Fixed Cross wrote: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.
Fixed Cross wrote:You don't know by now that I'm a value ontologist?
Fixed Cross wrote: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.
Fixed Cross wrote: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 wrote: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?
Meno wrote:Marx interprets the social cultural conflict between classes as primarily based on jealousy of the proletariat against the produce.
Fixed Cross wrote:Silhouette wrote: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?
Fixed Cross wrote: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.
Fixed Cross wrote: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.
Fixed Cross wrote: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.
Ecmandu wrote:So should I be a Fixed Crossist?!?!
Not a chance Fixed Cross!!!!!
Think about that.
Silhouette wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:Silhouette wrote: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.
Fixed Cross wrote: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.
Fixed Cross wrote:This is tautological. The validity isn't in question, only the soundness.
Fixed Cross wrote: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.
Fixed Cross wrote: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.
Fixed Cross wrote: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.
Fixed Cross wrote: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.
Fixed Cross wrote: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.
Fixed Cross wrote:Just like these babies don't ever listen to Joe Biden but dance around here in adversement of him.
I mean, utterly pathetic.
Fixed Cross wrote: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.
Fixed Cross wrote:Blah bah blah bah. Summary of your new position: "oh er, ehm oh yeah, maybe Marx isn't what I thought he was."
Fixed Cross wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users