Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Truth Hurts


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Truth Hurts Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 4:39:08 AM   
FangsNfeet


Posts: 3758
Joined: 12/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: saskslave

LotusSong:
quote:

Kinda like Glenn Beck.

If you have some proof that Glenn Beck has done on-air skits of shooting President Clinton in the head, I'd like to see it.  Same for Beck stealing $875,000 of funding from NYC inner-city children.

Btw, nice of CNN to hire a token conservative for their network.  Oh wait.  They stuck their token conservative on CNN Headline News, which gets even more dreadful ratings than CNN.  But remember:  it is Fox News that is biased.



Oh, it's Glenn Beck who I was thinking about. Beck and Franklin should have a show together like Hannity and Colms on Fox.

_____________________________

I'm Godzilla and you're Japan

(in reply to saskslave)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 8:57:03 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: BuxomGoddess321

Its not about Materialism. 



At first I thought you must be being ironic, especially coming from the most materialistic country in the world. US administrations have made no attempt to disguise that US access to 'material' resources is at the top of its foreign policy objectives. The US has started wars to win, protect and maintain access to other people's material resources.

The USA is not the only country to have done this, this is what the European empires were about. However, it is rather sickening when these countries pretend there is higher motives to their actions such as principled ideals.

Many people are motivated by their ideas of the world, the arts, humanitarianism etc. but when it comes down to the economy, the motivation is material gain. Why else would someone stand on a boring production line for 40 hours a week? Why else would someone want to reduce the amount of people standing on that production line? The main function of modern westerners as a group is to produce material wealth and the bulk of time and effort goes into that endeavour or the endeavour of securing material wealth and resources at the point of a gun.


This line of thought is almost purely Marxist.

Again, let me state my thesis in relation to Marxism: materialism (economic activity based explanations of human actions and society) are incorrect because they deny a totality of experience that occurs despite and outside of economic considerations.

julia has said that she doesn't accept the ideational view of human society either, and I'll agree with her to a large extent as well.  I may occasionally use the concept of "meme's" because it has some utility, but as theorized by Dawkins and others, it simply isn't sufficient to explain human actions and society, in my opinion.

These two denials of the most common views of human society puts me a little at odd with most people who wish to see the world in the black-and-white world of an either/or situation. 

My personal view (which I am still working out myself) is that human society and individuals can best be seen as the result of forces working from three separate areas: the material, the ideational, and the spiritual.

If you wanted to use more common terms, then human nature and society is based on economic considerations, on knowledge considerations and on religious considerations.  They all feed back and into each other.  Reliance on any one area is a partial explanation, and can be partially successful.  But not totally.  Economic or Marxist explanations are insufficient in and of themselves to explain human society.

I'm not sure that there is a single coherent theory that covers all three of these areas, but since I tend to be a fact-based thinker, I've been investigating evolutionary theory for clues and understanding as it seems to be the only "philosophical theory" of human societies that is fact based.

FirmKY

< Message edited by FirmhandKY -- 11/6/2006 8:59:02 AM >

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 11:45:57 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BuxomGoddess321

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Buxom,

"It is peoples' ideas of the world, that shape their economic base."

You're an anti-Marxists.

FirmKY


oh, thank you for clearing that up for me FirmKY.  And here I thought I was pro-dignity   :)   Reading this thread has been very educational....  Thank you all for sharing your thoughts on the subject, its very interesting.


Buxom, if these people are going to be sucking off the Taxpayers they should be required to be on Norplant, the birth control drug that's dispensed sub-cutaniously.
I used to feel "guilty" about being on a veteran's pension until I was out for a few years and saw all the layabouts on Sect. 8 housing, food stamps, free med, dental and free everything else kicking out kids like a Pez dispenser.
I was talking to one of these people once about 100 hour weeks and having the shit kicked out of us being in 30 foot seas doing rescues in the USCG and no sleep for two days and they just stared at me speechless.
The person "had a summer job once."

And you're right about that welfare mentality going down the generations. Two, three, four generations one after the other on some type of "Public Assistance."
I don't mind helping people out at all but being on welfare or any other type of Public Assistance shouldn't be  "permanent" or a lifestyle.
I've worked in soup kitchens many times volunteering and you'd be surprised at the number of people who'd drive up in nice cars talking on cell phones and looking for a free meal.

< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 11/6/2006 12:22:50 PM >

(in reply to BuxomGoddess321)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 12:00:12 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: BuxomGoddess321

Its not about Materialism. 



At first I thought you must be being ironic, especially coming from the most materialistic country in the world. US administrations have made no attempt to disguise that US access to 'material' resources is at the top of its foreign policy objectives. The US has started wars to win, protect and maintain access to other people's material resources.

The USA is not the only country to have done this, this is what the European empires were about. However, it is rather sickening when these countries pretend there is higher motives to their actions such as principled ideals.

Many people are motivated by their ideas of the world, the arts, humanitarianism etc. but when it comes down to the economy, the motivation is material gain. Why else would someone stand on a boring production line for 40 hours a week? Why else would someone want to reduce the amount of people standing on that production line? The main function of modern westerners as a group is to produce material wealth and the bulk of time and effort goes into that endeavour or the endeavour of securing material wealth and resources at the point of a gun.


This line of thought is almost purely Marxist.

Again, let me state my thesis in relation to Marxism: materialism (economic activity based explanations of human actions and society) are incorrect because they deny a totality of experience that occurs despite and outside of economic considerations.



Marxism doesn't deny the totality of human experience, capitalism does because it is capitalism that reduces human beings to a price/cost value. Marx merely explained the relationship between people and capital.

Capitalism encourages irrational religious thought for the reason Marx explains, it is the opium of the people. Capitalism's support of religion is similar to the reason why the church was successful in the first place, it promises redemption and reward in the after life. Reward in the after life is great for capitalists because it is cheap. You don't need material wealth in your coffin.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 12:30:18 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

ahhh ... you are making the original assertion ... but ... sure.  Name me a country in which the application of Marxist economic theory has lead to anything like what Marx predicted?

Anywhere?



I have made the point that while Marx had many theories which described a system space, (interaction between economics and politics) I have stated numerous times in this thread that the political / economic system he stated was inevitable has not occurred anywhere on the planet at this time, with the possible exception of small groupings in isolated settings.

To paraphrase that one more time, I have not actually heard of any country where the wresting of capital away from the hands of the few went to making the means of production under the control of the masses.

What typically happens is that the means of control and capital are wrested away from the few, then a new few rise up and establish their power base and retain control of capital and the means of production.

I find arguments between what constitutes a hard science and what constitutes a soft science to be relatively pointless.  History as a social science is the study of the behavior of humans in groups, which has millions upon millions of variables to take into consideration.  Whereas orbital mechanics tends to have dozens or hundreds of variables to take into consideration.  Within the simplicity of few variables and rigidly defined formulae, it is relatively simple to arrive at an answer everybody can agree on. 

I still do not understand your comment about my having a "Christian like" belief in Marxism.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 12:39:46 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

Marxism doesn't deny the totality of human experience, capitalism does because it is capitalism that reduces human beings to a price/cost value. Marx merely explained the relationship between people and capital


I would agree with that statement... everything is for sale in a capitalist world... Marx just noted this

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 12:56:36 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

I still do not understand your comment about my having a "Christian like" belief in Marxism.


Here is the most obvious similarity in your own words.
quote:

I have made the point that while Marx had many theories which described a system space, (interaction between economics and politics) I have stated numerous times in this thread that the political / economic system he stated was inevitable has not occurred anywhere on the planet at this time, with the possible exception of small groupings in isolated settings.

To paraphrase that one more time, I have not actually heard of any country where the wresting of capital away from the hands of the few went to making the means of production under the control of the masses.


You, or anyone who believes Marxism would create a Utopia, believe in something that is contrary to observation. A belief in something that can not be observed or tested is a theoretical. Believing in the theoretical is the scientific word which, when translated into religious dogma, is called faith. Faith in something not observable or which doesn't hold up as fact anytime it has been tested, is best defined as a religion.

Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, et al; with or without a deity, faith in something never witnessed and never occurring outside a very limited sampling is best described as a religion. After all, you wouldn't consider the the microcosm of a successful convent or seminary as proof that Catholicism is the one true religion. "Small groupings in isolated settings" are no more proof that Marxism would work when applied universally.

Now you can argue that Marxism has never been instited in it's 'true' form. But the contra argument would be it is not possible to do so; or it's outside the ability of humanity. At least without using brutal force to keep humanity in line with the dogma.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 1:07:41 PM   
BuxomGoddess321


Posts: 20
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
I've worked in soup kitchens many times volunteering and you'd be surprised at the number of people who'd drive up in nice cars talking on cell phones and looking for a free meal.


