|
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. |
I feel like you're the one picking fights on definitions.
I don't have an "ideal government", that's what I'm trying to say, that's not what Marxism is. Marxism is mostly a critique of the non-ideal system that is the various stages of capitalism, not a prescriptive political philosophy, although one should of course attempt to use that critique in order to start thinking along those lines. I'm not nearly old enough or well-read enough yet to tell you "What Should Be Done," I just know that when I look around at the world it's fucking insane and the inmates are running the asylum, and when I read Marxist authors it starts to make a whole lot more sense why that is.
I don't believe in intellectual property or the private ownership of natural resources, no. I'm very conflicted over the question of real estate.
I wholeheartedly agree, along with basically every contemporary Marxist, that his ultimate conclusions are more or less obsolete. I don't even think I would put the "more or less."
edit:
yes, exactly, thanks
On January 07 2013 11:45 oneofthem wrote:
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.
edit:
Marx's economics were trying to describe the primitive industrial capitalism of his time. He didn't have a fucking clue about late capitalism, how could he have?
|
On January 07 2013 11:45 oneofthem wrote:
idk what a bs in socioeconomics entails, but socioeconomics encompasses a variety of fields, and of these, only in economics is marxism truly dead. although due in no part to economists' thin normative grounding.
socioeconomics is the branch that combines economics with social structures. It's mainly a combination of philosophy, economics, law, and sociology. I'm not sure there are undergraduate degrees in it, as it's pretty heady and mostly relegated to graduate schools.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well yea i know what socioeconomics is, i just don't know what you learned in your socioeconomics program.
it is rather hard to talk to you about what "marx was wrong" means when you don't distinguish between the variety of ideas he has had, or the various additions and modifications made by people after him.
i would agree that the actual political program advanced by marx as well as his economic theory are dead. but marxists today all agree with that. you should read up on the september group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism
|
Also, your original post sparking this was basically "Marx was wrong. Get over it." So please don't hold yourself up as the paragon of reasonable discourse. Good night gentlemen
|
On January 07 2013 11:49 sam!zdat wrote:
I feel like you're the one picking fights on definitions.
I don't have an "ideal government", that's what I'm trying to say, that's not what Marxism is. Marxism is mostly a critique of the non-ideal system that is the various stages of capitalism, not a prescriptive political philosophy, although one should of course attempt to use that critique in order to start thinking along those lines. I'm not nearly old enough or well-read enough yet to tell you "What Should Be Done," I just know that when I look around at the world it's fucking insane and the inmates are running the asylum, and when I read Marxist authors it starts to make a whole lot more sense why that is.
I don't believe in intellectual property or the private ownership of natural resources, no. I'm very conflicted over the question of real estate.
I wholeheartedly agree, along with basically every contemporary Marxist, that his ultimate conclusions are more or less obsolete. I don't even think I would put the "more or less."
You strive to want better, yet offer no solution. You're a rebel without a cause. Marx is an author that functions on "he has more than me, therefore the system protecting him must be wrong" for eliciting support. If you're going to sympathize with that, you need to justify why the capitalist system is wrong and how it could be improved.
PS, what makes something a "natural" resource?
|
On January 07 2013 11:55 oneofthem wrote:
well yea i know what socioeconomics is, i just don't know what you learned in your socioeconomics program.
I didn't technically get a degree in it, but philosophy, law, economics, sociology were a good representation of what I took. Beyond that, I took classes on labor theory and the like, along with case study classes on topics like the IMF/WTO/IB. Let's put it this way: I remember reading much of Marx's work as reading for various classes. My undergraduate specialty was international development, and my doctorate focused on comparative constitutional law and domestic legal policy.
|
first of all, I'm a one percenter, so how could I be angry that people have more than me?
and that's a caricature of marx anyway, which is all you've offered.
not yet having a solution is no excuse for ignoring the problem. I have to understand the problem before I can offer a solution, and it's a very complicated problem.
I just want people to wake up to the world around them and start using their imaginations. Break the deadlock of thatcher tina doctrine. So sick of everybody with their heads in the fucking sand telling me 'shut up kid.'
if for no other reason, apitalism produces a culture that's as banal of all get out and I'm embarrassed to live in this plastic muzak society. Nail that up on the chapel door
|
On January 07 2013 12:11 sam!zdat wrote:
first of all, I'm a one percenter, so how could I be angry that people have more than me?
and that's a caricature of marx anyway, which is all you've offered.
not yet having a solution is no excuse for ignoring the problem. I have to understand the problem before I can offer a solution, and it's a very complicated problem.
I just want people to wake up to the world around them and start using their imaginations. Break the deadlock of thatcher tina doctrine. So sick of everybody with their heads in the fucking sand telling me 'shut up kid.'
if for no other reason, apitalism produces a culture that's as banal of all get out and I'm embarrassed to live in this plastic muzak society. Nail that up on the chapel door
Because the higher up the ladder you are the further you realize you have to go?
|
no, you realize it's all an illusion and that rich people are a bunch of banal philistines. You grow up with their children and think about those fuckers growing up to rule the world and despair. And their parents are just as bad.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 07 2013 12:04 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 11:55 oneofthem wrote:
well yea i know what socioeconomics is, i just don't know what you learned in your socioeconomics program. I didn't technically get a degree in it, but philosophy, law, economics, sociology were a good representation of what I took. Beyond that, I took classes on labor theory and the like, along with case study classes on topics like the IMF/WTO/IB. Let's put it this way: I remember reading much of Marx's work as reading for various classes. My undergraduate specialty was international development, and my doctorate focused on comparative constitutional law and domestic legal policy.
well, if you see marx as just one stop in a long line of social thinkers interested in the same social problems, it'd be easier to understand the other side.
the precise knot here requires a bit more effort to resolve, effort i dun wanna expend.
|
On January 07 2013 12:11 sam!zdat wrote:
first of all, I'm a one percenter, so how could I be angry that people have more than me?
and that's a caricature of marx anyway, which is all you've offered.
not yet having a solution is no excuse for ignoring the problem. I have to understand the problem before I can offer a solution, and it's a very complicated problem.
