This should put the thread back on track…and likely quickly derail it
1 Like
Now THAT is a safe space free of microagressions.
I’m not sure I agree. But setting that aside, I wasn’t arguing that trade is a bad thing; I was simply pushing back on the notion that it is ‘human nature,’ along with the subsequent inference that capitalism is our ‘natural’ economic mode.
As I am not “promoting Marxist ideas,” I’m not sure why you’re asking me this. But Marx’s point is that capitalism does not work well (in the long run), because of its inescapable, intrinsic flaws. (I’m not saying I agree with him here.)
Well, considering that it inexorably promotes the transfer of wealth asymmetrically (ie, from the working class to the capitalist class), it is not surprising that the capitalists do their best to make sure the transfer occurs in as peaceable a manner as possible. (Again, Marx’s ideas, not mine.)
Analysis at that level of complexity is way above my paygrade. Would be interesting to hear truly informed opinions (which mine is not) on the subject.
Yes, material progress cuts both ways–that was my point.
One needn’t be a Luddite to be concerned about the effect of technological progress on our socioeconomic prospects. Consider: Self-driving vehicles seem to be an inevitability at this point. If I’m remembering correctly, about 1/6th of all men in this country make their living at least in part via driving. That component of the workforce is going to largely disappear. What is to become of all those men? How are they going to earn a living?
This is not a hypothetical problem–it is going to happen. Yes, Trump is certainly exploiting the job-uncertainty that characterizes the current phase of our economy. And if a demagogue like Trump has an appeal now, just wait until the driverless economy comes to pass. If not handled correctly, Marx’s predictions regarding proletariat revolution might come to pass after all.
People are confused if they are debating Marxism to support or denounce that professor. She is not a Marxist. She is a neo-Marxist. She does not care about the struggle of the working class but the struggle of “oppressed” peoples. Marxism does not care about identity politics.
So even if one were able to “prove” that Marx was right and Marxism is superior to capitalism (a nonsensical argument from either side) it does nothing to support this professor’s position since she isn’t a Marxist.
And that business owner and the professor have much in common. They are both hypocrites who believe in neo-Marxism after they benefited, and will continue to benefit, from the system which they now want to destroy (as long as they can keep their stuff, of course). She isn’t giving away her education and he isn’t giving away his business but everyone else needs to pay for the crimes that provided them with a comfortable life. This is what this guilt ridden brave man is going to do to make the world right:
"What am I going to do? I am going to continue my own education so that I can help to change the pervasive narrative in our country that allows white men in good conscience to keep doing exactly what they’re doing. I am going to make available in my community the history lesson I received in New Orleans by hosting the same two-day workshop every month for at least a year and recruiting leaders — whites and people of color — to attend. I am going to invite everyone in my company to attend the workshop and we will apply what we learn to how we run our company — how we hire, promote, and engage staff — and how we serve our clients as they work to reduce disparities. And, because much of my own work concerns health care and biomedical research, I am going to join in the movement to eliminate health disparities nationally.
Finally, I am going to encourage other white men to share their stories. And I am going to tell my good friend from basketball that I will no longer be picking up and putting down the issue of racism and the cause of equity. From here on out, it’s a full-court press."
He’s going to continue to benefit from his ill gotten wealth. He doesn’t feel so guilty that he is going to give it away. In that way he is no different from his slave owning ancestor. He’s not a racist for benefiting from any advantages his skin color gave him; he’s a racist for being a virtue signalling attention whore trying to use racism to make himself look superior to everyone else. Oh yeah, he is just like that professor.
In the future, I will try to assume good will and a friendly, warm regard. I apologize if I missed that in your posts. It’s certainly possible that I’m meaner to you than just my normal level of mean. It’s like this is TN, Mean Girls edition, and I’m the meanest girl, so thank you for the compliment. You’re not so bad at the vicious rhetoric yourself.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the insults. Two literary references. And the second one even a Goethe reference, after I made a Goethe joke recently? That was above and beyond, in attempting to tailor it in a personal way. Appreciate the effort. You make it seem very natural. I bet you’re really good at finding just the right Christmas gift.
With regard to the rest of the insult? Bite Me.
1 Like
I can’t recall you dropping a ‘bite me’ on anyone else. The other guys are going to be sooo jealous.
3 Likes
I seriously doubt that, but thanks. On closer inspection, I see a baseball reference in there, after I made a Justin Turner beard comment. I assume that one was just dumb luck. Sports metaphors are pretty common, but if you were thinking Dodgers, she’s watching the World Series, then I give that a ten.
Have a nice weekend, you lefty dork.
1 Like
At the risk of sounding pedantic, it’s Sturm und Drang.
1 Like
While I’ll never argue that the job of LEO isn’t difficult, and they have to make snap decisions, A lot of the jack boot thuggery imagery comes from a valid place.
