Psychology of an Antimarxist

[Fixed Cross]

Its is tough to live among the complete insanity that Marx has given us to work with - one has a choice of going either all out against or completely disregarding it, knowing it will destroy itself albeit at the likely cost of many millions if not billions of lives.

The later option can be endured for a few days. But after that the metaphysical stench of Marxism begins to irritate, as it pervades the psychosphere now, and one simply has to express some Truth - the one thing the Marxist is truly infuriated by, the one thing that repels the Marxist from ones psyche.

Ive never met a Marxist who engaged in a rational argument based on solid premises. This gives me a very distinct sense of superiority, one that is even ecstatic at times, unable as I am to feel pity for those who voluntarily have joined the ranks of the criminally insane even though they might not be personally insane but merely just, very afraid and unsure. I might have to feel pity for those people, but cowardice does little to redeem a bad decision.

[Ecmandu]

All the rich and super rich only live on corporate welfare, and they bought the laws to assure this into perpetuity. I’m not a Marxist, but I’m not for this system either.

You need to get your head straight.

[Silhouette]

Its is tough to live among the complete insanity that Marx has given us to work with - one has a choice of going either all out against or completely disregarding it, knowing it will destroy itself albeit at the likely cost of many millions if not billions of lives.

In line with the title of this thread - would you regard this as the only really relevant argument, or at least prime imperative for the "Antimarxist"? To save lives?

I think it's quite a common psychology of a rightest - the guardian / protector.
Which totally makes sense if you tie it with the "Conservative" agenda, which is in the name: to conserve the good that we are judged have.

[Fixed Cross]

You don't know by now that I'm a value ontologist?

Marx gets the concept of value totally wrong. Whats more, he rapes it.

Human life, the value of that, is just an extension of that; Marxism has no regard for value except in terms of "master-slave" relations (and no by the way, this does not occur in Nietzsche) ;
all must be sacrificed, all is sacrificed in his scheme, to this barren struggle that never truly exists and therefore never ends.

The most common denominator of Marxism is severe ugliness. Its botched attempts at making logical sense are ugly, the resentment on which its is built is ugly, the results are among the ugliest things the human species has brought forth.

The bottom line of the Antimarxist mindset would be; beauty, life, love, courage, intelligence, humanity and animality, discernment, logic, -- the list is pretty long but since Marxism is so successful in being a virtue-less mass murdering defiler, the opposite mindset virtually includes all that is wholesome, even sanity itself.

[Silhouette]

You don't know by now that I'm a value ontologist?

I think you might have mentioned it...

Marx gets the concept of value totally wrong. Whats more, he rapes it.

Human life, the value of that, is just an extension of that; Marxism has no regard for value except in terms of "master-slave" relations (and no by the way, this does not occur in Nietzsche) ;
all must be sacrificed, all is sacrificed in his scheme, to this barren struggle that never truly exists and therefore never ends.

So we have a quantitative, and/or qualitative "lack" of regard for value, as relatively compared to a "full" valuation of human life by human life?

And by contrast an(y) alternative gets the concept of value "better" by virtue of having more of it, quantitatively and/or qualitatively?

The most common denominator of Marxism is severe ugliness. Its botched attempts at making logical sense are ugly, the resentment on which its is built is ugly, the results are among the ugliest things the human species has brought forth.

The bottom line of the Antimarxist mindset would be; beauty, life, love, courage, intelligence, humanity and animality, discernment, logic, -- the list is pretty long but since Marxism is so successful in being a virtue-less mass murdering defiler, the opposite mindset virtually includes all that is wholesome, even sanity itself.

What value do you ascribe to the traditional psychological caution towards evaluating oneself - seeing as the value gained from the act itself is subject to one's own psychology in the first place?

[Meno_]

Marx interprets the social cultural conflict between classes as primarily based on jealousy of the proletariat against the produce.

That is the difference between Das Capital and The Decline of the West.

[Fixed Cross]

So we have a quantitative, and/or qualitative "lack" of regard for value, as relatively compared to a "full" valuation of human life by human life?

What makes you say that?

No, I repeat; Marx did not understand value, or valuation. Nor did Socrates by the way.
I presume this is because they had very ignoble psyches, rather than because they were stupid. They were simply inferior men.