I used to be suprised when I was a bleeding heart liberal.  I have sat with my foster children outside juvenile court listening to people on public aide, with their public aide attorneys in tow, with their 7-11 children taken care of by other foster mothers, placing bets on their expensive cell phones for Monday night football, with their manicured nails and Prada glasses (one of my friends had a case where the bio mom had 22 kids; this woman has had over 150 foster children in her home, she is an Angel).  While I was paying MY attorney $240 an hour to wait for them to get off the damn phone.  Nothing suprises me any more.  I've had to pay babysitters to watch their children so I could be on time for meetings I drove to in my car (which I paid for) while they were picked up in a Taxi (which I, as a taxpayor, paid for) from a home (which Taxpayors paid for) and they STILL could not get there on time, some of them are never on time.  Even if their Social Worker picks them up.  I have worked at soup kitchens, too.  Some of the people are truly needy and grateful.  The babies are innocent.  But the majority walk around trashing the place and treat the volunteers like waiters and waitresses.  I make less then $30k a year because I do paid work part time. Ooooo I'm a big, bad Corporation thats going to take over the world. I am so materialistic in my dented 5 year old Toyota. They treat me like a criminal because I have a job and in their world, this is a BAD thing.  If people like me didn't pay taxes, they wouldn't have a crack pipe to smoke. Nope, nothing suprises me any more, popeye and you are so very right in your first hand observations....

I'd like to believe that people can take care of themselves if we allow them.  Only then will they develop the self esteem they need to be productive members of society, happy people, good parents and role models.  THAT is why I said it is not about materialism.  Someone took that ONE sentance out of context of a very long post I made explaining how I have seen generations of addiction, low self esteem, poor grades and bad relationships by people dependent on the system.  I do not think it is helping these people to keep them dependent, lazy and addicted.

< Message edited by BuxomGoddess321 -- 11/6/2006 1:17:14 PM >

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 1:25:05 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

ahhh ... you are making the original assertion ... but ... sure.  Name me a country in which the application of Marxist economic theory has lead to anything like what Marx predicted?

Anywhere?



I have made the point that while Marx had many theories which described a system space, (interaction between economics and politics) I have stated numerous times in this thread that the political / economic system he stated was inevitable has not occurred anywhere on the planet at this time, with the possible exception of small groupings in isolated settings.

To paraphrase that one more time, I have not actually heard of any country where the wresting of capital away from the hands of the few went to making the means of production under the control of the masses.

What typically happens is that the means of control and capital are wrested away from the few, then a new few rise up and establish their power base and retain control of capital and the means of production.

I find arguments between what constitutes a hard science and what constitutes a soft science to be relatively pointless.  History as a social science is the study of the behavior of humans in groups, which has millions upon millions of variables to take into consideration.  Whereas orbital mechanics tends to have dozens or hundreds of variables to take into consideration.  Within the simplicity of few variables and rigidly defined formulae, it is relatively simple to arrive at an answer everybody can agree on. 

I still do not understand your comment about my having a "Christian like" belief in Marxism.

Sinergy


Sinergy,

I still do not understand your comment about my having a "Christian like" belief in Marxism.
You must be misreading what I have said.  I don't believe I've ever said you had a "Christian like" belief in Marxism.  What I said was that your logical argument in defense of Marxism appeared to be very similiar to many Christian apologists defense of Christianity. 

Christian Apologists: "The reason for so much blood shed and destruction has apparently been caused by followers of Christian is because they (the followers) did not truly follow the teaching of Christian, therefore, it isn't Christianity's fault, but the fault of the imperfect people who claimed to be Christians."

Marxist Apologists: "The reason that Marxism hasn't worked in history, isn't because it's precepts are invalid, but only because no one has actually followed the precepts, regardless of the fact that they claimed to have.  Therefore, the principles expoused by Marx haven't been proven invalid, it's just that the followers haven't really used them."

To me, these logical arguments seem to be the same, and the very one you used in your ennumerative post about the places that Communism has been tried in the world.  You have seemingly repeated this same logical argument in the above post:
I have stated numerous times in this thread that the political / economic system he stated was inevitable has not occurred anywhere on the planet at this time, with the possible exception of small groupings in isolated settings.

