quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

FirmhandKy:
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your help in how to make post and put in the quotes.  It will take me a bit of time to get it to work smoothly but thanks to you I am closer to it than I was.  Is there any place on this site that tells one how to use all of the resources on these boards?

As to my post to BuxomGoddess...if it is the color and size of type then I appologize as I am still having trouble with how to use many of the aspects of this forum.  If it was something I said please tell me what I said that was demeaning.
thompson

1.  If 75% don't show up how does that imply that welfare people are lazy.  Do you only advertise at the welfare department.

The bold statement is challenging.  You and I (and Buxom) both know the answer to the question, so why did you say it?  You were making a point, I know, but the effect of the sarcasm is to anger her, I'd bet.

2. we outlawed slavery over a hundred years ago and corporate amerika wants to bring it back.

Again, I'm sure she knows slavery is outlawed.  Smart ass comment.  Red flag.  Then ... the "k" in American is an insult.  At least, I'd take it that way.  In effect you are calling her a fascist Nazi.  Insults tend to make people stop listening to everything else you may wish to say, so if you really want to talk and discuss, this is a sure-fire way to prevent it.

3.  How about we deport all the american citizens who are on welfare...of course we would have to outsource our military if we did that.  Perhaps we could hire the Iranians to fight the Iraquies.

Again, sarcasm.  I hear your point, but it's cloaked in intentionally offensive words.

4.  Feeding the hungry and caring for the sick housing the homeless is not good for them they will just get used to it and want a free meal and a place to flop tomorrow.

Again ... sarcasm.  If I were Buxom, I'd say you were making fun of me.  My impulse would be to blast you, not listen to anything you had to say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

hmmm, well Synergy, I'll admit I have studied Marx, along with a lot of other philosophy and political things in my life.   I won't admit to being terribly current, nor interested in Marxism or Communism anymore as it has been so throughly discredited in the real world for several years now (except in certain institutions of higher learning, apparently).

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Basically, my point was that most of the Marxist states in the world have failed, or are generally considered "failed states".  Low economic activity, low levels of personal freedom.

quote:



The exception, of course, is China, but I'd make the argument that China has really reverted to a historic system of mandrin-type rule.  Marxist ideology has at least been melded into a capitalist/socialist hybrid. and would have likely thrown off all shreds of Marxist ideology if not for the active suppression of dissent.

China has low levels of personal freedom, but growing economic activity due to the adoption of free-enterprise structures.  Which is a pretty strong repudiation of "pure" Marxist ideology, too, if you think about it.

quote:



Of course, you can make the argument that Marxist ideas have permeated much of the Western world in the form of social welfare concerns and various "socialist" belief patterns, and I'd agree with you.  This could be seen as part of the historical dialectical view of Hagel that I'll admit may has some utility (just as the current elections may be a good thing for conservative politics in the US a la losttreasure's recent thread).

quote:



The works of Marx, and the years of study, adaptation and extension of his work makes it a body of work and a belief system that is attractive to some people who may not wish to recognize it's problems.  I've no doubt that it will be attempted again (perhaps in the Americas), but the end results will likely end up about the same, in the long run, regardless.  A failed nation like Russia, or a hybrid nation like China.

quote:



Many of them have a vested interest in continuing to use Marxian principles, because they have a body of work related to it, or have based some, or a lot of their own work on other's who have relied on Marxist principles in their works as well.

In other words, there is a inertia keeping Marxist ideas and philosophy alive, especially in an academic environment.

These professors still teach.  They still use Marxist ideas, because that's what they know, are comfortable with, and believe.  The fall of the Soviet Union and other Communist nations have put them on the defensive, but just as a challenging post will sometimes cause a poster to harden their position beyond reason, at times this has simply made Marxist believers more resolute and hardened in their positions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I love the idea of string theory, to be honest, but when I was researching that guy who set up the web site about "Not Even Wrong" and reading what he had to say about it, I could fully understand his issues with it.  String theory can be proven mathematically IF one accepts the idea of higher dimensionality.  We are nowhere near, if we ever get there, to the point where we can actually scientifically prove the existence of higher universes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

hmmm, well Synergy, I'll admit I have studied Marx, along with a lot of other philosophy and political things in my life.   I won't admit to being terribly current, nor interested in Marxism or Communism anymore as it has been so throughly discredited in the real world for several years now (except in certain institutions of higher learning, apparently).