And by contrast an(y) alternative gets the concept of value "better" by virtue of having more of it, quantitatively and/or qualitatively?

You're not analyzing very well here. Ive seen you be a little too playful with logic before but not because you really cant discern the rules of it.
Ill explain it as for dummies:

Because Marxism defiles every value-giving entity and process and does little else but defiling, the Antimarxist mindset is mostly defined as protecting value giving processes and entities from such defilement.
Antimarxism is a reaction to Marxism. Its not something that existed before Marx did. So you can reduce its nature to the opposite of Marxistic nature.

Marx interprets the social cultural conflict between classes as primarily based on jealousy of the proletariat against the produce.

Yes, it was as flimsy as that and to be honest I am sure he did not really believe in his doctrine.
It was not like how value ontology struck me, which was instantly and utterly clear, more clear than anything had been or has been since - Marx tried hs whole life to get that book to make some sense but never managed, as his premises were so weak that to formulate a sound theory from them would be like building a solid skyscraper supported in the ground by a grid of flaccid mouse-penises.

And yet, full grown men go about as if he makes sense to them. They're like flat-earthers, perfectly immune to any argument with empirical ground.

[Ecmandu]

So should I be a Fixed Crossist?!?!
Not a chance Fixed Cross!!!!!

Think about that.

[Silhouette]

So we have a quantitative, and/or qualitative "lack" of regard for value, as relatively compared to a "full" valuation of human life by human life?

What makes you say that?

It was an attempt to rephrase literally the words you said, in order to get an idea of whether I am steelmanning your argument sufficiently.

As follows:
"Marxism has no regard for value" -> "quantitative, and/or qualitative 'lack' of regard for value" (with "no" substituted for "lack" in light of the remainder of the sentence):
"except in terms of 'master-slave' relations" -> "no regard for value except..." translates as not quite no regard for value at all, but a relative "lack" excepting the one condition you stated.

I've stuck really quite strictly to the syntax and semantics of your own words, so I'm somewhat bewildered by your confusion over what makes me say that - but clearly I failed and you have the ability to point out the obvious mistake(s) I've made, and I invite you to do so.

No, I repeat; Marx did not understand value, or valuation. Nor did Socrates by the way.
I presume this is because they had very ignoble psyches, rather than because they were stupid. They were simply inferior men.

Yeah, I'm being overly literal here in general, I know - but this is not repetition. You didn't say he didn't understand value or valuation.

You said he "got it wrong", he "raped it", he didn't "regard it" except by the condition you provided...

All of these things are sufficient for the accusation of "misunderstanding", but not necessary. I'm sure it was your intention to imply Marxist misunderstanding though. So please continue.

You're not analyzing very well here. Ive seen you be a little too playful with logic before but not because you really cant discern the rules of it.

This will be explained by expounding on the above.

Ill explain it as for dummies:

Because Marxism defiles every value-giving entity and process and does little else but defiling, the Antimarxist mindset is mostly defined as protecting value giving processes and entities from such defilement.
Antimarxism is a reaction to Marxism. Its not something that existed before Marx did. So you can reduce its nature to the opposite of Marxistic nature.

This is tautological. The validity isn't in question, only the soundness.

So should I be a Fixed Crossist?!?!
Not a chance Fixed Cross!!!!!

Think about that.

Why not?

Steelman his arguments first. Allow him to accept your own understanding of what Fixed Crossedisticism is first, and then work out between yourselves honestly whether the agreed criteria of "should" are met or not.

[Fixed Cross]

So we have a quantitative, and/or qualitative "lack" of regard for value, as relatively compared to a "full" valuation of human life by human life?

What makes you say that?

It was an attempt to rephrase literally the words you said, in order to get an idea of whether I am steelmanning your argument sufficiently.

As follows:
"Marxism has no regard for value" -> "quantitative, and/or qualitative 'lack' of regard for value" (with "no" substituted for "lack" in light of the remainder of the sentence):
"except in terms of 'master-slave' relations" -> "no regard for value except..." translates as not quite no regard for value at all, but a relative "lack" excepting the one condition you stated.

I've stuck really quite strictly to the syntax and semantics of your own words, so I'm somewhat bewildered by your confusion over what makes me say that - but clearly I failed and you have the ability to point out the obvious mistake(s) I've made, and I invite you to do so.

