quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

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.

quote:



You,

quote:



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.

quote:

quote:



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.

quote:

quote:


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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

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 company 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

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

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:

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

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

Would you mind sourcing this assertion?

A few definitions would help as well:

1. "social program"
2.  "vast majority of humanity"
3.  "affected by capitalism"

And, as an aside ... why do you think "capitalism is unsustainable"?

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

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 do not "believe" in Marxism, I am a Marxist in that I see value in his observations about economics. I do not reduce all of humanity to economic factors, but I do think that Marx was correct in his observations about capitalist social structures.

• Post 86: ... that is only the first part of what has formed my Marxist ideas.
  
• Post 96:  Sinergy is not the Marxist... I am..

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I have said repeatedly that Materialism is one tool among many in my social science tool shed, and for me it is an important one to understanding the human condition. I will research those individuals that you recommended very soon, please read Jared Diamond's books to understand modern materialism.. it has NOT been discredited. Jared Diamond is just the latest in a series of researchers that have used interdisciplinary theoretical constructs to understand why things are the way they are. I think you would be much impressed with his work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I would be curious to know who has discredited materialism? Why aren't the rest of my peers aware of this? You make this sound as though it is a blanket statement. I can assure you that better minds than either of ours still embrace it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I take these sentences to mean that you do not believe that Soviet Russia, or any of the other Communist governments were actually "Marxist".

quote:



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.

quote:



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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

And, as an aside ... why do you think "capitalism is unsustainable"?

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

And, as an aside ... why do you think "capitalism is unsustainable"?

FirmKY

"On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everybody drops to zero" 
         Tyler Durden, Fight Club.

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

"Reinterpreted." Is that like revisionist history?
Nostradamas was "reinterpreted" too after 9/11.
Can you imagine the "philosophers" going over his quatraines on Sept 12th, 2001?
"Hey! You guys quiet down, I'm the "Reinterpreter" here."
"YUP, there it is!" We missed it before!"
"New city,........fire in the sky,...............yup, he got it!"
Why do they always "get it" after the fact? 
And not before.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

"Reinterpreted." Is that like revisionist history?
Nostradamas was "reinterpreted" too after 9/11.
Can you imagine the "philosophers" going over his quatraines on Sept 12th, 2001?
"Hey! You guys quiet down, I'm the "Reinterpreter" here."
"YUP, there it is!" We missed it before!"
"New city,........fire in the sky,...............yup, he got it!"
Why do they always "get it" after the fact? 
And not before.

All history is revised by every generation and when new facts come to light. Are we still supposed to accept that Ramasis II still won the Hittites when we now know that the Hittites won Ramasis II? You are making a mistake if you think that history is fact because most history is written by the victors for their own ends. The American revolution is interpreted a lot different in Britain where it was a minor conflict in a larger war between Britain, France and Spain than it is in America where it is seen as having great importance. It is also seen more as a defeat to the French rather than to the colonists.

Philosophy should be seen as a tool and it will be interpreted and its applications will be different in each historical era if it still has something worthwhile to say, otherwise it will be forgotten. Marxism has not been forgotten because much of it is still valid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I take these sentences to mean that you do not believe that Soviet Russia, or any of the other Communist governments were actually "Marxist".

You understand me correctly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I dont even think they were Communist, let alone Marxist.

I am assuming you understand the difference between communism and marxism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

This is in keeping with my comments that the United States is not actually a democracy, regardless of the inane drivel spewed by Monkeyboy and Rush Limbaugh, et al.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:



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.

Which is actually the point I was making. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:



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

There are any number of measurable facts in social sciences.  The problem is that the complexity of the subject, and the sheer number of data points, and the interrelation between these data points, is not something which we are currently able to understand and fully study.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Let me give you an analogy.  In physics, there is a basic principle that two objects cannot occupy the same space in the same time.  Correct?

In the human mind, two objects can occupy the same space in the same time.

Does this mean that physics is wrong?  Does it mean that the human mind is wrong?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

As I have stated, in the 15th century it was assumed that objects burned because of a substance known as "phlogiston."  This was later discovered empirically, when the means of observing the behavior of matter was developed, to be incorrect.

People wondered why elephants turned towards water and food sources found by other elephants 10-15 miles away.  People tended to think that elephants must be telepathic.  Then some joker / genius recorded extremely low frequency sound waves, which travel massive distances, and discovered that elephants have their own form of internet chat rooms going on.

The fact that human beings do not know how to quantify history or sociology or psychology or anthropology per our understanding of the use of the scientific method does not, to me, correlate that these subjects are not science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

It simply means our means of analysis have not developed to that point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I personally never tire of learning about things I didnt understand before, and people who think they know everything, and the human race is at some pinnacle of understanding which will never be risen above,  never ceases to amuse me.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Three points:

1. While some of what you say about history is true, the fact is that the American interpretation of the Revolutionary war seems to be more accurate on the world stage, than your interpretation of British interpretations of the Revolutionary war.