My comments that you are interested in, are in bold.

Basically, my point was that most of the Marxist states in the world have failed, or are generally considered "failed states".  Low economic activity, low levels of personal freedom.

The exception, of course, is China, but I'd make the argument that China has really reverted to a historic system of mandrin-type rule.  Marxist ideology has at least been melded into a capitalist/socialist hybrid. and would have likely thrown off all shreds of Marxist ideology if not for the active suppression of dissent.

China has low levels of personal freedom, but growing economic activity due to the adoption of free-enterprise structures.  Which is a pretty strong repudiation of "pure" Marxist ideology, too, if you think about it.

This is what I meant by Marxism being "discredited" in the real world.

Of course, you can make the argument that Marxist ideas have permeated much of the Western world in the form of social welfare concerns and various "socialist" belief patterns, and I'd agree with you.  This could be seen as part of the historical dialectical view of Hagel that I'll admit may has some utility (just as the current elections may be a good thing for conservative politics in the US a la losttreasure's recent thread).

But the facts are that there is a balance between going "too far" towards Marx or "too far" towards capitalism.  And, since Marx is the source of many of the thoughts and reasoning that have ameliorated the worst excesses of capitalism, many people end up having a difficult time distinguishing at what point to "stop" when they discover his works.

The works of Marx, and the years of study, adaptation and extension of his work makes it a body of work and a belief system that is attractive to some people who may not wish to recognize it's problems.  I've no doubt that it will be attempted again (perhaps in the Americas), but the end results will likely end up about the same, in the long run, regardless.  A failed nation like Russia, or a hybrid nation like China.

Because it is a system that has been extensively developed by many people, over more than a hundred years, there is plenty of material, intellectually challenging material available.  There are converts to it, still, especially in the academic world (you know the old saw "Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach."?  )

There are many people who were raised in it, prior to the implosion of the Soviet Union.  They are still around.  A lot of them have tenure. 

Many of them have a vested interest in continuing to use Marxian principles, because they have a body of work related to it, or have based some, or a lot of their own work on other's who have relied on Marxist principles in their works as well.

In other words, there is a inertia keeping Marxist ideas and philosophy alive, especially in an academic environment.

These professors still teach.  They still use Marxist ideas, because that's what they know, are comfortable with, and believe.  The fall of the Soviet Union and other Communist nations have put them on the defensive, but just as a challenging post will sometimes cause a poster to harden their position beyond reason, at times this has simply made Marxist believers more resolute and hardened in their positions.

It's not a matter of there being something "wrong" with them, just because they are academics.  It's a human thing.

And there is still a large reservoir of political parties that owe their existence to Marxist ideas, especially in Europe.  They aren't going to give up power just because the Soviet Union failed.  Perhaps they may not talked publically about Marxist principles, but they support those issues and items that come out of their belief systems.

I believe that over time, this will settle down (as in fewer and fewer people will claim adherence to Marxist principles), but we are talking at least a generation, or two even.  Like any belief system, pockets may hold out for a long, long time.

There's lots more, but that's the gist of it.

FirmKY
======================================================


FirmKY:
The question I asked was whether the institutions of higher learning had it right or wrong.
Your rather lengthy reply seems to indicate that your answer is yes the institutions of higher learning have it right and wrong.
So it would appear that I am still ignorant of your opinion.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL:  thompsonx:

The question I asked was whether the institutions of higher learning had it right or wrong.
Your rather lengthy reply seems to indicate that your answer is yes the institutions of higher learning have it right and wrong.
So it would appear that I am still ignorant of your opinion.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

FirmKY:

The question I asked was whether the institutions of higher learning had it right or wrong.

Your rather lengthy reply seems to indicate that your answer is yes the institutions of higher learning have it right and wrong.

So it would appear that I am still ignorant of your opinion.

thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

hmmm, well Synergy, I'll admit I have studied Marx, along with a lot of other philosophy and political things in my life.   I won't admit to being terribly current, nor interested in Marxism or Communism anymore as it has been so throughly discredited in the real world for several years now (except in certain institutions of higher learning, apparently).

My comments that you are interested in, are in bold.