Yeah ok but what makes you phrase it in such terms?
Why explode my phrase in such analytical terms?
But this is your nature, as an analytic thinker - break things down into small pieces.

No, I repeat; Marx did not understand value, or valuation. Nor did Socrates by the way.
I presume this is because they had very ignoble psyches, rather than because they were stupid. They were simply inferior men.

Yeah, I'm being overly literal here in general, I know - but this is not repetition. You didn't say he didn't understand value or valuation.

You said he "got it wrong", he "raped it", he didn't "regard it" except by the condition you provided...

All of these things are sufficient for the accusation of "misunderstanding", but not necessary. I'm sure it was your intention to imply Marxist misunderstanding though. So please continue.

Well, come on. Im sure he wasn't intentionally being malicious.
But sure, okay, he misunderstood, therefore he got it very dangerously wrong.
It was a very hot issue with a lot of historical leverage, and he claimed all that leverage without a proper address of value, which simply means a lot of industrial death and ruin of the landscape for particular values in favour of one abstract value; "revolt against value-holders". No regard for value. Plundering stores from a rolls Royce has become a recent example of spontaneous Marxist ethics.

This is tautological. The validity isn't in question, only the soundness.

But that is to be judged in terms of what value really is.

Do you read Nietzsche? He is the main European proponent of the scientific approach to the concept of value, valuation, valuing; in his mind, the will to power is value-attributing, in the sense of interpreting reality in ones own terms, and thereby positing ones values upon it and shaping it thereby to the utmost of our abilities - in his mind this is all nature ever does. Be it sometimes from a very hazardous position and sometimes very slowly and calmly, most often unconsciously - in any case, this forms a very rich and complex field of study to which Marx with his value-duality has no approach at all, forfeiting the fruits of value itself, meaning that there is no space for anything except the will to destroy - -- which, as a Marxist-homegrown man, I can tell you first hand is seething below the surface of most of the good will loudly and empathically proclaimed. In recovery of suffering inflicted from early on by demonically warped personalities, Ive learned to judge the self-complimenting revolutionarism of Marxism as the cardinal vice (the most common weakness) of modern human thought. But its been only since Ive understood what is indeed precisely wrong with it that Ive recognized the abuse that takes place under its wings; or that I dared to admit to myself that it is indeed abuse; Ive had to understand how the universe (or simply, experience) produces value in order to grasp the disastrous proportions of marxism.

[Ecmandu]

Silhouette,

Fixed Cross literally believes that Trump is not using his office (and taxpayer money to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars) to broker financial gain with his business! Trump is abusing the fuck out of that office! To be a “Fixed Crosser” I also have to be a “Trumper”... it’s absurd!

Trump is the most corrupt president ever in the US.

[Silhouette]

Yeah ok but what makes you phrase it in such terms?
Why explode my phrase in such analytical terms?
But this is your nature, as an analytic thinker - break things down into small pieces.

Firstly, it's a skill that I've been developing for a while now, which I find particularly useful toward the ends of determining the validity of arguments.
It's my ambition to build strong, valid arguments of my own - and if they were to be vulnerable to a bit of logical analysis then I would be failing in this ambition. I'd rather preempt that possibility and prevent it from happening.
And along the way, I get to assist others in doing the same - for mutual benefit. Breaking things down into smaller pieces is a great tool towards these ends.
Secondly, you claim you've "never met a Marxist who engaged in a rational argument based on solid premises", and then you complain when a Marxist deals with arguments rationally, to establish solid premises. You've met me, so not only do your accusations contradict your reponses, but your accusations are demonstrably false to begin with.

Well, come on. Im sure he wasn't intentionally being malicious.
But sure, okay, he misunderstood, therefore he got it very dangerously wrong.
It was a very hot issue with a lot of historical leverage, and he claimed all that leverage without a proper address of value, which simply means a lot of industrial death and ruin of the landscape for particular values in favour of one abstract value; "revolt against value-holders". No regard for value. Plundering stores from a rolls Royce has become a recent example of spontaneous Marxist ethics.

How many thinkers and doers didn't "intend" to be malicious?

Everyone thinks they aren't malevolent, and humans can become masterfully adept at justifying anything they do as at least indirectly benevolent.
Noone can foresee all the consequences of their actions, even the most benevolent. And thereby noone fully understands.

