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 phoneutria » Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:19 am

oh yeah i forgot to add that before the 70s most women were housewives
the 70s and 80s had a boom of women going into the workforce
also after computers there was a surge of indian immigrant engineers
and these two groups wages are lower than the average white male
so obviously wage average goes down
but that doesn't mean that people are getting paid less
the women went from zero to more than zero
indias went from like dirt cookies and mangoes to US dollars
and mens wages continued to go up
even as the agerage went down

so like, you average the height of your kids every year
but this year you had a baby
so when you calculate the average you see that it went down
do you go into a panic that your kids are shrinking?
lol kropo fucks sake
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3342
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:25 am

omfg dirt cookies and mangoes
cracked myself up with that one
sorry, carry on
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3342
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Silhouette » Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:58 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:1) he's the reason obsrvr is on this forum

He may as well be James at this point.

It's one thing to venerate the odd household-name philosopher so highly, though still a little lame and adolescent. But to do the same for some random guy on the internet who clearly lacks anything close the base philosophical knowledge that's standard and evident from philosophers who earned their fame for actually progressing on this base knowledge instead of merely protesting against superficial understandings of various prevailing academic ideas of today?
And the guy stumbles into a thread to blindly and incorrectly criticise others for being unable to change their religion, while at the same time painting James as this "hero" and potential saviour alongside various references to Abrahamic texts...

I dunno, sock puppet or not, it just doesn't add up.

obsrvr524 wrote:I'm not all the way reading through James' SAM corp posts so I shouldn't comment yet.

Right, SO WHY... won't you afford the same courtesy to Marx??

You've made up your mind about Marxism without even knowing that Communism is stateless, while constantly fawning over some poster making the same fundamental mistake.

I'm not fully into the whole anti-nuclear-family thing either, though I appreciate the anti-nepotist sentiment.
It's funny though, how few people seem to comment on the anti-nuclear-family consequences of Individualism, no matter how politically married it often is with family values on the conservative right. The whole reason for this marriage is because Individualism is quite obviously counter to any group cohesion by its own essence, and it needs moderation to work. The application of Individualism to free market principles presupposes unconstrained movement of labour, which is exactly what you see in practice with kids in much of the Western world leaving home as standard to make their own living, often travelling abroad and taking job opportunities wherever they happen to come up to "ideally" move fluidly according to purely rational choices based on the market pricing mechanism.... except if it's specifically countered by an accompanying family-oriented culture to except a specific type of individualism, to fit in the "motivation" of supporting/providing for family, along with all the anti-meritocratic nepotism that this involves.

But of course being pro-family only makes you "so very anti-communist" but not "so very anti-capitalist" at all :icon-rolleyes:
Because I guess you can be pro-Capitalist yet also cherry pick pro-family, but not pro-Communism yet also cherry pick pro-family "for reasons"...

obsrvr524 wrote:Is there anyone else on this board who thinks that given a million families who have an otherwise normal education of skills and theories but never even heard of capitalism or dictatorships would merely keep working hard each day developing new innovative technologies and ways of doing things without ever slacking off or deciding to get a little more for less by deciding that enough has long passed and it just isn't worth it?

The attitude that "everyone is fundamentally lazy" is so lazy.
It's funny how so many people with this attitude will answer that obviously they'd work even if they didn't have to, it's just other people who wouldn't. Good old cognitive biases...

Lacking an authentically chosen purpose to work on is hugely detrimental to human mental health, almost as much as being directly or indirectly forced to deny it in favour of having to work full-time in jobs you hate. Often it's the latter that turns people away from work to fuel the prejudice that everyone's lazy.
Motivation is at the core of this topic.
You argue that we need a State (whilst also praising some poster for replacing the State with a constitution) to loom over everyone to enforce the imperative to work like a strict father-figure.
Capitalism offers the biggest carrots for winning with the inbuilt implication that if you're part of the population who are not employable you get no carrots whatsoever as its "stick" (unless you marry it with the state as a tough-love mother-figure).
There's more to motivation than either of these approaches offer, which has a lot to do with Marx's theory of Alienation amongst other things - work is central to human purpose, and this doesn't exclude all the unpleasant and/or necessary stuff by any means. Passing down all the unpleasant and necessary tasks to the least fortunate, for the worst pay, is pretty much the most efficient way possible to demotivate them.
It may very well be the case that "enemies" are necessary to satisfy a sense of purpose for many people. That's a problem, but making the poor the enemy isn't the solution.
It may very well be the case that the ownership class will fabricate an enemy if there isn't one, or if it's them. That's a problem, but the enemy of everyone is the kind of false presumption that you jumped into this thread with.
You'd rather assume I'm just teenager-talking rather than open to many possibilities as I've been trying to communicate. I'm pro-science, I want possibilities to be sufficiently and precisely explored, including all the ones you've already ruled out - sorry.

I'd rather talk with phon because she's read some Marx and has some familiarity with the topic.

To quote her: "more to come".
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4298
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:42 pm

Silhouette wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:1) he's the reason obsrvr is on this forum

He may as well be James at this point.

It's one thing to venerate the odd household-name philosopher so highly, though still a little lame and adolescent. But to do the same for some random guy on the internet who clearly lacks anything close the base philosophical knowledge that's standard and evident from philosophers who earned their fame for actually progressing on this base knowledge instead of merely protesting against superficial understandings of various prevailing academic ideas of today?
And the guy stumbles into a thread to blindly and incorrectly criticise others for being unable to change their religion, while at the same time painting James as this "hero" and potential saviour alongside various references to Abrahamic texts...