To paraphrase that one more time, I have not actually heard of any country where the wresting of capital away from the hands of the few went to making the means of production under the control of the masses.
I take these sentences to mean that you do not believe that Soviet Russia, or any of the other Communist governments were actually "Marxist".

If that is indeed the argument you are making, I'd have to disagree with you.  Correct me if I am wrong, but one of the most important steps in a Marxist utopia was to be the gathering of all means of production under the control of the state, under the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with the "withering away" of that state once the proletariat had access to the means of production.

And there is your problem.  Gathering the means of production from the original owners did not result in either a dictatorship of the proletariat, or in a whithering away of the state.

What it actually did was change who controlled both the means of production, and the levers of state power.  You can blame Lenin and then later Stalin if you wish, but the problem is in a fundamental error in the appreciation of human nature in Marx and Engels theories.

This same "failure" has occured in every single society, commune or government in which the principles of Marxism has been tried.

It simply goes against human nature.  Marxism is an idealistic philosophy, based on what Marx and others would wish human nature to be, not what it actually is.

I find arguments between what constitutes a hard science and what constitutes a soft science to be relatively pointless.

uh ... why?

There is a major difference between opinions and measurable facts. (Although, I have some neat arguments in epistemology that "facts" don't exist. ) 

Much of social sciences is opinion based, not fact based, although there has been growing attempts to quantify "social sciences".  The basic problem is, I believe, that "social sciences" are equivalent to chemistry in the middle ages: it's really just alchemy.  We still do not know enough about the reality of psychology and of social dynamics to quantify it yet.  In other words, we are still trying to change lead into gold, just as Marx tried to change capitalism into a socialist utopia.

*thinks*

I'm not sure if my point agrees with yours or not.  I think we are saying the same things about social sciences.

FirmKY



_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 1:33:33 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline 		Buxom,

I believe you are talking about me, as the person "taking something out of context".

In reality, I don't think you understood that I was agreeing with you.  Marxism says that when people have all the "necessities", then they will work, and contribute to the greater good.  This is called Materalism.  If you don't believe this, then you are not a "Materalist", not a Marxist, and therefore an "Anti-Marxist".

Which is what I said.

FirmKY


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to BuxomGoddess321)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 1:45:33 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

Marxism doesn't deny the totality of human experience, capitalism does because it is capitalism that reduces human beings to a price/cost value. Marx merely explained the relationship between people and capital


I would agree with that statement... everything is for sale in a capitalist world... Marx just noted this


I see a basic dichotomy here, with your belief in Marxism.

Marxist doctrine sees everything in terms of material i.e. economic value, doesn't it?  But you seem to be saying that capitalism does the same thing, and is therefore ... wrong?  bad?  objectionable?

I'm confused.

And, I have to say, I think in meatcleaver and your appreciation of Capitalism, that you are both straw-maning the issue.  If you want to argue Adam Smith, that's one thing, but Adam Smith isn't the last word in capitalist theory.  Google "Austrian school of economics".  Two men in particular take on the Marxist and Socialist viewpoint and demolish it: Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich August von Hayek.

I consider them "my heros'.  *blushes*

FirmKY


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 2:11:44 PM   
BuxomGoddess321


Posts: 20
Status: offline 		FirmKY,

I went back and looked ~ it was meatclever.  I know you were agreeing with me, Sir xo

Basically his theory is that people only work for material gain and I find that to be the cry of the under achiever.  My opinion is that work is good for self esteem, personal growth, the soul and to provide a role model to your children to not be a lazy addicted loser who sits on their ass watching paternity test on nonsense TV, being uneducated, etc. I do volunteer work for my soul, not for money.  In a capitolist sociaty, if you are not happy on a production line you can go to school and learn to do something more enlightened.  You can provide a better future for your children.  Thats what I did.  Cleaned toilets during the day and studied Accounting at night.  I was born in Huntington Park, California.  Look it up.  Right next to Watts in South Central LA.  Lived there during the riots of the 60s and watched it burn from my front porch.  There is NO excuse in this country to not thrive.  My friend from Vietnam calls this the "Land of Milk and Honey".  Try living in Vietnam. I have a friend from China also who is damn happy to be here.  Anyone can make it here if they aren't lazy.  I'll say it again.  Me and my clients work hard and take pride in what we do.  That is why we own businesses.  I'm not rich and that is not my motivation, or I wouldn't volunteer my time.  Every attorney and accountant I work with does pro bono work. They are the over taxed Corporations liberals hate and none of them are wealthy.  People are very misinformed about what really is going on except in the 2% of the billionaire evil greedy who are making the sound bites. They will exist in any type of system because human beings aren't perfect.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 2:12:50 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

And, I have to say, I think in meatcleaver and your appreciation of Capitalism, that you are both straw-maning the issue.  If you want to argue Adam Smith, that's one thing, but Adam Smith isn't the last word in capitalist theory.  Google "Austrian school of economics".  Two men in particular take on the Marxist and Socialist viewpoint and demolish it: Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich August von Hayek.