Marx is respected by even today's pro-capitalist scholars (as distinguished from pro-capitalist ideologues) by virtue of his analysis of Capitalism. It was unprecedented and groundbreaking - that's how he gained so much leverage, whether or not you agree with all the political stuff that he developed from it. A scholar can distinguish between fact and ideology, and give credit where it's due, whether they are personally politically partisan or not. Such is the psychology of a scholar.

Do you regard the psychology of an Antimarxist as compatible with this pscyhology of a scholar?

Do you read Nietzsche? He is the main European proponent of the scientific approach to the concept of value, valuation, valuing; in his mind, the will to power is value-attributing, in the sense of interpreting reality in ones own terms, and thereby positing ones values upon it and shaping it thereby to the utmost of our abilities - in his mind this is all nature ever does. Be it sometimes from a very hazardous position and sometimes very slowly and calmly, most often unconsciously - in any case, this forms a very rich and complex field of study to which Marx with his value-duality has no approach at all, forfeiting the fruits of value itself, meaning that there is no space for anything except the will to destroy - -- which, as a Marxist-homegrown man, I can tell you first hand is seething below the surface of most of the good will loudly and empathically proclaimed. In recovery of suffering inflicted from early on by demonically warped personalities, Ive learned to judge the self-complimenting revolutionarism of Marxism as the cardinal vice (the most common weakness) of modern human thought. But its been only since Ive understood what is indeed precisely wrong with it that Ive recognized the abuse that takes place under its wings; or that I dared to admit to myself that it is indeed abuse; Ive had to understand how the universe (or simply, experience) produces value in order to grasp the disastrous proportions of marxism.

I've read a few books by Nietzsche, some of them several times - but this was many years ago. I don't have much to disagree with what you're saying about value.

I'm as anti-what-you-experienced-growing-up as you are - at least to the extent that I can be, not having lived it myself. Nobody wants that kind of abuse, I don't think Antimarxists understand this about Marxists.
That's why Marxists point out the massive gulf between the disastrous proportions of "what claimed to be Marxist" that you experienced, and what they're aiming for as consistent with the ideas in what Marx actually wrote. The goal for the Marxist is to turn the writings into consistent practice with the theory, and not the literal complete opposite that called itself Marxist that you were unfortunate enough to grow up under and rightly hate.

I can only conclude that the psychology of an Antimarxist insists the necessary causation between the theory becoming what you experienced when applied in practice.
By contrast, the psychology of a Marxist insists there is no necessary causation between theory becoming its exact opposite in practice, and holds out for the possibility of preventing that at all costs - just like the antimarxist. The Marxist is only distinguished by also holding out for the possibility to turn the theory into something much better than its exact opposite in practice, while the Antimarxist seems to regard it as already concluded that it can only turn into its exact opposite.

[Fixed Cross]

My whole point is that the theory directly leads to the abuse. It has always done in practice, be it by genocide or personal abuse.

Ive given you the logic, the way abuse, rape, annihilation usually by gangs of entitled persons is always going to be the result of following the marxist revolutionary protocol, precisely because of how it disregards value, and replaces the concept of valuing (which Ive been the first to successfully formalize) with a prerogative to destroy people who own material value.
Marxists are, in my 4 decades of experience, most often deeply malicious in the patters of their behaviour, and invariably they're thinking that they're doing good when they drive people into ruin.

Im sure I now many more and more active Marxists than you, being the grandson of one of Europe's most influential Communist leaders.
Note that I do not equate Communism with Marxism - Communism is simpler and older, it has goodness in it. My grandfather never wanted anything to do with Marx.

I do think you must now attempt to discern what im saying to you in logical terms.
Marxisms only conception of value is that it is in the wrong hands, and must be taken.
It does not say what value is. It does not express valuation standards at all. It is barren of love, care, empathy, solidarity except in this flimsy rhetoric of "unite, destroy, and take". I know Marx way too well, half of our basement was filled with bookshelves of works of Marx himself and endless numbers of Marxists. Lenin too, of course, Trotsky, very much naturally, but also all kinds of theoreticians.

I am the Antimarxist because perhaps no one knows Marx better than I do. A great part of the cause of my knowledge is that I truly loved the ideal of solidarity among workers, had a portrait of the man on my mantle even for a while, one I found lying on the street once.

