RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism.

RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Termyn8or -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 9:10:24 AM)
"Termy...and you know this....how" Very good question. I've been able to study humans for a long time (to me). Judging from the actions of animals because I can't communicate with them all I have to go by is their actions. I'll have to admit that it is only my conclusion, but do you have another ? But when they hunt in packs they do not seem to exclude some from the bounty. We do. If the wolf or whatever was in the pack when the hunt started, he eats too. If not it is for a reason, perhaps that he is inferior, but why would that even happen ? It seems that the more lowly in the pack feed after the superior ones, but they do feed. They do not send their inferiors out to do the hunting and then take the bounty away. Humans do. Animals are not stupid enough to remain in a pack that would treat them this way, humans are. They know there is power in the group, that is why they are in it. Humans can be fooled into being Moonies or whatever. Humans can be fooled into tithing. Humans can be fooled into thinking there is a God because of the written word. Animals don't have that problem. An animal asserts of course, but it's own power, not that of any omnipotent being and I doubt they would if they could concieve it. For more on this I will ask a friend who is a serious expert on animals. I mean petted a black panther and shit. He said you should've heard that motor run ! He's had all kinds of birds, a monkey he taught to smoke cigarettes (everyone I know is bad that way, how do I find these people ?). Swam with seals, the whole nine yards. He used to work at a zoo, and had the "ins" enough to do all this. Most employees can't just take a monkey home y'know. I will ask later today. But I also ask you this - do you disagree ? Do you think animals have some sort of religion or anything ? I think if so it would be somewhat like Odinism, which worships the planet mainly. That which provides for our environment and life itself by food, water, etc. With Odinism being a more primitive religion, I see it may be closer to the mark than what most may presume. Admittedly it is my opinion, I think it well considered but it is still just that. If you disagree, why ? T^T

kdsub -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 9:30:44 AM)
quote: but do you have another Yes...I don't know so I make no claims...and if this part of your argument is in question then it all is. You talk about experience and observations over the years...will I have observed as well. What I see is there is no difference in many ways between "us" and many animals...I mean none. They have the same emotions... they react to fear and love... so if this is true I would not be surprised if they also had the human need for something greater than themselves...an understanding of their universe...a religion if you wish. Sorry for the hijack...I will shut up Butch

NorthernGent -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 12:12:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Indeed, if all humans are fit for is "a negative kind of freedom, one without grand ideals, where we're free to buy and sell things but nothing more" why not just put the gun to our heads and pull the trigger now? Such a bleak existence is hardly worth consideration is it? A point well made. It's a quandry. I personally like grand ideals; I feel at home with taking pleasure from working towards something better, some grand notion that will propel us beyond our current situation. But, and it's a big but, you can't ignore the experience of what happens when we think we have the solution - we kill for it, in the interests of the common good (contradiction in terms, eh?). I haven't arrived at a conclusion, still trying to work it out.

NorthernGent -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 12:19:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subfever If I've missed your point, please do elaborate some. You have it about right. quote: ORIGINAL: subfever In my opinion, the masses have been well-conditioned to knee-jerk responses to any philosophy that resembles collectivism Perhaps, but what about experience: The experience of the French Revolution, imbued with the spirit of liberty and reason, but reliant on forcing people to be free. It will always come back to the same basic statement/assumption: food on the table is what most of us care about when push comes to shove. Do you agree?

tweakabelle -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 1:49:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Indeed, if all humans are fit for is "a negative kind of freedom, one without grand ideals, where we're free to buy and sell things but nothing more" why not just put the gun to our heads and pull the trigger now? Such a bleak existence is hardly worth consideration is it? quote: A point well made. It's a quandry. I personally like grand ideals; I feel at home with taking pleasure from working towards something better, some grand notion that will propel us beyond our current situation. But, and it's a big but, you can't ignore the experience of what happens when we think we have the solution - we kill for it, in the interests of the common good (contradiction in terms, eh?). I haven't arrived at a conclusion, still trying to work it out. Yes. This is a problem that has bedevilled the Left for decades now. What goals are valid in the absence of any grand goal? The seductions of absolutism are many, but the dangers are inherent and ultimately inescapable. Ideology and hierarchy make a bad combination and inevitably end in disaster. Doesn't the very failure of grand narratives imply that searching for a single solution was an attempt to impose a false order, an impossible unity on things in the first place? Does this failure mean we have to surrender completely, to give up and resign ourselves to eternal apathy? Not at all. The absence of Grand Designs, of a meta-narrative or a uber-morality doesn't mean the absence of design or narrative or morality at all. There are alternatives that work. Look for example at the logic of permaculture, which offers one template of how to deal with a universal problem - how to develop sustainable agricultural practices - in ways that are always local specific and flexible. Here it is recognised that there is no universal solution, that each solution is best tailored to its specific context. This template/logic can be applied infinitely. The range of perspectives collectively known as post modernism are all attempts to deal with this issue. Instead of giving up after arriving at the impossibility of a grand narrative of Truth, they take as their starting point the impossibility of Truth and proceed from there. These are just some of the models out there to inform your thoughts on this and some solutions proposed by various thinkers that might appeal to you. Perhaps recognising that there might not be a single grand answer/goal but lots of little ones gets you past your present impasse.