Basically, my point was that most of the Marxist states in the world have failed, or are generally considered "failed states".  Low economic activity, low levels of personal freedom.
Would you please give me a list of those marxist states in the world that have not failed?

The exception, of course, is China, but I'd make the argument that China has really reverted to a historic system of mandrin-type rule.  Marxist ideology has at least been melded into a capitalist/socialist hybrid. and would have likely thrown off all shreds of Marxist ideology if not for the active suppression of dissent.
From my experience in China I would think that their ability to supress dissent would prevernt any major changes in Mao's plans.
China claims a 5000 year old culture.  Mandarin does not even become an official language in China until the Ming dynasty which occures in the mid 1300's.
It has been my observation that Mao was able to bring marxism to China only by cloaking it with the tennants of Confucias.

China has low levels of personal freedom, but growing economic activity due to the adoption of free-enterprise structures.  Which is a pretty strong repudiation of "pure" Marxist ideology, too, if you think about it.
There was a rather interesting article in the WSJ last month about how China was closing some steel plants.  The article discussed at length how central planning and not free enterprise still rules in China.

This is what I meant by Marxism being "discredited" in the real world.

Of course, you can make the argument that Marxist ideas have permeated much of the Western world in the form of social welfare concerns and various "socialist" belief patterns, and I'd agree with you.
Please do not ascribe to me arguements that I have not made.

This could be seen as part of the historical dialectical view of Hagel that I'll admit may has some utility (just as the current elections may be a good thing for conservative politics in the US a la losttreasure's recent thread).

But the facts are that there is a balance between going "too far" towards Marx or "too far" towards capitalism.  And, since Marx is the source of many of the thoughts and reasoning that have ameliorated the worst excesses of capitalism, many people end up having a difficult time distinguishing at what point to "stop" when they discover his works.
Correct me if I am wrong but when I read Das Kapital I seem to remember that Marx felt that capatalism was a necessary step between feudalism and the marxist utopia.

The works of Marx, and the years of study, adaptation and extension of his work makes it a body of work and a belief system that is attractive to some people who may not wish to recognize it's problems. 
Would you please list for me these recognizable problems with marxism.
 


I've no doubt that it will be attempted again (perhaps in the Americas), but the end results will likely end up about the same, in the long run, regardless.  A failed nation like Russia, or a hybrid nation like China.

Because it is a system that has been extensively developed by many people, over more than a hundred years, there is plenty of material, intellectually challenging material available.  There are converts to it, still, especially in the academic world (you know the old saw "Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach."?  )
I am familiar with that old line.  It is as false now as it was the first time it was uttered.  I would, however, accept.... those who can do and those who can do it extreemly well teach.

There are many people who were raised in it, prior to the implosion of the Soviet Union.  They are still around.  A lot of them have tenure. 

Many of them have a vested interest in continuing to use Marxian principles, because they have a body of work related to it, or have based some, or a lot of their own work on other's who have relied on Marxist principles in their works as well.
I am not unaquainted with self interest.  Are you suggesting that all marxist academics fall into this catagory. 

In other words, there is a inertia keeping Marxist ideas and philosophy alive, especially in an academic environment.

These professors still teach.  They still use Marxist ideas, because that's what they know, are comfortable with, and believe.  The fall of the Soviet Union and other Communist nations have put them on the defensive, but just as a challenging post will sometimes cause a poster to harden their position beyond reason, at times this has simply made Marxist believers more resolute and hardened in their positions.

It's not a matter of there being something "wrong" with them, just because they are academics.  It's a human thing.
Are you suggesting that academics are more human than the rest of us?

And there is still a large reservoir of political parties that owe their existence to Marxist ideas, especially in Europe.  They aren't going to give up power just because the Soviet Union failed.  Perhaps they may not talked publically about Marxist principles, but they support those issues and items that come out of their belief systems.

I believe that over time, this will settle down (as in fewer and fewer people will claim adherence to Marxist principles), but we are talking at least a generation, or two even.  Like any belief system, pockets may hold out for a long, long time.
I am now a bit confused because earlier you said that marxism was necessary to control the excesses of capitalism.  Now you say that soon no one will claim any adherence to marxists principles.

There's lots more, but that's the gist of it.

FirmKY

thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

FirmKY:

The question I asked was whether the institutions of higher learning had it right or wrong.