I consider them "my heros'.  *blushes*

FirmKY



When Marx and Engels were writing, children were working in mines and factories for 16 hour plus a day for less than loose change, as were women because they were cheaper than male labour. In the new cities food was contaminated for reasons of profiteering. The death rate in a typical industrial town was on par with death rates in famine. Epidemics were rife because of the lack of sanitation in the new towns and the appaling build quaulity of the gerry built houses in the new cities. The poor had nothing in their lives but work and a few hours sleep. This was what Marx and Engels were observing, the brutal reality of laissez faire capitalism. Adam Smith wrote about the theory of capitalist economics. He didn't live to see the absolute brutality of capitalism left unregulated and the greed of the capitalists which put profit before human life.

Look at the behaviour of western corporations in the third world, their practices are little different from Victorian capitalists. Slave wages and a total disregard for human life and any improvement on that is because of people with a conscience in the west publicizing their activities. Corporate behaviour has been likened to that of a psychopath for these reasons.

I'm not building a strraw man. The reason the majority of people in the west live a decent life is because of social activists and not because of capitalism. Capitalism has had to compromise in the west but look how it behaves in the third world and you will see how it would behave in the west given the chance. It is capitalism that sees materialism in all things and capitalism that sees humans as a source of profit or loss and acts towards them accordingly.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 2:34:01 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Now you can argue that Marxism has never been instited in it's 'true' form. But the contra argument would be it is not possible to do so; or it's outside the ability of humanity. At least without using brutal force to keep humanity in line with the dogma.


I'm not sure that is true, capitalism has to drastically change soon in order for us to survive and much of Marxist philosophy is still valid though of course much is redundant for it was written for contemporary conditions. For sure the powers in our society will not let it happen because it is against their material interests and at the moment they can seduce the masses with  the carrot that they too can be a success (even if it is an impossibility). As long as people swallow their propaganda hook line and sinker, they don't have to brutally repress the mindless population. But let's be honest. If by some miracle the American public voted in a Marxist majority in this weeks elections, within 24 hours there would be a coup with troops and tanks on the street.

A few Chomsky quotes. The first is a very Marxist idea.

Personally, I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions of society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control.

The United States is unusual among the industrial democracies in the rigidity of the system of ideological control - "indoctrination," we might say - exercised through the mass media.

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while maintaining privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

“The country was founded on the principle that the primary role of government is to protect property from the majority, and so it remains.”


“The principles are clear and explicit. The free market is fine for the third world and its growing counterpart at home. Mothers with dependent children can be sternly lectured on the need for self-reliance, but not dependent executives and investors, please. For them, the welfare state must flourish.”

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 11/6/2006 2:35:27 PM >

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 3:04:11 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		He does not believe in Utopian societies Merc, nor do I. I also do not believe unbridled capitalism is sustainable. The whole premise of your post is off due to assuming things about Sinergy's beliefs that do not exist, nor has he argued such on this thread. I would not state this to be so, but that we have argued utopian philosophy and this is his main problem with Marx.

One can take part of what someone said and not adopt every part of it hook line and sinker. Take evolution for example, Darwin did not know about DNA or the process by which genetic traits are gifted to offspring to give them certain advantages. Although he did not know these things, they tended to support his larger theory.

I will say this, Marx had some of his predictions wrong about the future course of events that he hoped to see happen. He did not study small scale societies in depth, he relied heavily on European history, but by and large a lot of what he noted was true. People are dehumanized when used like cogs in a wheel, capitalists will take the surplus value from the labor of their employees as much as they possibly can to create more profit for themselves. This does lead to a feeling of alienation among the worker bees of a society, and capitalist societies will use people's beliefs to norm these behaviors into being accepted by society at large whether in the form of religion or other cultural beliefs about pragmatic people lifting themselves up by their boot straps to achieve some dream.

