|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/8/2006 12:23:13 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Unlike you, I'm not a zero-sum game kinda guy.
I am? Cool.
That's certainly what you seem to be saying, yes.
Do you know the meaning of "zero sum games"?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Nor am I particularly enamored with repartee that attempts to make points on the other side by attributing to them, beliefs and points that they didn't make, especially in a serious discussion.
Didnt you just attribute to me beliefs and points I did not make in a serious discussion?
No. You stated what you believe. I identified it. It's an area for discussion that has bearing on the difference in underlying belief structures between people who are attracted to Marxist ideals, and people who are attracted to capitalist ideas.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
The point you are making about things you are not enamored by other people doing is noted.
In any event. I have some understanding of Marxism and Communism, but more from a historical perspective (which would deal with what actually happened when people attempted to implement it) rather than a theoretical perspective.
While I am not really qualified to debate the theoretical constructs and abstractions of Marxism, there are things I am qualified to state.
This is called an attempt to "have your cake and eat it too", I'm afraid.
By claiming some sort of "historical knowledge" but lack of "theoretical" knowledge of Marxism, you are able to make claims without the benefit of proof.
If you do not understand to some degree the "theoretical constructs and abstractions" of Marxism, then how can you make claims of either its efficiency, suitability of purpose, or ability to succeed (not to mention it's historical record)?
What you have done throughout this discussion is to duck and avoid my questions and responses and respond without any serious depth. Mostly you come back with snide, and logically flawed statements that often seem to have no bearing on the issue at hand, other than (it appears to me) to try to make it appear as if I am making claims that I'm not, and that your brillant understanding is so far above mine that it's really painful for you to condescend to even talk with me.
Repeating ad infinitum your claims about the lack of rigor in social sciences (which is an issue that I first brought up) as if I am making dubious claims based on my reliance of poorly understood studies is a perfect example.
To me, it appeared as if it was the only way you can discount the facts of history, and is the only way you can rebut or respond to me. ("You just don't understaaannnd!")
Your fallacious redefinition of what "Marxism" is from a historical perspective - in order to make the claim that "Marxism hasn't been proven false, because it has never really, truly been tried" - is another example of your convoluted reasoning and painful attempt at avoidance of historical fact.
I can claim that "elephants" can fly, if I define an "elephant" as a small, feathered avian that lays eggs and nests in trees. A logically correct argument, but totally specious.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
1) Democracy, as originally defined by Plato and stated to be practiced in the United States, does not exist now and has never existed anywhere in recorded history. The United States has always been a Representative Republic.
I am well aware of the political differences between a "pure democracy" and a "representative republic" thank you. I often have to correct others as well, when they make this mistake.
But what does this have to do with Marxism?
I asked you this question several posts back, where you said (for perhaps the second or third time) that democracy simply doesn't exist, and can never work. I even asked you about Marx's take on democracy, which apparently he did believe in, but you simply ignored my point.
This is yet another example of your faulty reasoning and issue avoidance.
I believe (and this is simply a guess, because you are never quite clear enough to make it anything else) that you are attempting to say that somehow, since there has never been an "ideal democracy", that this validates your belief that there has never been an "ideal" Marxist society either. and that this allows you to stand on your claim that Marxism hasn't been pretty much disproven.
I'm not sure that follows.
No, let me be clear. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
2) Communism, (1) as defined in the Communist Manifesto, does not exist now and has never been realized anywhere in recorded history. There are various theories why this is the case, although the one I tend to follow is that Communism, where tried, was implemented in an agrarian society (Russia, Cambodia, etc) and (2) Communism was intended for a post industrial society.
(2) uh ... Communism was intended for a "post industrial society"? Can you source that for me in Marx's work, somewhere?
***
(1) Well, I don't think I ever tried to pick and choose which parts of Marxian ideology you had to choose to debate me on (as a matter of fact, didn't Marx himself later repudiate large parts of the Manifesto? After all, if he did, then that would be a historical fact, and one you should be familiar with, correct?).