I dunno, sock puppet or not, it just doesn't add up.
After observing James (along with others) for years and then trying to find error in what he has said, I can competently defend much of it and by doing so discover that he was even more right than I thought. From there, a person begins to actually think much like him (or anyone else they have studied). If it makes you feel better, it pisses off my wife too. If I believed and studied you, I would start sounding like you (maybe she would like that better). It is just a hazard of the practice. Why do you think people publish books if not to get others to think as they do (although James never published a book that I am aware of). I wish he had been more politically verbose. I had serious questions, especially about Americans).

Silhouette wrote:You've made up your mind about Marxism without even knowing that Communism is stateless, while constantly fawning over some poster making the same fundamental mistake.

Another false and lazy accusation and a bit hypocritical - turning everything into a personal attack.

Silhouette wrote:But of course being pro-family only makes you "so very anti-communist" but not "so very anti-capitalist" at all :icon-rolleyes:
Because I guess you can be pro-Capitalist yet also cherry pick pro-family, but not pro-Communism yet also cherry pick pro-family "for reasons"...

Capitalism doesn't promote anti-family values (take care of your own). Communism does (obey only the dictates of the State, disassociate from family, religion, and any other concerns you might have).

Silhouette wrote:Lacking an authentically chosen purpose to work on is hugely detrimental to human mental health, almost as much as being directly or indirectly forced to deny it in favour of having to work full-time in jobs you hate.

I agree with that.

Silhouette wrote:You argue that we need a State (whilst also praising some poster for replacing the State with a constitution) to loom over everyone to enforce the imperitive to work like a strict father-figure.

That is not at all what I argued. And a constitution establishes a State. James was proposing a constitutional small group that if replicated enough would organically (voluntarily) grow into a State.

My point was that some decision making authority is needed to prevent rising dictatorships, even if they are merely clansmen or tribes willing to use and abuse. Out of millions of families I don't see how none of them, for generations, would not decide to take more than they give. Preventing that would take some very heavy social programming of every infant. Who chooses what is to be programmed? The Chinese Communist Party made that decision. Look what they do now. The Soviet Union tried that. Where are they now?

Silhouette wrote:You'd rather assume I'm just teenager-talking rather than open to many possibilities as I've been trying to communicate.

That isn't an assumption. And just about every teenager says what you just said. When they haven't learned why they are wrong they go preaching that their parents must be wrong. It makes them feel better (protecting their bubble of belief in false hopes).


Are you really proposing that there is no authority enforcing demands in a true communistic society and that would be stable for generations? How do you defend that extreme supposition? Science certainly can't back it up.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:44 am

While Shillouette, Magnus, Prom, Von Rivers, lamb, etc. are fiddling with Marxist toys:




A real, relevant, informative conversation is being had.

As I said, "Marxism" has taken the mantle and title of 'revolutionaries' which are, underneath, merely socialist anti-class, criminals under the veneer of avant gard "progressivism".

When in reality, it is not Progress but severe Regress. Not evolution, Devolution of society and civilization. 0 steps forward, 10 steps backward.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2750
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:44 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
[ although James never published a book that I am aware of ]

Rationale Metaphysik : Affektanz Ontologie / James S Saint [ 20I9 ]
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:59 am

Fully Automated Luxury Communism by Aaron Bastani is the Communist Manifesto for the the twenty first century
Robots do all the essential work and the workers have more leisure time as a consequence
Technology benefits every one so this time around the revolution will be not be a class one
Machine intelligence is the next stage in human evolution and so it will happen anyway regardless of anything else

However the name Communism has rather negative connotations here in the West and so should therefore be avoided if the idea is to gain any credibility
Like all nascent ideas [ Bastanis book was published last year ] it needs time to be considered so I would wait for I00 years to see if it has been successful

Passing thought : the Internet is a Communist ideal because it is universal even though it was ironcally developed by American capitalists
The currency of the future will be less manufactured goods [ though they will obviously still exist ] and more information and knowledge
Although unlike manfactured goods they can be manipulated or interpreted at will and indeed have been ever since the Net became universal
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Mithus » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:17 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
[ although James never published a book that I am aware of ]

Rationale Metaphysik : Affektanz Ontologie / James S Saint [ 20I9 ]

There is also an English edition of the book: Rational Metaphysics:Affectance Ontology, but James did not publish it. Between 2014 and 2018 I compiled thousands of his posts, sorted them (with his help), translated them into German. and in early 2019 I published the German edition, half a year later the English edition. It was not planned from the beginning that it would become a book and I am not even sure if James ever learned that it exists.
..... panta rhei .............................................
User avatar
Mithus
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:05 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Meno_ » Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:20 pm

Mithus wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
[ although James never published a book that I am aware of ]

Rationale Metaphysik : Affektanz Ontologie / James S Saint [ 20I9 ]

There is also an English edition of the book: Rational Metaphysics:Affectance Ontology, but James did not publish it. Between 2014 and 2018 I compiled thousands of his posts, sorted them (with his help), translated them into German. and in early 2019 I published the German edition, half a year later the English edition. It was not planned from the beginning that it would become a book and I am not even sure if James ever learned that it exists.



&best to Arminius, as always. .

How is James? Say hello please, as well, from orbie

Danke!
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7058
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users