EPTFind posters comparing their philosophical e-peen over who has read what texts in a bid to sound super duper intelligent.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 67
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
Find posters comparing their philosophical e-peen over who has read what texts in a bid to sound super duper intelligent. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14211 Posts
Imagine writing an economics book without the words economy, capitalism, corporation, company, factory, capital or even economics. | ||
|
TotalBalanceSC2
Canada475 Posts
On January 07 2013 10:11 bkrow wrote: Walk in expecting a healthy debate about US Politics... Find posters comparing their philosophical e-peen over who has read what texts in a bid to sound super duper intelligent. If we don't know where peoples opinions are coming from how are we supposed to have a healthy debate with them? Understanding how another person came to their viewpoints and what they have read on the subject to be debated (economics, foreign policy, etc...) is almost a requisite for having a good debate. Otherwise it just looks like the first 100 pages of the republican primary thread. Which was basically just "Ron Paul 2012!" "Ron Paul is awesome" and the like. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
And then they use appeals to Adam Smith to justify a system dedicated precisely to disrupting the operations of the hidden hand edit: and nobody ever seems to remember that the mofo's first work was entitled "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 07 2013 10:01 sam!zdat wrote: Would you believe that I agree wholeheartedly with that objection? edit: If you think that Marxists have any idea what "communism" is supposed to be, you don't understand Marxism. I'm not sure how you think Marxism can coexist with stratification. It essentially becomes communism (proactive re-balancing) or progressivism (reactive re-balancing) at that point. Communism clearly doesn't work, which leaves progressivism, which is a more workable solution but still not without flaws. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: we don't yet have the technological base of communism, although we are somewhat close. Communism is the economic order of the information age. We are still in the age of mass production. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 07 2013 10:49 sam!zdat wrote: What is communism, which doesn't work? Do you mean Stalinism? edit: we don't yet have the technological base of communism, although we are somewhat close. Communism is the economic order of the information age. We are still in the age of mass production. Communism in theory works. Communism in practice does not. You cannot discount human depravity and seriously say that a communistic/totalitarian state is healthier for society than a liberal state. If you believe that, you are either uncultured, an intellectual reject, or a sadist. Communism isn't the economic order of the information age. Nobody in that discussion ever mentions communism; rather, the discussion is based on peer production (or open-source labor). I suggest you read Benkler. Particularly his piece "Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm" http://www.yale.edu/yalelj/112/BenklerWEB.pdf | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On January 07 2013 10:11 bkrow wrote: Walk in expecting a healthy debate about US Politics... Find posters comparing their philosophical e-peen over who has read what texts in a bid to sound super duper intelligent. My posting had nothing to do with my e-peen and everything to do with giving BluePanther an idea of what sort of thinkers a contemporary Marxist might subscribe to. In fact, if you'd like a justification of the inclusion of Marxist concepts and discussion in a US political thread, just ask for one instead of looking at everyone's e-crotch in an attempt to oh so gloriously steer the thread back in a direction you happen to find more palatable. The Democratic Party of today is nothing without the ideas of Marx and their genera. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On January 07 2013 10:56 BluePanther wrote: Communism in theory works. Communism in practice does not. You cannot discount human depravity and seriously say that a communistic/totalitarian state is healthier for society than a liberal state. If you believe that, you are either uncultured, an intellectual reject, or a sadist. WHAT IS IT? edit: since you've read so much marx, surely you know that he doesn't exactly tell us. It doesn't even work in theory because there isn't any theory, at least not one that I've run across. Communism and totalitarianism could not be more different, this identification is nothing but propaganda. Communism isn't the economic order of the information age. Nobody in that discussion ever mentions communism; rather, the discussion is based on peer production (or open-source labor). I suggest you read Benkler. Particularly his piece "Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm" http://www.yale.edu/yalelj/112/BenklerWEB.pdf Yes, when I think of communism I think of the open-source economy. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 07 2013 11:03 sam!zdat wrote: WHAT IS IT? edit: since you've read so much marx, surely you know that he doesn't exactly tell us. It doesn't even work in theory because there isn't any theory, at least not one that I've run across. Communism and totalitarianism could not be more different, this identification is nothing but propaganda. Yes, when I think of communism I think of the open-source economy. Marxism (and Communism), could probably be best defined by obsessing over the difference in cost of production and the cost of a good. Marx basically argues that this difference being assumed by the owner of the means of production causes greater wealth disparity, and in turn social discord and economic slavery. Communism tried to remedy this by taking control of the means of production to ensure the state (or the people) received this benefit. Progressivism tries to remedy this by taking the fruits of this income via taxation and redistributing it equally (or to those who "need" it most). It's not that complicated. I shied away from "giving definitions", because you're just going to try to make some minute differentiation that simply splits hairs and tries to make you different and therefore justifiable. If you don't agree with this, you're not a marxist and likely something else you're not even aware of. You are more likely a Progressive based on what you've stated. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
| ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 07 2013 11:18 Rassy wrote: The over emphasisis on phylosophy in this forum is at times a bit annoying and can be a deterent for other posters. There seems to be this weird notion, that if you have studied the history of phylosophy that you understand nearly everything. There is a small group of philosophers and debaters who hold a firm grip on this forum,they come with their phylosophical input in every discussion about economics or politics. I have seen manny threads sidetracked in philosophical bickering or absolutely pointless debating for several pages and i can imagine that posters who do know something about the subject of the thread, but who have not studied the history of phylosophy nor are interestied in debating for the sake of it are detered by that. Not to attack or offend annyone, i always like reading what they say but at times i find phylosophy to dominant on this forum. Is what i say more plausible if i have read nearly all philosophical books there are? People should look at what other people actually say and judge them by that, there manny smart people who read tons of books but who didnt understand annything from it and who say absulutely stupid things. realy hope i didnt offend annyone with this lol and am also not pointing at annyone in particular! This is just a verry general observation about this forum. I'm not at all offended if that was directed at me. I just get irritated when someone starts dropping obscure terms to discount something that makes complete sense, then dropping completely out-of-context philosophical arguments, studies, or graphs to prove a point. It happens way too much in this thread, where graphs are used to represent something that simply isn't true (or isn't the whole story). | ||
|
AUGcodon
Canada536 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
@Rassy: I appreciate your concern, but the main problem with the world today is not enough philosophy, not too much. Plenty of discussion in this thread is entirely non-philosophical - in fact, I have barely participated in this thread since the old one was locked. I understand that people are sometimes annoyed by philosophy, but that's the nature of the beast. Until I get banned for being too philosophical, I'm going to just keep being myself and saying what's on my mind. Part of what I'm trying to do is clear up some misconceptions about the history of philosophy - if I'm using language or assuming ideas that are posing some difficulty in my being understood, please let me know and I'll try to rephrase. It's not always easy for me to tell what is the best way to communicate a certain idea - that is part of what I am trying to practice and learn by being here, so I would certainly appreciate any criticism you might have. But if the criticism is "can't you just think like everybody else," I'm afraid it will fall on deaf ears. Philosophy is not about knowing about the books. Philosophy is about remembering how to do philosophy, which comes naturally to every human being until they are taught not to. Every five year old does philosophy automatically (Why, daddy? Why? Why? Why?) - all you have to do is remember how  Philosophy is not a catalog of names and ideas.edit: On January 07 2013 11:28 AUGcodon wrote: Besides don't we have a philosophy thread for this kind of stuff? Defining what makes a communist don't particularly have any reverence to modern US politics. It does to me, and I am a subject of modern US politics. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
though the critique of instrumental reason is pretty okay as a reminder that there is no settled and value neutral state of human affairs in the sense of the natural world, and thus the state of the world as described by the social sciences, economics included, is still subjected to political action. marxist thought in economics is in a more peculiar position. the technical part is pretty much dead. the normative part, i.e. a concern for workers and distributive justice, is always important. although this is not held hostage by any particular theory. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 07 2013 11:18 Rassy wrote: -nuked- problem is not that a philosophy discussion on say marxism is necessarily distracting. it is that the particpants often do not conduct that conversation very productively. there are more cogent ways of revealing to someone who has a somewhat uninformed but hostile attitude towards marxism why he or she should take the position more seriously. maybe start with the idea that people of all ages have all thought to shape society rationally, to achieve some better social end compared to the existing condition. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: the relevance of Marxism to political economy is not so much a replacement of (neo)classical economics so much as being a gadfly pointing out the bad philosophical assumptions underpinning the theory (i.e. no theory of value, ignoring human and social costs of economic policy) | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
Maybe if you better described your "ideal government", I could point out where the mistake lies, as the whole "I'm Marxist" schtick is kinda pointless. Do you not believe in property? Who should make the rules? How should they make the rules? Since you love philosophy, this might be a little more productive than your definition war. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
reading bluepanther's posts, your statements on communism are pretty colloquial. were marx alive today, he'd probably have revised his economics by quite a bit, but his normative social philosophy not so much. it's important to distinguish thsee things. | ||
| ||