Anyway im kind of helpless here - you having disregarded my logical argument three times now. That is, im sorry to say, a thing very typical of Marxists! How often have I sat at the table with the leading ones, trying to get them to take points of reason into consideration, but always in vain and always at the cost of more humiliation by the group. You aren't abusieve but you are still completely disregarding the logical red thread here, focussing purely on extraneous elements.
That is what Marxists always do! And it is logical because the semantic methods of Marx are entirely anti-logical. As I demonstrated!!!!
Please do not ask me to repeat it all for a fourth time this week. If you truly do want to understand, reread my posts here and in "what marxism really is".

Please, do me this favour - read my points carefully and not with the pre-established knowledge that you will disagree. That pre-established knowledge always makes people read badly.
Please do not hold on to Marxism as infallible when you read me. Give my arguments a fair chance.

(By the way, it wasn't my parents doing the abusing. I need to get that clear. We had a fucking weird tightly nit humongous group of people which I stupidly grew up giving my love and trust. Whoever was, is still a Marxist among these people is just a disastrous human being - indeed one has no choice, as a Marxist - the only thing to do as a Marxist is to destroy people who have things that you want, with the abstract idea that you're doing it for the greater good. Where in fact it is just a placeholder for envy and hatred; envy and hatred are, if they are in name of the Proletariat, virtues for the Marxist. So much malice has crept in them and they actually think they're protectors. Even with the massive bodycount they already stacked up, they keep believing.)

[Fixed Cross]

Apart from the core issue of value, I can give you a very clear cut indication of how Marxism is a dangerous, horrible thing.

Anyone who defines himself as Proletarian, and as solidary (seems to be no word, we call it solidair, 'having solidarity) with the Proletariat, is by Marx directly granted the moral prerogative to rob and murder anyone he perceives as belonging to the opposite class.
This is not made explicit, but it is entirely implicit in what is made explicit. Such murders are necessity itself, they don't even count as murders, but as "workers claims of destiny". So it always goes in practice and Ive logically shown why it always will.

Ive read so much Marx, and rereading it, I notice that it is all so very bad, truly an atrocity of a writer. But I was young then and really wanted him to be right.

[perpetualburn]

Apart from the core issue of value, I can give you a very clear cut indication of how Marxism is a dangerous, horrible thing.

Anyone who defines himself as Proletarian, and as solidary (seems to be no word, we call it solidair, 'having solidarity) with the Proletariat, is by Marx directly granted the moral prerogative to rob and murder anyone he perceives as belonging to the opposite class.
This is not made explicit, but it is entirely implicit in what is made explicit. Such murders are necessity itself, they don't even count as murders, but as "workers claims of destiny". So it always goes in practice and Ive logically shown why it always will.

Ive read so much Marx, and rereading it, I notice that it is all so very bad, truly an atrocity of a writer. But I was young then and really wanted him to be right.

Marx actually wrote some nice poems:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... /index.htm

But that's where the story ends and should of ended... There's nothing great about his prose...like how in the hell is "The Communist Manifesto" such an inspiration to anyone? What's so seductive about it? Who walks away from that feeling changed? Who would proudly call himself a "Marxist." It's not like Marx ever wrote something as inspired as TSZ. Yet his and Nietzsche's name often get lumped together when people talk about important thinkers of the 19th century, as if they're comparable geniuses that just went off in different directions.

It's interesting though that both Marx and Nietzsche were both obsessed with Shakespeare when they were younger... It's just that Nietzsche went on to become a creative giant in his own right and Marx didn't... Marx died the very year that the first part of TSZ was published...

[Fixed Cross]

And fittingly to his horrifically bad prose - I don't want to invest time in his poems as he is such a sickeningly dumbing influence - very rare is the Marxist who has read the man.
I know Promethazine and Silhouette haven't, nor has Tom Secker who is an utterly savage cunt of a Marxist fool.... they have no fucking clue. Just like these babies don't ever listen to Joe Biden but dance around here in adversement of him.
I mean, utterly pathetic.

[Silhouette]

very rare is the Marxist who has read the man.
I know Promethazine and Silhouette haven't, nor has Tom Secker who is an utterly savage cunt of a Marxist fool.... they have no fucking clue.

