demand. That's why Marx distinguished use value from exchange value.
The intrinsic value of cakes didn't change at all - someone merely expressed a greater valuation through their bid in spite of the cakes being no different. But does a higher bid really mean they literally value cakes more than everyone else? If a rich guy comes along to an auction where a poor guy buys something small that they need to survive, but the rich guy drives up the bid by 1000 times just because they could and they "really really wanted it" to complete their collection or something - did the rich guy value the small thing 1000 times more? Did the value of the small thing jump to 1000 times its original value? Clearly not. The use value of the small thing stayed the same and far more closely resembled the price before the rich guy came along and altered its exchange value.

This is a decent enough segue into the following:

phoneutria wrote:and this is all plain english that a high school student can understand
without needing to read anything fancy
but if you want to look at the theory
marx start with this piece of beauty here:

Marx wrote:Nevertheless, the exchange value of a commodity is not determined by its value in use. In fact, its precise extent or magnitude bears no systematic relationship with the importance that a commodity has for the well-being of an individual. Disconnected from the subjective wants, desires and perceptions of acting individuals, it is instead an objective property of a commodity. And like other objective properties such as height, weight, etc. it is “intrinsic” to a commodity, “inherent in it,” and is “inseparably connected with it”


you see he pulled that right out of his ass
that a thing's value is equivalent to a things weight as if it was an intrinsic property
that's so false it couldn't be more obvious
a thing's value is much MUCH higher when you don't have it
and you want it
so you gotta buy it
then you just put it on a shelf
and don't care about it anymore
you want the other thing now, that you still don't have
so you sell the thing 3 months later at a loss
just so you can gather some more money to buy the other thing
duh karl

Like with the example I just gave, physical attributes more closely approximate value than price. Price is much more just like a mechanism to privilege the rich for already being more privileged.
Doesn't have to just be height and weight obviously, and it isn't just physical the properties of the product/service that determines its value obviously. Generally size does have some correlation with value because there's more materials required and there's more physical capacity for complexity and a corresponding labour requirement to deal with that - but obviously there are exceptions and other factors at play.

More completely, it's a relationship between physical attributes of what's bought and who's buying (versus those physical attributes of what's bought and who's selling). Money has nothing to do with this relationship of physical properties, which is why exchange value can be so loosely connected to use value. At best, price would be a crude approximation of this relationship IF and only if all other factors were equal. Adding money into the mix just completely messes up that requirement, and only moreso as Capitalism continues to work as intended and the successful continue to accrue wealth, resulting in wealth inequality growing and growing.

So no, not at all pulled out of his ass - completely "on the money". Excuse the ironic chiché.

And what you're describing as when you "gotta buy" something and then you leave it on a shelf? That's just commodity fetishism. It's an expression of wealth and all the frivolity that it affords you. If you can leave it on a shelf and forget about it, it really isn't that valuable "except" through the attribution of all this expected improvement to your wellbeing that doesn't really exist - at least beyond the fleeting moment before you shelve it. This kind of behaviour is probably just more like an exercise in revisiting an atrophied latent desire to hunter gather or something, maybe an exercise in power and fulfillment through the act of buying something and consequently "owning it" - perhaps even to some extent indulging in the sacrifice of valuable resources to mimic a return to potential poverty and the more urgent danger that this pretends to give you in spite of all the wealth still actually around you and still belonging to you that allows you to be so frivilous with your purchases in the first place. There's a whole psychology to "retail therapy" that most definitely isn't pulled out of anyone's ass.

I gotta leave it there for now - more to come.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4402
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:36 am

This is what Marxism really is.

A divided country on the brink of Civil War:

Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:05 am

Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Meno_ » Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:26 pm

Having been brought up in a communist country, and aware of the analysis here based on minute differences of opinionated demonstration, gives me, at least a structural interpretation, around which, the seminal logic can be associated with democratic 'principals' ; to reconstruct a limely scenario , which may likely confirm and conform to pupular opinion.

Basically, Communism is supposedly a productive_projective
surmise of the basic, most essential past of how it's representation becomes a primary ingredient of the above structural efficacy.

Particularly stand out the psychology hidden beneath such as: May Day parades, and 5 year projections of attainable goals.

That becomes the projective part of the architecture, and the festivities do deny the underlying problems of achieving them.

These types of annual reinforcements , undeniably overcome the populace with instructive affirmations into such social benefits as : absence of unemployment, guarantees if annual liberal vacations-usually of a month's duration, free health care.

Representation as such is missing however in the apolitical sense, except in highly regulated settings, such as the farmers are constrained into.

Western democratic organization literally., devoid of actual class mitigated groups, work on a system of selection based on 'take them as you find them' system, devoid of material signification.

The Western model , devoid to demonstrate a materially signified underpinning, is proof in it's own system of verification, that a person's place in life , has no particular class , as a model of increasing values to represent themselves by.

Concern of a material signification is supposedly not included, as a required deonstration, of the governments role of designating it as such.

In a way, the ideal system of pure guarantees in the Western model, affords an individual to do away with any government to interfere in any right that guarantees his freedom, including the right to non confirm to institutional processes of social control.

These are really absolute in the US and include the right to avoid work, and even the rights of the totally incapable are progressively interpreted as results of an autonomous choice.

The material dialectic imposes an alternate world where representation veers away from the constitutional ideal, and social freedoms acquire a control over the individual.

The question ultimate between the two systems becomes a two fold dialogue, between freedom and responsibility, between society and the individual.

Can such, as the above representations, allow
any normative engagement between the individual and political society at large via the various representations and the representatives?