subfever -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 3:09:26 PM)
quote: Isn't permaculture a wonderful idea! It's one of the purest practical applications of knowledge and wisdom I've encountered. Its principles are universal yet each application will be local, specific and unique. And it's almost impossible to commercialise on a large scale. My understanding is that its far more productive than monoculture methods. It also opens up land unsuitable for monoculture farming for productive purposes. It is designed for small local applications and I'm afraid I don't know whether it performs as well on larger scales. Though it's not immediately obvious to me that there's any reason why it shouldn't. I find the concept highly appealing! I just don't know if it could be implemented to support global needs. quote: Apologies for not responding earlier. I missed your post first time round. No problem at all. If I had a dollar for each thing I've missed in life, I could probably take a year's vacation... :-)

subfever -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 3:13:46 PM)
quote: Animals are probably smarter than humans because they fight among themselves less and don't take to believing in some higher power. Too bad you didn't add the two words "and politics" to the end of this sentence... [;)]

subfever -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 3:18:46 PM)
quote: It will always come back to the same basic statement/assumption: food on the table is what most of us care about when push comes to shove. Do you agree? Absolutely. I also believe that since today's technology would enable, every human on earth should have this.

OwningU -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 3:32:41 PM)
But we can start to educate new generations on what the world could really be like. In our time, now, it is difficult to think of a future that promises much of anything. Gas prices, people out of work, foreclosures and health insurance out of reach simply keeps the mind set the way it is. Survival. It would be nice if our children's children understood what working together for a common goal means. I wish it would happen sooner, but sadly, I don't see it happening.

subfever -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 4:03:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Indeed, if all humans are fit for is "a negative kind of freedom, one without grand ideals, where we're free to buy and sell things but nothing more" why not just put the gun to our heads and pull the trigger now? Such a bleak existence is hardly worth consideration is it? quote: A point well made. It's a quandry. I personally like grand ideals; I feel at home with taking pleasure from working towards something better, some grand notion that will propel us beyond our current situation. But, and it's a big but, you can't ignore the experience of what happens when we think we have the solution - we kill for it, in the interests of the common good (contradiction in terms, eh?). I haven't arrived at a conclusion, still trying to work it out. Yes. This is a problem that has bedevilled the Left for decades now. What goals are valid in the absence of any grand goal? The seductions of absolutism are many, but the dangers are inherent and ultimately inescapable. Ideology and hierarchy make a bad combination and inevitably end in disaster. Doesn't the very failure of grand narratives imply that searching for a single solution was an attempt to impose a false order, an impossible unity on things in the first place? Does this failure mean we have to surrender completely, to give up and resign ourselves to eternal apathy? Not at all. The absence of Grand Designs, of a meta-narrative or a uber-morality doesn't mean the absence of design or narrative or morality at all. There are alternatives that work. Look for example at the logic of permaculture, which offers one template of how to deal with a universal problem - how to develop sustainable agricultural practices - in ways that are always local specific and flexible. Here it is recognised that there is no universal solution, that each solution is best tailored to its specific context. This template/logic can be applied infinitely. The range of perspectives collectively known as post modernism are all attempts to deal with this issue. Instead of giving up after arriving at the impossibility of a grand narrative of Truth, they take as their starting point the impossibility of Truth and proceed from there. These are just some of the models out there to inform your thoughts on this and some solutions proposed by various thinkers that might appeal to you. Perhaps recognising that there might not be a single grand answer/goal but lots of little ones gets you past your present impasse. What an interesting, honest, and thought-provoking dialog to see! I think many people would agree with NG that although they would advocate grand ideas and would enjoy working towards them, the specter of past failures prevent them from moving forward wholeheartedly. So then, one might ask, "Why did past social experiments really fail?" Another question to ponder: Would the inclusion of all of the earth's inhabitants and the elimination of hierarchy be requirements of a successful Grand Design?