I just want people to wake up to the world around them and start using their imaginations. Break the deadlock of thatcher tina doctrine. So sick of everybody with their heads in the fucking sand telling me 'shut up kid.'
if for no other reason, apitalism produces a culture that's as banal of all get out and I'm embarrassed to live in this plastic muzak society. Nail that up on the chapel door
You have Sheeple Complex.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 07 2013 12:16 sam!zdat wrote:
no, you realize it's all an illusion and that rich people are a bunch of banal philistines. You grow up with their children and think about those fuckers growing up to rule the world and despair. And their parents are just as bad.
You say the system is fucked. Yet, our system and to an extent most free market systems the individual has a chance at success. A very good one at that. In other systems the individual has little to no chance of actually rising up the chain. It is either one's birth right to own X or you must be the very top percent of what you do. In the US you can be a shitty business person and still produce a product that will give you a small, but comfortable return. In other markets you're told you make shirts now, and wait we're paying you 2 dollars a week. And you can't change your future, you will always be a shirt maker because there aren't opportunities to educate yourself in another field or simply try another field or work to see if you're better at it.
|
On January 07 2013 12:16 sam!zdat wrote:
no, you realize it's all an illusion and that rich people are a bunch of banal philistines. You grow up with their children and think about those fuckers growing up to rule the world and despair. And their parents are just as bad.
Well that is a bit judgmental to label the whole group like that. While true that a lot of rich kids grow up to be fairly stuck up and disconnected from reality there are also a lot who are quite dignified and give charitably and genuinely want to help the world, not everyone can be a crazy sociopath you know.
|
Last week, two-term Representative Steven Palazzo (R-MS) sparked controversy nationwide when he voted against relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy, despite representing coastal Mississippi, one of the regions hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina and a top beneficiary of Katrina disaster aid.
But in addition to representing the region today, Palazzo was deeply involved in pressing for federal dollars at the time. In the fall of 2005, then a local government official, Palazzo repeatedly appealed for federal funding to help rebuild his battered coastal Mississippi community in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Palazzo’s future congressional district, including his hometown of Biloxi, Miss., was ravaged by the 2005 storm. Roughly a month after Katrina made landfall, Palazzo — then Deputy Director and CFO of the Biloxi Housing Authority — did not mince words when he spoke about what was necessary in order to repair the damages.
Source
|
as far as the current moment goes, I'd be happy if we could get some separation of powers between corporations and the people who are supposed to be regulating them. That can be my revolutionary demand for the moment.
until then, turn on, tune in, drop out 
edit: I'm well aware that I'm a crazy person. Was that not already obvious?
|
On January 07 2013 12:42 sam!zdat wrote:as far as the current moment goes, I'd be happy if we could get some separation of powers between corporations and the people who are supposed to be regulating them. That can be my revolutionary demand for the moment. until then, turn on, tune in, drop out edit: I'm well aware that I'm a crazy person. Was that not already obvious?
Naw I think we need to go the other way and remove these barriers to corporate governance. They've already figured out how to perverse and manipulate modern governments though lobbying we might as well go the full distance and make them responsible for everything else we need governments for.
Would put the power of deciding who gets power directly along the merits of efficiency and competence instead of populism and politics.
|
In my darker moments, I think exactly that, actually.
On January 07 2013 12:00 BluePanther wrote:
PS, what makes something a "natural" resource?
forests, fossil fuels and other minerals and extractable resources, fisheries, water
those seem like the main ones
|
Australia8532 Posts
On January 07 2013 12:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Last week, two-term Representative Steven Palazzo (R-MS) sparked controversy nationwide when he voted against relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy, despite representing coastal Mississippi, one of the regions hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina and a top beneficiary of Katrina disaster aid.
But in addition to representing the region today, Palazzo was deeply involved in pressing for federal dollars at the time. In the fall of 2005, then a local government official, Palazzo repeatedly appealed for federal funding to help rebuild his battered coastal Mississippi community in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Palazzo’s future congressional district, including his hometown of Biloxi, Miss., was ravaged by the 2005 storm. Roughly a month after Katrina made landfall, Palazzo — then Deputy Director and CFO of the Biloxi Housing Authority — did not mince words when he spoke about what was necessary in order to repair the damages. Source
The only logical reasoning I can think of is that things were vastly different economically in 2005. Other than that I am at a loss
|
On January 07 2013 12:22 NoobSkills wrote:
\In other markets you're told you make shirts now, and wait we're paying you 2 dollars a week. And you can't change your future, you will always be a shirt maker because there aren't opportunities to educate yourself in another field or simply try another field or work to see if you're better at it.
Where do they sell those shirts?
|
On January 07 2013 13:14 sam!zdat wrote:In my darker moments, I think exactly that, actually. Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 12:00 BluePanther wrote:
PS, what makes something a "natural" resource? forests, fossil fuels and other minerals and extractable resources, fisheries, water those seem like the main ones
Yeah, but you have to define those. Which is not practical. How many trees constitutes "a forest"? Is rainwater "water"? etc. etc. Who gets to extract them? How much? How are they distributed? How does someone complain if it's done unfairly? What if you grow the trees on non-forest land?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