I mean, I've been quoting him in other posts that you've been reading.
Generally a good indication that someone's read the writings when they quoted them...

Just like these babies don't ever listen to Joe Biden but dance around here in adversement of him.
I mean, utterly pathetic.

And the only thing I've said about Biden on this forum is that he's old.

Like, has his senility become infectious to make you forget what I've actually said so quickly and easily?

Apart from the core issue of value, I can give you a very clear cut indication of how Marxism is a dangerous, horrible thing.

Anyone who defines himself as Proletarian, and as solidary (seems to be no word, we call it solidair, 'having solidarity) with the Proletariat, is by Marx directly granted the moral prerogative to rob and murder anyone he perceives as belonging to the opposite class.
This is not made explicit, but it is entirely implicit in what is made explicit. Such murders are necessity itself, they don't even count as murders, but as "workers claims of destiny". So it always goes in practice and Ive logically shown why it always will.

Ive read so much Marx, and rereading it, I notice that it is all so very bad, truly an atrocity of a writer. But I was young then and really wanted him to be right.

Unlike yourself, I have no need for Marx to be right or wrong. I genuinely don't give a shit.
I most certainly do not hold onto Marxism as infallible - as you have strangely accused me. So consider your favour prepaid?

His critiques of Capitalism ring pretty true to me, but it's impossible to find anyone willing to get into it here. Everyone's so polarised and primed to jump on the slightest thing that goes against their "side's" group identity. Where's the philosophy in that? I just want to discuss Marx based on Marx's actual words, but all I see in my would-be interlocutors is the stereotypical Hollywood attribution of good or evil. I thought actual philosophers were beyond this? You could have read all the Marx in the world 17 times over, but all I pick up from you with respect to him is absolutism, along with "value this" and "value that", but I think you think you've explained yourself far better than you actually have with that terminology.

But all this aside, isn't this thread about psychology?
I appreciate all the honesty you're offering about your upbringing. Obviously a significant theme of "betrayal" underlying your attitude towards Marxism. Dare I say, resentment? I imagine that word carries a great deal of weight due to your Nietzschean background though, so I'm expecting denial.

What I think might be interesting is that, to me on a detached level, this neatly explains the nature of your current antipathy towards Marxism - but I don't think you see this as a problem. I think your philosophy actually celebrates being personally embedded in your biases and and partiality. Might this distinction between us explain something of the psychology of an Antimarxist? I seem to remember from the Twilight of the Idols in the opening chapter about Socrates, that Nietzsche backs your approach and I wonder if this is why you criticised Socrates earlier in this thread. I also seem to remember, I think from Beyond Good and Evil, something about criticising the "disinterestedness" of scientists (in the traditional sense) - which I think he intended to rectify by his Gay Science. Forgive me if I'm getting all this wrong, it's been a while - I'm sure you can correct me. I enjoyed your Nietzschean reference with being "the AntiMarxist", though

But what I mustn't forget to address is what you're accusing me of disregarding - I do mean to get around to everything you say, but larger more general hurdles keep standing in my way (see other thread) - and I spend too long writing too much as it is.
To clarify: are you referring specifically to this: "How is the state supposed to wither away if the state is per definition all that is left when private property has been abolished"?

I completely reject the premise that the state is by definition all that's left when private property has been abolished.
If that were a sound premise, and the binary dichotomy a sound model, then sure - you'd have a valid point.

But all there is is people doing people-things. They can organise or disorganise this in whatever way they like - a centralised "State" doesn't have to be the kind of thing you see in today's Western society, and a decentralised arrangement doesn't require private property, and even if either has either of these elements in some measure - that measure can vary greatly. There's so much flexibility and potential in and around the "assumed" simplistic private property/state-elitist-bureaucracy duality, and no discussions ever get even close to sufficiently addressing this.

Maybe in exchange for my giving your arguments a fair chance, you'll give Marx's any chance whatsoever. "Marxists ALWAYS do x,y and z" is just reductive in such a crude way. Does the "psychology of an antimarxist" allow for an open mind?

[Fixed Cross]

Blah bah blah bah. Summary of your new position: "oh er, ehm oh yeah, maybe Marx isn't what I thought he was."

[Silhouette]

Blah bah blah bah. Summary of your new position: "oh er, ehm oh yeah, maybe Marx isn't what I thought he was."