Has representation a a single procedural tool, have not been reduced to false objective expectations, measured by elected officials, who have lost connections with their base, ergo resulting with media driven forms of replacements?

Symbolic representation has veered away from original constitutional substance, and that is why the issue, has become prone to be surrounded by references to underlying muck.

Projections brought forward by transcendential intentional will, do appear more prone tob rave colored symbols then the waving of red flags on May 1, where the 5 year plans have never actually been attained, ( therefore the shift to absolute freedom), but the echoes of both sustained, land the dialogue into a national fervor for the best of both worlds, a progressive process to overcome the subset of such risky projections, as those prevalent in the realm of overinflated narratives.

The shift becomes progressively obvious , that empty narratives replacing the constitutive aspects of frameworks that previously defined representations , which attempt to align freedoms and responsibilities that are moving away from those that govern by principle, to that of mass appeal, ;become agencies of calculable incentives to function as manipulatable tools of political process.


That this approaching tragedy, having a very dramatic precedent proves , once and for all that learning from the lessons of history has become tantamount to the waving of meaningless cliches per political advantage.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 7626
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby promethean75 » Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:23 pm

"Having been brought up in a communist country"

If you were able to interview marx and he said of the country you mention; "that's not what I had in mind", what would this fact do to your critique of marx?
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3640
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:38 pm

i for one would have some stern words for that mister
such as making damn good sure you be pretty fucking specific with what you mean
if you're going to add such things as violent revolution and despotic inroads in the mix
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby promethean75 » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:41 pm

"making damn good sure you be pretty fucking specific with what you mean"

You mean like das kapital specific or were you expecting something more elaborate?
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3640
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:43 pm

promethean75 wrote:what would this fact do to your critique of marx?

If Marx were here, he would be laughing at you and Sil, and agreeing with the Capitalists.

What part of class-warfare do you Marxists not understand? What part about current political events do you not understand? What part of "Antifa" and the Communist Revolution do you not understand? What part of Democratic Socialism do you not understand?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby promethean75 » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:46 pm

I should also mention that only the most unruly of the marxist revolutionary type would ever take violent action against the bourgeois class without first providing the opportunity to freely hand over the means of production (I should actually say 'give back the means of production' because technically they built the shit).
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3640
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby promethean75 » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:50 pm

Sorry Ur I dont watch fox or YouTube videos of anyone unless they have a PhD, play an instrument, or say/do something funny. And completely mangling marxism in some witless diatribe somebody picked up from some other video of some other idiot doing the same thing.... doesn't count as funny.

They'd have to mean to be idiots on purpose for it to be funny.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3640
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:54 pm

promethean75 wrote:And completely mangling marxism in some witless diatribe

I've been waiting for weeks now for counter-argument, proof, evidence, etc. about my "mangling Marxism". I think Sil has given up.

But the arguments don't matter. We are seeing the real-life consequences everyday now. "Fascist" "Patriots" are being executed in the street. Aren't you happy about that?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby promethean75 » Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:04 pm

Oh please those guys aren't fascists. Just some good ol boys who have a cause to identify with to give them purpose and a sense of community. Prolly dont even know how to spell fashists.

And they're certainly no threat. These people have a hard enough time planning and managing a pig pickin. How in sam hill would they ever take the government?
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3640
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:13 pm

promethean75 wrote:Oh please those guys aren't fascists. Just some good ol boys who have a cause to identify with to give them purpose and a sense of community. Prolly dont even know how to spell fashists.

And they're certainly no threat. These people have a hard enough time planning and managing a pig pickin. How in sam hill would they ever take the government?

After months of antifa fascism, it is expected and actually planned to inspire and promote anti-anti antifa conflict. That is how you bring down the entire system. It is as old as the hills from what I can see - "Who started this fight?" Then they argue over who started it until the entire system is destroyed in conflict.

In this case and watching from outside, it seems very clear that the antifa fascists were formed, funded, and allowed to act out their aggression with no media coverage to as to hide the Marxist agenda of creating anarchy and revolution. But because you ignore the only media that actually lets you see the other side, you are stuck being blinded and will never change until much much too late for the truth to do you any good.

You always only see what you look at and want to accept into your bubble.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:06 am

promethean75 wrote:"making damn good sure you be pretty fucking specific with what you mean"

You mean like das kapital specific or were you expecting something more elaborate?


no man i mean way more specific
cuz i was learnd here that marx only wrote an economic theory
not a political one
but regardless of that
he kinda just told everyone to go uh literally kill people at take their shit
and form a dictatorship
and it'd all work out in the end
so yeah i feel like he left some details missing
coulda been a little more thorough
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:22 am

phoneutria wrote:
promethean75 wrote:"making damn good sure you be pretty fucking specific with what you mean"

You mean like das kapital specific or were you expecting something more elaborate?


no man i mean way more specific
cuz i was learnd here that marx only wrote an economic theory
not a political one
but regardless of that
he kinda just told everyone to go uh literally kill people at take their shit
and form a dictatorship
and it'd all work out in the end
so yeah i feel like he left some details missing
coulda been a little more thorough

I think this a widespread general problem and also a hard one to avoid. Not Marx's mistake of leaving out some good way to do all that, but other people's reactions to Marx and other experts. Marx was very smart about some things. But just as you point out, he then went more or less all mystical and gestural. And many people conclude that if person X is smart about T, then he or she is likely smart about Y. Well, no, not always, perhaps not often, or even nearly never.

We wnat that guru/expert/prophet to be the complete authority. Because having to sift through all the details, man that is hard work and also scary, but who the fuck are we to be the final arbiters of truth. Well, in a sense, we must be, at least for ourselves.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3436
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Urwrongx1000