The American War of Independence was an episode in what Churchill called the first world war between the British, French and Spanish empires. A war that bankrupted the Spanish, the French retired wounded and the British went on to win one of the biggest empires in history. The British were pretty half hearted about the war in the American colonies, considering the colonists British. The war in the colonies has been likened to Britain's Vietnam, no support at home, no strategy and no idea what to do with the place should it have won. The war only has significance because the USA went on to be a world superpower, at the time it didn't have much significance and was a welcome release to the British, the colonies (even before the war) was a financial drain on the British treasury. As for it being a revolution, the leaders of the 'revolution' were not trying to overturn the socio-economic system of the colonies but to gain power of the current socio-economic system. They wanted independence and self determination.

2.  I'm glad you admit that Marxism is a philosophy.  And not a science.  I prefer to think of it as a belief system.

It's a philosophy. All philosophy can become a belief system if you adhere to it so much it becomes an ideology. Any sensible person would use it as an intellectual tool.

3.  Tell me, what parts of Marxism are "still valid"?

His analysis of capitalism and the relationship between people and capital holds true and the fact that capitalism puts a monetary value on all things including human life holds true. His analysis that real power is in materialism and those who hold and control the material wealth hold the power. You just have to look at the USA and its position in the world to see that and the USA's concern of both the growth of China's material wealth which will also means China's power in the world.

FirmKY

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Three points:

1. While some of what you say about history is true, the fact is that the American interpretation of the Revolutionary war seems to be more accurate on the world stage, than your interpretation of British interpretations of the Revolutionary war.

The American War of Independence was an episode in what Churchill called the first world war between the British, French and Spanish empires. A war that bankrupted the Spanish, the French retired wounded and the British went on to win one of the biggest empires in history. The British were pretty half hearted about the war in the American colonies, considering the colonists British. The war in the colonies has been likened to Britain's Vietnam, no support at home, no strategy and no idea what to do with the place should it have won. The war only has significance (1) because the USA went on to be a world superpower, at the time it didn't have much significance and was a welcome release to the British, the colonies (even before the war) was a financial drain on the British treasury. As for it being a revolution, the leaders of the 'revolution' were not trying to overturn the socio-economic system of the colonies but to gain power of the current socio-economic system. (2) They wanted independence and self determination.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

2.  I'm glad you admit that Marxism is a philosophy.  And not a science.  I prefer to think of it as a belief system.

It's a philosophy. All philosophy can become a belief system if you adhere to it so much it becomes an ideology. Any sensible person would use it as an intellectual tool.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

3.  Tell me, what parts of Marxism are "still valid"?

His analysis of capitalism and the relationship between people and capital holds true and the fact that capitalism puts a monetary value on all things including human life holds true. His analysis that real power is in materialism and those who hold and control the material wealth hold the power. You just have to look at the USA and its position in the world to see that and the USA's concern of both the growth of China's material wealth which will also means China's power in the world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Three points:

1. While some of what you say about history is true, the fact is that the American interpretation of the Revolutionary war seems to be more accurate on the world stage, than your interpretation of British interpretations of the Revolutionary war.

The American War of Independence was an episode in what Churchill called the first world war between the British, French and Spanish empires. A war that bankrupted the Spanish, the French retired wounded and the British went on to win one of the biggest empires in history. The British were pretty half hearted about the war in the American colonies, considering the colonists British. The war in the colonies has been likened to Britain's Vietnam, no support at home, no strategy and no idea what to do with the place should it have won. The war only has significance (1) because the USA went on to be a world superpower, at the time it didn't have much significance and was a welcome release to the British, the colonies (even before the war) was a financial drain on the British treasury. As for it being a revolution, the leaders of the 'revolution' were not trying to overturn the socio-economic system of the colonies but to gain power of the current socio-economic system. (2) They wanted independence and self determination.

1. Hence, the American belief that the Revolutionary War was significant, and what I meant.

I merely said it was not significant at the time and it would have remained insignificant if it wasn't for many subsequent events such as the policy 'manifest destiny' and the Mexican wars and the forging of a continental empire. I suppose it was significant in being the first epiode of many events up to WWII after which the US became a world superpower.

2.  Hence, the "Declaration of Independence" based on self-rule and self-determination.

Well for the founding fathers it did, though for 90% + of the colonists I doubt it made little significant difference since 90% of the new citizens weren't allowed to vote.


to think of it as a belief system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

3.  Tell me, what parts of Marxism are "still valid"?

His analysis of capitalism and the relationship between people and capital holds true and the fact that capitalism puts a monetary value on all things including human life holds true. His analysis that real power is in materialism and those who hold and control the material wealth hold the power. You just have to look at the USA and its position in the world to see that and the USA's concern of both the growth of China's material wealth which will also means China's power in the world.