Er... kinda no?

He's exactly what I thought he was before everyone started bringing him up?

Honestly, it's so hard to find an honest conversation in this place...

[Meno_]

And not unlike others , the misinterpretations whirl about, and the core values become anathema. Psychologically more definitive clues to this current ones analogously form looser associations of the periphery . If a predisposition of the core of the personality can relate in some sense to a political disposition, where does the impetus of party affiliation begin?

Can the media merely accent such dispositions, rather then forming more deeply hidden sources?

Or in fact, can the message of the media have overwhelming effects on actual orientations of changing opinions?

[Fixed Cross]

Im obviously the only one here who has read Marx.

Silhouette, you went from "let me explain what Marxism is" to "well, he seemed to kinda make sense to me." And the next day you forgot all about it and went back to considering yourself an expert.

You leftists always think that you should lecture people who have actual experience with something on that topic when you have read about in college, or heard some guy scream in a demonstration. Or read some sign or slept with someone who was an enthusiast.

Very dumb.

[Fixed Cross]

this is the psychology of the Antimarxist first of all - an extreme loathing of pretentious dumb people.

Its funny Im sure to spectators with no horse in the race, no values at stake - you can keep showing with extreme precision that Marx bases his rhetorical points on mistakes (free associations, enthusiasm) he made on opium, but it just doesn't matter. He is the great Head of the Movement after all.

Why would a Marxist read Marx? They already know he is right, as they've been told by their college professor, who also hasn't read him -

Amazingly similar to Medieval Christianity.

[Fixed Cross]

Ha - ha!

root-toot toot

what a show

[Silhouette]

Silhouette, you went from "let me explain what Marxism is" to "well, he seemed to kinda make sense to me." And the next day you forgot all about it and went back to considering yourself an expert.

Nah.

I went from "can anyone stick to the topic of the thread?" to "wait, does anyone actually know a basic concept of Marxism, which doesn't require any expertise whatsoever, to justify their extreme opinions against him?" to "Well at least phoneutria can demonstrate having actually read any Marx whatsoever, but can she please stick to the topic of the thread?"

None of that involves me being an expert, and Marx still makes just as much sense to me as before with regard to the aspects of his actual words that I agree with. You're reading things into this whole debacle that aren't there - is that the psychology of an antimarxist?

You can tell yourself you're the expert on Marx all you like, but you still seem to consistently fail to use his actual words to back up your points, as well as failing to correctly answer a simple question about "the State" according to Marxism that "obviously the only one here who has read Marx" and "Ive read so much Marx" and "I am the Antimarxist because perhaps no one knows Marx better than I do" presumably ought to know...

I'm willing to grant that you know far more about Marx than I do, if only you'd use his actual words to give all your grandiose claims any credence whatsoever. You're claiming all this philosophical prowess and logic to see so much more deeply than a guy who's just trying to get things on topic to allow philosophy to begin at all... but it amounts to nothing if it turns out it's all in direct contradiction with the actual words written by the very guy who're trying so hard to protect us all against.

I read Marx on my own accord, I didn't need to go to college before I was able to pick up a book, I don't listen to guys screaming at demonstrations, and the people I've slept with unfortunately haven't been that interested in Marx - but I have read some signs so maybe that's it... you got me.

I just wanted to have a normal discussion about "what Marx really is" on the thread and the "psychology of an Antimarxist" on this thread, but honestly the kind of reception they've had from others such as yourself has just been... disappointing.
I know you can bring out some actual Marxist words from all these books you've read - I believe in you! Imagine having a normal conversation about the actual words written on the topic without all this tribalistic dry-heaving about how much better you are... - does such a scenario not appeal to the psychology of an antimarxist?

[Meno_]

Now anyone mention psychology?

"And not unlike others , the misinterpretations whirl about, and the core values become anathema. Psychologically more definitive clues to this current ones analogously form looser associations of the periphery . If a predisposition of the core of the personality can relate in some sense to a political disposition, where does the impetus of party affiliation begin?

Can the media merely accent such dispositions, rather then forming more deeply hidden sources?

Or in fact, can the message of the media have overwhelming effects on actual orientations of changing opinions?"


Sorry for double post. Or...why be sorry? Nahhhh.t