Now you can make what you will of what I just stated, but Marx wrote about far more than just people redistributing wealth, to discount his huge body of work because of his future predictions were off does not negate much of what he said

firmhandky said that he did not believe material circumstances outweigh ideational ones, well I would say that is easy to say if you are born in a society that ponders such questions over the internet... move all of you to a remote location, make you walk 5 miles just for wood, and an additional mile for water and be born into a village without a school, and perhaps you may see how our material surroundings shape our existence....




< Message edited by juliaoceania -- 11/6/2006 3:06:44 PM >

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 3:54:33 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

But let's be honest. If by some miracle the American public voted in a Marxist majority in this weeks elections, within 24 hours there would be a coup with troops and tanks on the street.


MC,
Voting in a Marxist majority would require a Marxist majority, assuming the military is still made up of people not robots, they would be part of the majority making the decision to change.

Whatever happens on election day tomorrow, a majority will have made the decision. For those of us not wearing tin foil hats, that will be enough. The US has turned over the administration many times since it's inception, its never be accompanied by military coup by the losing party.

Why be so defeatist of a position even after assuming its popularity by a plurality of the voting public?

I'll give the answer most often given by the losing side; "the people don't know what they voted for.". It's why issues lost in local elections such as, abortion, same sex marriage, and most recently eminent domain; are now battles fought in the court versus a consensus of the voting public. Lawyers, and the judicial system have gone beyond their intent of being judges of law, to makers of law. That was never the purpose of the segmented government as drawn up in the Constitution.

Back to the issue of Marxism v. Capitalism.

quote:

julia: I also do not believe unbridled capitalism is sustainable.
Why not? If it fails let it. But it should not fail under the weight of supporting those who don't take advantage of it. It should not be considered a failure because too many choose to live off the entitlement programs provided by the excess profits of capitalism.

You say Marx' prediction were off. Were any of them accurate? I don't discount any of his work in theory. Results prove it's not practical, not my opinion or yours. If it didn't work in the closed systems of the post WWII world how can it succeed today?

I assume nothing about Sinergy's beliefs. I'd love to meet the man and you someday, but I was simply replying to his written words. That's all any of us can do. I made the analogy of faith, because it seemed most relevant. You can't argue against anyone's faith. If his, or anyones belief that Marx presented a model that would work given the proper circumstances, I can never convince him otherwise and wouldn't attempt to do so. However, that belief takes faith against the evidence of historical failure.

People are "dehumanized when used like cogs in a wheel"? Being dehumanized to me is waiting with your hand out for a government to supply you basic living needs. Working is work or it would be called play or relaxation. Would you prefer working for yourself or for a government?

There is already an ongoing redistribution of wealth. I actually thought that was part of the Democratic platform. Currently at least 40% of my work effort goes to the government. The 60% I get to have isn't even all mine, because everything I buy is taxed again. If I somehow manage to save some and let the bank use it to fund other peoples mortgages, car loans, etc. the interest I make on that is taxed again. When I die if I've managed to save too much, those assets that managed to be accumulated will again be taxed. Yet, I define the evil capitalist.

Hate to bring up the reference, but one of the few things that bothered me about the 'Star-Trek' universe, is that they never explained how money entered in their 'Utopian' world. They allude to capitalism, but represent a world where no man needed to toil in a job he didn't enjoy. Well, it's my opinion based on observation, that given the opportunity, most humans idea of toiling at something they enjoy is sitting on the beach having a cool beverage in the company of like minded others. Where can I go to do that while having my food, clothing, and housing provided by the beneficial government, Marx or other, now or in the 23rd century?

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 4:08:56 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

Why not? If it fails let it. But it should not fail under the weight of supporting those who don't take advantage of it. It should not be considered a failure because too many choose to live off the entitlement programs provided by the excess profits of capitalism.


Not all people that are affected by capitalism live in countries that have "social programs". In fact the vast majority of humanity does not live in a country that has "social programs". Capitalism is unsustainable for the world, we are just living off the resources so we do not see that... myopic vision

quote:

You say Marx' prediction were off. Were any of them accurate? I don't discount any of his work in theory. Results prove it's not practical, not my opinion or yours. If it didn't work in the closed systems of the post WWII world how can it succeed today


I would say because you have no concept of what I am talking about in reference to materialism and Marxists views of capitalism that have evolved since Marx you prefer to engage in what Marx predicted instead of his analysis of the immorality of the capitalist system.

quote:

You can't argue against anyone's faith. If his, or anyones belief that Marx presented a model that would work given the proper circumstances, I can never convince him otherwise and wouldn't attempt to do so. However, that belief takes faith against the evidence of historical failure.