This. The claim that everything is power dynamics is rooted in leveraging the lower classes for the gain of the “whole”, which really is just the new ruling class.
Reducing everything to power dynamics, and then coupling that with claiming everything is subjective (which has some basis in truth, making the whole thing more dangerous) allows one to make statements that sound very profound, like “the nuclear family is perpetuating whiteness”, without having to do anything more than a very elementary level of critical thought.
This allows your everyday uneducated individual to participate in the warped philosophy without having to do any real work mentally.
So when you marry that with the romantic ad emotional power that Marxism holds, it becomes a very attractive world view.
Agreed. Wonderfully romantic ideals, wrong species. People aren’t honey bees.
Of course not. But knowing Marxism isn’t the answer, and the science is pretty much sufficiently settled on that, doesn’t equal what you’re implying.
These are necessary under Marxism
The stupid thread is very appropriate for bashing Marxism
To a certain point yes. After a certain point it is.
We need inequality of wealth (and everything really) to not only function as a society, but to fuel innovation. Some envy is good, and it can be leveraged for good.
The fatal flaw of Marxism is the very thing it claims to avoid, it concentrates ALL the wealth on the very few, by design. Because, again, we aren’t honey bees, this is a significant problem within the ideology.
The family dynamic in and of itself is capitalistic, and has been the backbone of human development and species survival from the beginning.
We figured this all out quite a few thousand years ago…
It happens in everything. There are mathematical formulas that can accurately predict it.
It goes beyond just $.
This completely ignores the fact that who makes up the “two classes” are completely different over time, and capitalism actually provides an avenue for one to move to the other, for better or worse.
Marxism means everyone is equal. Except you know, the ruling class.
1 Like
I wasn’t asking you.
It is evident you have no idea what you’re talking about. Marxism is a methodology of analysis, nothing more.
Ditto. Here’s an idea: Challenge your world-view, learn what Marxism actually is, then re-join the conversation.
Sometimes people choose to be clever, to appear like the smartest person in the room, at the expense of actual dialogue. There is Marxist theory/methodology and then there are ideas for systems of government, on paper as well as put into practice, that are based on Marxist theory. Marxism is commonly used to describe these systems.
Also, since Marx believed that socialism was going to be inevitable it does make perfect sense to refer to socialism as Marxism, or at least Marxist.
2 Likes
Very true. When I originally learned about Marxism in several economic’s classes it certainly wasn’t just a methodology of analysis and I’ve actually read the Communist Manifesto.
As a theory and method of analysis it does have a lot of value. IMO though, we shouldn’t see the inevitability of socialism and communism as a good thing but as a warning.
2 Likes
Agreed. Schumpeter talks about this in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.
lol.
The ruling class by default has all the power under any sort of system that comes close to MArxist ideals, whether it be socialism, communism, fascism, whatever.
As soon as something/someone has ownership over the means of production other than an individual responding to market forces, who has their own self interest in mind, the situation becomes “central planning”. Therefore whom ever does the planning, has all the power.
This is really elementary stuff.
So therefore once in a communist system, the state (which somehow magically goes away yet still dictates the “to each according to their need” somehow) controls everything, or nearly everything. That is the biggest monopoly possible. A small group of “your betters” dictating the flow of the market.
So yes, in order to have no private ownership of the means of production, you need an massive monopoly, and that monopoly ends up being the state.
Just because you don’t like the answers doesn’t mean people don’t know what they are talking about.
I sort of hate the conversation because it always ends with the reasonable people in the room shitting all over the man. When in reality, I don’t think Marx or his ilk were evil people. Just woefully high on some really good drugs.
The entire notion of egalitarian utopia is so… preposterous, that it really is a dangerous ideal to hold. But that doesn’t stop it from being a hugely romantic fairy tale, and a lasting one.
Now there is value in romantic lasting fairy tales, hence why they last. And there are, without question, valid criticisms of capitalism and “free markets”. (The biggest being the market is amoral, and if the larger society doesn’t have any sort of common ethics, there will be abuse and fraud.) Where post modernism and Marxism (but I repeat myself) truly fails is they simultaneously want to destroy any institution society has in place that could possible be confused with ethics, and blame the system itself for that destruction.
1 Like
Absolutely.
It has nothing to do with me ‘disliking answers.’ The fact that you seem to think the terms ‘Marxism’ and ‘communism’ are interchangeable is proof you don’t know what you’re talking about.
This is really elementary stuff.
Yet you persist.
Yeah, actually it does. I’ve had these conversations with people much smarter than you, even bigger vocabularies too. None of them get all butthurt about:
If they’re smarter than me (lots of people are), their lack of ‘butthurt’ probably stems from the fact that they’ve realized it’s simply easier to bail on the conversation than try to get you to admit you’re wrong about something.
Apparently, I’m not that bright.