subfever -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 4:19:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OwningU But we can start to educate new generations on what the world could really be like. In our time, now, it is difficult to think of a future that promises much of anything. Gas prices, people out of work, foreclosures and health insurance out of reach simply keeps the mind set the way it is. Survival. It would be nice if our children's children understood what working together for a common goal means. I wish it would happen sooner, but sadly, I don't see it happening. Indeed, people are preoccupied with problems to a large degree, as well as apathetic. We may not see any true changes in our own lifetimes. However, you touched upon the key motivation... and that is, our future generations. What kind of world do we want to leave them? Is our world improving over time, or is it getting worse? If you believe as I do, that it's getting worse, you need to embrace the fact that change must start somewhere.

Sanity -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 5:31:25 PM)
Ever wonder why there arent growing communities of like minded souls (like you) already living the dream? Living without modern conveniences, enjoying free health care, the works? I mean, other than in North Korea or Cuba... quote: ORIGINAL: subfever quote: ORIGINAL: OwningU But we can start to educate new generations on what the world could really be like. In our time, now, it is difficult to think of a future that promises much of anything. Gas prices, people out of work, foreclosures and health insurance out of reach simply keeps the mind set the way it is. Survival. It would be nice if our children's children understood what working together for a common goal means. I wish it would happen sooner, but sadly, I don't see it happening. Indeed, people are preoccupied with problems to a large degree, as well as apathetic. We may not see any true changes in our own lifetimes. However, you touched upon the key motivation... and that is, our future generations. What kind of world do we want to leave them? Is our world improving over time, or is it getting worse? If you believe as I do, that it's getting worse, you need to embrace the fact that change must start somewhere.

tweakabelle -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 6:11:00 PM)
quote: T ^ T But when they hunt in packs they do not seem to exclude some from the bounty. We do. If the wolf or whatever was in the pack when the hunt started, he eats too. If not it is for a reason, perhaps that he is inferior, but why would that even happen ? It seems that the more lowly in the pack feed after the superior ones, but they do feed. They do not send their inferiors out to do the hunting and then take the bounty away. Humans do. Animals are not stupid enough to remain in a pack that would treat them this way, humans are. They know there is power in the group, that is why they are in it. Humans can be fooled into being Moonies or whatever. Humans can be fooled into tithing. Humans can be fooled into thinking there is a God because of the written word. Animals don't have that problem. An animal asserts of course, but it's own power, not that of any omnipotent being and I doubt they would if they could concieve it. It's very perceptive of you to place power at the centre of things. And to note that a preoccupation with power isn't a purely human concern. Many (but far from all) animals seem top find socialisation (living in groups) an efficient way of having their needs met. Humans (possibly because of our ability to communicate in complex ways more successfully than any other species that we know of) have taken the concept of socialisation to heights very rarely matched in the animal realm. There are some animals that exist as lone operators - some kinds of birds for example - but can humans do this? We've all heard of humans who choose to live as recluses, hermits or ascetics and forego the comforts of socialisation. But can any human really exist outside of culture? The only empirical evidence we have to throw any real light on this is that of the 'wolf children' (not the wolf children in wiki either). I mean children who grew up without contact with other humans. And that's pretty scanty. And we only have that evidence because they have finally come into contact with a society of humans at some point - so it's contaminated. For mine I tend to believe that humans can't truly live outside culture. And even if they could, they would have no discernible effect on culture. I'm not even convinced that distinguishing between culture and nature for humans is a useful step in the first place. Agreeing that for humans, nature is culture is one way of resolving the impasse about human nature posed above. If I am reading you correctly T ^ T that seems to be the direction you're heading too.

Marini -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/19/2011 11:40:01 PM)
I am enjoying wading through this very insightful thread. I wish stella would come back and give us some feedback, oh stella!

luckydawg -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/20/2011 11:46:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subfever quote: Animals are probably smarter than humans because they fight among themselves less and don't take to believing in some higher power. Too bad you didn't add the two words "and politics" to the end of this sentence... [;)] All pack animls engage in Politics.