Your rather lengthy reply seems to indicate that your answer is yes the institutions of higher learning have it right and wrong.

So it would appear that I am still ignorant of your opinion.

thompson

thompson,

I don't think you can sum it up with a simple had it "right" or "wrong".

It's a process, an organic struggle of belief systems.  People will be people.

A "institution of higher learning" isn't a thing that can be right or wrong either individually or collectively.  Universities are composed of the people who make it up, and they don't speak with a single voice.

You can find people within just about any university who are affirmed Marxist.  You can find people at just about any university that aren't.

I just get the feeling you are fishing for me to say a specific thing.  Sorry that I can't.

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL:  thompsonx:

The question I asked was whether the institutions of higher learning had it right or wrong.
Your rather lengthy reply seems to indicate that your answer is yes the institutions of higher learning have it right and wrong.
So it would appear that I am still ignorant of your opinion.
thompson

Hello thompson,

The problem I have with debating most subjects is an interest in different sides or aspects of a given issue.  I read all sides of an issue, and what generally happens after that is I end up more confused about the issue than I was when I started.   I suspect this was one of the problems that I have always had.

I do not debate. I discuss.  Discussion leads to knowledge debate leads to arguement.

A prime example of this was being an anti-social, politician hating, government fearing, punk rocker in high school.  So for some insane reason, I decided to go to college to gain a degree studying the Vietnam War.  So I go and learn about one of the major nonsense episodes in United States history.  I learn different aspects of the issues.  I learn about Ho Chi Minh's struggle, and McCarthyism, and carpet bombing and napalm, Air America, Buddhist monks self-immolating (which I still think had a greater impact on the US leaving than any other single event in the war) etc.
I would agree that the zippo monks brought a great deal of attention to the conflict but I stand convinced that it was when middle class white boys started comming home in rubber sacks that stoped the war.  As long as that war (or any war) was fought by the lowest economic fraction of our country no one cared.

Then I start to realize that it was mostly the result of decisions made by people ignorant of different aspects of the system space they were trying to control.
I knew my psyche was seriously fractured when, in my senior year in college, I actually started to like and respect Nixon for what he did for this country.
What was it that you felt that he did good?
Studying the civil war in high school I learned that it was a noble struggle to end Slavery.  Then I study it in college and learn the war was 2 years into it when Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the areas revolting, and he did this only to get military aid from France and England. 
You did notice that the emancipation proclamation did not free any slaves in the north where it was still legal?
Today I read about some letters written between Jefferson and Adams in 1789 where they discussed the fact that the religious schism between the northern states and the southern states would eventually be a problem (possibly result in the breaking of the Union) for the United States.
I think that from the beginning  religion  was always a thorny knott to deal with for the founders.  If you read the federalist papers you will find that there were other... thornier... knotts that they had to deal with.  Having a full time military was a big one and of course there was the bill of rights...Hamilton felt it would empower the unwashed masses beyond their station.
I find the deeper I go down the rabbit hole, the more weird the view becomes.
Kinda like skydiving on a moonless night with no altimeter.....way too much fun but you know the ground is down there somewhere.
thompson

Just me, could be wrong, but there you go.

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

FirmKY:

You are absolutely correct.  I am fishing for you to explain what you ment by your clearly a disparaging  remark about academics and marxism.

Since you state that you can't I will take your word for it.

thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

FirmKY:

You are absolutely correct.  I am fishing for you to explain what you ment by your clearly a disparaging  remark about academics and marxism.

Since you state that you can't I will take your word for it.

thompson

If you thought it was "clearly" disparaging, why ask me? 

Nice set up, thompson.  For a while there, I thought you were actually serious about a discussion.

A little disappointed that I didn't just come out all self-righteous and make stupid blanket statements?

I guess you'll have to find your straw man somewhere else.  Life is generally just a little more complex and complicated than most blanket statements cover.

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

zippo monks
 

quote:



I actually started to like and respect Nixon for what he did for this country.

 

quote:


 
What was it that you felt that he did good?

quote:

quote:



Studying the civil war in high school I learned that it was a noble struggle to end Slavery.  Then I study it in college and learn the war was 2 years into it when Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the areas revolting, and he did this only to get military aid from France and England. 

 
You did notice that the emancipation proclamation did not free any slaves in the north where it was still legal?