I think I was pretty clear in asking you and others to give me your definitions, your sources and your beliefs, rather than going back and quoting different works of Marx myself. Which I would, when and if your beliefs of what "Marxism" actually is, differs from what he actually said.
Your "various theories" of why there has never been a Communist society as defined by Marx doesn't seem to include the possibility that it's because the theories simply don't work. They have, at their core, an incorrect understanding of human psychology. The big hole is his theory is "self interest". Marxist theory believes that once an individual's personal needs are met, that he will willlingly and happily provide his labor for the benefit of all of society without any further encouragment or reward.
This is possible, I suppose, assuming that other social factors are at work, primarily a sense of morality, ethics and spirituality that encourages such things, but, unfortunately these type of non-economic motivations often come from the very thing that Marx's throws out in his theory: religion.
Another big hole, and the second of the two legs of my theory of human society that I've mentioned several times, but which you have ignored.
Your accepted belief that Marxist theory hasn't worked because it was tried in agrarian societies is an explanation that has been proposed many years ago, by many other Marxist apologist (and, make no mistake, that is exactly what you are).
So, tell me ... why have only agrarian societies attempted Marxist theories? Oh, wait, let me see if I can anticipate your response:
1. The big bad, evil US of A has used it military and economic power to suppress it in non-agrarian societies and
2. The big, bad capitalist in the world have actively worked against it.
Well .. the problem I have with this, is within Marx's own theories. Does not his "scientific" theory posit that a class stuggle is inevitable, between the capital owning class and the workers? And that capitalism must result in the revolution of the proleteriat? And that from this, will arise the dictatorship of the proletariat, and once the means of production are in their hands, that the state will wither away, and people will then live in a "true" and peaceful democracy?
Has this happened? No.
But ... but .... Marx said it must!
Oh, wait ... those crafty capitalist ... they have deceived the workers ... they have made accomodations and suborned many workers who then "work against their class" ....
Doesn't it just seem, from a purely Gordian's knot perspective that you are piling up excuse after excuse and rationalization after rationalization?
Because, if Marxism is "true", none of this should matter, should it?
But, if it does matter, this means that Marxism is - at the least - incomplete.
So, who should complete it? Lenin? Stalin? Mao? Trotsky? Castro? You?
So, there you have it. Either Marxism is correct as written, and all your excuses about why it hasn't happened are specious and false or Marxism is incomplete and has flaws, and must be adjusted to fit reality.
If you accept it has flaws ... what are those flaws? I've asked you and others that question repeatedly, with no response. Just further affirmations that "Marx is helpful" or "You don't understand Marx" or "I'm taking the good parts of Marx" without an explanation of what aren't "the good parts".
Because, if you are unwilling, or unable to identify and define where Marxist theory has problems, the only conclusion I can reach is that - to you and others who advance Marxist theory as having some scientific or societal worth - are in reality "true believers". You hold Marxism as a belief system, as an ideology divorced from the facts, almost as a religion with Marx as your prophet.
Which means that a dispassionate, logical, scientific and historical debate with you is impossible.
So far, meatclever is the only one who has shown the slightest inclination to debate based on facts and not beliefs, so I hold out some hope that he isn't an ideologue.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
The idea that Marx was wrong is, as juliaoceania stated, logically flawed and a throw-away gesture at what he wrote about. In the same sense that calling Freud wrong would be. What these two men provided to the study of the subject matter they were writing about cannot be adequately measured in terms of right and wrong.
Again, you say that Marx isn't wrong!
So why hasn't "the Revolution" occurred? See my logical analysis above.
It's not a "throw away gesture". That is simply your defensive attempt to discount the facts, since you can't account for them.
"Can not be adequately measured in terms of right and wrong"? Wtf?
Is Marxism a scientific theory or is it an ideology?
Scientific theories can be measured and tested. There is no "right or wrong".
Ideologies (and religions) have "right and wrong".
So, you are admitting that Marxism is an ideology, not based on scientific fact. Good. Maybe we did get somewhere, after all.
FirmKY
|
|
|
|