NorthernGent -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/20/2011 2:21:53 PM)
I think you could dissect Marx's philosophy and arrive at 3 main elements: a) Historical Marxism: the notion that human history is charcterised by the division of labour and organisation into classes. For Marx, our material conditions define what we are. b) Dialectical Marxism: borrowed from Hegel with a shift away from Idealism. A new society emerges from conflict (thesis/antithesis/synthesis). This conflict dictates human reasoning and progress, which is seen as a march towards freedom. c) The economy: related to a and b. The economy prompts historical change. Marx's most influential commentary. I'd be asking these questions: a) Should I base my decisions on a 2,000 year period, one which utterly engulfs the reality of my minute existence? Such a momentous event would surely pass me by and have no bearing on my individual happiness? b) Are you sure I need to live my life with the express purpose of improving the lot of people 1,000 years down the line? Will this really increase my happiness? c) Do my material conditions really make me the person I am? What about friendship, experience, knowledge, family, personal ethics? Are these not more meaningful pursuits than something abstract and far removed rom my reality? (edit, should say this: more meaningful than the means to produce what I need?). d) I'm happy with my peaceful existence, there are many more like me. Is my happiness subordinate to you ideals? And, if so, what use is freedom when it denies happiness?

subfever -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/20/2011 5:40:02 PM)
Here are the "problems" I see with happiness: 1) We can long for the past and have hope for the future, but can only be happy in the present. 2) Our notions of what happiness is are largely influenced by our conditioning to our long-term environment. Our conditioning is largely influenced by the institutions (government, church, news media, entertainment media, advertising media, etc.) within our environment. The main motivations of institutions are to perpetuate themselves and move forward their agendas. 3) When our notions of happiness are influenced by our elders and peers, there's more than a better chance that they are merely parroting their conditioning upon us. In effect, the majority of people we know become self-appointed guardians of the status-quo. So then, what exactly is happiness? And is today's definition the same as it was 100 years ago? If not, then what really matters? What is relevant? Is our happiness based upon the accumulation of X amount of property, with the opportunity of accumulating infinitely more? Is it based upon vain entertainment and cyclical consumption? Is it based upon how much we can obtain now, with disregard to the state of the world we leave to future generations? And if we think all is well because we have our heirs' bases covered due to our posterity, should we consider the following?: Place aside for the moment, that there are derivatives still floating around equal to 10 times the GDP of the entire planet, which could easily decimate the monetary-economic system at any time. Consider that our current monetary-economic system is based upon a foundation of perpetual growth. Therefore, it cannot be indefinitely sustainable. It's not a question of "if," it's a question of when it reaches its saturation point. There are many who believe that what we've seen in the very recent past are cracks in this foundation. Whether or not we are actually approaching the saturation point right now, the fact still remains that the system is not indefinitely sustainable. If an average Joe like me can figure this out, then it stands to reason that those at the very top of the food chain who run the show and have access to the best and brightest think tanks in all the world, have also figured this out. This being the case, the questions we might consider asking are: What system do those at the top of the food chain have ready to install, when the current system has collapsed or is about to collapse? Would their new system enable them to retain power and control? If so, how? If not, would the masses then become expendable? Will the masses awaken in time to assemble, and effect a positive change before the shit hits the fan?

subfever -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/20/2011 5:45:27 PM)
quote: Ever wonder why there arent growing communities of like minded souls (like you) already living the dream? Living without modern conveniences, enjoying free health care, the works? I mean, other than in North Korea or Cuba... From what I've seen, I highly doubt that you and I will ever wonder about the same things.

tweakabelle -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/20/2011 6:14:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subfever So then, one might ask, "Why did past social experiments really fail?" Would the inclusion of all of the earth's inhabitants and the elimination of hierarchy be requirements of a successful Grand Design? The short answer is they failed because they attempted the impossible. The idea that there is a perfect solution, or even a total solution to any problem or issue that humans have to deal has been abandoned at a philosophical level as impossible. There are logical proofs of this impossibility (Godel's Theorem). It is now accepted (at an academic level) that any totalising proposition is necessarily invalid. Fortunately this doesn't spell the end of ideals, just the end of idealistic or totalising solutions as achievable propositions. One size no longer fits all. The two matters (universality and democracy) mentioned would seem to me to be worthy as ideals to aim towards. To me, it seems that the first point we need to address is our values. It seems to me that everything else is enabled by or stems from these.

tweakabelle -> RE: That need to embrace change through Marxism. (4/20/2011 6:22:06 PM)
Thus far not a single nomination for the meaning of human nature that seems to work. Nor, as far as I can tell, any prospect of a nomination either. Is there any reason why one shouldn't conclude that there is no such thing as human nature - that there isn't a single trait/quality/behaviour/whatever shared by all humans and only by humans? It feels so counter-intuitive doesn't it? Could 'human nature' be another empty meaningless myth? If it is, then the implications are truly profound, world-shattering.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875