I would invite you to actually read something that Marx wrote besides this http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm


quote:

People are "dehumanized when used like cogs in a wheel"? Being dehumanized to me is waiting with your hand out for a government to supply you basic living needs. Working is work or it would be called play or relaxation. Would you prefer working for yourself or for a government?



Have you ever worked a low wage production job that would not pay your bills... I have. I find both scenarios dehumanizing, but basically arguing that paying people the value of their work is somehow dehumanizing I would strongly disagree with that. I believe that anyone that works a 40 hour week should make enough to support a wife and two kids in addition to being able to have a vacation once a year, a home and health insurance... it really is not asking much

quote:

There is already an ongoing redistribution of wealth. I actually thought that was part of the Democratic platform. Currently at least 40% of my work effort goes to the government. The 60% I get to have isn't even all mine, because everything I buy is taxed again. If I somehow manage to save some and let the bank use it to fund other peoples mortgages, car loans, etc. the interest I make on that is taxed again. When I die if I've managed to save too much, those assets that managed to be accumulated will again be taxed. Yet, I define the evil capitalist.



Yes, corporate welfare is alive and well... social welfare not what we are sinking the vast majority of our tax dollars into. In fact social security gets raped continually.. and that is why it will not be self supporting in the future. We give far more money to private industry than we do to poor people...

quote:

They allude to capitalism, but represent a world where no man needed to toil in a job he didn't enjoy. Well, it's my opinion based on observation, that given the opportunity, most humans idea of toiling at something they enjoy is sitting on the beach having a cool beverage in the company of like minded others. Where can I go to do that while having my food, clothing, and housing provided by the beneficial government, Marx or other, now or in the 23rd century


if the system that exists today is the best we can do, that is fucking shameful.. I do not use the "f" word much, but I am looking at this from a global view, not an American one.

quote:

I'd love to meet the man and you someday,


Both of us would like that too...lol

< Message edited by juliaoceania -- 11/6/2006 4:10:19 PM >

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 4:17:06 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Whatever happens on election day tomorrow, a majority will have made the decision. For those of us not wearing tin foil hats, that will be enough. The US has turned over the administration many times since it's inception, its never be accompanied by military coup by the losing party.


That's because all parties are capitalist. The choice in most western countries is capitalist and capitalist with slight changes of emphasis. There is never a choice between socio-economic systems which would give a real choice rather than the fata morgana we call democracy. It will be interesting to see what the reaction of the capitalist establishment will be if green politics takes off in a big way.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 4:33:42 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

I see a basic dichotomy here, with your belief in Marxism.

Marxist doctrine sees everything in terms of material i.e. economic value, doesn't it?  But you seem to be saying that capitalism does the same thing, and is therefore ... wrong?  bad?  objectionable?

I'm confused.


Marx noting that the means of production, or the type of economic base that a society used as having a directional pull on how people would interact with each other is not ascribing value. I do not understand what you are saying at all. Frankly it makes no sense to me, can you clarify?

Marx was pretty blatant about how he felt about capitalism being immoral because it steals the value added to products from those who gave value to them

Read about alienation... it is very clear how Marx thought in regard to workers being alienated from the intrinsic value of what they do with their hands by a large compant mass producing the products... the pride in workmanship begins to suffer under these conditions because the worker has no pride in his product.

Take any management course (as I have) and it is like How to Manipulate Your Workers 101. I have always thought that the reason why is because those who study worker psychology have discovered that alienation is a huge problem in the work force

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: Truth Hurts - 11/6/2006 4:39:40 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

firmhandky said that he did not believe material circumstances outweigh ideational ones, well I would say that is easy to say if you are born in a society that ponders such questions over the internet... move all of you to a remote location, make you walk 5 miles just for wood, and an additional mile for water and be born into a village without a school, and perhaps you may see how our material surroundings shape our existence....



Well, that's kinda what I said, but not exactly.

What I actually said was:

1. I don't think that the "foundations of reality lay in the material base of economics".  I think economics is an important, even critical aspect of human society and reality, but not the determinative. 

2. julia has said that she doesn't accept the ideational view of human society either, and I'll agree with her to a large extent as well.

3. My personal view (which I am still working out myself) is that human society and individuals can best be seen as the result of forces working from three separate areas: the material, the ideational, and the spiritual.

If you wanted to use more common terms, then human nature and society is based on economic considerations, on knowledge considerations and on religious considerations.  They all feed back and into each other.  Reliance on any one area is a partial explanation, and can be partially successful.  But not totally.  Economic or Marxist explanations are insufficient in and of themselves to explain human society.

And, julia, I don't accept the attempt to make the discussion a matter of "you haven't suffered enough".  Just to let you know, I walked 10 miles to school, in 3 feet of snow, uphill, both ways.  It's a real pain. 

But seriously, I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs plays a role here, I'll give you that.  When you are worried about keeping a roof over your head, and where your next meal is coming from, it's difficult to consider your other needs at times.

But not impossible, and commonly done throughout human history (and as you have pointed out, even today in some places).

Back in the days even before "capitalism" and "marxism", there were plenty of peasants who had a rich spiritual life, a rich social life, and life's physical necessities without the help of either system.
  • A life without material comforts and necessities is hard, difficult and brutal.
  • A life without knowledge is short, confusing, and stunted.
  • A life without a spiritual side is small, demeaning, and cruel.
Without arguing a lot of the specific "bylaws" and "principles" of either Marxism or Capitalism, I've really got only one question to try to make my point.

Since the invention of both of these systems, where has life gotten better, the most, and the fastest?  Is this just an "historical accident"?

***

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I also do not believe unbridled capitalism is sustainable.


What, exactly is "unbridled capitalism"? 

I'd respectfully ask that you at least review the Austrian School of Economics, and the two men I mentioned earlier (which I guess means that I'll have to go back and re-read too, as it has been years and years since I had a good "Marxists vs Capitalist" argument!)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

One can take part of what someone said and not adopt every part of it hook line and sinker.

Take evolution for example, Darwin did not know about DNA or the process by which genetic traits are gifted to offspring to give them certain advantages. Although he did not know these things, they tended to support his larger theory.


True, but you have self-identified as a "Marxist".  Perhaps a neo-Marxist?  Or "post-Modern Marxist" would be more accurate, and give a better flavor to your beliefs?

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Now you can make what you will of what I just stated, but Marx wrote about far more than just people redistributing wealth, to discount his huge body of work because of his future predictions were off does not negate much of what he said


Ahh ... yes, true, I'd guess, but isn't the heart of soul of his theories the very fact that man is a materialistically determinative animal?  That the path to a more perfect society was through the redistribution of wealth?

Isn't that the "gold standard" and heart of Marxist belief?

And you seem to be agreeing that his theories relating to the cause and effects of redistribution of the means of production, and of material assets has been proven ... unreliable.

What's left (your words)?
  • People are dehumanized when used like cogs in a wheel,
  •  ... capitalists will take the surplus value from the labor of their employees as much as they possibly can to create more profit for themselves
  •  ... feeling of alienation among the worker bees of a society
  •  ... capitalist societies will use people's beliefs ...  whether in the form of religion or other cultural beliefs about pragmatic people lifting themselves up by their boot straps to achieve some dream
Now, surprisingly, I won't argue against any of these propositions.  I think there is some validity to all of them, and perhaps other points that Marx brought out.

But what is missing is the heart of Marxism, which is how to address these problems.  The "scientific" part of Marxism.  These things left are philosophical and social observations, but no longer valid assumptions in a logical and reasoned, scientific method and plan to effect change in society.

I think that, if you dug a little into doctrines of the Catholic Church, and other Christian denominations you would see that these exact same concerns are represented in Christianity.  As a matter of fact, I believe that the congruency between these Marxist observations, and Church beliefs is one of the reason for the sometimes partnership between an athestic belief system like Marxism/Communism and Christianity.

And why, I think that the  spiritual aspect of humanity is important in a society, and in mankinds' future.  Marxism is not only unneeded, it is antithetical to spirituality in any other way.  As a system of belief, it tries to replace the spiritual with a materialistic world view that has been provenly discredited.

dunno, maybe I'm out in "left" field on this, but it seems to hang together in my head ok.

FirmKY


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Truth Hurts Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094